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.
2023/10/26 02:42:55
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, I've had some real positive vibes on dakka ever since the big pie thread happened. Seems like we're all getting along much better, almost like one big happy family lol.
It started as a debate in another thread about what is and isn't a Shepherds pie (after arguing about whether a pie in a rumor engine photo was in fact a pie or a pie-shaped sandbag), and then Mod Doc Grotsnik created a separate thread to discuss it instead of continuing to derail the thread we were in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/26 02:44:12
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2023/10/26 06:35:46
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Dudeface wrote: Whilst options have been reduced, they've not been hit as heavily for other armies as a whole in comparison. That's ignoring that codex is now actually 5 fully fledged separate books now.
You wanna retry that? Those separate books have invalidated entire armies and swathes of models. Even basic things like jump packs on our Lords have been removed.
Haven't been hit as heavily? Chaos has been the hardest hit. The only comparable army is Dark Eldar, who have systematically had all their options removed as they slowly revert back to OG 3rd Ed standards.
Do you want to retry that?
Whilst options have been reduced, they've not been hit as heavily for other armies as a whole in comparison.
You've misread it completely. I'm stating other armies have lost less.
2023/10/26 09:48:04
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Chaos and Dark Eldar can at least still be played. Marines had entire armies made illegal. No army got that treatment and they are suppose to be the army that GW puts extra care of. While after 3 editions I think that GW just milks marines players hard hard. Oblits, cultists etc were and are good, if not every edition then at least in the last few ones. Dark Eldar are the dudes in boats faction. What is the dude who bought intercessors in 8th suppose to do now, or in 9th. The Sang Guard BA player. The WS or RW "the faction is about bikes, so I picked them, because I like bikes" player.
A tyranid player could be using stealers, guants and monsters from 2ed, a marine player can't, not just because the load outs on units are different, the bases or similar stuff. No marines stuff is just gone. Even the supposed still legal legends doesn't have rules on the GW app, that is how much GW cares about marine stuff.
Not saying that losing crucial upgrades or models that existed for decades isn't a feels bad moment for other factions it is. But when was it the last time that GW invalided an entire army of an eldar player, with zero chance of it ever being reverted.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2023/10/26 11:18:29
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Karol wrote: Chaos and Dark Eldar can at least still be played. Marines had entire armies made illegal. No army got that treatment and they are suppose to be the army that GW puts extra care of. While after 3 editions I think that GW just milks marines players hard hard. Oblits, cultists etc were and are good, if not every edition then at least in the last few ones. Dark Eldar are the dudes in boats faction. What is the dude who bought intercessors in 8th suppose to do now, or in 9th. The Sang Guard BA player. The WS or RW "the faction is about bikes, so I picked them, because I like bikes" player.
A tyranid player could be using stealers, guants and monsters from 2ed, a marine player can't, not just because the load outs on units are different, the bases or similar stuff. No marines stuff is just gone. Even the supposed still legal legends doesn't have rules on the GW app, that is how much GW cares about marine stuff.
Not saying that losing crucial upgrades or models that existed for decades isn't a feels bad moment for other factions it is. But when was it the last time that GW invalided an entire army of an eldar player, with zero chance of it ever being reverted.
I mean that's factually wrong on a lot of levels. Albeit wrongly in response to my post but H.B.M.C. is correct that most chaos armies lot far more than they gained on the journey to stand alone books. Alpha legion cultists existed in 3rd, but not in 4th/5th then came back in 6th as a general chaos marine unit. Renegade guardsmen existed in 3rd (eye of terror?) then became renegades and heretics via FW in 4th and 7th onwards iirc. before becoming a unit again in 9th. The chaos range is.... chaosistent with it's availability. You'll find many death guard obliterators, world eaters vindicators and terminator lords etc. out there.
2023/10/26 11:40:04
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
There's always been changes to the army list, some more drastic, some less. But we haven't really seen this level of gameplay changes as with 8/9/10th editions, all of which seem to be more and more bland and pickup game focused rather than more interesting but not always completely balanced missions that might actually require talking to an opponent for more than a minute to say "2k matched play", god forbid.
On that note, the reluctance of 40k players to even have a conversation before a game that consists of more than how many points is... disturbing for a social game. It doesn't have to go to RT levels of needing a GM to come up with a scenario, but still. It's a social game, the expectation should NOT be just to roll up to the game store, ask if anyone wants a game and then how many points, and start setting up.
I actually don't remember how tournaments went in 3rd, but I remember that some missions were strange (Breakout/Breakthrough?) and some were stupidly bland (Cleanse), and I think that style held out through at least a few editions just fine. I honestly don't get what the issue was with those types of missions, other than ITC wanted to put more emphasis on list building (shocker) and we got their garbage secondaries which were for some reason (Brandt?) adopted to be the main style of play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/26 11:44:01
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2023/10/26 11:44:02
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
If playing a tourney based mission pack is bland try some narrative scenarios. The rules are great fun, so just change your scenario! Have been plundering the 8th narrative missions lately and they adapt well (bin any Strats), and looking further back through time at other classics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/26 11:53:20
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2023/10/26 12:04:47
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
I’m now wondering if there’s been a shift in the DIY ethos which was part and parcel of WHFB and 40k’s early days.
Even into 2nd Ed, commercially available terrain was quite basic. Not bad as such, just basic. Vehicles too often needed conversion or scratch building. 4th (I think?) had much abused Vehicle Design Rules meant to encourage projects.
Since then GW’s offerings have considerably expanded. Books, Kits, Terrain, Boards, Paint. The whole kit and kaboodle.
And so, there’s a reduced need for homemade stuff. The reduced need means conversions and scratch builds are less often seen.
I don’t think GW are actively discouraging it. We do see heavily converted and kitbashed stuff in WD and Warhammer Community.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Yeah all my terrain is homemade, and armies full of conversions - the 90s in me never went away!
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2023/10/26 12:49:46
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Karol wrote: Chaos and Dark Eldar can at least still be played. Marines had entire armies made illegal. No army got that treatment and they are suppose to be the army that GW puts extra care of. While after 3 editions I think that GW just milks marines players hard hard. Oblits, cultists etc were and are good, if not every edition then at least in the last few ones. Dark Eldar are the dudes in boats faction. What is the dude who bought intercessors in 8th suppose to do now, or in 9th. The Sang Guard BA player. The WS or RW "the faction is about bikes, so I picked them, because I like bikes" player.
A tyranid player could be using stealers, guants and monsters from 2ed, a marine player can't, not just because the load outs on units are different, the bases or similar stuff. No marines stuff is just gone. Even the supposed still legal legends doesn't have rules on the GW app, that is how much GW cares about marine stuff.
Not saying that losing crucial upgrades or models that existed for decades isn't a feels bad moment for other factions it is. But when was it the last time that GW invalided an entire army of an eldar player, with zero chance of it ever being reverted.
Short answer: eldar Corsairs in 9th edition, no army (especially not Marines!) has been handled as badly, not even renegade Guard.
Meanwhile Marines are the best supported army in every edition, I don’t even know what you're getting at here. What's up with Intercessors and Sanguinary Guard, they're still there?
Yes, if you went full White Scars Bikers in 7th I guess you're left with 18 bikers(I'm assuming they come in squads of up to 6) now if you're taking them as Outriders, or 78 bikers if you take Outriders, bikers and scout bikers.
Meanwhile my DG bikers, raptors and obliterators can't even be allied with my Death Guard anymore since 9th edition without losing all faction rules. (Since 10th I can’t ally them at all I think).
2023/10/26 13:45:09
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m now wondering if there’s been a shift in the DIY ethos which was part and parcel of WHFB and 40k’s early days.
Even into 2nd Ed, commercially available terrain was quite basic. Not bad as such, just basic. Vehicles too often needed conversion or scratch building. 4th (I think?) had much abused Vehicle Design Rules meant to encourage projects.
Since then GW’s offerings have considerably expanded. Books, Kits, Terrain, Boards, Paint. The whole kit and kaboodle.
And so, there’s a reduced need for homemade stuff. The reduced need means conversions and scratch builds are less often seen.
I don’t think GW are actively discouraging it. We do see heavily converted and kitbashed stuff in WD and Warhammer Community.
I think this is one of the big things. In the early years, GW encouraged a bunch of things because they had to. All these years later, GW has stopped encouraging those things.
Early 40k: You'll need to get some terrain. Here's a bunch of rules for the sorts of terrain you can make, and various articles showing you stuff to do.
Modern 40k: You'll need terrain. Here are boxes of terrain, and the rules for those terrain pieces.
Early 40k: Here are your unit options. We can't make all of the things for these options, so here's some encouragement and (because it was expected at the time) a bits store to help kit bashing.
Modern 40k: Here's your box of models, the rules for everything in the box and that's all you need.
Remember when the Defiler came out for Chaos and GW had a contest for kit bashing it, and ended up putting the parts lists online? Classic early 40k philosophy. That's no longer necessary and thus no longer encouraged.
Look at the Warhammer Community pages. You'll see a few pages a month about "Look at how people are painting this model!" because people still have to paint models. And pages showing off how to use the modular terrain. Because those are still necessary and thus need encouragement.
2023/10/26 14:01:39
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
I spoke with someone about the statistics stuff and from his 2 minute analysis knowing nothing about 40k what you'd want to analyze is false positives between the different game modes. Like how often does the game data from competitive give false results for casual play and how often does casual play produce false positives for casual play. Competitive play could have fewer false positives for casual play than casual does if things other than unit cost-effectiveness played a relatively larger impact in casual play.
vict0988 wrote: How did 3,5 make more of a difference than Chapter Tactics and Chapter Stratagems?
I read the 3,5 CSM codex for research, but it was before my time so I never played with or against it.
This is back in a time with a fixed force organisation, before you could take unlimited amounts of any slot or have allies. It was a book that, without touching on the books of chaos, gave you methods to revolutionary change any characters form and function. Possessed and aspiring champs also had this feature built in. There were upgrades and some perks locked behind the marks and there were rules on the marks interacting with each other.
The "chapter tactics" for some legions were one of the first places that force orgs happened that I can recall, including introducing units that otherwise didn't exist or were brought in from other books. It shifted how that army played more than chapter tactics have in recent years. The books of chaos at back for mono god legions/warbands introduced yet more god specific goodness and special rules such as the blessed numbers for free champ upgrades and more extreme force org limitations imposed to get the rewards.
It was about 2 editions ahead of its time and felt like it had immense impact based on your choices.
Right, the CSM 3,5 codex broadened an otherwise restrictive ruleset but CSM 9th added flavour to a permissive ruleset and seems to add up to way more flavour.
Like CSM 3,5 had Basilisks and daemonic mounts, but 9th edition Thousand Sons has Tzaangor, a variety of unique Death Guard weapons and a couple of unique units, 9th has the primarchs. Thousand Sons definitely had a lot more stuff when they had 18 psychic powers and 9 or so cabalistic rituals.
I have taken mathematically inferior options often, but it's usually more complicated than +1A, like taking a bad mobile melee unit instead of a good one because it works with this other unit I brought and I think that's neat even if it's still bad or simply I like the model/rules for an overcosted unit or option. I feel like +1A could represent anything and isn't fun to take, like maybe my Iron Hands Chaos Lord was the pre-eminent duelist of the Iron Hands Legion so he deserves an extra attack. Now my opponent might get pissy because I didn't model it on my character and there was that one game 2 months ago where my Chaos Lord didn't have spikes because I didn't have the points for it. But a relic and a WL trait is a big thing so I'm more likely to pay attention to which one of two Chaos Lords have it, it doesn't need to be modelled (although cool if it is). I don't think you need to go "5<3/25=>spikes are the mathematically correct option beep boop" but you might go "I want this Chaos Lord to really smash I'll give him a lightning claw, might as well give him the spikes so he smashes even harder muahaha". Compare that to the different narratives you can brew into the rules of two different relics, one providing supreme offence at the cost of allies and the other providing supreme offence at the cost of the bearer, much more significant than taking or not taking spikes, the spikes only gain narrative weight through their name, fluff text and CSM players actually caring about those. The moment it just becomes "Chaos Lord with lightning claw and +1 A" instead of "Chaos Lord who is such a devout worshipper of the dark gods that he has spikes on his armour see here on his pauldrons which grants him +1A" spikes lose their meaning for existing and just become a mathematical question. I think well-written relics and WL traits are resistant to becoming math questions because their rules are more fun and inherently narrative, but these kinds of micro upgrades are always going to tend towards simplicity and therefore becoming math questions rather than narrative questions.
On the point of relics, I would suggest that you are perhaps missing the forest for the trees. Yes, a relic will potentially have more of an impact than Spikey Bits. But the 3.5 book had many more non-weapon options than just spikey bits. Thus, the presence or absence of Spikey Bits would be just one small factor in how you built a Chaos character. They (for the most part) might not have had the same individual weight as modern Relics, but they more than made up for it in flexibility.
If you don't see why this is an issue, let me try to explain with an example from a different army (one I have much more experience with). Take for a moment the DE Archon in 9th edition. He's a lacklustre character who doesn't shine in any area. He is supposed to support a ranged subfaction but his ranged options are nonexistant. His melee is similarly pitiful, struggling to kill even a single Tactical Marine. His defence is unreliable and evaporates entirely the first time he fails a save. Lastly, his aura is supposed to support units that want to shoot from transports but it doesn't work unless they get out. Improving any of these even to the level of 'mediocre' or 'passable' requires at least one artefact or WLT. Sometimes both. e.g. it takes an artefact just to get him a gun with a range beyond 12". And if you want that gun to do anything, it will cost you your warlord trait as well. Armour that other HQs get as standard costs a relic. A decent melee weapon costs a relic. Thus, merely getting him to the level of a functional HQ costs your entire allotment of customisation.
Meanwhile, a system more akin to the old version would give you far more flexibility in terms of fine-tuning and improving aspects, without having to drop all your customisation into just 2 big choices.
Anyway, to return to the matter of why you'd choose (or not choose) minor options, I'd suggest one of the main reasons would be to make HQsfeel different on the table. Again, Spikey Bits alone won't make this happen. But the point would be to combine it with other options to expand the differences. e.g. you might have one Lord with Daemon Armour, Daemonic Resilience, Spikey Bits and a Chainfist as a heavily-armoured behemoth, and then another with Daemonic Aura, Daemonic Flight, and Daemonic Claws to create a sleeker, faster (perhaps more mutated) Lord. Obviously these are just some quick examples, but my point is that Spikey Bits, whilst minor in and of itself, can work together with other options to help flesh out and distinguish characters.
Though, of course, you might just give both Spikey Bits. Maybe one Lord has Wings and another has a Daemon Weapon? Maybe you want twins with identical or near-identical builds? The nice thing about the 3.5 book (and others like it) is that you have the full freedom to choose. You can make your HQs as similar or dissimilar as you like.
What the Drukhari Archon is missing is a half dozen meaningfully different but viable basic loudouts, not a page worth of spikes, soul traps, drugs and Aeldarianiai trophies in my opinion, things that wouldn't fix the issues with unfitting abilities and stats you listed. Or let's say that instead of a relic being mandatory for Archons to do stuff in melee, it was drugs, why not just bake the drugs into the Archon if everyone is going to take them anyway?
I'm always going to want that extra attack on any sufficiently scary melee weapon. If there's no reason not to take on the scary weapons then you might as well build it into the profile of the scarier weapons, like 30 pt lightning claws that add +1A. What I'm missing is feeling like there's a downside, you couldn't have multiple relics on the same character in most cases which is an instant pick one or the other that a weigh your own upgrades options list doesn't do. I've been thinking quite a bit about luckstones lately, a 5 pt upgrade that let you re-roll your first failed armour save, on a model with a 1+ Sv and with only 2 wounds, it was quite good, even after modifiers you'd probably get a 3+ Sv, but that luckstone didn't convey anything narratively because it wasn't a priority that you avoided filling up your upgrade budget for.
Daemon weapons? Relics. Wings? That's just a jump pack conversion in my book (an option Chaos Lords should obviously have regardless of their weapon choices).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/26 14:02:15
2023/10/26 14:50:56
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
5th Edition Dark Eldar codex was peak for options. A lot of the units were removed in the subsequent 7th edition codex due to the fallout of chapterhouse lawsuit...
The Archon specifically in the 5th edition codex had a war gear list that is larger than the entire current Drukari army combined. (bit of an exaggeration, but you understand)
2023/10/26 15:01:20
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
What the Drukhari Archon is missing is a half dozen meaningfully different but viable basic loudouts, not a page worth of spikes, soul traps, drugs and Aeldarianiai trophies in my opinion, things that wouldn't fix the issues with unfitting abilities and stats you listed. Or let's say that instead of a relic being mandatory for Archons to do stuff in melee, it was drugs, why not just bake the drugs into the Archon if everyone is going to take them anyway?
Again, you're looking at this in a purely on/off way.
The whole point is that having an expanded list of options would allow characters to improve capabilities without needing to go all-in on just one or two big items.
Thus, it would be less a question of whether you want your melee character to be good in combat at all, but rather how good you want them to be.
I'm always going to want that extra attack on any sufficiently scary melee weapon. If there's no reason not to take on the scary weapons then you might as well build it into the profile of the scarier weapons, like 30 pt lightning claws that add +1A. What I'm missing is feeling like there's a downside, you couldn't have multiple relics on the same character in most cases which is an instant pick one or the other that a weigh your own upgrades options list doesn't do. I've been thinking quite a bit about luckstones lately, a 5 pt upgrade that let you re-roll your first failed armour save, on a model with a 1+ Sv and with only 2 wounds, it was quite good, even after modifiers you'd probably get a 3+ Sv, but that luckstone didn't convey anything narratively because it wasn't a priority that you avoided filling up your upgrade budget for.
I'm not opposed to having some sort of downside or restriction (beyond the raw point cost). Off the top of my head, there are a few routes you could go down.
One would be bringing back the points limits on wargear so you have to start making choices regarding what wargear you really need. Paying 10pts for +1A might seem an easy choice in a vacuum, but you may find yourself reconsidering if it then means you can't take other options you also want.
A variation on this would be to make you choose between specific options. e.g. an Autarch can have a Banshee Mask or Mandiblasters but never both. Again, it could give you pause for thought as an otherwise obvious upgrade could lock you out of other useful upgrades.
The latter option could also be heavily tied to flavour. Perhaps Armour Spikes mean you can't have wings or a Jump Pack? Or that you can't have some other armour upgrade because the spikes take up space.
Again, just some ideas off the top of my head, but there are definitely ways you can make choices a little more meaningful.
vict0988 wrote: Wings? That's just a jump pack conversion in my book (an option Chaos Lords should obviously have regardless of their weapon choices).
I don't particularly mind that. However, the point seems a bit academic given that Chaos Lords can't take a Jump pack either.
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.
2023/10/26 16:08:05
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Hmmm. I sort of agree with Vipoid but dont. People like the freedom to make their dude their dude.
But you always run into the optimality problem. Something is worth it or it isn't.
I dont think for example giving Haemis a dozen weapon choices is meaningful if they all end mathing out to the same. There's perhaps some variety in target - but given the difficulties of getting into combat good assault has to chop everything.
So you end up with choppy or buff-bot characters. There can be variations on this (good shooting/good assault, buffs to your units, debuffs to enemy units etc) but its hard to break out of that.
Having say 3 good/desirable variants is probably enough.
2023/10/26 16:19:53
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Yeah. The only major flaw in the more flexible unit customization of previous editions was that there tended to be "trap" options that were just purely less cost-effective than other options. So if you wanted to take a suboptimal option just to be different or because you liked the look of a bit (or if you were just bad at crunching numbers), then you were functionally playing at a disadvantage compared to people who took the mathematically optimal options that rendered others redundant.
In theory, GW could potentially just create a different datasheet for each "build" they want to support, which would potentially have the upside of letting them do things like add special rules to that build.
So maybe the archon gets broken up into a beatstick datasheet and a sit-in-the-boat-buffing-stuff datasheet, and the latter could get a bespoke rule that actually works from inside a raider. Maybe we get a Kruellagh/Soul Trap type datasheet that hits less hard than the beatstick (at first) but heals during the game and potentially hits harder than the beatstick in later turns. Similarly, you could haemonculi that choose between being poisoners, healers, or monster makers and succubi who favor dueling/monster hunting/squad tactics.
This also has the advantage of avoiding unintentionally powerful combos. The cool weapon that's only OP if you combine it with wargear X can simply not be available to datasheets that also have access to wargear X.
But I think I prefer the idea of limiting how many points you can spend on wargear. Your character gets to be awesome, but is he awesome because he took auspex upgrades that let him buff the shooting of your long-ranged weapons, or is he awesome because he's the wielder of a legendary thunder hammer?
(For my own personal tastes, I also like the idea of characters having to choose their niche rather than being good at everything. Having an archon who is specifically good at dueling or at scheming is more interesting than an archon who is the best schemer with the best dueling skills and also he has quirky weapons and also he's on a jetbike.)
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2023/10/26 16:45:47
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
I encourage everyone to check the Horus Heresy Militia List, available as a *free* PDF (so you have no reason not to) and explain how you could get that degree of flavor in 9th edition.
And I encourage people to remember that this free PDF from GW is for a secondary "npc" army in a game ostensibly focused around Marines.
I can make a far far more narrative force there than I could in 40k - if mortal humans were my jam (Imperial Guard, Squats, and Chaos mortals are all covered in ONE LIST and it has *more* customizability than any of those lists at the end of 9th or here in 10th, even including Crusade.
I could reflect my IG army's lore better in 30k than I can in 40k, across the board, despite the IG codex being ostensibly representative of the IG in 40k.
2023/10/26 16:49:23
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
A Town Called Malus wrote: I mean, trap options still exist today wherever you have actual choices, so that point is a kind of a wash.
yeah. Just instead of Pts you pay CP. And instead of being bad equipment there's no equipment at all.
So even having removed "trap" options there's somehow on the most barebones of profiles still trap options. Also the colour of your model now also matters so got the wrong type you got nothing ...
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.
2023/10/26 16:52:45
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I encourage everyone to check the Horus Heresy Militia List, available as a *free* PDF (so you have no reason not to) and explain how you could get that degree of flavor in 9th edition.
And I encourage people to remember that this free PDF from GW is for a secondary "npc" army in a game ostensibly focused around Marines.
I can make a far far more narrative force there than I could in 40k - if mortal humans were my jam (Imperial Guard, Squats, and Chaos mortals are all covered in ONE LIST and it has *more* customizability than any of those lists at the end of 9th or here in 10th, even including Crusade.
I could reflect my IG army's lore better in 30k than I can in 40k, across the board, despite the IG codex being ostensibly representative of the IG in 40k.
HH also outright stated that their Ruinstorm Daemons list is not balanced nor meant to be used for competitive play (which they defined as "matched play against strangers or at more competitive events") because "it is very different from Marines".
Which is part of the issue here, you cannot have the options and flavour of HH, the faction diversity of 40k and competitive balance. It is a pick 2 discard the third scenario.
Which is why some people are arguing for 2 different rulesets.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/10/26 16:58:38
2023/10/26 16:56:28
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Karol wrote: Chaos and Dark Eldar can at least still be played. Marines had entire armies made illegal. No army got that treatment and they are suppose to be the army that GW puts extra care of. While after 3 editions I think that GW just milks marines players hard hard. Oblits, cultists etc were and are good, if not every edition then at least in the last few ones. Dark Eldar are the dudes in boats faction. What is the dude who bought intercessors in 8th suppose to do now, or in 9th. The Sang Guard BA player. The WS or RW "the faction is about bikes, so I picked them, because I like bikes" player.
A tyranid player could be using stealers, guants and monsters from 2ed, a marine player can't, not just because the load outs on units are different, the bases or similar stuff. No marines stuff is just gone. Even the supposed still legal legends doesn't have rules on the GW app, that is how much GW cares about marine stuff.
Not saying that losing crucial upgrades or models that existed for decades isn't a feels bad moment for other factions it is. But when was it the last time that GW invalided an entire army of an eldar player, with zero chance of it ever being reverted.
Oh good God....
GW did not make all of our old school SM armies illegal.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I encourage everyone to check the Horus Heresy Militia List, available as a *free* PDF (so you have no reason not to) and explain how you could get that degree of flavor in 9th edition.
And I encourage people to remember that this free PDF from GW is for a secondary "npc" army in a game ostensibly focused around Marines.
I can make a far far more narrative force there than I could in 40k - if mortal humans were my jam (Imperial Guard, Squats, and Chaos mortals are all covered in ONE LIST and it has *more* customizability than any of those lists at the end of 9th or here in 10th, even including Crusade.
I could reflect my IG army's lore better in 30k than I can in 40k, across the board, despite the IG codex being ostensibly representative of the IG in 40k.
As much as I love the militia list, its important to remember that GW pretty much massacred it in its latest iteration. It has easily half as many options as it did in the previous edition, if not list. They removed quite a few units, removed a lot of weapon options, etc. and severely hamstrung it to a shadow of its former glory.
More or less the same in Ruinstorm daemons.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2023/10/26 17:05:01
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
JNAProductions wrote: How would you go about gathering data from non-tournament games?
Genuine question.
You wouldn't - you couldn't trust them based on people under/over reporting their likes and dislikes in order to rig the system plus even when people do report them straight - you can't really adjust for play style, and skill. Realistically it comes down to play testing, and GW does it poorly. They need to do it with people who want to break the system and do it during Alpha/Beta not post release for a tournament.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/10/26 17:10:05
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Also I'm doubtfull a Tyranid player can use models from 2nd, if only because 2nd ed Tyrants and Fexes are much smaller and thus have a blatant LOS advantage over modern iterations.
Also regarding HH, does anyone else wish it had a wahapedia version? I'm skimming through the HH Militia list and it has a lot of USR I have no idea what they do.
2023/10/26 17:10:24
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
As much as I love the militia list, its important to remember that GW pretty much massacred it in its latest iteration. It has easily half as many options as it did in the previous edition, if not list. They removed quite a few units, removed a lot of weapon options, etc. and severely hamstrung it to a shadow of its former glory.
More or less the same in Ruinstorm daemons.
While its a valid complaint that so much left the game this edition - comparing 9th Ed Army X vs 10th Ed Army X as evidence 10th ed Army X is relatively weak doesn't work because Army Y, and Z also lost a ton of their options.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/10/26 17:13:50
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
I will say, in my own experience, I've been having fun with my homebrew SM in my own games and coming up with lore for them. Now that there are proper Primaris replacements for much of the default SM range, things...
*snaps fingers*
Come together for an Ultima Founding Chapter? Click? Function like a well-oiled machine?
I've gotten a number of games under my belt, even won some, and I feel like things are coming together.
It's very satisfying. But to acknowledge the views and experiences of others, I can understand the turmoil that comes with having a lot of your army be useless in the current, official ruleset. There's personal value and, dare I say, history to your SM collections that you have built up over time. That's your personal experience, just as valid as everyone else's, and it's being -
*snaps some more*
Not adulterated or diminished. But those words come close. Made bitter in hindsight, perhaps.
All this is to say that 'soul' is, in my opinion, a subjective thing. Our enjoyment is contingent on a number of things, and not everyone is going to enjoy things forever. If I wish to impart anything, try to enjoy what you can, when you can. A simple message, but one worth remembering.
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
GW does no systematic playtesting, or does it so badly as to make it the equivalent of not doing it at all.
Like, the game design equivalent of unit testing where you take out a single specific thing and test that alone to see if it works.
For example, the fact that assault and pistol weapons did not do what they were meant to do when played RAW in 8th edition. Because they applied on the model level, whereas eligibility to shoot was made on the unit level and didn't care what weapons, the unit was equipped with in its criteria of determining eligibility to shoot.
Or in 10th edition, the fact that core rules errata are in the "rules commentary" document rather than updated in the actual rules PDF. For example, the rule that units are no longer eligible to shoot after shooting is nowhere in the core rules. Literally never mentioned, at all. It is in the "commentary" on the rules? That's not commentary, that's an errata! And the core rules pdf should be updated with that!
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/10/26 17:30:42
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
