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.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:


He's as old as that first devestator squad, they just got reboxed with new bases when they added a monopose captain to the kit.

But the proportions didn't really change later. It was still stick dudes inside armour that is too small, with short legs, miniscule chests and giant heads.

Cyel wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:


He's as old as that first devestator squad, they just got reboxed with new bases when they added a monopose captain to the kit.

But the proportions didn't really change later. It was still stick dudes inside armour that is too small, with short legs, miniscule chests and giant heads.

This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?

The 6th-ed redesigns, while it does have oversized heads and awkward posing still, are much, much better. They don't have this issue as much as you claim. To give four examples, I've built a Company Command, a tactical squad, Deathwatch veterans, and a heresy mk2 command Set. All of them are very different, and there's a distinct difference in these issues. Comparing to GSC models I own, which are very recent, only really the mk2 has an issue with the thinneness of the limbs, and both they and the company command really had a distinct height issue. The Tactical squad was properly proportioned for the models of the time, just posed oddly. (the recently removed mk3 is proof of this, in that it's the old scale but not posed in a squat. The Assault/vanguard vets show this as well.) And the Deathwatch vets are perfect.

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is though the old models still have a charm that the new ones are lacking. I don't know exactly what it is but while those do look goofy a lot of the old models have a life to them which the current brand of 3D designed ones look bland.

And It can't just be because there are 3D generated because there's plenty of 3D printed models that have life and look a lot more visually interesting

Its not 'life', its called 'nostalgia'. Also known as 'the rose tinted glasses'.

If gw seriously released a kit with the dubious 'look/quality' of the original screamer killer or nid warriors and tried to be serious with it, the internet would break with hate and laughter.

Deadnight wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is though the old models still have a charm that the new ones are lacking. I don't know exactly what it is but while those do look goofy a lot of the old models have a life to them which the current brand of 3D designed ones look bland.

And It can't just be because there are 3D generated because there's plenty of 3D printed models that have life and look a lot more visually interesting

Its not 'life', its called 'nostalgia'. Also known as 'the rose tinted glasses'.

If gw seriously released a kit with the dubious 'look/quality' of the original screamer killer or nid warriors and tried to be serious with it, the internet would break with hate and laughter.

I bet the desolation squad sold quite well, no matter the hate and laughter GW can sell it.

Problem about the newer models usually is their restricted yet exaggerated posing which makes you look for alternatives after the first Box for some variety in your force. GWs monopose models work for Kill Team, but not for a larger game like 40K.

I think for some of us, we've yet to really wrestle with the idea that our perception of the past is largely something our brains come up with. The events of our lives - those nice games with friends in the good ol' days - still happened, but the way we record and perceive that information can and will change over time. That's being human. The reason we often struggle to really articulate what is 'wrong' with the new stuff is that we've yet to truly grasp that.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I think for some of us, we've yet to really wrestle with the idea that our perception of the past is largely something our brains come up with. The events of our lives - those nice games with friends in the good ol' days - still happened, but the way we record and perceive that information can and will change over time. That's being human. The reason we often struggle to really articulate what is 'wrong' with the new stuff is that we've yet to truly grasp that.

See, I'm in a weird space in that I started with 40k in 2020, right as 9th was announced (with 0 prior knowledge of 40k), and have since gone back to 3rd edition, as well as been playing heresy 1.0, 2.0 and some other wargames, and for me at least I can see that something distinct was lost between 10th and 9th that I can't quite put a finger on, that 3rd edition also has. Like, for all of it's differences, you can tell 9th edition and 3rd edition are kin. 10th edition (having played 30+ games at this point) Feels alien to me, in a way that's hard to describe. 3rd edition and heresy while different, I was still able to pick up without it feeling like learning a completely different game system, it still felt like a 40k derived system.

There are definite improvements made over the years that have enhanced the experience. I'm sure the 3rd-edition designers would have loved a way to update things in days or weeks rather than an annual Chapter approved, and I can't imagine trying to play 3rd without the convenience of battlescribe and pdfs of the books. 10th edition is lightyears ahead on that front at least.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I think for some of us, we've yet to really wrestle with the idea that our perception of the past is largely something our brains come up with. The events of our lives - those nice games with friends in the good ol' days - still happened, but the way we record and perceive that information can and will change over time. That's being human. The reason we often struggle to really articulate what is 'wrong' with the new stuff is that we've yet to truly grasp that.

For some, maybe.

But I feel I can pretty specifically articulate the issues I have with the newer stuff. I could make a hefty list, but very clear break point for me is that I have an extensive miniature collection that already has a consistent styling and scale and new models just don't match.

I'll also point out a shift in style strategy from GWs perspective. When I started the game (and for a long time), the use-case being designed for by GW was the game. The exaggerated proportions are things made to look good from a commander-of-the-table view. But these days there's a good case to be made that a primary interest of many people is painting their models and posting images on social media. Access to macro lenses has never been greater! It's also true that the interwebs is where people get a lot of exposure to the product. So a shift in styling towards proportions (and ease of building) that photograph better for internet posting makes a lot of sense. GW wants models that will look impressive when people post on social media next to Infinity models and the like.

. . .
But god, why Primaris?! (Greed) What a nightmare.

I'll post some more responses later, but busy atm.

for me its.. complicated, sort of

we only really have the indexes for the bulk of forces, and while not quite as bland as the 8th edition ones in some ways they are worse in others - however they feel very phoned in, they are however only the stop gap.

the actual game is more interesting, the default scenario in the rules is at least objective based which is progress, simple corner castling is now basically auto lose which is a definite improvement. the Leviathan mission deck, while to me something that should be in the rulebook, is very good. the three card mission selector thing and allowing players to go for fixed or variable secondary objectives makes the games play differently which actually feels a lot better than the "always play mission 1 with kill points" that 5th was locally

things have without question gotten a lot more generic though

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:


This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.

I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.

I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).



Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...But god, why Primaris?! (Greed) What a nightmare...

1) Characteristic overreaction to the perception that 7e's thriving secondary bits market to get enough weapons for WYSIWYG competitive loadouts on your Sternguard or Skitarii or whatever was a huge barrier to entry for casual players, and the game would be easier for new players if there were no weapon options.

2) The top brass had been planning a Sigmar-style complete range reboot before seeing the reaction to Sigmar and trying to frantically backpedal, only the SM/DG models were already done so they thought they'd release them anyway.

3) Chronic insecurity that players hate all the stuff GW used to make and won't love them unless they try something completely new.

4) Chronic insecurity that players won't buy stuff without a constant stream of Space Marine/Stormcast releases.

5) The head of sculpting is super into Space Marines/Stormcast, and refuses to allocate sufficient time to working on any other projects.

(Disclaimer: I have no evidence for any of this, but I have no evidence against any of this, either...)

Cyel wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:


This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.

I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.

I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).

Spoiler:

Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.

Spoiler:

I'm not sure how these cool "old" models serve your argument, they look at least as good as the new ones

They have terrible proportions. The ratio of head to the entire body should by 1-7, even more if you want to evoke a feeling of power and strength.

Their heads are more like 1-5, a few times thicker than their thighs or arms inside armour.

I used the same Marauder heads for both old and new marines and only on the new ones they don't look like bobbleheads or some deformed children.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:


This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.

I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.

I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).

Spoiler:

Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.

Spoiler:

I'm not sure how these cool "old" models serve your argument, they look at least as good as the new ones

I'm with you there, I think they look great. I guess agree-to-disagree then. Cyel thinks they're Garden-Gnomish, i think they look great.

I like the look of most Primaris models.
I also think that, just in general, GW does a great job on making models.

It's the rules that drive me away.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:


This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.

I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.

I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).

Spoiler:

Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.

Spoiler:

I'm not sure how these cool "old" models serve your argument, they look at least as good as the new ones

I'm with you there, I think they look great. I guess agree-to-disagree then. Cyel thinks they're Garden-Gnomish, i think they look great.

I'll have to third this.

The proportions might not be perfect but honestly it's just not something that really stands out to me. What does stand out is that the heads look great, especially the expressions and facial hair.

I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.

Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.

Just very, very abrupt.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.

Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.

Just very, very abrupt.

And the whole "He did what the Emperor could not" crap, making better-than Marines.

Is making a better genehanced soldier than standard marines really all that? Even the Emperor had his Ten Thousand. I've come to understand that the Legiones Astartes were an economical solution after the superior Thunder Warriors proved to be unstable. And though I don't have a source for this, I'm pretty sure the Astartes creation process was in a constant state of improvement.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Is making a better genehanced soldier than standard marines really all that?

Was all that? It was complete heresy by the standards of the day!

Even the Emperor had his Ten Thousand. I've come to understand that the Legiones Astartes were an economical solution after the superior Thunder Warriors proved to be unstable. And though I don't have a source for this, I'm pretty sure the Astartes creation process was in a constant state of improvement.

If you look around the Imperium, you'll notice the complete lack of technological progress in any of those areas. What's next, awards and recognition for all of the pioneering work Fabius Bile has done?

 Gert wrote:
Depending on where you look will get you different results.
Dakka is a largely negative place whether it's justified or not so you're going to see negative opinions.
If you go somewhere with more positive opinions you'll see the opposite.
The Internet is the worst place to gauge opinion because its largely polarised, hyperbole or intended to get a rise out of other people.
I have played 10th and have enjoyed it far more than 9th and 8th. I enjoyed 7th because I had Daemonkin but the edition was not good.

For some the soul of 40K is the quality of the game mechanics.

For some it's the quality of the fluff/backstory that carries over into the game.

And that's the "soul of the game" that has been largely curtailed. Its one thing - and a good thing - for example to see all the formations for playstyles be available for each fleshed out chapter - its a bad thing that each of those chapters don't have a synergtistic chapter tactic type rule that boosts that formation for that chapter. (Almost) Each chapter had their own playstyle/unit types that were leaned into and that appears to have gone away this time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.

Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.

Just very, very abrupt.

Whenever the Primaris conversation comes up, I feel compelled to mention the 9th edition Torchbearer Fleet Crusade rules. The idea was that Custodes, Admech and Imperial Agents could escort Primaris Greyshields to the forces they were destined to reinforce. So the first phase of the Crusade is locating and making contact with the parent chapter, the second phase was bonding with the parent chapter and the third phase was the official induction.

This provided a cool little story template that allowed players to create their army's relationship with Primaris and other Imperial Forces on the tabletop by playing games. It's what made me see the story potential of Primaris.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.

Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.

Just very, very abrupt.

I don't think it was the fluff handling, I think it was the marketing handling. People want to buy new stuff for their hobbies. They don't want to have perfectly good stuff for their hobbies forced into obsolesence. And yes, yes, you can always use the old stuff as proxies for the new stuff - but its still obsolete. Its not what you bought anymore, its a proxy for something you haven't. They made it pretty obvious Primaris was designed to replace First Born, they backed off a little from the pushback, but they still did it.

From the fluff I didn't get the impression Cawl can do what they Emperor couldn't - I got the impression he was standing on the Emperor's Shoulders taking the next step... sort of like that Ian Malcom Jurrasic Park speech - especially with the foreshadowing of him making Traitor Legion primaris.

I think the soul in 40k comes from the artistry and creativity with both the game and the pieces, as provided from GW and throughout the community.

This is not really encouraged to the same extent anymore, this has transitioned over many years.

As gw became more corporate, they are no longer allowed to show anything truly creative. No more hand painted artworks, everything in the art must be a model being sold. No more hand built terrain unless sold in a box. No rules for anything without a model. No more hand sculpted pieces.

The community often follows, "oh your model has a different base, sorry not allowed. This is a sport now, not a hobby". Terrain adapted for tournaments being ugly L-shaped shapes. Rules dont really work with other terrain, ok but why do tournaments not provide their own terrain rules then? Creativity has been stamped down that's why.

Why engage in 40k like a hobby when the more time you put in your army project, the less likely you are to get to play those armies before parts of them are banned to play in games? It's hard to blame one certain event for this, it is more of a culture in the game issue. Maybe when gw became corporate, the soul started to wither? I dunno, but it sure as gak feel alot more soulless now than before.

The 'soul' and the game feel like different things to me, and I could contend with the soul being gone but the core issue is that the game is just gak by wargaming standards. I tapped out in the start of 9th as I couldn't stand its sheer gimmicky, un-wargaming nature, 40k was always a very lite, very simple wargame but the changes incurred with 8e and 9e are just too much and 10e looks horrific compared even to those. I could be completely in favor of simplifying some needless bloat - there's no need to have a bajillion weapon types vs a simple, realistic fit such as 'small arms', 'GPMG', etc compared to the dozen boltgun subtypes or the needless variety of 'S8 nope cannon'.

But all form of tactical play has been completely gutted. The loss of AV was bad enough because with it being gone the whole point to outflanking anything became pointless. Especially when looking at Warhammer Fantasy's rulebooks, especially 6e, 40k just feels in its modern version like a children's toy compared to those. I'm left wishing that instead of getting into 40k when I was younger, (rightly) feeling that Fantasy might die soon when I entered the scene, that I had gotten into Fantasy anyway since the community never truly died.

The setting has been completely aborted from its original intentions and knowing some animators having worked on + shows, it's just a decrepit skeleton devoid of creativity or soul, everything being sucked away in the name of commerce. But that would be livable provided I had a proper wargame to play and not the sad joke that is modern 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.

Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.

Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.

By the same logic there shouldn't be truescale primaris stuff either since now you can't fit marines into goddamn terrain.

10th is fine, games are more fun and less mentally taxing than comparable games in 9th edition, it's easier to switch between armies without doing a ton of homework first and list building doesn't consume an entire evening. It lacks the polish of 9th or late 8th, but also lacks many of their problems. Status today, it's an acceptable side-grade.

It would be one of the better editions if GW's shady business practices wouldn't put so much of a damper on the enjoyment of the game.

That said, what absolutely has lost its soul is dakka itself. Where it was once the source for 40k news and rumors, getting answers to rules problems, getting competitive list advice and talking about tactics, it has become contaminated by nurgle's rot and shriveled to an empty husk full of self-hatred.
These days rumors are late by days or even missed completely since all the rumormongers have been driven out by the toxic community, YMDC is an unmoderated mess full of people who respond without even bothering to read the rules and any talk about the game ends in the same viciouss circle because the majority of posters is completely out of touch as they don't even play the game anymore, despite desperately claiming otherwise.

If you are looking for an answer whether everything is alive and well, you shouldn't ask at the mortuary.

 Jidmah wrote:
10th is fine, games are more fun and less mentally taxing than comparable games in 9th edition, it's easier to switch between armies without doing a ton of homework first and list building doesn't consume an entire evening. It lacks the polish of 9th or late 8th, but also lacks many of their problems. Status today, it's an acceptable side-grade.

It would be one of the better editions if GW's shady business practices wouldn't put so much of a damper on the enjoyment of the game.

That said, what absolutely has lost its soul is dakka itself. Where it was once the source for 40k news and rumors, getting answers to rules problems, getting competitive list advice and talking about tactics, it has become contaminated by nurgle's rot and shriveled to an empty husk full of self-hatred.
These days rumors are late by days or even missed completely since all the rumormongers have been driven out by the toxic community, YMDC is an unmoderated mess full of people who respond without even bothering to read the rules and any talk about the game ends in the same viciouss circle because the majority of posters is completely out of touch as they don't even play the game anymore, despite desperately claiming otherwise.

If you are looking for an answer whether everything is alive and well, you shouldn't ask at the mortuary.

Being a side grade to 8e or 9e is akin to a un mothballed T-80 lacking its gun as a side grade to the options of lacking an engine or transmission. While it may be able to move, I have higher standards than a Russian quartermaster and prefer something running all of those components. Shady business practices by GW have little to do with the game being so bad it doesn't even meet the mark of being a wargame anymore on account of being devoid of tactics or strategy. That's why 10e is bad, and 9e, and 8e, and 7e, arguably some prior editions as well to that list. It's not because of shady business practices which don't even matter if you don't buy anything from GW anymore to play the game.

I was looking at the Marine Codex today, and it's weird to see that the fluff is completely disconnected from the rules.

There's a section going over the various roles Marine units play in the structure of a Marine army, and it lists a half dozen units that simply aren't in the Codex anymore (from Bikes to Assault Squads to Land Speeders). In the Successor Chapters section one Chapter highlights their heavy use of Thunderfire Cannons, also not in the Codex anymore. There's a whole two paragraphs (with a sub-heading) dedicated to Servitors, and how they accompany Tech-Marines... also not in the Codex. It's like the fluff section of this book was written long before it was decided to simply eliminate some of the longest standing units in 40k.

I think 10th is a far better game than 8th or 9th (and 7th and 6th!), but 40k itself is having its soul drained away by the disconnect between the people making the miniatures, the ones making the fluff, and the ones making the rules. They don't appear to collaborate in any way.

The silo'd nature of GW's design process, the competitive (if not downright toxic) attitudes between departments, all drain 40k's soul. The reduction in options that came through NMNR, the restrictions on options to only what's on the sprue, the (new for 10th!) method of restricting unit structure by the physical boxes: all these things stifle creativity. The design philosophy of the miniatures has changed to emphasise this lack of creativity and the reduction of options. There are still people here who can't grasp the massive differences between this kit and this kit vs this kit and this kit. The rules we have now are reflective of these paradigm shifts, no the cause of them.

As for Dakka? I've been here for a long time. I don't see any significant change. Dakka was always the page that dealt with Warhammer and GW realistically, without any of the artificial nonsense of Bolter & Chainsword, or the rampant forced positivity of Portent (or whatever it turned into... Warseer?). Its endurance is its strength. People who think it's turned into a toxic mess might be the problem.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are still people here who can't grasp the massive differences between this kit and this kit vs this kit and this kit.

I will insist that 10 very different monopose bodies offer more variety than matching 4-5 pretty similar sets of legs to 4-5 pretty similar torsos (that have very limited rotation before they start looking like their joints are dislocated)
Unfortunately it seems GW is switching to only 5 monopose bodies doubled up per box as standard

As for Dakka? I've been here for a long time. I don't see any significant change. Dakka was always the page that dealt with Warhammer and GW realistically, without any of the artificial nonsense of Bolter & Chainsword, or the rampante forced positivity of Portent (or whatever it turned into). It's endurance is its strength. People who think it's turned into a toxic mess might be the problem.

Word

I mean i've come to dakka since it was on EZboard with flash menus. It's always been the "tell it how it is" place, which means if GW is doing something bad (which, sadly, happens more often than not) people will call it out. It's not state-mandated "be positive about GW because it's why we're all here" propaganda like TGA or Warseer was, or B&C where you get a bit of both but the mods take the whole Space Marine/Inquisition thing a bit too serious.

Part of why I keep coming here is because I know I can hear opinions as they are, not sugarcoated or people kept from saying their views because it's supposed to be pro-GW.

I do think part of the issue is the way rules have gone since 8th, and especially 10th, are hollow. All the neat things have been lost, entire models have been removed/Legends (which, let's face it, may as well be removed). It's sterile. It doesn't FEEL like 40k, I think that's the issue. If you went and renamed every datasheet some some generic name ("Space Knights" et all), it would be the same game. Nothing about the lifeless feel of 10th, despite the core rules being solid, gives a vibe of 40k. Now don't get me wrong, I'm getting interested in things like Grimdark Future, but 40k shouldn't feel like that, it should FEEL like 40k with all the variety and depth. And right now they don't.

I'm not gonna lie and say it could be nostalgia. I played from 1997, up through the editions. But even 3rd which was grossly simplified from 2nd still felt like 40k. 10th does not. It feels like a third party Not-40k revamp, but with the GW stamp. And not for the better.