Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think also the boring terrain layouts that nearly everyone uses because "tournament standard" has helped contribute to the soul being gone. It's all the same layout with ruins being turned 90 degrees sometimes and that also has made list building stagnant I feel since it limits what can maneuver around. WTC or whatever aren't any better just variations on the same 10 L-shaped ruins with footprints style.

That used to be fine for the occasional game if you were doing like Cityfight or something, but every game?

I’ve played 10th more than 9th mostly because it plays so much better. I’m very casual and don’t get to play a lot and all the bloat of ninth just made it pretty much unplayable to me and my mates. 8th wasn’t much better.

10th allows us to get the most out of armies, quickly and easily build lists, develop fun narratives to our games, it’s pretty much ticking all our boxes now and is the most fun I’ve had playing for a long time.

 vict0988 wrote:
"Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle, that is what 40k has become"

Isnt' that exactly what you are advocating for with options that don't impact the game like a 4+ Sv for Company Commanders, those don't add depth. Relics that change the way you play add depth without adding tonnes of width to the game. A trillion builds for each Herald mean nothing if they all do the same thing more or less well. You could probably scrape together 10 really different builds out of that trillion combinations, the rest is only there for the illusion of choosing between a trillion builds the infinite complexity of the Neverborn.

Isn't list building a lot deeper now that units have unique abilities instead of being able to combine axes, maces and swords in a trillion combinations?

? No?, When was the last time you actually saw an unique regiment on the table of guardsmen? A Mounted company? Admech conscript labour? And unlike 40k the binary SV system with breaching is far more granular aswell.

Au contraire, the bespoke rules spam is far more contraproductive, doubly so because not only have you lost potential options that could've made the unit worth a consideration in a multitude of ways, but also because bespoke rules representing USR-but-not-quite quickly turn it, due to GW's generally shoddy writing capabilities into a haves and haves-not situation.

An exemple on how equipment ties in, Miltia has "cav" units that can scout. They canget multiple weapons, general and special. You can run the unit cheap as a melee unit, you can give it a melta and take advantage of scout and the flanking attack rule tied to it, to get on the field from an advantaged position and blow open a tank. You can run it as a dragoon type unit. You can turn it into "line"- troops, allowing for a full cav army. You can turn it into madmax type of biker horde swinging chainaxes, turning your army even into a potential count as "waaghbika" horde.

@Not Online!!!

I'll retreat from the discussion, because I can't deny or validate anything you say without buying or illegally downloading a game which, for me is utterly worthless due to its exclusion of Xenos and Sisters.

Have fun building fluffy lists with a handful of factions and relying on houserules or "counts as" to play factions that GW couldn't be bothered to include. As I said in a previous post, putting all the fluff into an army by list-building isn't what I'm after so much as creating fluff by playing. I don't know if HH has a progression system or not, but if it doesn't, that's just another thing that makes it inadequate.

Well, also you're fighting in an era whose history is written.

Spoiler alert: enjoy your battles, chaos players. No matter how well you play, your team loses the war.

I mean that's not true because Chaos won the Heresy. Horus himself lost.
The Gods got exactly what they were looking for, a deadish Emperor, millions of mortal servants and a rotting carcas of an Imperium that would net them even more morsels than ever before.

What Gert said.

Wayniacs post gave me major warmachine vibes. 40k is on the same competitively induced stagnation track that eventually strangled warmachine. Not good.

PenitentJake wrote:
@Not Online!!!

I'll retreat from the discussion, because I can't deny or validate anything you say without buying or illegally downloading a game which, for me is utterly worthless due to its exclusion of Xenos and Sisters.

Now that is just not necessery, because fundamentally i think you and i want the same thing, a system which has place for narratives. The issue to me is that the quality on one side is due to better mechanics and baseline list building capacity just at the baseline better. Incidentally that was why 40k had such a mass appeal. I miss doctrine guard, i miss Ork nobs that were not cut-out copies. I miss warbosses with more entires in it's sheet and wasn't being split in a hundred diffrent entires that are all smaller and have less content in it. I miss propper drukhari archons that actually could have a tangible background and toolset coming from the hoverboard gangs, or being a ex biker. All things we just don't get anymore.

Have fun building fluffy lists with a handful of factions and relying on houserules or "counts as" to play factions that GW couldn't be bothered to include. As I said in a previous post, putting all the fluff into an army by list-building isn't what I'm after so much as creating fluff by playing. I don't know if HH has a progression system or not, but if it doesn't, that's just another thing that makes it inadequate.

? Pardon but what? One doesn't discount the other. One facilitates the other just far more.

Well, also you're fighting in an era whose history is written.

Spoiler alert: enjoy your battles, chaos players. No matter how well you play, your team loses the war.

My first army funnily enough is and was orks.

PenitentJake wrote:


Well, also you're fighting in an era whose history is written.
.

So?

You mean to tell me every story has been told, every battle recorded etc?

Who 'wins' the war in the setting is largely irrelevant.

PenitentJake wrote:


Spoiler alert: enjoy your battles, chaos players. No matter how well you play, your team loses the war.

Aka 'it doest matter'.

For someone who claims to prioritise the narrative, this is an incredibly shortsighted point of view.

Horus heresy is very similar to other historical games - it just happens to be a fictional 'historical' era of a fictional setting- playing hh is no different to folks playing a ww2 era game, a pike and shotte game, a ranks, files and muskets game or whatever.

And Just like these historical games where 'the story is written' for the 'big picture', in the sense that the Germans lost ww2, gauls lost against caesar, and royalists lost to the parliamentarians in the English civil war etc., that is not the whole story. In any of these wars, individuals groups could and did win individual battles all the war up to the final day of their wars. And people enjoy their games bringing these eras to life.

Dismissing hh is akin to dismissing out of hand every historical wargame that's just been rude.

I wouldn't spend to much time arguing against PenitentJake on taht, its not really an argument that was made in good faith to begin with. As you noted, it completely discounts any form of historical wargaming, but also completely ignores the concept of "its the journey, not the destination" that matters.

 Gibblets wrote:
Alright this thread has stalled into city mouse/country mouse. The soul people feel there's an extreme limiting of options for terrain, missions, characters and unique army builds. The math crunching, power gamers don't understand why you would want an option that seemingly is only fluffy. Because frankly when they see a large list of wargear they get intimidated with all the number crunching they're going to have to do to be able to sleep at night knowing they squeezed the extra 0.2% efficiency out of their character.

"Power gamers intimidated by large list of wargear".

I'm gonna make the observation that wargear in terms of weapons ballooned to an absurd level in comparisson to earlier editions.

4th ed:


9th ed:


So like, the "too many wargear stats" argument doesn't really fly.

I'll also make the argument that individual units were more customizeable in the old days, and re-optimizing your list was often more a matter of managing upgrades. These days the optimization is more about buying a new kit. That's something the Primaris line is particularly guilty of. I wonder if GW looked at those competetive Eldar purchasing habits and said "Let's expand that to the most popular faction so we can crank a huge playerbase around from edition to edition."

 vict0988 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't know how you could convince anyone of anything with this. Why do you and why should I care about whether a Company Commander has 4+ or 5+ when the model isn't different like it is when it has a plasma pistol instead of a las pistol?

What would giving Heralds of Khorne an option to upgrade their weapons to etherblades for +1AP for 5 pts or firestorm blades for +1S for 10 pts add to the game?

Imo this ia all about implementation. The old Guard Doctrines were about Regimental level Upgrades, so you weren't looking at differences between models trying to see who had a 4+ save.

And to your example, are Relics modeled? Is that an Astartes Chainsword or the Teeth of Terra? A Plasma Pistol or a Master Crafted weapon? There are often not any clear visual distinctions within the current system either.

As for Bloodletters upgrading their weapons, those upgrades may synergise with other abilities, interactions with core rules, or specific targets.

Relics are very important and few in number, there aren't a dozen of them scattered across an army, so it's not important that they are modelled, but one unit of Lokhust Destroyers having one rule and another unit having a different rule, seems to me like a different thing. Do you think having 15 invisible upgrades and 2 is the same because you already get relics mixed up now and the added mixups coming from more wouldn't be so bad or do you think you could easily remember all 15 invisible upgrades?

As opposed to the invisible Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Detatchment variables that are also present? There's plenty of invisible stuff to keep track of in the new game, in addition to greatly expanded list of weapons that are visible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
I mean that's not true because Chaos won the Heresy. Horus himself lost.
The Gods got exactly what they were looking for, a deadish Emperor, millions of mortal servants and a rotting carcas of an Imperium that would net them even more morsels than ever before.

The gods might have won, but the Chaos Legions sure didn't.

That 9th list of weapons is a WTF moment for game design !

Yeah, the expansion of weapon types in 9th edition is also largely unnecessary. Its often minor variation for the sake of minor variation instead of just standardizing broad weapon types. It would be like giving an AR-15, M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, M16A4, M4, M4E1, M4A1, M4E2, HK416, G36, and M27 different rules. Sure there might be minor variations in performance between these weapons, but fundamentally at the level of detail we are discussing those differences are insignificant, yet GWs designers have seen fit to try to differentiate them. In the past having a "bolter" or a "heavy bolter" would be encompassing of several different models, patterns, and types of bolters. Now you have a bunch of variations of bolters and heavy bolters with minor differences in range, strength, ap, or damage, etc. even before you account for special ammo types. It seems like 10th is reversing that trend a bit, intercessors or heavy intercessors (forget which, maybe both?) no longer have 3 different variations of bolt rifle/heavy bolt rifle that they can field, and the three profiles have been standardized into one. Likewise hellblasters no longer have 3 different variations of plasma rifle or whatever they were called, now its just a common type.

chaos0xomega wrote:Sure there might be minor variations in performance between these weapons, but fundamentally at the level of detail we are discussing those differences are insignificant, yet GWs designers have seen fit to try to differentiate them.

Insectum7 wrote:There's plenty of invisible stuff to keep track of in the new game, in addition to greatly expanded list of weapons that are visible.

I'm gonna make the observation that wargear in terms of weapons ballooned to an absurd level in comparisson to earlier editions.

Hold on, weren't you both saying how too many options have been reduced 1 page ago, now you're commenting there's too many wargear entries?

Is defining the intercessor bolters differences "too much" but power sword/maul/axe isn't somehow?

there comes a break Off point in regards to equipment. The diffrence between a bolter, heavy bolter and assault bolter are relevant especially in older editions due to further weapon types limitiations.

Same with options of equipment like jetbikes, jumpacks et all. You don't need a diffrence between horse and bike f.e. but certainly between foot, jumppack and Bike.

And then there are primaris bolt weapons.

The Primaris Bolt Weapons are still inconsistent.

They greatly fixed the three different guns problem with Intercessors/Heavy Intercessors by giving them Heavy and Assault - an elegant solution that simplifies their use whilst keeping the flavour of all three types of weapons - but left gaps, such as the Gravs Captain with Heavy Bolt Rifle, a gun that doesn't Heavy/Assault. Ditto for the regular Primaris Captain's bolter, which doesn't have Heavy/Assault either. There are still lots of weird bolt-related weapons throughout the Marine book, from Absolver Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, Instigator Carbines, whatever Reivers have, Incursor guns, Infiltrator guns, the unique bolter in that horrid Company Heroes unit that drives me up the damned wall.

Meanwhile, there's apparently not enough difference to give Combi-Meltas, Combi-Flamers, Combi-Gravs and Combi-Plasmas different rules...

AnomanderRake wrote:I think HH2's use of the Breaching keyword (plasma guns are AP4, but on a 4+ to wound they're AP2, so they're ignoring your armor some of the time but not all the time) makes for an interesting approach to making armor a little more granular, as well as reducing the amount of AP2 spam available.

It's an interesting way to make weapon roles a little more 'fuzzy', but like the keyword that makes a weapon do multiple wounds, it's a special rules fix for a deficiency with a core mechanic.

HH2.0 has a lot of those special rules helping to patch up problems with the core systems. I appreciate them iterating on the game and addressing its issues, but it's a pretty clunky solution.

PenitentJake wrote:Have fun building fluffy lists with a handful of factions and relying on houserules or "counts as" to play factions that GW couldn't be bothered to include. As I said in a previous post, putting all the fluff into an army by list-building isn't what I'm after so much as creating fluff by playing. I don't know if HH has a progression system or not, but if it doesn't, that's just another thing that makes it inadequate.

This is a remarkably bad faith response. You're the one who made the claim about modern 40K offering more options than the 30K Militia list from a position of self-admitted ignorance; why are you throwing a hissy fit because people with experience disagree?

Dudeface wrote:Hold on, weren't you both saying how too many options have been reduced 1 page ago, now you're commenting there's too many wargear entries?

Yes, because giving wider access to the same limited, visually consistent inventory of weapons is a design approach that gives you increased choice and flexibility without increasing cognitive load.

In older editions you can look at a character, see that he has been modeled with a sword, and know that it's a power sword and it does what power swords do. The character could have the option to take a bolter, power fist, bolt pistol, plasma pistol, whatever, and it isn't a problem because these are all coming from the same armory and have the same stats no matter who's carrying them.

In 9th-10th you look at a character, see that he has a sword, and even if that's his only option you're still going to have to look at the datasheet to see how this sword is different from every other sword because GW wants every unit to have bespoke wargear. You can't learn the system because there is no system, and if the unit has multiple options then that just multiplies the complexity.

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Sure there might be minor variations in performance between these weapons, but fundamentally at the level of detail we are discussing those differences are insignificant, yet GWs designers have seen fit to try to differentiate them.

Insectum7 wrote:There's plenty of invisible stuff to keep track of in the new game, in addition to greatly expanded list of weapons that are visible.

I'm gonna make the observation that wargear in terms of weapons ballooned to an absurd level in comparisson to earlier editions.

Hold on, weren't you both saying how too many options have been reduced 1 page ago, now you're commenting there's too many wargear entries?

Is defining the intercessor bolters differences "too much" but power sword/maul/axe isn't somehow?

That's right. Options for personalizing your units, squads, vehicles have been reduced. What's taken its place is 40 types of bolt weapon. Instead of being able to choose options for the cool HQ model, or upgrade my squads to fit my chosen playstyle, I have new kits to buy. . .

Old style: Command Squad, which can be given (generic/shared) Flamers, Plasmas, Meltas, or any combination. Upgradeable with a generic "skill" from the BRB. Has kit, but also kitbash-able from huge array of interchangeable parts. Weapons and Skills are known by most players because many armies have access to same.

New style: No Command Squad. New flamer marine unit with bespoke flamer weapons, or new plasma unit with bespoke plasma weapons, or new mela unit with bespoke melta weapons. Each variation comes with bespoke, unmutable special rule. Different kit for each. Weapons and abilities more difficult to remember because each is bespoke.

Old version, more permissable options, more ability to personalize, while being easier to remember. New version, less mutable, but also harder to remember. Add strats on top for increased cognitive load and potential for "gotchas".

It's worse than that. There is a new Command Squad, and it's a set 4 models with zero options and they all have completely mismatched wargear.

The models themselves are great, but the unit is perhaps the worst example of NMNR, kit-based limitations and boxed-based restrictions in the entire game.

And if they don't start the battle with a Captain attached... they die.

 catbarf wrote:
In 9th-10th you look at a character, see that he has a sword, and even if that's his only option you're still going to have to look at the datasheet to see how this sword is different from every other sword because GW wants every unit to have bespoke wargear. You can't learn the system because there is no system, and if the unit has multiple options then that just multiplies the complexity.

I hadn't even considered that. That is bad.

They never should have divorced WS/BS from characteristics to make them part of weapon stats.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's worse than that. There is a new Command Squad, and it's a set 4 models with zero options and they all have completely mismatched wargear.

The models themselves are great, but the unit is perhaps the worst example of NMNR, kit-based limitations and boxed-based restrictions in the entire game.

And if they don't start the battle with a Captain attached... they die.

Oh yeah, that was totally isulting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In 9th-10th you look at a character, see that he has a sword, and even if that's his only option you're still going to have to look at the datasheet to see how this sword is different from every other sword because GW wants every unit to have bespoke wargear. You can't learn the system because there is no system, and if the unit has multiple options then that just multiplies the complexity.

I hadn't even considered that. That is bad.

They never should have divorced WS/BS from characteristics to make them part of weapon stats.

Pros and cons to that one. Mostly, that change feels like an awkward way for them to make heavy weapons and power fists functionally have a -1 to-hit without bumping up against the awkwardness of the to-hit penalty cap. But being able to give certain attacks an expectedly good or bad chance of hitting is an interesting lever to be able to pull. Plus, theoretically you'd be able to more easily set points costs for a weapon option when you know what platform it's going to be on (rather than having to decide whether to price a powersword like it's being held by a sergeants vs being held by a chapter master)... If point costs for wargear were still a thing.

I don't mind the WS/BS being baked in.

I do mind when two weapons on two different units that look very similar (or are literally the same sculpt) have significant differences in other stats that require me to constantly double-check to make sure I'm not getting them mixed up or forgetting some subtle detail that distinguishes one unit from another.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I wouldn't spend to much time arguing against PenitentJake on taht, its not really an argument that was made in good faith to begin with. As you noted, it completely discounts any form of historical wargaming, but also completely ignores the concept of "its the journey, not the destination" that matters.

You are correct sir- I retract those particular statements. Truth is I've just got the Heresy Blues.

I want to look forward to what GW releases- I want to be excited about my hobby. Prior to HH going mainstream and the arrival of Legions Imperialis, a week on Warcom or an issue of White Dwarf used to give me something to be stoked about. But nothing Heresy era will ever be of interest to me, no matter how awesome its rules are. And sure, there are some cool plastic Heresy models that can be used in 40k, but Marines aren't really my thing. I like the Chambers Militant of the Inquisition, so some of those plastic models interest me- I'd take a Spartan for each Chamber... But it's low priority.

So yeah, I am bitter about Heresy, and it is affecting my participation in this thread. If it didn't exclude Sisters and Xenos, I probably wouldn't be barking as loud as I am. I don't doubt it's an excellent game; I don't doubt that it's better than 10th. My most recent comments about the fixed outcomes in Heresy era games are really just an extension of my frustration with the over-exposure of a set of games that have nothing to offer me. If the game included Sisters and Xenos, I certainly wouldn't let the historical nature of the era get in my way. So allow me to put the last nail in the coffin of that argument myself.

As for Not Online!!!'s other responses: yes, I agree, we probably do want the same thing- room for Narrative in our games. And yes, I agree with your second comment as well- a system that let's you express your fluff in the list building stage doesn't prevent, and does actually support, a system that allows you to earn your fluff by playing.

If you took the HH system, let all 40k factions in, and added a Crusade variant with as many tools as the one we've got, might I like that better than 9th ed Crusade? Maybe. But because that has never happened and never will, 9th ed Crusade is the closest I'll ever get. I'm not saying it's objectively better than whatever the rest of you prefer- it's just the best fit for what I am looking for that GW has ever produced.

PS- To add insult to injury: WD 493 contains the first bespoke WD Crusade content of the 10th Edition... And surprising no one, it's for Marines- specifically Tome Keepers. WD 494 will contain not an Index Xenos or an Index Chaotica, but yet another Index Astartes, this time the Raptors.

You know, Space Marines- the guys who came in the starter box, already have their Codex and hence all of their bespoke Crusade content. The guys who had yet another release wave? The guys who have a whole set of Historical games built specifically for them and a limited set of friends?

WD SHOULD BE the life-support system for the rest of us while we wait for our dexes. If I was an editor, I'd release faction specific hold-over content in reverse order of dex releases, allowing the faction with the last dex of the ed to get at least some Crusade content rather than leaving them a mere 3-6 months of playtime before the next fething reset.

 catbarf wrote:
I don't mind the WS/BS being baked in.

I do mind when two weapons on two different units that look very similar (or are literally the same sculpt) have significant differences in other stats that require me to constantly double-check to make sure I'm not getting them mixed up or forgetting some subtle detail that distinguishes one unit from another.

As I understand it, this is intentional. Because a powerfist in the hands of a guardsman should be different than one on a space marine.

Which I get, but it does bog everything down.

The issue isn't the Power Fist on a Guardsmen being different to a Power Fist on a Marine. The issue is Power Fists within the Marine list having different rules depending on who's wielding it.

It also means that we get the inconsistency of some units having organic leaders that have different stats (Nobz, Exarchs), and others that have nothing (Vet Sergeants, Asp Champs), meaning that if you get a squad that can have multiple weapons, that "Sergeant" or "Champion" counts for nothing. Take CSMs, who already lost "Power Fist" as an option, now with generic Heavy Close Combat Weapon, which is the double-handed Chainaxe. You can take two, one on the Champ and one on a regular guy, and if I'm remembering correctly, the Asp Champ gets the same number of attacks as the regular guy as it's one profile for both weapons... and then the power fist gets its own profile in other squads.
 

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Pros and cons to that one. Mostly, that change feels like an awkward way for them to make heavy weapons and power fists functionally have a -1 to-hit without bumping up against the awkwardness of the to-hit penalty cap. But being able to give certain attacks an expectedly good or bad chance of hitting is an interesting lever to be able to pull.

Whilst I admit that I am a fan of Heavy being a bonus rather than a penalty as people tend to remember things that help them over things that don't, if it meant shifting WS/BS back to being part of a unit's profile than a weapon's profile, I could live it it going back to being a USR that reduces its To Hit and also did so in a way that cleared the penalty cap.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Plus, theoretically you'd be able to more easily set points costs for a weapon option when you know what platform it's going to be on (rather than having to decide whether to price a powersword like it's being held by a sergeants vs being held by a chapter master)... If point costs for wargear were still a thing.

It used to be pretty easy. There were Codices that had two costs for weapons - one for ICs, one for UCs. Why the game has regressed since then I do not know...

PenitentJake wrote:
PS- To add insult to injury: WD 493 contains the first bespoke WD Crusade content of the 10th Edition... And surprising no one, it's for Marines- specifically Tome Keepers. WD 494 will contain not an Index Xenos or an Index Chaotica, but yet another Index Astartes, this time the Raptors.

I thought they weren't trying to be Chapter specific in 10th?

Wayniac wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't mind the WS/BS being baked in.

I do mind when two weapons on two different units that look very similar (or are literally the same sculpt) have significant differences in other stats that require me to constantly double-check to make sure I'm not getting them mixed up or forgetting some subtle detail that distinguishes one unit from another.

As I understand it, this is intentional. Because a powerfist in the hands of a guardsman should be different than one on a space marine.

Which I get, but it does bog everything down.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The issue isn't the Power Fist on a Guardsmen being different to a Power Fist on a Marine. The issue is Power Fists within the Marine list having different rules depending on who's wielding it.

Simplified and streamlined would be having the minimum number of rules for a thing to work.

Go check out the latest Deathwatch index, updated this week. On the Proteus Killteam datasheet a powerfist can be:
*An actual powerfist (as long as a terminator is holding it)
*A close combat weapon (if a foot vet has anything other than a boltgun)
*A long vigil melee weapon (if you have a boltgun)
*Simultaneously either a close combat weapon or a long vigil melee weapon (if you have a jump pack, one hand holds a CCW, the other a LVMW regardless of whether you modelled any combo of pistols, shield or any melee weapons)

Marines/Guardsmen having standardised profiles (including weapon skill and attacks) and fists having Str x2 / AP -2 / Dam 2 / Unwieldy across the board is objectively better.

And then in the 'Nid Codex, claws, a sword, a talon and a whip are all the same thing.

Most of the time. Sometimes they're different.

Actually I brought this up in 9th, showing that the 9th Tyranid Codex had either 11 or 13 different versions of scything talons, and that it was inconsistent as well (Carnifex had Carnifex Scything Talons, the Screamer Killer had Screamer Killer Scything Talons, and the Thornback had... not Thornback Scything Talons, but also Carnifex Scything Talons).

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I wouldn't spend to much time arguing against PenitentJake on taht, its not really an argument that was made in good faith to begin with. As you noted, it completely discounts any form of historical wargaming, but also completely ignores the concept of "its the journey, not the destination" that matters.

You are correct sir- I retract those particular statements. Truth is I've just got the Heresy Blues.

I want to look forward to what GW releases- I want to be excited about my hobby. Prior to HH going mainstream and the arrival of Legions Imperialis, a week on Warcom or an issue of White Dwarf used to give me something to be stoked about. But nothing Heresy era will ever be of interest to me, no matter how awesome its rules are. And sure, there are some cool plastic Heresy models that can be used in 40k, but Marines aren't really my thing. I like the Chambers Militant of the Inquisition, so some of those plastic models interest me- I'd take a Spartan for each Chamber... But it's low priority.

So yeah, I am bitter about Heresy, and it is affecting my participation in this thread. If it didn't exclude Sisters and Xenos, I probably wouldn't be barking as loud as I am. I don't doubt it's an excellent game; I don't doubt that it's better than 10th. My most recent comments about the fixed outcomes in Heresy era games are really just an extension of my frustration with the over-exposure of a set of games that have nothing to offer me. If the game included Sisters and Xenos, I certainly wouldn't let the historical nature of the era get in my way. So allow me to put the last nail in the coffin of that argument myself.

As for Not Online!!!'s other responses: yes, I agree, we probably do want the same thing- room for Narrative in our games. And yes, I agree with your second comment as well- a system that let's you express your fluff in the list building stage doesn't prevent, and does actually support, a system that allows you to earn your fluff by playing.

If you took the HH system, let all 40k factions in, and added a Crusade variant with as many tools as the one we've got, might I like that better than 9th ed Crusade? Maybe. But because that has never happened and never will, 9th ed Crusade is the closest I'll ever get. I'm not saying it's objectively better than whatever the rest of you prefer- it's just the best fit for what I am looking for that GW has ever produced.

PS- To add insult to injury: WD 493 contains the first bespoke WD Crusade content of the 10th Edition... And surprising no one, it's for Marines- specifically Tome Keepers. WD 494 will contain not an Index Xenos or an Index Chaotica, but yet another Index Astartes, this time the Raptors.

You know, Space Marines- the guys who came in the starter box, already have their Codex and hence all of their bespoke Crusade content. The guys who had yet another release wave? The guys who have a whole set of Historical games built specifically for them and a limited set of friends?

WD SHOULD BE the life-support system for the rest of us while we wait for our dexes. If I was an editor, I'd release faction specific hold-over content in reverse order of dex releases, allowing the faction with the last dex of the ed to get at least some Crusade content rather than leaving them a mere 3-6 months of playtime before the next fething reset.

 Insularum wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't mind the WS/BS being baked in.

I do mind when two weapons on two different units that look very similar (or are literally the same sculpt) have significant differences in other stats that require me to constantly double-check to make sure I'm not getting them mixed up or forgetting some subtle detail that distinguishes one unit from another.

As I understand it, this is intentional. Because a powerfist in the hands of a guardsman should be different than one on a space marine.

Which I get, but it does bog everything down.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The issue isn't the Power Fist on a Guardsmen being different to a Power Fist on a Marine. The issue is Power Fists within the Marine list having different rules depending on who's wielding it.

Simplified and streamlined would be having the minimum number of rules for a thing to work.

Go check out the latest Deathwatch index, updated this week. On the Proteus Killteam datasheet a powerfist can be:
*An actual powerfist (as long as a terminator is holding it)
*A close combat weapon (if a foot vet has anything other than a boltgun)
*A long vigil melee weapon (if you have a boltgun)
*Simultaneously either a close combat weapon or a long vigil melee weapon (if you have a jump pack, one hand holds a CCW, the other a LVMW regardless of whether you modelled any combo of pistols, shield or any melee weapons)

Marines/Guardsmen having standardised profiles (including weapon skill and attacks) and fists having Str x2 / AP -2 / Dam 2 / Unwieldy across the board is objectively better.

This is a weird argument that seems to be very bad faith?

At this point I'm surprised you aren't saying the power fist could also represent a frag cannon, assault cannon, or cyclone missile launcher. You're just reading options on the data sheet and suggesting, for some reason, that a power fist would be an appropriate bit to represent them, against all logic.

I think he's arguing against that level of abstraction.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think he's arguing against that level of abstraction.

Right, right, but it's not an abstraction that exists in the case he's building with the examples presented. A strawman, if you will.