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.

So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.

I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...

Simplycasualgaming wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
The more they make 40k like AoS the better the game will be.

Why not just play AoS then?

I do, but the majority of the locals play 40k

And now you get AoS and 40k to the detriment of the majority that didn't want to have to do anything with age of snore and its mechanics like the new pointssystem

Ya no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.

I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...

Just as you don't accept everyone into a club or ochestra, or fancy restaurant with dresscode, etc., so should you not accept everyone into a gaming comunity.

The more they make 40k like big scale Kill Team, the better the game will be.

Quick resolution with some decisions involved.
No random charges.
Short attack ranges and limited LOS that force movement and maneuver.

These things would be a start for me.

Between heavy, removal of assault, lower Movement and shorter ranges I feel like Necron positioning and Movement has gotten more important.

Likes
Battleshock is a neat idea and I'm glad to see they're trying to work it more into the game (which also leads to some upheavals with units previously immune or super high Leadership being very different than before).

Bringing USRs back, and letting characters join squads again

Easier to attain Terrain bonuses.

They actually made a lot of troops desirable without including a troop tax. Bravo

Dislikes
Battleshock doesn't feel fully incorporated and I'm puzzled they had it automatically passed in your next Command phase. Could have been a really cool mechanic if you had to keep rolling to recover from battle shock in my opinion. Also, they really shot themselves in the foot by not using a broader array of leadership values, plus the weird oddities of Greyfax having a better leadership than a Primarch or Custodes.

So many copy-pasted rules on the different data sheets they really should have turned those into USRs as well.

TLOS still exists.

I was hoping for a less lethal edition with less rerolls. I have seen lethality go down for Tanks and I have seen rerolls go down for some factions (and thankfully the elimination of most Auras). But they certainly did not deliver what their marketing department promised.

Removed - rule #1 please..

I like most of it balance notwithstanding.

I'd say the only complaint is that so far Battleshock feels very anemic.

Personally I like that the points have been simplified, but I also like AoS so take from that what you will.

Simplycasualgaming wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.

I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...

Hate to tell ya bud, but they have been stealing from AoS with 8th and 9th, and at no point did I say I would rather a different game change to suit what I like. I said I like that are making changes that move it in the direction of the better game, but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.

The "better game"? So HH?

Also, probably not best to challenge other's "reading comprehension", when basic math causes you such considerations.

Simplycasualgaming wrote:

Removed - rule #1

As to now, where the AoS points system basically makes everyone NOT having stuck the whole bitzbox f.e. on a legionaire squad to pay the full points for that, whilest i could still be a "pedantic little gakker" and laugh at those that dind't? Also Rule 1 is a thing, look it up.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.

I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...

Just as you don't accept everyone into a club or ochestra, or fancy restaurant with dresscode, etc., so should you not accept everyone into a gaming comunity.

and you also win the award for most ignorant thing I have read today.

And another Rule 1. Listen the only thing ignorant here is your granted wish that 40k becomes AoS to the detriment of allready established 40k groups. just saying.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Listen the only thing ignorant here is your granted wish that 40k becomes AoS to the detriment of already established 40k groups.

I wouldn't necessarily claim ignorance in this matter.

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
Removed - rule #1

But nothing about this changed? Now everybody spends the same points, but you can still spot inferior or not taken upgrades?

Not Online!!! wrote:
And another Rule 1. Listen the only thing ignorant here is your granted wish that 40k becomes AoS to the detriment of allready established 40k groups. just saying.

Somebody disagreeing with your position or telling you to stop nonsense accusations is not a violation of rule #1. Just hit the report button and let a mod decide if you feel offended.

No, see you have to hate new 40k because GW bad.
You can't have your own opinion, who told you that was allowed?
/s

 Gert wrote:
No, see you have to hate new 40k because GW bad.
You can't have your own opinion, who told you that was allowed?
/s

Hardly, GW NU 40k bad, not GW period bad. GW miniatures are magnificent often. 30k is also plenty great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
Removed - rule #1

But nothing about this changed? Now everybody spends the same points, but you can still spot inferior or not taken upgrades?

Not Online!!! wrote:
And another Rule 1. Listen the only thing ignorant here is your granted wish that 40k becomes AoS to the detriment of allready established 40k groups. just saying.

Somebody disagreeing with your position or telling you to stop nonsense accusations is not a violation of rule #1. Just hit the report button and let a mod decide if you feel offended.

Calling someone ignorant because he doesn't want something to change and maintain established standards is hardly justifyable, and i'd have let it rest at that if it weren't for the ignorant bit.

Cons

The new points system is a bit annoying when you have to fill points and the only way you can do it is via enhancements.

I feel like they ratcheted back infantry-carried AT a bit too much. I know the corresponding boost in vehicle durability was much desired, but it's definitely a tradeoff they made. Not sure I'd call this a 'dislike' as something I need to adjust to. I'm probably going to buy a FOB, I guess.

Custom subfactions are also a loss for flavor, but not a huge one for me. The ones Guard had were often worse than just taking Born Soldiers lol.

Pros

Game flows fast.

List-building, aside from the points issue I mentioned, is easy.

The mechanics don't feel like it disincentivizes you from taking your standard dudes. I could take an Armored Company if I wanted to, but my 95th Rifles are a Recce Regiment, and I want to at least somewhat stick to that fluff.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
...but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.

Bad start, Mr. 23 posts.

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the new point system...

As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.

To be fair, the number of posts is irrelevant. This is probably my 5th or 6th account here and I e been a member longer than all of you. Hell, I didn't see the point of joining up on Dakka at first because ... Why join Dakka when I was physically standing in Dakka Dakka.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I like most of it balance notwithstanding.

I'd say the only complaint is that so far Battleshock feels very anemic.

Personally I like that the points have been simplified, but I also like AoS so take from that what you will.

I've seen suggestions to make battleshock last until the next command phase so that out of phase battleshock can have a larger impact outside stopping end of turn scoring. I'm waiting to play under GT conditions to see how I feel about it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.

I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...

Hate to tell ya bud, but they have been stealing from AoS with 8th and 9th, and at no point did I say I would rather a different game change to suit what I like. I said I like that are making changes that move it in the direction of the better game, but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.

The "better game"? So HH?

Also, probably not best to challenge other's "reading comprehension", when basic math causes you such considerations.

Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the new point system...

As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.

Kinda cuts both ways, many people ignore the positive criticism for the new points system too. It's just polarizing, no reason to rustle jimmies over the internet on.


Top 3 likes/dislikes:
Likes:
1) The new point system - I prefer my minute war gear option point systems in smaller scale games, 40k is too large now.

2) The reduction of faction rules on top of rules on top of rules. Ideally all of the rules for a given unit will be present on their data-card, but that isn't GW m.o. so I'll settle for a vast reduction than complete removal

3) Reduced CP generation and reduced stratagem dependency for unit power.

Dislikes:
1) Power scaling on index release - some factions are vastly more powerful than others and it indicates there is likely little discussion between the individual rules teams.

2) The adherence to the strength vs toughness comparisons that 8th introduced as opposed to reverting back to a simpler algorithm like HH or 7th had. These strength values are just getting more and more bloated as the toughness scales up since you NEED 2x t to wound on 2s, I only see this scaling harder more as they stick with this mess of a system.

3) The scaling toughness made many historically "anti-tank" weapons rather bad at their job. These weapon types likely should have been given "Anti-Tank 4+"

Uptonius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
...but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.

Bad start, Mr. 23 posts.

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the new point system...

As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.

To be fair, the number of posts is irrelevant. This is probably my 5th or 6th account here and I e been a member longer than all of you.

Prove it.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dislike

-inability to kill anything in the game, even stuff like IG infantry.

?? Is this a "you" problem with your GKs? Or are you trying to claim that game wide across all armies?

100000% just a "him" problem. can't have a Karol post without doomposting about his GK

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
...but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.

Bad start, Mr. 23 posts.

Not to defend the other guy, but all what having 50,000 posts says about you is that you have too much time on your hands, we shouldn't be taking anyones post count as a measure of the value of someones input.

I started writing up an extensive likes / dislikes post for 10th edition, based purely on a rules read. But who am I kidding, I'm not going to play it (old hammer, Prohammer, etc...)!

That said, any motivation I might have had to play it is totally dead because of the point (aka power level) system used.

Sorry GW, but not having points-per-model and the flexibility to fine-tune unit size is just such a colossal brain fart that 10th edition is a non-starter for me. For whatever reason, I despise running 5-model units and almost always use 6 on the low end, and that's just kinda impossible now in many situations. Such a weird change given the legacy of this game and how much of the community (casual and competitive alike) hinges their engagement on list building, which has just been neutered.

I guess they can change this down the road by providing PPMs or even costs for certain war gear upgrades, but it's just strange.

ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Like:
- USRs
- apparently simple detachment rules
- unit special rules
- overall following the paradigma of 8th/9th with pretty straightforward base rules instead of the bloated mess I experienced in 6th/7th
- free rules and Indizes
- free points
- crusade still around
- morale seems to apply to everyone, not just orks and Tau
- legends got updated
- reduced lethality (needs testing though)

Dislike:
- there will be an edition change in 3 years for no good reason, changing some things needlessly instead of refining them
- I liked the psychic rules from 8th/ 9th, look like an afterthought now, waiting for a DLC
- no points for upgrades
- no models no rules
- options following Box, but when you're lucky they don’t
- grenade strat... in for another DLC
- handling of the Chaos faction...gets worse every edition, even additional Codizes don’t save us and announcements of new models makes you wonder what you'll lose access to next
- still IGOUGO

Dysartes wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Yeah, they don't get it.

30k has my armies actually feeling like they should rather than the gak show that was 9th and now even worse dumpster fire that's upon us.

Only problem in 30k is no xenos(can be rectified).

To be honest a lot of the rules and changes seem cool but the things I don't like I absolutely detest and it might stop me from playing this edition at all. Like I can't even describe how much I dislike the push for character spam, especially with my army, Necrons. That just isn't 40k to me.
I also really don't like the unit size restrictions. These two things together are a big slap in the face to player freedom in list building

Character spam wouldn't be such a thing if there was a reason not to join characters to units. But as it stands, most characters on their own cannot hide and provide no benefits to their forces as all of that is tied to joining units (even many psychic powers). I've got a list for an uncoming game where the main point was to include everything from the Leviathan box, and I just cannot include the Termy Libby as there's just no place for him. He's a liability, not an asset, as he has no unit to lead and his main benefit is lost when he's not leading a unit!

 Mezmorki wrote:
That said, any motivation I might have had to play it is totally dead because of the point (aka power level) system used.

It really is all it took, right? I've been jazzed about trying out 10th, getting the Levithan box, digging into the new mission deck (like the Open War/Tempest of War decks we have right now), finally getting a proper expansion for my 'Nids for the first time in almost a decade.

And then... *exhale*

The "points" system came out, and the wind was taken from my sales so hard it caused a vacuum and my ship went backwards!

Like I said earlier in the thread, making 10th Ed lists is an absolute chore. To repeat myself, I've been attempting to make 'Nid and Marine lists each night and last night I just gave up. "What costs 50 points? Oh, nothing? Cool. So, I can either come in under points, or drop something else and hope that the next jigsaw piece I pick up actually fits this puzzle!"

The lack of flexibility is what gets to me. As I have said, I used to love building lists just for the fun of it, even if I never intended to use the list. Come up with a theme, or pick a unit that I like and see if I can build a list around that, and then try to make it work - make sacrifices, find new ideas and try them - and see where it gets me. The ability to tweak squad sizes or downgrade weapons is a huge part of that, part of the tweaking that makes list building so much fun for so many people ("I don't have enough for another Dread... but what if I dropped one Aggressor from that unit? Sure they'll be weaker, but I'll have the points!").

And the Razorback is utterly unusable! With the loss of Combat Squads (a rule that, bizarrely, other armies get for their transports), the inability to take 5-man Tactical Squads, and the fact Sternguard are always Tacticus now (invalidating all my Sternguard minis... so thanks GW for that little gem! ) the amount of units you can use a Razorback with has shrunk dramatically.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not to defend the other guy, but all what having 50,000 posts says about you is that you have too much time on your hands, we shouldn't be taking anyones post count as a measure of the value of someones input.

You and the other guy missed the point of why I highlighted the low post count completely. The point wasn't "low post count = not worth listening to". It was "low post count = probably shouldn't start his Dakka career with such angry wild swinging posts."

To perhaps use a different metaphor: Shooting stars burn brightly. And quickly.

I like bringing back USRs and the claim that they'll be keeping army factions a lot more self contained, so that you don't need fifty different books.

I dislike the forced points=power level thing. One of the reasons that I don't like it that isn't a rehash is that it also makes turns take way longer. When your units all have some extra, single weapon, that weapon needs to be rolled separately. In the same time it takes to resolve one of these weapons, you can also roll for your 19 lasguns. Or boltguns or whatever. Now it's stupid not to take the better gun, but that better gun takes a bunch of extra time to handle, multiplied by every single unit.

 Dysartes wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Hey man, it's okay. This is a safe place.You don't have to pretend like Horus Heresy isn't just another GW game but with boring models and the same boring faction repeated 20 times. We're all friends here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Yeah, they don't get it.

30k has my armies actually feeling like they should rather than the gak show that was 9th and now even worse dumpster fire that's upon us.

Only problem in 30k is no xenos(can be rectified).

Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.

The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

Likewise, positioning and movement have not changed at all from 8e or 9e notably, maintaining their archaic status from over thirty years ago. Battleshock is a positive move forward but hardly goes far enough, and without suppressive rules hardly makes sense, units being unable to score is the bare minimum of 'suppressed' or 'shaken' effects expected in a wargame. The fact templates aren't coming back either is disappointing, as is vehicles being magical black boxes with no weaknesses on angles (monsters too for that matter) feeling like a dim choice that prevents older depth from returning. Overall it just looks like a really dumb beer and pretzels version of 8e, only with more imbalances, lethality, and extremely poor editorial work. Woo?

Also regarding GW's desire to streamline the game, I find this old blog post hilarious because, operating on 7th edition rules mind, this change of system would eliminate over half of all dice rolled, greatly speeding up the game, while causing zero statistical shift in unit performance. As I've come to realize though a good system like this likely will never come to pass simply because GW are not a games company, but a model company. Innovation after all, is heresy.

https://theback40k.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-do-we-roll-so-many-dice-in-40k.html