Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I expect them all to be the same cost ( free ), but there's been a lot of surprises so far. That and I'm not sure 1 point per model would be a meaningful difference; 2 would probably too much just on account of them dying often.

( harkens back a bit to points not being a good solution for this sort of granularity )

The one thing we can say conclusively, is that this new ruleset is as different from 9th as 8th was from 7th. Maybe more so.

And the thing we should have learned at the beginning of 8th is, basing anything about the new edition off of hownit functions in the current one is not going to work.

Even comparing like for like 10th edition rules will be a total shot in the dark for a couple of months after release. I still have fond memories of people right when 8th dropped, claiming Inceptors were going to lay waste to all the land, only for them to come out and be about 40% overpriced.

ERJAK wrote:
The one thing we can say conclusively, is that this new ruleset is as different from 9th as 8th was from 7th. Maybe more so.

And the thing we should have learned at the beginning of 8th is, basing anything about the new edition off of hownit functions in the current one is not going to work.

Even comparing like for like 10th edition rules will be a total shot in the dark for a couple of months after release. I still have fond memories of people right when 8th dropped, claiming Inceptors were going to lay waste to all the land, only for them to come out and be about 40% overpriced.

For me there are three "true" editions. 2nd ( wild west ), 3rd to 7th ( classic 40K ), and 8th to 10th ( nu40K ). I typify this current edition by vehicles with wounds instead of AV, no WS table, no I, stratagems, etc.

I think 10th still embodies largely what 9th was, but organized and with a bit more care put into it.

But aside from all that, like you said, there's enough changing that how we approach the game is changing pretty fundamentally. I'm eager to see what they've done to Magnus and if they're able to still make them imposing without being overwhelming.

ERJAK wrote:
The one thing we can say conclusively, is that this new ruleset is as different from 9th as 8th was from 7th. Maybe more so.

Heh, no. I would not say that conclusively. . . And I think you're vastly underselling the difference from 7th to 8th.

10th is not a large leap.

It is indeed a reset of the dexes, but there are no fundamental changes in the rules. There are tweaks. Big ones at times, but the rule framework is the same. You can probably play with 10th rules and 9th dexes with minimal issues. It will suck, but it will probably be possible. The only incompatibility on stat level seems to be how the leadership is expressed.

Doing the same between 7th and 8th was impossible.

I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.

I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".

It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).

Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.

Spoletta wrote:
10th is not a large leap.

It is indeed a reset of the dexes, but there are no fundamental changes in the rules. There are tweaks. Big ones at times, but the rule framework is the same. You can probably play with 10th rules and 9th dexes with minimal issues. It will suck, but it will probably be possible. The only incompatibility on stat level seems to be how the leadership is expressed.

Doing the same between 7th and 8th was impossible.

The big question mark is scoring which I don't think they've talked about yet.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.

I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".

It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).

Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.

Fun is how you make it, I guess. Is it feasible for your group to say 2x T can't be wounded?

Ultimately the game is just different now. I get that you don't like it - that doesn't mean it's bad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.

I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".

It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).

Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.

The issue is that your vision of the "lore" is too narrow. Specifically it is human warfare based. You want things like armor facing, suppression and similar mechanics, which simply are not for a game like this. They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.

I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".

It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).

Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.

The issue is that your vision of the "lore" is too narrow. Specifically it is human warfare based. You want things like armor facing, suppression and similar mechanics, which simply are not for a game like this. They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.

The problem is one of logic.

What I want is warfare to make sense. I love fantasy games, in general - in fact some of my favorite settings are fantastical (like LotR).

But I do like my settings to be consistent. If Rohan didn't specialize in horses but rather went to battle naked and armed only with scarves, my suspension of disbelief would be ruined.

Similarly, 40k has been this way for me for a while - if we take the game as the "ground truth" of the setting, then the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. Fielding tanks is mostly senseless if they genuinely fear even the most basically equipped enemy infantrymen. Heck, fielding anti-tank weapons is mostly senseless if a platoon of your troops can kill a whole enemy tank.

It's just too absurd, and it's not looking for historical human warfare. It's looking for narrative consistency and coherency. Human warfare is just a good reference because humans are the "baseline" intelligent creature, so if a creature is intelligent, it should be able to AT LEAST figure out the same things we humans have about cost and benefit, if not even more. If it's dramatically stupider than humans, it's probably not a threat.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
2. Then we look at Chosen, who have already had all but Fists consolidated into "Accursed Weapons", which includes lightning claws.

This part is new information, and as according, I retract my statement.

However, I still don't really care too much for the difference. Power swords, power mauls, power axes, and now power claws (probably a fine way to refer to them) doesn't really irk me. There's been plenty more changes made, and this one isn't particularly egregious.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.

I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".

It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).

Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.

No, I get you. I'm afraid the game has simply moved to a place you no longer find palatable. Ever consider playing an older edition?

My little group has already changed the rules to suit our needs. We want the crazy background of 40K but we also want a tactical wargame, or at least the similarity to one. Perhaps 10th will move more in that direction. I find these kind of discussions interesting even though I don't intend to play 10th, because most editions at least bring a novel approach to something at some point, even if not well implemented.

The importance of details and justifications for some rules can be arbitrary but you need to decide what abstractions you can accept. The small arms argument versus tanks for example is one that bothers me as well. The effect of small arms on tanks is less than negligible - crews seldom notice munitions pattering against the hull over the noise and vibration of their own machines. In fact the impact of an anti-tank round often was overlooked in the heat of combat until one saw a dead fellow crewman. I've seen a study where sustained 50 cal. machine gun fire couldn't damage a WWII Sherman tank's tracks. After all it was common practice to shoot at your own tanks to remove enemy troops from planting satchel charges or mines in close quarters. Not something you could justify against trucks or other lightly armed vehicles of course.

The point is everyone has to choose for themselves what crosses the line for them personally in playing this wacky game. Maybe GW will get 40K right this time. Perhaps...but it would be a first.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is one of logic.

What I want is warfare to make sense. I love fantasy games, in general - in fact some of my favorite settings are fantastical (like LotR).

But I do like my settings to be consistent. If Rohan didn't specialize in horses but rather went to battle naked and armed only with scarves, my suspension of disbelief would be ruined.

Similarly, 40k has been this way for me for a while - if we take the game as the "ground truth" of the setting, then the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. Fielding tanks is mostly senseless if they genuinely fear even the most basically equipped enemy infantrymen. Heck, fielding anti-tank weapons is mostly senseless if a platoon of your troops can kill a whole enemy tank.

It's just too absurd, and it's not looking for historical human warfare. It's looking for narrative consistency and coherency. Human warfare is just a good reference because humans are the "baseline" intelligent creature, so if a creature is intelligent, it should be able to AT LEAST figure out the same things we humans have about cost and benefit, if not even more. If it's dramatically stupider than humans, it's probably not a threat.

If a tank with heavy bolter sponsons just sits there and trades with a unit of intercessors trying to plink at it with bolters, the tank is going to win and win handily. Tanks taking any damage at all from small arms is not the same thing as "fearing" them.

Side note, the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. It's 40k. This is the "let's get stuck in, lads!" fantasy in space war game, Lord of the Rings is a terrible comparison as that setting is far more grounded in reality. 40k is more like if just having a horde of Jedi was not only feasible but commonplace in Star Wars battles.

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.

I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".

It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).

Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.

The issue is that your vision of the "lore" is too narrow. Specifically it is human warfare based. You want things like armor facing, suppression and similar mechanics, which simply are not for a game like this. They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.

No no no . . . That's not right at all.

There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.

Let's take your other examples though, Armor Facing and Suppression. Armor Facing was not human-centric. In fact it helped differentiate humans from other factions, as the human factions concentrated their armor up front, but other factions had the mechanical freedom to express their differences in vehicle design philosophy. Eldar had vehicles with equal armor on their front and sides, making them more suitable for flanking and very mobile warfare. Back in the day Necrons only had the Monolith, a super-armored floating building with maximum armor on all sides. Armor facing mechanics helped to differentiate factions and designs.

As for Suppression, you may also note that old-40k had more units which were immune to Morale tests, pinning tests, psychological effects and otherwise, providing more ways to differentiate troops. Proving again that having a human-centric starting point in no way means that you're limited to only human-centric units or factions. These mechanics can exist, while at the same time further the methods of establishing variety.

The idea that 40k is "too big" is total bunk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Side note, the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. It's 40k. This is the "let's get stuck in, lads!" fantasy in space war game, Lord of the Rings is a terrible comparison as that setting is far more grounded in reality. 40k is more like if just having a horde of Jedi was not only feasible but commonplace in Star Wars battles.

That would carry more weight if 40k didn't have decades of precedent in UNITs favor.

When you say "childish and stupid" I take that as evidence of literal dumbing down.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is one of logic.

What I want is warfare to make sense. I love fantasy games, in general - in fact some of my favorite settings are fantastical (like LotR).

But I do like my settings to be consistent. If Rohan didn't specialize in horses but rather went to battle naked and armed only with scarves, my suspension of disbelief would be ruined.

Similarly, 40k has been this way for me for a while - if we take the game as the "ground truth" of the setting, then the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. Fielding tanks is mostly senseless if they genuinely fear even the most basically equipped enemy infantrymen. Heck, fielding anti-tank weapons is mostly senseless if a platoon of your troops can kill a whole enemy tank.

It's just too absurd, and it's not looking for historical human warfare. It's looking for narrative consistency and coherency. Human warfare is just a good reference because humans are the "baseline" intelligent creature, so if a creature is intelligent, it should be able to AT LEAST figure out the same things we humans have about cost and benefit, if not even more. If it's dramatically stupider than humans, it's probably not a threat.

As other has noted, the game designers have decided that fun is more important than realistic. They also decided that units that are invulnerable to a large portion of the attacks in the game is not fun.

You are therefore left with 3 choices:

Abandon the Game: If the rules cause too much cognitive dissonance for you to accept, play something else. The designer are not going to change the game to fit you because you are in the minority.

Change the Game: Nothing stops you and your gaming group from deciding that weapons of a certain quality don't hurt targets of a certain quality in your home game. GW won't send the Inquisition to your door to punish such heresy.

Change your Mind: Stop thinking about 41st Century warfare as Modern or even WW2 warfare. For all the modern technology tossed about, things function much more like a strange mashup of WW1, Colonial, and Fantasy warfare. Tanks are more like mystical beast than unstoppable hunks of metal, charges with swords into the teeth of machine-guns is a viable tactic, and anything can be brought low by some wizard and his tricky magics.

Yeah. When I started playing, the "big men in big armor acting full of hrrp and derp" was a meme, not literally the background.

'stupid" things happened because of religion and scientific failures, like Khorne Berzerkers being melee-oriented. They were rightly seen as madmen in the setting, who traded logic and good sense for BLOODY BLOOD!

Turns out they were role models, I guess, for the Blood Angels, rather than frothing madmen.

As for the most recent post:
I am doing the first and second options - my mates and I play CoC more than anything, and other games when not that.

I do play 4th with one other friend.

That said, why shouldn't I at least hope that 40k becomes more fun for me in its modern incarnation? Why would it be automatically less fun for others if it is more realistic?

Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.

 alextroy wrote:
There is a reason we fight tanks with tanks, not RPGs.

It's mainly because the tanks can't pick up the dice very easily, and are terrible at staying in character.

Spoletta wrote:They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.

[* Citation required]

alextroy wrote:Abandon the Game: If the rules cause too much cognitive dissonance for you to accept, play something else. The designer are not going to change the game to fit you because you are in the minority.

[* Citation required]

I think it just comes from gw wanting the type of customer who just wants to run a ton of one unit gakked up with a thick coat of spraypaint to stick around instead of running into issues such as lacking the ability to take down tanks and whining about it on Reddit before dumping their army on eBay for a godly discount of 1% off

 alextroy wrote:
Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.

Everyone knows why, because they told us at 8th launch cycle.

It was to avoid matchups where you had zero chance of doing damage, e.g. Guard Infantry vs Imperial Knights in 7th.

Whether you like the solution or not, we expressly do know why they used it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. When I started playing, the "big men in big armor acting full of hrrp and derp" was a meme, not literally the background.

It wouldn't be a meme if it weren't in the background to begin with. People really do be hating on Marines.

 alextroy wrote:
Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.

It simply reduces the diversity of armies you can play. Imagine super heavies or all tank armies that can cover a objectives and can't be killed in a reasonable amount of time, because all the anti-tank was blown away by them.

Hmm. Not sure how I feel about the change to twin-linked. I like that lethality *seems* to be reduced in general, but this means that my wave serpents' firepower just got halved. That's also a bit of a hit to most biker units (assuming their guns remain TL instead of getting rewritten to be two guns.) But again, reduced lethality is good.

The Sustained Fire example feels a bit weird only in that it's being shown off in the same article as the assault cannon which doesn't have that rule. Apparently it's a rule for weapons that pump out lots of shots, but the assault cannon (with 6 attacks) doesn't pump out enough shots to get it while the shuriken cannon (3 attacks) does?

That's not the end of the world, but like, if you want me to *feel like* my gun is putting out a bunch of shots, actually giving it more shots would probably convey that better than a swingy crit rule. (And would be more reliable too if my math is right.) So if it's not conveying the feeling they're going for as well as just upping the Attacks stat would, then I'm not sure what the intent behind the rule is.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. Not sure how I feel about the change to twin-linked. I like that lethality *seems* to be reduced in general, but this means that my wave serpents' firepower just got halved. That's also a bit of a hit to most biker units (assuming their guns remain TL instead of getting rewritten to be two guns.) But again, reduced lethality is good.

The Sustained Fire example feels a bit weird only in that it's being shown off in the same article as the assault cannon which doesn't have that rule. Apparently it's a rule for weapons that pump out lots of shots, but the assault cannon (with 6 attacks) doesn't pump out enough shots to get it while the shuriken cannon (3 attacks) does?

That's not the end of the world, but like, if you want me to *feel like* my gun is putting out a bunch of shots, actually giving it more shots would probably convey that better than a swingy crit rule. (And would be more reliable too if my math is right.) So if it's not conveying the feeling they're going for as well as just upping the Attacks stat would, then I'm not sure what the intent behind the rule is.

Umm say you wound on 4+. Rather than 2 hits with 4+ to wound averaging 1 wound you end up average 0.75.

0.75 isn't half of 1.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.

It simply reduces the diversity of armies you can play. Imagine super heavies or all tank armies that can cover a objectives and can't be killed in a reasonable amount of time, because all the anti-tank was blown away by them.

It would have been much less of an issue if GW didn't drastically reduce the capability of armies to engage such units by making grenades a one-per-unit weapon.

Imagine units like Ork Tankbustas, Eldar Fire Dragons with Meltabombs, Assault Squads with Krak/Melta, and Dark Eldar with Haywire Grenades able to use such weapons effectively against Superheavies, like they were in editions prior.

What we have is a lousy solution to a problem they created. They introduced Superheavies in the BRB, then removed major abilities to deal with them.

Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I... I don't really get your complaint.
Other weapons being able to reroll wounds doesn't make Lightning Claws less good, especially when the unit that has TL Powerfists (Aggressors) has no Lightning Claw option.

Can you articulate why this is such a big deal?

Because Lightning Claws wouldn't exist in this new set up. They're just Power Weapon (Twin-Linked), and become no different to someone wielding a Power Axe and Power Sword at the same time, both of which are also now "Power Weapons". It also makes single lightning claws into nothing basically. They're just "power weapons".

I think that's boring. I think that in an effort to make things "Simple, not simplistic", they are making things grey-scale.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun?

Yes. I fear for the Land Raiders and Razorbacks out there.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?

Do you not want lethality to go down? Yes twin-linked guns are weaker now, because doubling the number of shots for a ton of weapons wasn't actually a great idea when they did it in 8th.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?

I wouldn't worry too much about it. GW already made the Chaos Predator Annihilator's main gun better than a pair of Lascannons. I expect they will do the same in 10th.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Do you not want lethality to go down?

That's a near non-sequitur. Yes, leathatlity does need to go down, but not at the expense of common sense.

If the sponsons on an Annihilator are more effective than a tanks main gun, that strikes me as a problem.

I really did like the solution we tried years ago. Kept the same re-roll To Hit, but on a natural (not re-rolled) 6 To Hit, you hit twice. So more reliable, occasionally more dangerous.

 alextroy wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about it. GW already made the Chaos Predator Annihilator's main gun better than a pair of Lascannons. I expect they will do the same in 10th.

Well I will worry about it because GW are absolutely horrendous at writing consistent and coherent rule sets, but yes, I hadn't considered that point. Well spotted.