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'd tend to agree with Jidmah.

I feel the amount of discussion on Dakka about 40k as actual 40k has declined considerably. I don't think that's strictly a 10th edition phenomenon, it seemed to happen over the course of 9th.

I mean not everyone wants to talk about the current state of the game - or the competitive meta. But that used to be a significant topic of conversation that is now seems almost absent. I posted in mid-August about the seemingly lack of outrage on Dakka about Eldar imbalance (which would have previously have provoked thread after thread). To which the replies were "I don't play tournament games", "Eldar are always OP" and "if you want to see outrage, go on Discord". All of this is arguably fair - but it didn't stop the forum talking about it in the past.

In a similar way if an army was underperforming we'd have discussions on what should change to make them better (which, to perhaps be cutting, were I feel more sophisticated than "A Sister of Battle killed some Necrons in a cinematic so they should get another S3 AP- attack.") I'm not sure Dakka is strictly the "cause" - but many buffs GW has brought into the game have, in some form or other, been discussed on these forums ahead of time. I think that was due to being in touch with the game. Today I feel there's essentially nothing like that - especially in General Discussion (there's occasionally more in the Tactics threads).

This sort of conversation was occasionally adversarial - but now both sides seem to have vacated for other forums. So instead we are seemingly left with a lot of talk about theoreticals and "Wasn't it better in the old days". This always existed too - but it wasn't the whole forum. And arguably as those old days become over 7, 15, or 25+ years ago, it becomes ever less relevant or accurate (since much of this is increasingly ancient memory) to the game today.

To be more on topic - I think 10th is a bit soulless just because several of the Indexes are very limited. There isn't any soul in say the DE Index because there just isn't much in the DE Index full stop. The idea that your army can be radically different because you took a few units of Wyches rather than say Wracks might have sort of flown in 3rd, but it doesn't hold up today. But GW will always add new things - even small changes have made some factions that seemed dead on arrival more interesting.

 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.

Isn't that selfcontradictory with what follows?

And by the same meassure your analogy isn't apt, because funnily enough Dakka is still surprisingly alive and well, something many other boards or reddits can't really say anymore, especially the smaller FB groups aswell. But then again that is a symptome imo of the practices that you reverence here, that have driven away many pillars of the community and replaced them with people that have a lower attention span. NVM that i think the ease of access on the latter plattforms makes it so that the bloodletting isnt' as abvious as it is on the forums.

I rekon in part the desilusion of these practices have in part lead to massive blood letting so to speak both of old veterans and new players as retention has dropped severly f.e. where i am from.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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 rampante forced positivity of Portent (or whatever it turned into... Warseer?). It's endurance is its strength. People who think it's turned into a toxic mess might be the problem.

Sounds like copy/paste laziness for them to be including fluff on units that no longer exist like that. That being said, bikes, assault squads, and land speeders all exist - they are just called outriders, assault intercessors, and storm speeders now. Thunderfire Cannons have been replaced (in my view) by Firestrike servo turrets. Servitors are gone, but Primaris Techmarines are a thing, etc. It would have been very easy to revise and fix with just a modicum of effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I was under the impression that warseer was dead. Im workblocked from accessing it, but when i google warseer the site doesn't come up and instead I get about a punch of posts on dakka, reddit, and elsewhere about how its dead.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Also, I was under the impression that warseer was dead. Im workblocked from accessing it, but when i google warseer the site doesn't come up and instead I get about a punch of posts on dakka, reddit, and elsewhere about how its dead.

It is dead now (warseer.net actually redirects to BOLS of all places). But those of us who remember, remember ironfisted mods (Wintermute I think the dude's name was) who would delete/ban anything negative about GW or even remotely discussing another game in a Warhammer thread (I recall I had some posts deleted for comparing WHFB to KoW or something as "off topic"). It was probably the worst place to be critical of GW, outside of a brief stint at TGA where they literally had a post saying "Remember we're all here because of GW, so no negativity" to where I actually got a warning directly from the owner that I was being too critical of GW by lamenting AOS' balance at the time and I needed to stop or I'd risk being banned. Was basically a cult (and not surprising since the TGA guys have/had ties to the GW studio)

 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. The rules we have now are reflective of these paradigm shifts, no the cause of them.

Honestly, i think the DG models look much better than the TS ones (said as a TS main btw). Yes they are monopose but for the plague marines at least, theres not a particularly standout pose that is noticeable at a glance when looking at an army (worst example of that is the labcoat/gimp poxwalkers that stand out massively). And DG are still somewhat customisable too; Heads, shoulderpads and backpacks are interchangeable (and heads can be reposed simply by cutting the pin that gives them a default position. You can end up with almost any combination of marines really.

I'd take that over "this dude's arms are slightly raised or lowered"

As for the rules being dictated by whats in the kit, yes it's dumb, resolving the attacks of plague marines is a pain in the ass nowadays, but without 60pts of free wargear per 80pts squad, they'd suck sadly.

I think that Dakka tends to be salty, but its criticisms don’t come because the users hate the idea of 40k, but because they love it.

 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.

Sort of glad you said this, I've been putting off replying to the thread but my feeling is largely "no, but the online community has". I've seen far more negativity and nitpicking robbing the game of any joy in online discussions than ever before. Years ago 40k online was great, including Dakka, as it was a celebration of peoples creativity and loving the setting as it is, a lot more "what ifs" and "wouldn't that be great" with community made and led hype because of the absence of the official streams.

Because GW now advertise the far end of a fart reasonably well in advance, that's gone. Because the emphasis is now on organised events with GW support, it's not people working the game to what or how they like it to be. With the advent of this modern e-sports mentality, the random cool stuff is talked about less and less in place of armchair (although some people do have credentials here) game designers and marketing folk. In it's place we had half a decade or so of "competitive efficiency" talks where units were dead or the hotness with nothing else going on.

I agree on the news content though, most of the 10th rumours and chaos Marine rumours in 9th were in part me and a few others bringing them over from B&C. Which I've stopped doing, because frankly it's not worth it. Poor ClockworkChris who had the Chaos info on B&C got hounded out of here and gave up after a couple of weeks due to the way people spoke to them and just shat on everything.

Largely I'd also say the people touting the durability and resilience of Dakka currently are the same people I would consider to likely be firing off negative comments and sometimes being antagonistic about whatever it is that GW does on the whole.

Fun fact - I've been told to stop being so negative on B&C, yet I'm a white knight here with the same opinions.

Yeah, I am also a Warseer-refugee, that place was my home for a number of years after I was banned from 40ko for absolutely no reason at all (as in literally, I got a message from a mod one day, Mr. Peanut I think his name was, about how he had been wanting to ban me for a long time and that I was no longer welcome. To this day I have no idea what specifically enabled him to do so, as I recall I hadn't even posted in the couple days preceding the ban so it was out of left field).

One day I inevitably got banned from warseer too after calling out the mods for their heavy handed moderation. Ended up here on dakka where the mods are at least somewhat reasonable and also far more tolerant of the bs lol.

Wayniac wrote:
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.
.

There's 'not sugarcosting things' and there's being bitter and negative - you might see it as folks 'saying things as they are' but too often, it's less that and more some people are just determined to be miserable and are looking for excuses to be angry to the point that everything is framed in as-negative a perspective as possible. I remember one poster going off on one because of the halo motif on stormcast helmets - it was 'proof' of gw's incompetence and how put of touch they were. Their reasoning? Most kids are atheist these days....

Stewing in too much of that for too long or looking for affirmation of ones own frustrations is just as unhealthy as warseers forced positivity.

I find dakka often leans towards stewimg and negstive for the sake of negstive to the point I wonder if those posters hobby should be better described as being angry about the hobby rather than any actual aspect of the hobby itself.

Wayniac wrote:
I

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.

OK I'll bite because I am curious wayniac. If 10th doesnt 'feel' like 40k to you, What does/should 40k 'feel' like? What makes 40k 40k?

I've been following dakka since 6th edition or so and always regarded it as a pretty negative place. Whenever there were GW news that we liked in our group I took a look at dakka to see what anyone can possibly dislike about it, and dakka always found something to complain about
Since 8th you additionally have the group of people that liked the prior framework and still mourn for armour values that were practically dead since 6th introduced hull points. But, these are not restricted to dakka. Just like the people that still hate AoS because WHFB had to die for it.

To come back to the actual topic: 10th rules imo are pretty good. They get a little overshadowed by stupid corporate ideas of NMNR, pseudo Power Level and so on. Outside of crusade 9th felt more "soulless" though with its boring missions that were all the same (and even the crusade missions followeda pretty rigid symmetric style without narrative additions). It's okay that GW introduced standardized tournament missions, it's unfortunate that proper missions ever since hide behind expensive DLCs like the Vigilus books.

Deadnight wrote:
OK I'll bite because I am curious wayniac. If 10th doesnt 'feel' like 40k to you, What does/should 40k 'feel' like? What makes 40k 40k?

If I could properly explain that, don't you think I would have? I've played since 1997. 10th feels like a completely different game, and not in a good way, compared to the era of 3rd-7th, even 2nd. It doesn't feel like it has any of the depth or flavor of the past editions. The rules have been streamlined, but they feel more like "gutted of all flavor and made generic". I can't point to something specific other than to say it feels like if you changed all the names to generic, you'd have the exact same thing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
To come back to the actual topic: 10th rules imo are pretty good. They get a little overshadowed by stupid corporate ideas of NMNR, pseudo Power Level and so on. Outside of crusade 9th felt more "soulless" though with its boring missions that were all the same (and even the crusade missions followeda pretty rigid symmetric style without narrative additions). It's okay that GW introduced standardized tournament missions, it's unfortunate that proper missions ever since hide behind expensive DLCs like the Vigilus books.

And more unfortunate that people don't seem to WANT those kind of missions, even when they exist. Even the Leviathan missions, while they are really cool, are just takes on the same boring hold objectives/do secondary things missions that tournaments love, but now they're the whole game. Sure you have a few that don't use secondaries (the one in the core rules, the crusade missions, and most recently the ones in White Dwarf for their Bunker club thing) but people seem to think secondary objectives are the important part of missions, and even the ones without secondaries are still the same sort of bland objective-based mission.

Tis but a soulless husk wandering the wastes!

I think you have got a number of different changes over time, that are either culminating now or starting to affect things all at the same time.

The setting has been roughly handled - Primaris fluff, the way they have moved the setting on, lots of the internal world building being ignored (warp travel being a big one - honestly now everyone zips all over the place), hero hammer, etc. Wins for some, loses for other fans. But its change and while you get a chance to bring people in, you risk losing them at the same time. Arguably the more mainstream you want to be to get the biggest market, the more bland/safe you have to become. The reward is sales, the risk is you lose the hard core that sustains you when your fad passes.

The game is as bad as ever. Some say worse, but honestly for me everything past 2nd is pretty poor But we had a dire period in 9th. Now it wasn't that bad, but Covid hit. Lots of players took time out. And for 40k, a game that thrives on constant engagement and has problems if people have to forget and come back (how many errata? why are these rules so naff compared to X that I have been playing, what my model bases aren't big enough anymore?). A bit like boiling frogs, fine while in the pot, object if they are put back in after 5 minutes. I lost track of the game in 9th and found it impossible to get back in. So far 10th feels like that. Its too much effort for too little reward when you read about ROFLstomp games. Its also the trend towards cards becoming a big thing to provide a tactical layer to parking lot games. Yeah it kinda works, but makes it more like a game than a wargame, further restricting the market in that direction (though arguably opening it up in the other).

That slightly safer, blander set up with art and background is reflected in models. Driven I suspect by competition concerns and by accessibility, the thing of needing multiple kits to make one squad are gone. Yes many moaned, but quite a few miss that sort of customisation. A new player will find it easier to get into the game - each box is one unit, but it removes simple customisation options that people do to get more emotionally invested in their toy soldiers.

Perhaps that is what has changed, the level of emotional investment has decreased. Changes to units, everything in box only, no inclusion of ideas from outside the plastic range, changes in background that inevitably lose people. The churn of new players has perhaps improved, we won't know, but perhaps the burn is currently higher with more of the longer term players being turn off.

The animation might have been a counterweight, but it seems to reflect the game not the background. Marines go down like chumps all the time. What for me was the outstanding animation? Astartes, fan made, very much going on the traditional background and showing marines as I always imagined them, even down to the (limitless) bullet/bolt rockets.

Wayniac wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
OK I'll bite because I am curious wayniac. If 10th doesnt 'feel' like 40k to you, What does/should 40k 'feel' like? What makes 40k 40k?

If I could properly explain that, don't you think I would have?

That's why I asked. If it can't describe what 40k.should be, it's hard to hsve a discussion on it and state why it's not that any more, it just comes across as 'change is bad, m'kay'.

Wayniac wrote:
lI've played since 1997. 10th feels like a completely different game, and not in a good way, compared to the era of 3rd-7th, even 2nd.

That's because iy is a completely different game. Youre referencing a state of play from 25 years ago mate. There's a hell of a lot of things done nowadays that are hella different from hearing Oasis and Nirvana the first time in the 90s. Of course its a different game, its a different era.

If it was still the same game it was in the 80s folks would be complaining it was 'stagnant' and 'out of date' instead.

Wayniac wrote:
It doesn't feel like it has any of the depth or flavor of the past editions.

In fairness, did it ever have 'depth' and 'flavour'?
or was it always just 'clunk'? Folks have been complaining about the lack of both since the game was created.

Wayniac wrote:
. The rules have been streamlined, but they feel more like "gutted of all flavor and made generic". I can't point to something specific.

OK this is something tangible, thanks. While it can be done poorly (which gw never does, ever :p)There is a benefit to streamlining the interface and content (how many flavours of 'guy in power armour and bolt gun are legitimately required in a game?) and I'm personally not a fan of flavour as represented by everything having bespoke rules - I'm more of a less is more kind of player. And 40k has always been clunky and unwieldy at the beat of times. Imo its more the 'ccg-isation' of the game and 'off-the-board' rescources/actions that are just 'gamey'. But that's been a thing since 8th.

I started playing in 2e; I played competitively from 3rd-7th. 7th killed me; yes, formations were horrible, but it was actually the Allies system - when EVERY game included the same unit of Tau Riptides sitting in the corner, regardless of what the army theoretically was, my enjoyment of the aesthetic of the game was gone. I play with miniatures because I like the physicality of the game and the spatial relations of the minis; there are better tactical simulations available online, and there are better rulesets available in the tabletop space.

I think 10th is fine. I'm ok with the reversion in 8th to "everything has a toughness score." I do think they went a little overboard on destandardization (seriously, not EVERY unit really needs a special ability for us to memorize - sometimes a Termagant should just be a Termagant). Stratagems are a bit messy at present (and not including them in the index cards for the Tyranid codex was absurd). I accept the decoupling of points from the codex, if they actually update the points in ways that make sense.

Best of all, I'm enjoying the game again. Prices have actually stabilized as plastics have gotten more detailed & sprue utilization has improved (though there are absurdities), but a $60 Hive Tyrant today isn't any worse than what we were paying in 5th.

GW's Dunning Kruger-style embrace of the tournament scene has also lessened this game. I just hated the missions in 9th - all some variation of where you put the objective markers with no variety or flavour to the rules - and whilst I like the random secondary stuff in 10th, it seems that that's the only way to do missions because that's how they decided tournaments work.

Their simply laughable "Metawatch" articles only further emphasise how little they understand what they're doing, touting "win rates" like it was the single metric for a successful game.

And then this flows onto their products, like the change of board size and acting like that's some great new standard, even though it exists purely because of the limitations of their packaging and had absolutely nothing to do with game balance or whatever (and that people still think that the recommended board sizes are "better" for the game).

chaos0xomega wrote:
That being said, bikes, assault squads, and land speeders all exist - they are just called outriders, assault intercessors, and storm speeders now.

The book specifically lists them as separate entities. It doesn't just say "Bikes", meaning you could go "Oh, well they mean Outriders!", it has Bikes and Outriders listed separetely. Attack Bikes and ATVs. And so on. It's very frustrating, as you can see what this book could have been before some dimwit higher up made the decision to clean house on a significant portion of most Marine players' collections.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
As for the rules being dictated by whats in the kit, yes it's dumb, resolving the attacks of plague marines is a pain in the ass nowadays, but without 60pts of free wargear per 80pts squad, they'd suck sadly.

Yeah, and that's the direct result of the kit, regardless of whether they "look better" or not.

If the Plague Marine kit was more like the Rubric kit, maybe they wouldn't be as "dynamic", but they also wouldn't be this slab of set models with set rules that offer little to no variation whatsoever.

chaos0xomega wrote:
One day I inevitably got banned from warseer too after calling out the mods for their heavy handed moderation. Ended up here on dakka where the mods are at least somewhat reasonable and also far more tolerant of the bs lol.

A common story, a few Warseer mods could not stand anyone being more popular than them, so they would ban the most helpful, creative and engaged members over trivial or even made up transgressions. I got away with a lot as I had been a member since 2000, ran the community FAQ and such, but in the end a mod just straight up lied to stick me the final strike

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
As for the rules being dictated by whats in the kit, yes it's dumb, resolving the attacks of plague marines is a pain in the ass nowadays, but without 60pts of free wargear per 80pts squad, they'd suck sadly.

Yeah, and that's the direct result of the kit, regardless of whether they "look better" or not.

If the Plague Marine kit was more like the Rubric kit, maybe they wouldn't be as "dynamic", but they also wouldn't be this slab of set models with set rules that offer little to no variation whatsoever.

Plague marines have actual variation tho..... unlike rubrics

Tyel wrote:

To be more on topic - I think 10th is a bit soulless just because several of the Indexes are very limited. There isn't any soul in say the DE Index because there just isn't much in the DE Index full stop. The idea that your army can be radically different because you took a few units of Wyches rather than say Wracks might have sort of flown in 3rd, but it doesn't hold up today. But GW will always add new things - even small changes have made some factions that seemed dead on arrival more interesting.

The issue here, though, is that there is no reason (unless you count optimism so blind you'd need a guide dog) to expect the codices will improve this.

Tell me, has the SM codex added units or removed them?

Indeed, is there anything to suggest that lost options will be put back in the respective books?

Can you even name an edition since 5th in which a Dark Eldar codex has added options, rather than removing them?

Do you think GW will magically reverse their NMNR policy? What about their 'unit loadouts must match the box' rule?


Point being, it might not be so bad if there was a reasonable expectation that the codices would put the soul back into the game. Many people tolerated 8th being very bland during the index era. However, there is nothing to suggest that the codices will do anything of the sort (and GW is certainly in no rush to release them all and prove us wrong).

8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.

Wayniac wrote:
8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.

This comes back round to the iterative thing, I don't really consider 10th a brand new ground up game, it's just 9th with a few tweaks imo.

Dudeface wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.

This comes back round to the iterative thing, I don't really consider 10th a brand new ground up game, it's just 9th with a few tweaks imo.

Ignoring the fact nothing was backwards compatible and they upended the entire statlines. Nope. Same edition with a few tweaks apparently. 10th was a rework from the foundations.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Plague marines have actual variation tho..... unlike rubrics

Kinda missing the point there.

It's about the style of miniature design. Minis were designed one way, and then suddenly were designed another. The Thousand Sons were simply the last of the old, the Plague Marines the first of the new.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I think that Dakka tends to be salty, but its criticisms don’t come because the users hate the idea of 40k, but because they love it.

People that don't care don't sit on forums writing about things. But at some point certain talks are just dead . After two waves on nerfs eldar are the top army with 60% win rate, what talk about game mechanics, especialy for non top GT players can be done in reality? Not much. 10th is even more formulaic then 9th and 8th was. People can litteraly write out openings for armies, and while the good armies have multiple ones, sometimes depending on match ups, other armies (to less good ones) often have one way to open. And if one plays enough games, then bar some extrem luck going either way, by the end of turn 2 the game is done, because the math tells who will go where, score what etc. Maybe the margine of VP difference is not certain, but who wins or not is. And for not tournament games that is rather crucial, because results from prior games don't carry over.

The salt does come from many source. People would like to play w40k, they spend their money on it, and time, because of the paint requierments. But when your army was a RW or WS army and GW just legended half your list, and there is no replacment, people are not going to be happy.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.

This comes back round to the iterative thing, I don't really consider 10th a brand new ground up game, it's just 9th with a few tweaks imo.

Ignoring the fact nothing was backwards compatible and they upended the entire statlines. Nope. Same edition with a few tweaks apparently. 10th was a rework from the foundations.

They moved the WS/BS to the weapon instead of the operator, which they could have and did artificially accomplish in 9th (powerfist hitting on a 4+ is so different to a ws 3+ subtract 1 powerfist!). They moved a load of rules from slightly renamed copy/pastes to USR aaaand that's about it really? Oh they simplified cover back down.

So yes, total rework from the ground up.

 vipoid wrote:


The issue here, though, is that there is no reason (unless you count optimism so blind you'd need a guide dog) to expect the codices will improve this.

Tell me, has the SM codex added units or removed them?

Indeed, is there anything to suggest that lost options will be put back in the respective books?

Can you even name an edition since 5th in which a Dark Eldar codex has added options, rather than removing them?

Do you think GW will magically reverse their NMNR policy? What about their 'unit loadouts must match the box' rule?

I can't say about editions pre 8th, but both in 8th, 9th and 10th the dark eldar line had the entire CWE codex added by virtue of Inari existing. Isn't right now the main way to play DE, is to add some cheap chaff wyches and then take the DE tank, and supplement them with the fate dice etc that Inari get by using the CWE detachment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 811846 11600527 wrote:

They moved the WS/BS to the weapon instead of the operator, which they could have and did artificially accomplish in 9th (powerfist hitting on a 4+ is so different to a ws 3+ subtract 1 powerfist!). They moved a load of rules from slightly renamed copy/pastes to USR aaaand that's about it really? Oh they simplified cover back down.

So yes, total rework from the ground up.

Depending on what ever one considers it an error while writing rules or an actual rules change planed by GW, they did more then copy past and move around 9th ed WS/BS numbers. the GK GM were not hitting stuff on +4 in 9th ed and in 10th they do. Same with adjustments to BS on GK heavy weapons, while forgetting that GK heavy weapons are neither heavy nor assault, making the BS adjustments on weapons hard to understand nerfs.

Wayniac wrote:
8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.

8th index was very much a baby with the bathwater oversimplication imo. The game lost so much of the positional gameplay, terrain mechanics, directional cover (cover in general) and the tapering off effects that area of effect weapons tended to have as the battle went on. It turned into mathhammering the best blobs of damage dealers being screened by lines of cheap bodies.

The rampant bloat of later 8th and 9th was directly resulting from the base game being so bare bones that it had no design space to make units feel different. Almost all of the soft factors that units had was gone so it all boiled down to the hard factors which again gets really mathhammery.

Sadly I just don't think 10th expanded the core game enough to avoid the same pitfalls.

GW is going towards more balance to please the "tournament players". This also means less randomness in the game and less difference between armies.

Where is my Shokk attack gun with discussion what the template actually hit, where it scattered to, when to roll the strength and being able to remove any model from play when hit or put you in close combat with the target you're shooting at?

It is gone, because GW now caters to the players who want clear rules, with less randomness, less room for discussion, being able to better calculate the outcome of an attack.

I don't know the size of the different player groups (more certain results vs randomness/differences liking players). I'm not saying one is good and one is bad.

What I do see more of the same across the board and less... let's call it entertainment. So for me, yeah, it is draining the soul from 40K. Much less of a whacky game, more going towards mathhammer.

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:

GW is going towards more balance to please the "tournament players". This also means less randomness in the game and less difference between armies.

Where is my Shokk attack gun with discussion what the template actually hit, where it scattered to, when to roll the strength and being able to remove any model from play when hit or put you in close combat with the target you're shooting at?

It is gone, because GW now caters to the players who want clear rules, with less randomness, less room for discussion, being able to better calculate the outcome of an attack.

I don't know the size of the different player groups (more certain results vs randomness/differences liking players). I'm not saying one is good and one is bad.

What I do see more of the same across the board and less... let's call it entertainment. So for me, yeah, it is draining the soul from 40K. Much less of a whacky game, more going towards mathhammer.

The big problem there is that the tournament players are the loudest although the smallest minority. Look at how many content creators and other influencers who think because they have a YouTube channel that means they have authority in their opinion are out there talking nonsense about competitive gaming only. It's no wonder that GW thinks that's the biggest group of people to listen to because all of them are talking on pedestals as though they speak for the masses

I mean my definition of why 40k doesn't feel like 40k is that it doesn't actually feel "real". (In the sense of playing minis that actually exist in universe, not real to our universe).

Playing an army in 4e "felt" like playing that army in the setting. There was a clear tether between rules and abstractions:
"assault cannons are rending because the absurd rate of fire tears into armor material in a unique way"
"Ld represents command and control - build a vox network to extend your C2 from your officer - but then losing your officer can be crippling, so better have a 2iC!" Etc.

Now?
"Oath of Moment = reroll to hit. Because Space Marines are really cool, but only against one enemy unit at a time, and only the units that don't already reroll to hit - they are already maximum coolness and can't get any cooler"

"This Detachment turns all of your weapons to assault, because of there's one thing that affects how heavy and hard a weapon is to use on the move, it's the administrative organization you've got your men split into"

"Tank commanders can't give orders to Baneblades because if the Lord High Marshal General Chief Commander Hero Man is absent, Baneblade herds are famous for being uncontrollably wild"

"Exterminator Autocannons give every other unit in the army improved penetration against the target because they just shoot SO MUCH. And then the Punisher that shoots more than twice as much does mortal wounds to infantry, because SHUT UP LOOK AT THE COOL ABILITIES GUYS! EVERY UNIT HAS ONE!"

Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.

You can come up with a positive justification for the things you like but can't imagine anything that you don't like possibly having any sort of positive or acceptable aspect.

You have some valid points but then drown them out with others that just make you look like a ranting weirdo. I totally agree that Superheavies not getting Tank Orders is weird but then you ruin it with the hyperbole and all-caps rage.