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.
2023/10/19 17:30:32
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
I'd argue that's an expectation that GW has the power quell by setting product expectations and promoting a culture of customization and part swapping.
. . .
Or maybe just including more sprues in a character kit that costs 40 f***ing dollars.
Wasn't 1750 and then 1850 some ITC crap they came up with? I do recall some tournaments being at 1999 + 1 so basically 2000 but limiting to one force organization chart, Because at 2K you got a second one. Then for some reason GW decided to focus on 2000 as the standard and make a lot of things not really work at 1000.
I wish the standard was still 1500. Hell I wish that a tournament out there would do it at 1500 just to show the difference. But chances are the people would complain about it even if it worked well.
No the points numbers existed before ITC did. in the main rulebook it has always listed the original FOC 2/6/3/3/3 as only working up to 2,500 points above that point you get into apocalypse level games where the FOC is meaningless and is ignored.
Gibblets wrote:For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. Also my 3 armies are garbage tier, which ruins it further. Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.
As HBMC also pointed out....if the table doesn't look inviting then it does not draw in the players. having a building sitting int he middle of the road because there is a mirror one on the other side doesn't make for a good table that forces players to adapt to the terrain. or enhance the setting.
As a player who has been playing miniature games since 1987 (battle tech) and 40K (since 2001) i have so many minis now i will never need to buy anything else, what i have become is a terrain aficionado. i have complete sets designed for specific game mats i have collected including for 40K alone a set for-necrons, tau, imperial city, space marine outpost, admech factory, imperial guard outpost. then there is all the mid evil terrain for warmachine, WWII style terrain for DUST, small scale terrain for classic battle tech or epic 40K, space terrain, victory at sea micro naval terrain, general desert, woodlands, a bunch of cyberpunk terrain for infinity and so on. If anybody has seen my battle report pics you can see how some of these table look. it draws players into the game, into the setting and generally adds an extra positive element to war gaming.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP
2023/10/19 17:51:37
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
I'd argue that's an expectation that GW has the power quell by setting product expectations and promoting a culture of customization and part swapping.
. . .
Or maybe just including more sprues in a character kit that costs 40 f***ing dollars.
What. GW actually putting enough sprues and bits on sprues in an box?
Are you nuts that could cut into their pure profit margin.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2023/10/19 18:07:23
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
For me it's not about Legends vs not Legends, it's about functional vs non-functional datasheets. The percentage of Legends units before 9e was zero, whereas the percentage of mechanically useless datasheets was... very high. Didn't matter that they weren't "Legends", their rules were so non-functional that they might as well not exist against players who are actually trying to win the game.
Meanwhile in 10e it feels like more units than ever before from the cheapest chaff to the biggest baddest elites have some role to play in an effective army composition. Across game after game I've found that the biggest heroes turn out to be the random low-point trash units running around playing the mission rather than the usual unkillable deathstars or devastating gunlines. The significantly reduced emphasis on pure killing has been my favorite thing about modern 40k.
2023/10/19 18:13:24
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
I'd argue that's an expectation that GW has the power quell by setting product expectations and promoting a culture of customization and part swapping.
. . .
Or maybe just including more sprues in a character kit that costs 40 f***ing dollars.
What. GW actually putting enough sprues and bits on sprues in an box?
Are you nuts that could cut into their pure profit margin.
Anyone else remember these?
Every character would come with a sprue of arms and a batch of options, they packed them into that tiny blister alongside the metal model. People be all like "Sprues are so packed nowadays!" but if the box is half empty I kinda question the point.
I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
Asymmetry is a super important part of setting up tables for Infinity and picking a side based on the matchup is an important skill to develop.
Infinity tables are automatically nicer looking than 40k tables.
As for named characters being "necessary" for certain factions, sure its boring, but i personally can easily handwave it away and proxy a custom character using these datasheet for example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/19 18:17:40
2023/10/19 18:16:09
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
For me it's not about Legends vs not Legends, it's about functional vs non-functional datasheets. The percentage of Legends units before 9e was zero, whereas the percentage of mechanically useless datasheets was... very high. Didn't matter that they weren't "Legends", their rules were so non-functional that they might as well not exist against players who are actually trying to win the game.
Meanwhile in 10e it feels like more units than ever before from the cheapest chaff to the biggest baddest elites have some role to play in an effective army composition. Across game after game I've found that the biggest heroes turn out to be the random low-point trash units running around playing the mission rather than the usual unkillable deathstars or devastating gunlines. The significantly reduced emphasis on pure killing has been my favorite thing about modern 40k.
Oh I get it, having more datasheets being useable is a great thing to have, and I applaud GW for it. But it's a net loss for me if they're removing my units and options from the game at the same time.
I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
Asymmetry is a super important part of setting up tables for Infinity and picking a side based on the matchup is an important skill to develop.
Infinity tables are automatically nicer looking than 40k tables.
I remember saying this here on Dakkadakka a few years ago and Mike Brandt himself came online to tell me I was wrong and picking table sides is not a skill.
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
legends are still legal to play with tbh, unless you're spamming tournaments but i don't think its your kind of playstyle considering the contents of your posts
2023/10/19 18:20:44
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Gibblets wrote: For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. Also my 3 armies are garbage tier, which ruins it further. Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.
Outside of a tourny, why are you letting others dictate how the terrain gets set up?
You should both be having a say in it.
And if it's actually YOUR table? As in you're hosting the game? Then don't invite the simps over. Or if you do, just inform them of how things will be.
2023/10/19 18:21:31
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
it's kinda understandable tbh.
GW has three options :
1. Put more bits in their kits (so it costs them more money to produce)
2. Allow conversions/third party (which bit them in the ass in the past)
3. NMNR ++
Now GW has poorly implemented the 3rd one considering all the deviations we see (thunder hammer + shield in that example but theres many more).
Now i'm not saying its a good thing, i'm just saying its an understandable decision coming for a public company.
I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
Asymmetry is a super important part of setting up tables for Infinity and picking a side based on the matchup is an important skill to develop.
Infinity tables are automatically nicer looking than 40k tables.
I remember saying this here on Dakkadakka a few years ago and Mike Brandt himself came online to tell me I was wrong and picking table sides is not a skill.
And now we get boring "roll a dice and the loser picks the side and starts deploying first"
And then "roll a dice and the winner HAS to play first"
The start of the game is so scuffed, i'd say it's my main dissapointment with current 40k. Once the game is going, i find 10th to be really enjoyable
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/19 18:24:07
2023/10/19 18:24:13
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I mean let's have a look at GW's most recentDunning Kruger Comedy Fest Metawatch article:
Spoiler:
Does that look like fun? To make Sisters work you've got to bring not one, not two, but three special characters? Makes me wonder when does it stop being "Your guys" and become "Their guys" if your list contains multiple special characters. I imagine that if Marines didn't have the Chapter distinction, we'd be seeing lists with multi-chapter Special Characters as well. Also, near as I can tell, the Death Cult Assassins are there just to fulfil the Dedicated Transport requirement.
I absolutely agree on the "Your guys" vs. "Their guys" aspect.
Thing is, though, so many options have been removed that even a lot of generic characters are functionally identical to special characters because both are locked into fixed builds/wargear.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2023/10/19 18:25:01
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I mean let's have a look at GW's most recentDunning Kruger Comedy Fest Metawatch article:
Spoiler:
Does that look like fun? To make Sisters work you've got to bring not one, not two, but three special characters? Makes me wonder when does it stop being "Your guys" and become "Their guys" if your list contains multiple special characters. I imagine that if Marines didn't have the Chapter distinction, we'd be seeing lists with multi-chapter Special Characters as well. Also, near as I can tell, the Death Cult Assassins are there just to fulfil the Dedicated Transport requirement.
I absolutely agree on the "Your guys" vs. "Their guys" aspect.
Thing is, though, so many options have been removed that even a lot of generic characters are functionally identical to special characters because both are locked into fixed builds/wargear.
HH 2.0 does characters best, and i've played 1 game of it lol.
2023/10/19 18:33:38
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
It is my table and I wish good luck to someone trying finding anyone in my area who can handle a table that isn't GW standard. FFS in 9th most of the gaks around here didn't know how to use forests, walls and scatter debris in game, I had to teach them on my table in game. If it's not an L shaped ruin they can't imagine how to use it. So lucky me that means 0 games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/19 18:34:03
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
1000pt Skitari Legion
2023/10/19 18:35:14
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
legends are still legal to play with tbh, unless you're spamming tournaments but i don't think its your kind of playstyle considering the contents of your posts
"Tournament adjacent" culture is something that I've spent a lot of time in, and would totally play more of if I could, so units in Legends becomes problematic.
As an example of 10e's reduced emphasis on killing, my changeling was an absolute hero in my last game, not because he sat in a clump of units buffing everyone around him doing nothing as he would have done in previous editions, but because he successfully held my backfield objective by himself after getting charged by a friggin' Yncarne.
The changeling has a bunch of unique rules where if you want to attack him you have to pass a morale test. If you fail it, you can't attack him, and your Objective Control goes to 0. Doesn't matter if you're a primarch, an eldar god, or a swarm of 50 gants. If you charge a Changeling to try and sweep him off an objective, squishy as he is, there is always a 30-40% chance you will do absolutely nothing -- you won't kill him, you won't take the point, and you will lose the ability to use potentially key stratagems over the next turn (remember, just about all stratagems are very good now). Huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power but due to well-designed mechanics.
Those David and Goliath scenarios of the cheeky little guys outplaying the big scary monsters are all over the place in 10th. In the past the only metrics that mattered were scary unit and scarier unit. It was all very one-dimensional. With the new missions and objective control rules, the little guys really start to have their moments of glory, without being super killy or durable, or acting as some boring, passive buff piece.
Like everyone else I wish there was more flavor. But mechanically speaking I find 10e a lot more compelling than any edition I've played thus far.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/10/19 18:58:39
2023/10/19 18:47:15
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
My issue is still with how they equate "balanced faction" with "tournament win rate", when IMHO if the faction does well in tournaments but with one single "meta" build, that actually means the (inter-faction) balance is awful and isn't something that should be lauded. But the tournament players don't care WHAT works in a faction, as long as there's one meta choice, and will happily say there's balance if every faction has one meta build, when that's not at all the case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/19 18:49:02
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2023/10/19 19:06:30
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: ). Huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power but due to well-designed mechanics.
Or, looking at it from another point of view, a huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power or anything a player does, but due to blind luck of a single high-variance, high-impact totally unpredictable roll.
2023/10/19 19:07:00
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I've played around 40 games of 10th, and internal balance I've found is... weird. Some armies are surprisingly internally balanced with a handful of outliers (Vanilla Marines, Tau), some have only certain sections internally balanced (Eldar [aspects suck], Guard) and some are just down in the dumps requiring specific units to try and bring them up and if you deviate from that, you lose (GSC, Admech, Sisters)
2023/10/19 19:29:36
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: ). Huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power but due to well-designed mechanics.
Or, looking at it from another point of view, a huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power or anything a player does, but due to blind luck of a single high-variance, high-impact totally unpredictable roll.
What about it is unpredictable? You know the precise odds of triggering the Changeling's ability before you charge. And it's an ability that is easily defeated by simply committing a second unit to the charge. You don't even have to commit particularly killy units. The changeling is squishy as hell. The counterplay is to attack it with two of literally anything. What makes this scenario interesting is that unlike previous editions where the only axis that ever mattered was how killy/durable a unit was, 10e rules enable slow, squishy, low-damage units like the Changeling to come out on top in a 1v1 duel against something as mobile, killy, and durable as an eldar god. This is only possible because of GW's increased focus on gameplay over purely lore-driven design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ProfSrlojohn wrote: some have only certain sections internally balanced (Eldar [aspects suck], Guard) and some are just down in the dumps requiring specific units to try and bring them up and if you deviate from that, you lose (GSC, Admech, Sisters)
It's true that internal balance is not perfect. It likely never will be as I suspect it is a conscious decision by GW to ensure there is always a rotation of viable and unviable units every edition. You know, to keep you buying things. That's why banshees are trash now, why planes and reapers were trash last edition (after their sins in 8th) and are still trash now. Since this is a business-driven design decision, I don't expect this to change.
What's more important though is that within the pool of functional units there is a good level of variety in listbuilding. I'd argue that as long as you're approaching the game from a mechanical standpoint (and not fluff) the variety we're seeing now is better than it's ever been. I miss the flavor for sure, but we did get some pretty cool things in return.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2023/10/19 19:51:12
2023/10/19 20:16:26
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Regarding the discussion of balance I would draw comparison as I chronically do now when discussing 40k's woes, to historicals The entire idea of having to establish a perfect equilibrium of balance between armies is not only impossible, but stupid as the problem lies not with any state of balance but with the entire approach to the wargame that competitive play introduces. Rather than treating it as an experience wherein one might even try to learn playing the game, such as putting yourself into outmanned scenarios or the like, gameplay has always been pushed around these specific, completely abstracted from any common sense of a battlefield, tournament style setups where two as equal as possible forces collide over arbitrary objectives where a win state can include losing 90% of your army provided you killed 100% of the opposing side. No gak games last for four hours when you have two forces grinding themselves down willy nilly. It also just creates a poisoned framework from which there's no win, you're never going to get that perfect balance, and striving for it you might eradicate what makes one force unique.
For example in Field of Glory, if I bring a list of Irishmen circa 1300 up against the English list of 1300, I'm in a rough fething spot to say the least because obviously, Irish aren't really known for having a fabulously equipped militant class at the time and I'm coping with a lot of medium foot that will outright lose any headfirst engagement. Which is why such a force would never seek such engagement in the first place and having an Irish army face an English one on flat, featureless plains terrain represents a decisive defeat 10 days ago whenever some Irish lord thought that army maneuver was a great idea. That's why wargaming is about scenarios, campaigns, objectives, terrain, morale, etc.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
2023/10/19 20:25:38
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
I would love to get into historicals someday. As I understand it, 40k is not really a wargame in the traditional sense. 30k leans that direction but I'd assume there are still plenty of differences.
2023/10/19 20:27:39
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: I would love to get into historicals someday. As I understand it, 40k is not really a wargame in the traditional sense. 30k leans that direction but I'd assume there are still plenty of differences.
They're so cheap you can literally just get two armies for the price of a single 40k one, or even less, and forcibly loop some unfortunate friend or family member into the hobby.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
2023/10/19 20:38:27
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
40k has never really been played as an historical.
Once upon a time GW books came with little scenarios with somewhat defined forces to try to simulate a lore battle, but I don't think I have ever met anyone that actually played those.
Thus comparing 40k to historicals is kinda pointless, because the community will never play it as an historical.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/19 20:49:35
2023/10/19 20:39:35
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Interestingly enough, my buddy got into 30k recently and was talking about how it had more "soul" than 40k. I suppose what he meant by that was that 30k has a greater focus on storytelling and is generally closer to the experience of traditional wargaming.
Modern 40k is definitely moving away from that and towards something more like a competitive TCG. Your "deck" is less an expression of your narrative interests, and more an expression of your gameplay style. Whether or not that's positive depends on the kind of game you're looking for. For a lot of people it's very positive. For many others the game has lost its soul. Personally I enjoy all kinds of games, and am enthusiastic about finding enjoyment in new experiences. Of course that won't be the case for everyone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/19 20:45:41
2023/10/19 20:46:22
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
artific3r wrote: Interestingly enough, my buddy got into 30k recently and was talking about how it had more "soul" than 40k. I suppose what he meant by that was that 30k has a greater focus on storytelling and is generally closer to the experience of traditional wargaming.
Modern 40k is definitely moving away from that and towards something more like a competitive TCG. Your "deck" is less an expression of your narrative interests, and more an expression of your gameplay style. Whether or not that's positive depends on the kind of game you're looking for. For a lot of people it's very positive. For many others the game has lost its soul. Personally I enjoy all kinds of games, and am enthusiastic about finding enjoyment in new experiences. Of course that won't be the case for everyone.
I've heard that a lot about 30k, that it attracts people who are way more chill and want to tell a story, not "here's my competitive list" like 40k. Sure you get the powergamers sometimes, but they tend to be weeded out in 30k because most people don't want that crap, so will ignore them.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2023/10/19 20:51:12
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
What sucks about HH is that there's no Xenos. It just can't be a replacement for 40k. 40k is where the fun, creativity, and personality should be. Not in some fluff-spank "pseudo-historical".
I'm super excited about starting a 30k legion someday for that exact reason. Just a totally different flavor of game, which is alright in my book. Also super hyped for Legions Imperialis. I just hope I can find some opponents. Wasn't able to find anyone to fight my Tempestus maniple in AT over the past 3 years :(
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: 40k is where the fun, creativity, and personality should be. Not in some fluff-spank "pseudo-historical".
This highlights another subset of 40k fans that's been getting neglected lately. Those who really enjoy the wide-open, highly-personalized, highly creative, expressive aspects of the setting will not be satisfied by 30k. There might be some overlap between this group and the historicals group, but they are not quite the same. If GW was smart they would find a way to build a product for this group. But I think that's hard, because you cannot match the sheer size and scope of mainline 40k without a lot of money coming in, and it's precisely that scope that makes 40k great for the really creative fans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/19 21:06:48
2023/10/19 21:11:19
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?