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.
2023/10/20 19:25:03
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Oh, terrain has never been an issue in our games. Our dogma states that one player sets up the board and another chooses their deployment zone. Ends up being assymmetrical but reasonably balanced (both players can veto to move single items on the board before choosing delpoyment, but this is done in good faith)
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
2023/10/20 22:10:31
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
This. The terrain rules in most wargames are atrocious. Terrain guidelines should be standardized - i.e. buildings shall be constructed of such that they have 1/4" thick walls and 5" height floor-to-floor. Hills shall be constructed in a terraced style of 1" height per level with a 2" lip, etc. Whatever works for the scale and nature of the game in question. The game should define the size of standard pieces (i.e. small pieces are 5"x3" and 2 levels high, medium ruins are 6"x8" and 3 levels high, large ruins are 12" square and 4 levels high), categorize them (area terrain, obstruction, rough terrain, scatter, etc.), and then define how many of each type and size you should have for a given table size and points level, etc. THEN, there should be setup rules (spacing, zones in which certain types can and can't be placed, etc.). I haven't looked at the 40k rulebook in a bit, but I'm pretty sure it still recommends that your terrain should cover about 25% of the table and thats about the extent of it - that is entirely meaningless. 25% of the table with what - line of site blockers? Area terrain? 25% of the table being covered with aegis defense lines will give you a very different experience from a game of 25% low hills or 25% ruins.
Good lord. As if 40k didn't have enough rules already. No game needs terrain construction specifications. That would be just another way for GW to try and corral us into buying their own terrain kits. Is every game going to have their own terrain construction rules? Are we going to have to have separate, precisely-measured terrain sets for every game we play?
Must everything be spoon fed to players?
I would argue for less of this sort of foolishness and instead ask more maturity from players.
The solution for terrain setups is the same solution I offer up when folks argue about competitive vs narrative games (often a false dichotomy, but I digress...). What is needed is simply for players to have a conversation with their opponents about what kind of game they want to play, how they envision the battlefield to look, how they want to get there and possibly what scenario to play. Possibly followed by a dice roll for sides.
Yeah, because giving players the exact specifications they need to construct their own terrain seamlessly suitable for play within the construct of the rules means you can only use terrain designed by one particular company. Makes perfect sense.
Your response here is the only immature thing about this discussion.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2023/10/21 01:44:55
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
I'm going to start with a picture that I've had in my gallery for over 13 years, long before this cancerous symmetrical nonsense ever came about. It was my criticism of a table set that I felt was inadequate. Not London GT inadequate, for those who remember that debacle, but still quite insufficient for a game of 40k:
Many of you know my passion/obsession with terrain, and this is part of why symmetrical builds annoy me so much. They are anti-creative, don't tell stories, and as people have been repeating throughout this thread, they breed this mentality is all you have to do is bring your netdeck list that you didn't write to pre-set tables using pre-set missions and you're a "competitive gamer". It's bollocks, pure and simple. Some of the best games I've ever played - even competitive ones - have been so because the terrain changed how we had to approach the game. I still remember an ancient Adepticon report from Janthkin (IIRC) talking about how one table had a big sign-post/billboard on one side that became the focal point of their defence. Moments like that are what make terrain interesting, where it becomes a big part of the game, not just some imagined method of "balancing" two sides that are already and inherently imbalanced.
So here are some of my recent tables (some of these were test shots for layouts before I painted the terrain):
Spoiler:
In that last one, during the final game, there was a lot more "stuff" in that empty middle. The pic you see was just the test to figure out the layout of the walls and the various sections of the cargo/docks area.
Terrain is important. Any claim that games need symmetry for "balance" are bunk. This is a recent phenomena. Nothing more than a brain bug that has settled in the heads of a few prominent tournament runners (some of whom have terrain sets to sell... hmm... ) and has propagated like a disease.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/21 01:47:12
feth. I need a cigarette after looking at those photos.
Terrain is the third army on the table. The game is (or was... but still should be) just as much about beating your opponent as it is about wrestling with the terrain - thats like, pretty much what war *is* and you can't have a *war*game if you aren't.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2023/10/21 04:28:18
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
For a while I've thought that tournaments should be their own rules set.
Like combat patrols are currently.
Here are our fixed army lists tested into the ground for balance, here is our symmetrical terrain so you both have identical challenges.
Go nuts...
Because tournaments are now purely win measuring contests, they really want a game of chess with 40k colours, that way the only variables are their skill and the dice (maybe they could just get rid of the dice and give each unit in the locked down tournament lists an average percentage success value and then it's purely their skill - that's going back to the rock paper scissors of little wars...).
IMO if tournaments had their own army list ecosystem restricted to purely balanced lists, maybe 3 per faction, then maybe casual gaming wouldn't get as subsumed by tournament culture because it would be where your personality and creativity existed.
HBMCs examples look beautiful, but many of them are far too open in my opinion. 3 and 9 stand out as shooting galleries with far too little cover, especially for vehicles (can even a Rhino hide anywhere on 9?) These are pretty bad imo.
I like 2, 4 and 6 a lot, I think they are really good, but I would still add some more cover in DZs (assuming long deployments).
And yeah I absolutely agree that symmetry is neither good or necessary.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/10/21 06:59:13
2023/10/21 08:16:34
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
I'm going to start with a picture that I've had in my gallery for over 13 years, long before this cancerous symmetrical nonsense ever came about. It was my criticism of a table set that I felt was inadequate. Not London GT inadequate, for those who remember that debacle, but still quite insufficient for a game of 40k:
Many of you know my passion/obsession with terrain, and this is part of why symmetrical builds annoy me so much. They are anti-creative, don't tell stories, and as people have been repeating throughout this thread, they breed this mentality is all you have to do is bring your netdeck list that you didn't write to pre-set tables using pre-set missions and you're a "competitive gamer". It's bollocks, pure and simple. Some of the best games I've ever played - even competitive ones - have been so because the terrain changed how we had to approach the game. I still remember an ancient Adepticon report from Janthkin (IIRC) talking about how one table had a big sign-post/billboard on one side that became the focal point of their defence. Moments like that are what make terrain interesting, where it becomes a big part of the game, not just some imagined method of "balancing" two sides that are already and inherently imbalanced.
So here are some of my recent tables (some of these were test shots for layouts before I painted the terrain):
Spoiler:
In that last one, during the final game, there was a lot more "stuff" in that empty middle. The pic you see was just the test to figure out the layout of the walls and the various sections of the cargo/docks area.
Terrain is important. Any claim that games need symmetry for "balance" are bunk. This is a recent phenomena. Nothing more than a brain bug that has settled in the heads of a few prominent tournament runners (some of whom have terrain sets to sell... hmm... ) and has propagated like a disease.
Dude , put a nsfw warning there for that table porn!!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/21 09:31:56
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.
2023/10/21 10:48:38
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Hellebore wrote: For a while I've thought that tournaments should be their own rules set.
Like combat patrols are currently.
Here are our fixed army lists tested into the ground for balance, here is our symmetrical terrain so you both have identical challenges.
Go nuts...
Because tournaments are now purely win measuring contests, they really want a game of chess with 40k colours, that way the only variables are their skill and the dice (maybe they could just get rid of the dice and give each unit in the locked down tournament lists an average percentage success value and then it's purely their skill - that's going back to the rock paper scissors of little wars...).
IMO if tournaments had their own army list ecosystem restricted to purely balanced lists, maybe 3 per faction, then maybe casual gaming wouldn't get as subsumed by tournament culture because it would be where your personality and creativity existed.
all this would do is mean anything else doesn't exist. We already saw that with the optional matched play addendums for events: people just used them all the time, every time, even for friendly games because people keep pushing that "if it's good for tournaments it benefits your casual games too" gak.
You'd see people tell others who ask for starting an army to just buy one of the competitive lists and nothing else (already a problem as you get people even now who buy a specific list rather then build a collection to choose from).
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2023/10/21 11:54:27
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Just my small opinion on this:
I am not YET into the game. So I could just see the rules and I am not sure what about to think.
When I started the game, I think it was 7th edition?
Then they started to 'washing up' the factions.
I was an Imperial Guard player in core meanings.
When they 'strip away' the Platoon-System my army felt like 'faceless'. Especially cause I was an infantry based player and it often occur that I had like 2 platoons in any of my list. Now that wasn't possible anymore.
Now its its the Battleline where you can field 6 Units.
But especially when you play Astra-Militarum, the army doesn't 'feel' like an army anymore.
Now it seems they go to the route where they have simply Unit-Names for different models instead of just giving the Core-Rules.
Example:
Cadian Shock Troops
Death Korps of Krieg
Infantry Squad
My Question here is: Why I have 3 different units instead of just giving them 3 Options. (Cadian Doctrine, Krieg-Doctrine, Militarum Doctrine) which just add something special. Now they put up more and more models in it.
This is in my opinion the false way. In my Opinion they should make 1 Main rule and that's it.
I stopped Playing 40k some years later because the rules get more washed up. Now we have some Command Points and all these special stuff which happens 'outside' of the battlefield.
In my edition I had to setup a model to get an Airstrike and everything. It felt much more 'playing a story'.
I had so much epic moments when I had my 50 Men Squad with a Commissar in it, which build up a line and holding up tyranids wave after wave (in the end I still lost) - but the game itself felt epic.
Or when one of my big squads lost a morale test, fell back - even commissar killing a soldier didn't work - But after the next wave I was able to completely wipe out a big Orc-Squads.
It doesn't feel like that anymore with all these special kind of stuff around and watering it down so extreme.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/21 11:58:36
2023/10/21 12:00:40
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Because that would mean that they'd have to check for balance more and consider depth over dictating your models via specific boxes whilest still maintaing IP and trademark.
Afterall GW isn't selling a DKoK Command squad, which then would potentially open up their market to 3rd parties.
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.
2023/10/21 12:07:20
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Terrain is the third army on the table. The game is (or was... but still should be) just as much about beating your opponent as it is about wrestling with the terrain - thats like, pretty much what war *is* and you can't have a *war*game if you aren't.
I take it you've never played any Navel or aircraft wargames.
2023/10/21 12:17:37
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
ccs wrote: I take it you've never played any Navel or aircraft wargames.
We're talking about games that use terrain, how they use terrain, and the role that terrain plays, and your response is "Well what about games that don't use terrain, huh???", worded in such a snarky* way that it can only be a (bad) attempt at a gotcha post.
What about them? They're not relevant to the discussion at all.
What a useless comparison you've made.
*And that's me being very polite.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/10/21 12:20:07
I'm going to start with a picture that I've had in my gallery for over 13 years, long before this cancerous symmetrical nonsense ever came about. It was my criticism of a table set that I felt was inadequate. Not London GT inadequate, for those who remember that debacle, but still quite insufficient for a game of 40k:
Many of you know my passion/obsession with terrain, and this is part of why symmetrical builds annoy me so much. They are anti-creative, don't tell stories, and as people have been repeating throughout this thread, they breed this mentality is all you have to do is bring your netdeck list that you didn't write to pre-set tables using pre-set missions and you're a "competitive gamer". It's bollocks, pure and simple. Some of the best games I've ever played - even competitive ones - have been so because the terrain changed how we had to approach the game. I still remember an ancient Adepticon report from Janthkin (IIRC) talking about how one table had a big sign-post/billboard on one side that became the focal point of their defence. Moments like that are what make terrain interesting, where it becomes a big part of the game, not just some imagined method of "balancing" two sides that are already and inherently imbalanced.
So here are some of my recent tables (some of these were test shots for layouts before I painted the terrain):
Spoiler:
In that last one, during the final game, there was a lot more "stuff" in that empty middle. The pic you see was just the test to figure out the layout of the walls and the various sections of the cargo/docks area.
Terrain is important. Any claim that games need symmetry for "balance" are bunk. This is a recent phenomena. Nothing more than a brain bug that has settled in the heads of a few prominent tournament runners (some of whom have terrain sets to sell... hmm... ) and has propagated like a disease.
Oh those are gorgeous.
Really love the time and patience you've spend getting a god balance of terrain that also looks fantastic.
If you don't mind me asking, what are you using for all the different base tables you have? Are they mats with images on that you lay over the table, or do you have a ton of different squares that go together to form them?
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.
2023/10/22 00:40:18
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Wayniac wrote: all this would do is mean anything else doesn't exist. We already saw that with the optional matched play addendums for events: people just used them all the time, every time, even for friendly games because people keep pushing that "if it's good for tournaments it benefits your casual games too" gak.
You'd see people tell others who ask for starting an army to just buy one of the competitive lists and nothing else (already a problem as you get people even now who buy a specific list rather then build a collection to choose from).
Well the point would be that you may not find some units for sale in the tournament lists (tournaments are not the main source of GW income so it wouldn't affect their sales), meaning that casual gaming would offer freedom and variety to stamp your personality on your army, like it used to be.
Tournaments are then their own ecosystem where super serious playersTM who want to show their skill get a totally balanced Chess game to do so.
I actually agree with Hellebore. The reason tournament rules are commonly taken as the de facto standard is because the entire game is currently written around Matched Play.
But if you make competitive play its own, unique thing with highly restrictive (but balanced) rules, then maybe players will start to really think about whether they're really looking for a Balanced Competitive Game™, or something with a bit more room for personal freedom, particularly if the tradeoff is losing the ability to customize your list. Competitive players get a more balanced and constrained experience to test their skills, casual players don't have the influence of tournament gaming breathing down their necks, win-win.
It does mean that listbuilding to exploit imbalance would no longer be an essential skill in competitive play, but feth it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/22 01:25:09
If tournament players widely decide that they want to use the mode that allows for more personal freedom even if it's less balanced and just use that for tournaments anyways (which I imagine they most likely would, judging from every competitive player I've ever met), then I imagine things wouldn't be much different at all if they did release a wildly different & much more constrained Matched Play mode.
Rihgu wrote: If tournament players widely decide that they want to use the mode that allows for more personal freedom even if it's less balanced and just use that for tournaments anyways (which I imagine they most likely would, judging from every competitive player I've ever met), then I imagine things wouldn't be much different at all if they did release a wildly different & much more constrained Matched Play mode.
Well the point would be that GW only sanctions tournaments that use their patented tournament systemTM, marketed as a game where when you win you know it was entirely down to player skill at tactics and strategy and not list rorting.
Anyone that refuses to run their tournament system would quickly get straightened out by social pressure from people who claim anyone who refuses is just no good at playing and wants to hide it in their list building shenanigans...
I doubt it will happen, but the way GW controls the hobby environment, if they did it, then people would buy into the conceit and self police it like they do with everything else.
The long and short is, I'd much rather they segregate out tournaments than do it to standard/crusade games. Tournaments should be an exception distinct from the game, not part of its standard.
Yep. Starting with 8th ed, I didn't know anyone who played "book 40k" - i.e. real 40k. Everyone locally would default to the assumption that you were playing ITC regulations even in casual pickup games, which was... interesting when newcomers came in and found that the rules were different than what was found in their rulebooks. Going back to 4th or 5th it was common for even local tournaments to utilize INATFAQ or other competitive rules packets, but casual play was at least dictated by what was published in your core rulebook. I want to say that I started seeing ITC comp takeover casual play in 7th, and by 8th it was default. The takeover of the competitive circuit for the most part means I don't have to play with Reecius gakky overglorified house rules and can play with rules published by the designers of the actual game itself but I am permanently stuck having to play the competitive mode of the game regardless as everyonenow just uses the latest GT Mission packet.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2023/10/22 05:16:31
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
chaos0xomega wrote: Yep. Starting with 8th ed, I didn't know anyone who played "book 40k" - i.e. real 40k. Everyone locally would default to the assumption that you were playing ITC regulations even in casual pickup games, which was... interesting when newcomers came in and found that the rules were different than what was found in their rulebooks. Going back to 4th or 5th it was common for even local tournaments to utilize INATFAQ or other competitive rules packets, but casual play was at least dictated by what was published in your core rulebook. I want to say that I started seeing ITC comp takeover casual play in 7th, and by 8th it was default. The takeover of the competitive circuit for the most part means I don't have to play with Reecius gakky overglorified house rules and can play with rules published by the designers of the actual game itself but I am permanently stuck having to play the competitive mode of the game regardless as everyonenow just uses the latest GT Mission packet.
Harking back to dakka discussions from back then this was very much a USA thing. In other places ITC was pretty much unknown outside of tournament circuits. And within the tournament group for europe ETC was more relevant.
2023/10/22 07:34:56
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Honestly a dedicated tournament mode would likely help in terms of focus and integrity for the players.
I would be concerned that if they released new kit A for an army and it wasn't included in the comp rules, it simply wouldn't sell. Then assume that either none comp play was dead or people didn't want that army and dial back support for it.
I don't trust the player base as it is now now to just carry on using comp rules and instead leave the none-comp models to rot. Likewise you'd go from online advice for new player shifting from "that model looks cool but isn't very viable" to "you can't even use that model for the game mode that matters".
chaos0xomega wrote: Yep. Starting with 8th ed, I didn't know anyone who played "book 40k" - i.e. real 40k. Everyone locally would default to the assumption that you were playing ITC regulations even in casual pickup games, which was... interesting when newcomers came in and found that the rules were different than what was found in their rulebooks. Going back to 4th or 5th it was common for even local tournaments to utilize INATFAQ or other competitive rules packets, but casual play was at least dictated by what was published in your core rulebook. I want to say that I started seeing ITC comp takeover casual play in 7th, and by 8th it was default. The takeover of the competitive circuit for the most part means I don't have to play with Reecius gakky overglorified house rules and can play with rules published by the designers of the actual game itself but I am permanently stuck having to play the competitive mode of the game regardless as everyonenow just uses the latest GT Mission packet.
Harking back to dakka discussions from back then this was very much a USA thing. In other places ITC was pretty much unknown outside of tournament circuits. And within the tournament group for europe ETC was more relevant.
Well I feel this is kind of a blessing and a curse. The rules absorbed a lot of ITC and US play to become what they are today, because they were popular with the largest customer base. Which brings all the good and bad of that with it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/22 07:36:10
2023/10/22 12:29:56
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
ITC rules weren't even good. They were boring, symmetrical, bland, and their secondaries put all the "tactics" into list building, literally letting you build lists to min-max what secondaries you were picking and what your opponent could pick.
And hey, surprise, surprise, that's basically what 8th and 9th edition tournaments were entirely.. 10th too, but at least the Leviathan deck has SOME interesting flavor... many of which still get ignored by tournaments (like a lot of the Mission Rules).
It's almost like GW learned the wrong thing from the fiasco in 7th, and felt that the tournament crowd was the biggest because they are the loudest thanks to forums/Youtube, so figured hey we need to listen to these guys rather than stop being arrogant douchebags and putting out garbage rules.
Not wanting to get political but it's almost a Warhammer version of "get woke, go broke" where the loudest group crying for change is also the smallest but LOOKS like they're the largest thanks to social media and so the company listens and changes for them, and then alienates their REAL fans as a result.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/10/22 12:31:59
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2023/10/22 13:43:50
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Wayniac wrote: ITC rules weren't even good. They were boring, symmetrical, bland, and their secondaries put all the "tactics" into list building, literally letting you build lists to min-max what secondaries you were picking and what your opponent could pick.
And hey, surprise, surprise, that's basically what 8th and 9th edition tournaments were entirely.. 10th too, but at least the Leviathan deck has SOME interesting flavor... many of which still get ignored by tournaments (like a lot of the Mission Rules).
It's almost like GW learned the wrong thing from the fiasco in 7th, and felt that the tournament crowd was the biggest because they are the loudest thanks to forums/Youtube, so figured hey we need to listen to these guys rather than stop being arrogant douchebags and putting out garbage rules.
Not wanting to get political but it's almost a Warhammer version of "get woke, go broke" where the loudest group crying for change is also the smallest but LOOKS like they're the largest thanks to social media and so the company listens and changes for them, and then alienates their REAL fans as a result.
What rules do you want to asymmetrical? Faction secondaries?
How can you align the belief that everybody wants to play competitively with GW listening to competitive players being wrong? Why should they listen to a fringe part of the community that wants 4th edition style missions and randomised asymmetrical terrain and random army sizes for everyone, including those that don't want it? How about the flood of narrative content GW have produced since the start of 8th?
The random roulette mission decks where you combine different things produce flavourless and horribly balanced missions, especially the stupid mission deck from 8th/9th that so many on Dakka love. ITC really helped curb a lot of OP lists which created more faction diversity at times where the game was broken, if GW hadn't reacted as fast as they did to SM2.0 it would have been up to ITC to fix that turd as well, un unhappy coincidence of SM2.0 playing into the ITC rules at the time of release made ITC rules bad for a brief moment, but to a pointless degree since SM2.0 were firmly broken in GW's Russian roulette mission pack with secondary missions being generated every turn as well. What could be more stupid for a tournament than randomly generating secondaries every turn? Americans had it right when it came to tournaments, they just need to play a casual game once in a while and not try to get everyone into the competitive environment.
2023/10/22 14:00:04
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Whether to cater more to tournaments or for other reasons, I just feel 40k has gone in the wrong direction in general. It also has a weird tendency to try and over-correct things that were already fixed.
For example, while the psychic system in 8th and 9th could be a bit bland (how many ways to we really need to inflict d3 mortal wounds? ), it still worked well in removing the worst excesses of the 7th edition magic system. However, 10th then slapped it into the ground for no discernible reason.
Another example is allies. In 8th edition, more allies meant more CPs. Thus, in 8.5 they started adding loyalty bonuses to encourage players not to use allies (or at least give a reason not to). However, 9th edition made it disadvantageous to use allies at all because doing so now cost you CP, rather than gaining you CP. But instead of removing the now-unnecessary loyalty bonuses, it piled them onto every army. This was a major source of bloat as a lot of these mechanics added a good deal of busywork (e.g. Fate Dice on Eldar and Harlequins, or the absolute mess that is Necron Command Protocols). But then, rather then cutting back on that obvious bloat, 10th instead decided to cut abilities like Battle Focus and keep Fate Dice as the central army rule.
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.