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.

 Vankraken wrote:
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.

I think that's a very good appraisal- particularly the point about soft factors. When Rapid Fire meant you had to pick between shooting or charging, Assault had value that couldn't be neatly expressed with math. When you could charge a unit, kill only part of the unit, break it, and wipe it out with Sweeping Advance, that let melee units punch well above their on-paper weight and rewarded stacking factors to make that morale test fail- again, not something you can boil down to expected damage versus durability. The old AP system had its issues, but it set hard breakpoints that encouraged a rock-paper-scissors approach to weapon-target pairing rather than AP-1 or AP-2 being all-around good against everything. Morale made armies like Guard reliant on their officers, and susceptible to being broken without killing them to a man. All things that impacted decision-making beyond raw damage optimization.

For me, the 'soul' of 40K was a light beer-and-pretzels wargame with the zany sci-fi/fantasy stuff layered on top. It was exactly the sort of game you'd get by taking a bunch of guys who had grown up playing WW2 historicals and then having them design sci-fi. Over time it slowly bloated in complexity and cognitive load until being hard reset by the reimagining in 8th- but in the interest of simplifying the core mechanics, it stripped out and pared down a lot of those mechanics that reflected its historical origins and made it feel like a wargame.

I don't hate that 40K isn't what it used to be. Things change. If I do want to play a WW2 wargame where things like morale and suppression matter I have more options than ever before. Heck, if I want a game more akin to 6th-7th Ed 40K but with some modern iteration, strong morale focus, and a historical styling, HH2.0 is right there.

I just wish that when they keep trying to reboot 40K they'd actually reboot it, not just keep slapping popular modern mechanics onto what is still fundamentally a 1980s wargame structure. Playing Grimdark Future more has made me feel that all the bloat and chrome in 40K is ultimately a lot less impactful than basic things like activation structure, core unit capabilities, and combat resolution mechanics, all things that have remained largely unchanged in 40K since its inception.

I mean he's not wrong. Before even 8th edition things felt like they "belonged" in the context of the setting. Now it's random game elements applied for the sake of being game elements in a game, and making them feel like they're part of the setting is lost.

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

It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.

They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.

 Gert wrote:
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.

So your argument is that I'm right but should be nicer about it?

Thanks, lol.

 catbarf wrote:
It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.

They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.

And the point I was making is that they aren't actually articulating that very well because for every rule they can make a reason for liking previous editions and justify it with the background, I could absolutely do the same for either the current edition of 40k or could do the opposite for older editions.

Take Mob Rule. Orks got Fearless (one of the best rules in the game) if they were over 10 models because the more Orks there are, the more likely they are to fight. But that rule comes into effect if you have 11 Ork Boyz then disappears when you have 10. For the difference of one whole Ork Boy, the unit gets an amazing rule and loses it as soon as that model dies. Suddenly, the Orks are cowards again because one Ork died which is utterly contrary to how Orks actually think. Now if Mob Rule was more of an aura, say by having multiple units close together and then those units started to die off, then yes the rule would make sense. But losing one Ork and therefore losing an extremely powerful rule is silly.

How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.

Do you get my point?

 vipoid wrote:
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).

I feel SM is a bad choice because I think Marines have sucked since I started in the hobby circa 1996. (Primaris are still better models than stuff from 2008~ though).

I'm not sure DE can be saved, because I don't think there's anyone at GW that *gets* DE. But its not impossible DE are earmarked some big release in 2025, which will give them some new units for the first time in over a decade (and, in most cases, 25 years). Hope, as they say, springs eternal.
I think the changes to say DG and Tau have taken them from a similar position to a much better one.

I don't know for example whether the Tyranid Detachments have really opened up the Tyranid Codex. But I think its a significantly better position than DE.

Because I'm a masochist, I'm trying to start an Ad Mech force. Go stilt troopers go.

 catbarf wrote:

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

It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.

They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.

To nitpick, the example given was assault cannons having rending due to their immense rate of fire, hence had a 1/6 chance of negating an armour save. Their fluff hasn't changed and they still have a 1/6 chance of a negating an armour save. The difference now from my viewpoint is that it's more of a "game", with less flavour text and cut outs with little narrative flairs. Instead it's a profile with the numbers dumped on you, no flavour text etc. Which robs the entries of their feel.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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!"

Exalted for the laughs You do bring some good points though..

Reading these past few pages makes me think that one possible explanation for feeling that the game is "losing its soul" might stem from the many small changes that have increasingly lead the game from a "creative sandbox" into a more fixed, standardized "e-sports" type of game.. like you say, there is less and less room for customization, less whacky, swingy oddball things that might happen. Add up enough of such lessening of (viable) options, and you are suddenly lessening peoples investment into their game.. it becomes just another "shooter" you have fun with for a while before moving on to the next one, unless you become obsessed with it and want to become the best esports player ever torneying it out with other like minded obsessed esporters

Not saying this is how it is, just getting this kind of thoughts skimming theough some of the recent replies

 Gert wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.

They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.

And the point I was making is that they aren't actually articulating that very well because for every rule they can make a reason for liking previous editions and justify it with the background, I could absolutely do the same for either the current edition of 40k or could do the opposite for older editions.

Take Mob Rule. Orks got Fearless (one of the best rules in the game) if they were over 10 models because the more Orks there are, the more likely they are to fight. But that rule comes into effect if you have 11 Ork Boyz then disappears when you have 10. For the difference of one whole Ork Boy, the unit gets an amazing rule and loses it as soon as that model dies. Suddenly, the Orks are cowards again because one Ork died which is utterly contrary to how Orks actually think. Now if Mob Rule was more of an aura, say by having multiple units close together and then those units started to die off, then yes the rule would make sense. But losing one Ork and therefore losing an extremely powerful rule is silly.

How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.

Do you get my point?

Except you missed my point entirely.

It is clear what those abstractions represent - Orcs are fearless in large numbers, and Space Marines are almost fearless themselves.

It is not clear what Oath of Moment represents in the lore. At best you can say "Marines try harder when they're under an oath". I guess they don't try very hard unless they swear to though, like a morally convicted slacker.

What is the tether between the lore and Exterminator autocannons making the rest of the army -1 rend against their target? Why does the Punisher do Devastating Wounds to infantry? Are these abstractions of the same phenomenon?

What do IG orders represent? Why do they work the way they do? Is this really how the Chain of Command in the Imperial Guard functions in the universe, or is it just a game mechanic bolted on because why not?

My point was that there is no obvious tether to the lore. Your examples actually *provide* obvious tethers, even if they are badly implemented.

 tauist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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!"

Exalted for the laughs You do bring some good points though..

Reading these past few pages makes me think that one possible explanation for feeling that the game is "losing its soul" might stem from the many small changes that have increasingly lead the game from a "creative sandbox" into a more fixed, standardized "e-sports" type of game.. like you say, there is less and less room for customization, less whacky, swingy oddball things that might happen. Add up enough of such lessening of (viable) options, and you are suddenly lessening peoples investment into their game.. it becomes just another "shooter" you have fun with for a while before moving on to the next one, unless you become obsessed with it and want to become the best esports player ever torneying it out with other like minded obsessed esporters

Not saying this is how it is, just getting this kind of thoughts skimming theough some of the recent replies

There's very little to suggest the game has been designed around an e-sports or competitive model. If anything 10th has been designed around casual players complaining that everything was too complicated and that there was too much flavour.

Of course those same people are now complaining that their marine chapters don't feel special and that everything feels bland when this is exactly what they asked for.

 Bosskelot wrote:
There's very little to suggest the game has been designed around an e-sports or competitive model. If anything 10th has been designed around casual players complaining that everything was too complicated and that there was too much flavour.

Of course those same people are now complaining that their marine chapters don't feel special and that everything feels bland when this is exactly what they asked for.

I don't believe for a minute its the casual complaining things are too complicated, because all those complications and "system mastery" gotchas still exist, only now they're hidden under the surface so your average 40k player probably isn't going to even consider them, but your competitive player will. It definitely feels like they listened to the "a more streamlined competitive game" crowd, and in the process stripped all the flavor out of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is not clear what Oath of Moment represents in the lore. At best you can say "Marines try harder when they're under an oath". I guess they don't try very hard unless they swear to though, like a morally convicted slacker.

This is why I cannot stand Oath of Moment being the core rule for Marines this edition. I don't even care if it's powerful or not, it just doesn't make conceptual sense as an abstraction or within the fluff.

To start with, Oaths of Moment are not a 40k thing. They're a 30k thing. They were invented in the Horus Heresy series of books, and have been transferred over into 40k. Now there's nothing wrong with incorporating new fluff elements into 40k from 30k, but making them the defining rule of Marines, especially over:

1. And They Shall Know No Fear (which goes right back to 2nd Ed's 'Shaken' for Marines that failed a Break Test).
2. Combat Squads (a major part of their Doctrine-based combat, now only present in Tactical Squads).
3. Doctrine-based combat (of the three, the most recent to have mechanical rule effects, but far more intrinsic to Marines and how they have been portrayed for 30 years than Oaths of Moment).

... simply doesn't work. I'd much rather these three things continue to define Marines.

Then there's what they're representing: Everyone suddenly taking an oath that makes them try harder? What? How does that make any sense at all?

I have a similar problem with Dark Pacts. Chaos Marines make pacts with the Chaos Gods and daemonic entities. That's fine. But on such a micro-scale, each time they go to fire their guns or swing their swords? So much so that it can kill off members of the unit? That doesn't make conceptual sense. If they were doing that all the time they'd be taking more casualties from their own pacts than from the neemy.

I agree with everything else you've said as well.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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!"

didn't play 4th(had quit by then) but I will agree the feeling of the armies has left the building.

Nonsensical restrictions or classifications, arbitrary USRs, strats(less but still sucky), & BLAND MISSION INTERACTIONS.

After seeing my Salamanders continuing to just be green Ultras, Emperors Children just be purple/pink BL, Metallica + knights were not as bad but...close.
At this point I dont really even WANT to try my Speedwaaaaagh so unless a new faction comes out that I like the minis/fluff for, I'm basically done w 10th.

Luckily, 30k has suited me just fine, my Salamanders & EC feel like they should(fluff-wise), Metallica feel totally heavy & thrash.
Just want some ork & Eldar rules for the crusade and I'd be happy

 Gert wrote:

How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.

Do you get my point?

Haha I think that's a great example in UNITs favor. In pre 8th, ATSKNF represented the high level of discipline loyalists had to their unit, which was more of a selfless dedication to their cause, and coming to their brothers aid in crisis. Unit cohesion was strong in the face of catastrophe.

Chaos Marines however (in the cases I recall) had higher base Ld, exactly because they had been to hell and back. But they didn't have ATSKNF because when push came to shove, CSM are more inclined towards selfish self preservation than looking out for their brothers. You could have units with Ld 10, or Fearless berzerkers, but not the same unit cohesion that stemmed from a willingness for self sacrifice to a greater cause.

I haven't eyed the CSM units closely since 8th when I last played them, but I wonder if any of that pre-7th design is there beyond "Loyalists Morale Stronk, HUR".

Karol wrote:

 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?

If you believe this logic then why do you spend so much time complaining about GKs when you could just ally in (Read: replace 90% of your army with) SMs and play them instead?

Tyel wrote:

I'm not sure DE can be saved, because I don't think there's anyone at GW that *gets* DE. But its not impossible DE are earmarked some big release in 2025, which will give them some new units for the first time in over a decade (and, in most cases, 25 years). Hope, as they say, springs eternal.
I think the changes to say DG and Tau have taken them from a similar position to a much better one.

I admire your optimism but if DE get a major release before 2030 I'll eat my laptop.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.

Do you get my point?

Haha I think that's a great example in UNITs favor. In pre 8th, ATSKNF represented the high level of discipline loyalists had to their unit, which was more of a selfless dedication to their cause, and coming to their brothers aid in crisis. Unit cohesion was strong in the face of catastrophe.

Chaos Marines however (in the cases I recall) had higher base Ld, exactly because they had been to hell and back. But they didn't have ATSKNF because when push came to shove, CSM are more inclined towards selfish self preservation than looking out for their brothers. You could have units with Ld 10, or Fearless berzerkers, but not the same unit cohesion that stemmed from a willingness for self sacrifice to a greater cause.

I haven't eyed the CSM units closely since 8th when I last played them, but I wonder if any of that pre-7th design is there beyond "Loyalists Morale Stronk, HUR".

Yeah, I was going to bring this up - the bitter irony of Gert's post is he points out a rule that actually takes advantage of deep core rules to make the story better.

As you say, CSMs always had a higher leadership (individually) - so if discipline was maintained, they were 'arder. What ATSKNF did was change how the Marines *failed* morale - if you could get them to break, CSM really were broken and shattered as a unit, being able to be seen off more easily. Loyalist SM were easier to break in the first place (they don't live in hell) but they didn't shatter quite so catastrophically when they did break.

It's a wonderful abstraction of a group of hard-bitten, almost criminal mercs who have "seen some gak" but are ultimately in it for themselves vice a group of brainwashed soldiers training together since they were young adults and religiously convicted not to abandon one another.

I mean the difference there was always CSM were selfish, Marines are indoctrinated to stay because fleeing is cowardice to the Emperor or whatnot, CSM would be like "feth this I'm saving my own skin"

Dudeface 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.

Well, they also eliminated an entire phase of the game (psychic) and rebuilt another entire phase of the game (morale); the missions for the base game are now generated by a card deck, they eliminated subfaction traits for every faction in the game to the point where now any space Marine is equally a Space Wolf, and a Blood Angel, and a Dark Angel and Ultramarine depending on which detachment the player chooses; they eliminated an entire game mode and created another; they removed a game size, they made vehicles relevant again, reduced by more than 80% the number of strats available to a player during any given game and reworked CP to make strats even less important, and they went through weapon profiles with the biggest consolidation hammer we've seen in a good long time, and then made what was left over FREE....

There have been only 3 edition changes greater than those from 9th-10th: 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, and 7th-8th.

 Gert wrote:
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.

No the rules themselves are goofy. Reroll cancer especially got out of control because the modern wargame essentially coddles the player for not making mistakes, along with dice bloat to ensure mathematically something gets through. Rather than a tactical, grounded experience where one model gets one attack unless something very rarely manages to increase that number, you get so many dice to ensure your cool, special cool guys never completely flub an attack or a shooting action so you don't feel bad. This was also the issue with stratagems and still exists with how many of the new special rules work, rather than a punishment for bad play you get a plethora of get out of jail free cards for screwing up, wherein you just magically improve a unit's firepower or manage to make them just not die (somehow). It's ridiculous and has no place in a wargame, although the core issue is just that 40k isn't a wargame anymore, and hasn't been for a while at this point.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Gert wrote:
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.

No the rules themselves are goofy. Reroll cancer especially got out of control because the modern wargame essentially coddles the player for not making mistakes, along with dice bloat to ensure mathematically something gets through. Rather than a tactical, grounded experience where one model gets one attack unless something very rarely manages to increase that number, you get so many dice to ensure your cool, special cool guys never completely flub an attack or a shooting action so you don't feel bad. This was also the issue with stratagems and still exists with how many of the new special rules work, rather than a punishment for bad play you get a plethora of get out of jail free cards for screwing up, wherein you just magically improve a unit's firepower or manage to make them just not die (somehow). It's ridiculous and has no place in a wargame, although the core issue is just that 40k isn't a wargame anymore, and hasn't been for a while at this point.

Don't forget the absolute hilarity of them saying that there were less re-rolls, and then IMMEDIATELY showing army wide full re-rolls (Oath)

Wayniac wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Gert wrote:
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.

No the rules themselves are goofy. Reroll cancer especially got out of control because the modern wargame essentially coddles the player for not making mistakes, along with dice bloat to ensure mathematically something gets through. Rather than a tactical, grounded experience where one model gets one attack unless something very rarely manages to increase that number, you get so many dice to ensure your cool, special cool guys never completely flub an attack or a shooting action so you don't feel bad. This was also the issue with stratagems and still exists with how many of the new special rules work, rather than a punishment for bad play you get a plethora of get out of jail free cards for screwing up, wherein you just magically improve a unit's firepower or manage to make them just not die (somehow). It's ridiculous and has no place in a wargame, although the core issue is just that 40k isn't a wargame anymore, and hasn't been for a while at this point.

Don't forget the absolute hilarity of them saying that there were less re-rolls, and then IMMEDIATELY showing army wide full re-rolls (Oath)

If there's three things I hate the most in the changes from 7e to the new system(s) it's been the mass addition of rerolls for everyone and their dog, the rampant growth of dice rolls for units getting attacks or shots out the ass, and stratagems or stratagem like mechanics which just arbitrarily buff the hell out of a unit with zero tactics involved. It's just so un-wargame and feels like a child's action adventure game. Regardless for all I care 40k could just die tomorrow, my main interest is now pivoted to historicals and WHFB 6e and perhaps WAP. GW can't make good games at all anymore as far as I see it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

No i get that, but you seem to be implying that the new way is bad, which i disagree with

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

No i get that, but you seem to be implying that the new way is bad, which i disagree with

The new way is bad in the sense its this monopose "Part 42 goes with arm 43 and legs 45" crap, so no variety between anything if I'm not misunderstanding? Buy two boxes of plague marines, which should not look identical (whereas Rubrics are all basically automatons), and they'll look basically identical because there's no variation in assembly.

Wayniac wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

No i get that, but you seem to be implying that the new way is bad, which i disagree with

The new way is bad in the sense its this monopose "Part 42 goes with arm 43 and legs 45" crap, so no variety between anything if I'm not misunderstanding? Buy two boxes of plague marines, which should not look identical (whereas Rubrics are all basically automatons), and they'll look basically identical because there's no variation in assembly.

but then they picked deathguard to complain about it, which ISNT how the kits work. there is some mix and match possible with no conversion

Wayniac wrote:
I mean the difference there was always CSM were selfish, Marines are indoctrinated to stay because fleeing is cowardice to the Emperor or whatnot, CSM would be like "feth this I'm saving my own skin"

Right, and the rules reflected that, is the point!

Where's that now? What's the mechanical difference between Iron Hands and Iron Warriors?

One is self-loathing and hurts themselves whilst surrounded by a religion they know is a lie, and the other is Iron Warriors?

And then that lack of variation bleeds into the rules. It's a regression.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And then that lack of variation bleeds into the rules. It's a regression.

NMNR was harmless and GW was justified though, because they had to squish those 3rd party sculptors, or else they might have not made such massive profit!

Won't someone think of the profits?!

 catbarf wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
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.

I think that's a very good appraisal- particularly the point about soft factors. When Rapid Fire meant you had to pick between shooting or charging, Assault had value that couldn't be neatly expressed with math. When you could charge a unit, kill only part of the unit, break it, and wipe it out with Sweeping Advance, that let melee units punch well above their on-paper weight and rewarded stacking factors to make that morale test fail- again, not something you can boil down to expected damage versus durability. The old AP system had its issues, but it set hard breakpoints that encouraged a rock-paper-scissors approach to weapon-target pairing rather than AP-1 or AP-2 being all-around good against everything. Morale made armies like Guard reliant on their officers, and susceptible to being broken without killing them to a man. All things that impacted decision-making beyond raw damage optimization.

For me, the 'soul' of 40K was a light beer-and-pretzels wargame with the zany sci-fi/fantasy stuff layered on top. It was exactly the sort of game you'd get by taking a bunch of guys who had grown up playing WW2 historicals and then having them design sci-fi. Over time it slowly bloated in complexity and cognitive load until being hard reset by the reimagining in 8th- but in the interest of simplifying the core mechanics, it stripped out and pared down a lot of those mechanics that reflected its historical origins and made it feel like a wargame.

I don't hate that 40K isn't what it used to be. Things change. If I do want to play a WW2 wargame where things like morale and suppression matter I have more options than ever before. Heck, if I want a game more akin to 6th-7th Ed 40K but with some modern iteration, strong morale focus, and a historical styling, HH2.0 is right there.

I just wish that when they keep trying to reboot 40K they'd actually reboot it, not just keep slapping popular modern mechanics onto what is still fundamentally a 1980s wargame structure. Playing Grimdark Future more has made me feel that all the bloat and chrome in 40K is ultimately a lot less impactful than basic things like activation structure, core unit capabilities, and combat resolution mechanics, all things that have remained largely unchanged in 40K since its inception.

Some of this is true, some of this is revisionist history.

Armies being reliant on specific characters/gimmicks to survive morale was 100% a 'hard factor'. You either DID do the gimmick (run 4 officer characters, run boys as a brick of 30, etc) and survived moral, or didn't and got killed by it (literally or figuratively depending on edition).

Same with AP. Your guns were either AP-3 or they were AP-0. Having AP-4 meant nothing. Hell, AP-2 didn't matter unless you were shooting at a tank most of the time. It wasn't rock, paper, scissors; it was rock y/n?

The stuff about combat is correct and was one of the most baffling changes to 10th.

I can't argue your overall point, because that's very subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I mean the difference there was always CSM were selfish, Marines are indoctrinated to stay because fleeing is cowardice to the Emperor or whatnot, CSM would be like "feth this I'm saving my own skin"

Right, and the rules reflected that, is the point!

Where's that now? What's the mechanical difference between Iron Hands and Iron Warriors?

One is self-loathing and hurts themselves whilst surrounded by a religion they know is a lie, and the other is Iron Warriors?

A marine is a marine. The amount of spikes changes absolutely nothing. People pretend their special snowflake goodguy marine is better than the other guy's special snowflake bad guy marine, but they're always wrong.

That's been true since the 80s.

 catbarf wrote:

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

It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.

They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.

Taking the Marine Codex as an example - its good that every chapter can run each of the Formations. Its bad that the chapter the formation is designed to highlight doesn't synergize with a chapter tactic type of booster for that chapter - or even that works/interacts with multiple formations for multiple approaches that chapter exemplifies - i.e. give Imperial Fists a tactic that synergizes with Anvil Seige Force and potentially Fury of the First and Vanguard Spearheads (which have some wonky options for infiltrating Terminators/Gravis)

ERJAK wrote:

A marine is a marine. The amount of spikes changes absolutely nothing. People pretend their special snowflake goodguy marine is better than the other guy's special snowflake bad guy marine, but they're always wrong.

That's been true since the 80s.

Uhhhh . . . See the very recent previous posts regarding Loyalists, CSM, ATSKNF and Ld.