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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think having one name for multiple different unit types might get a bit silly after a while...

No sillier than insisting on two units that are identical except for having a different gun having to have different datasheets.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think having one name for multiple different unit types might get a bit silly after a while...

No sillier than insisting on two units that are identical except for having a different gun having to have different datasheets.

That's potentially Rule Of Three based.

only if it would be consistent cross the game

one faction needing its own datasheet for a tank with slightly different weapons so they can have 6 of them while the other one with completely different weapons just got 1 so there is a limit to 3 makes no sense and it would be much easier to balance if they scrap the rule of 3 (and multiple datasheets for the same unit) and add 0-X to the datasheet instead

Breton wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think having one name for multiple different unit types might get a bit silly after a while...

No sillier than insisting on two units that are identical except for having a different gun having to have different datasheets.

That's potentially Rule Of Three based.

Which is also silly

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Breton wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think having one name for multiple different unit types might get a bit silly after a while...

No sillier than insisting on two units that are identical except for having a different gun having to have different datasheets.

That's potentially Rule Of Three based.

Which is also silly

Yes it is silly but i understand why they did it. with a complete open army built framework of course everybody is going to spam the best units they can. the pre- 8th editions (not counting stupid formations/detachments that caused the same problems in 7th) prevented this by force org restrictions and even armies that got to move it around a bit took restrictions in other areas.

Think of it, an army build that you are only required to bring a leader and then you spend half you points on the best anti big thing squads and the other half on the best anti-infantry squads and your pretty well down to rock/paper/scissors.

but why having the rule of 3 to prevent spam and than make 3 datasheets of the same unit to make them spam-able again?

 kodos wrote:
but why having the rule of 3 to prevent spam and than make 3 datasheets of the same unit to make them spam-able again?

Because some of them are likely to be a lot less pts-efficient and therefore not a balance problem if spammed. I see the problem with having no more than 3 Leman Russes in a 2k matched game, but I think it's worth it and I find the custom rules for each variant irksome. Whether you'd rather face 3 Squig Buggies and 3 of each of the other variants or 9 Squig Buggies is a matter of taste.

yeah, as I wrote above, for balance alone it would be way easier to remove the general rule of 3 and just add 0-X for each datasheet instead of that mess

32 months til 11th.

 kodos wrote:
yeah, as I wrote above, for balance alone it would be way easier to remove the general rule of 3 and just add 0-X for each datasheet instead of that mess

How so? If you know that a unit is problematically strong like Flyrants, then why would you move the max from 9 to 3 when you're also nerfing the pts such that Flyrants are no longer an issue? Ro3 is strong exactly because it hits everything, even the units that are OP but no one knows they are yet, it's a pre-emptive ban on spammy lists, I also have a personal dislike for spammy lists, overpowered or not.

 aphyon wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
Anecdotal example...
My group all started in 2nd 3rd or 4th. We play tenth now.

Human nature, people want to get games in so they will play what is most current, even if it is a raging dumpster fire...especially if it is just a little better than the inferno dumpster fire that was the end of 9th.

Since i play so many different games i enjoy each because they are different. as i find nothing appealing about 40K after 8th i have zero desire to play it. same as i have felt for games like MTG or malifaux.

Or, we just don't care about the rules that much and just play a game we enjoy?
We think 3rd and 4th are the greatest editions ever so 10th is fine with us.
Since I don't waste my time on inferior games I can enjoy 40k to the fullest instead of wasting my time on niche games that no one has heard of and most likely will never play.

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

Isn't that sad in and of itself.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

Isn't that sad in and of itself.

Usually yes.

But in this case 10th is as much of a dumpster-fire as 6th so the sooner the better, frankly.

Uptonius wrote:

Since I don't waste my time on inferior games I can enjoy 40k to the fullest instead of wasting my time on niche games that no one has heard of and most likely will never play.

In the context of the conversation in this thread, I'm curious what you are referencing as inferior games. Other GW games? Other company games? Older editions?

I know it's likely bait or just throwing shade for the sake of it, but am genuinely curious on this rationalization. Even among the numerous groups I play with I don't believe anyone thinks 40k is a superior game to a host of other options (GW or otherwise).

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

1: No Xenos.
2: No Marines in proper Tactical, Assault, Devastator organization.
3: Not particularly willing to throw GW any money at this point.

And 4: it has its own host of issues, from massive USR bloat to blatantly broken Dreadnoughts.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

Yeah- the only force I could see myself playing in HH is SoS. There is a faction there that I like... but HH lacks so much of the stuff that makes the GW universe what it is to me, that even though there is a faction that I like enough to play, the universe itself is just duller without Xenos, SoB, and the three Ordos of the Inquisition that we love so much.

Death Watch and Grey Knights ARE my marines... Without them, I have very little interest in Marines at all. And it's kinda tough when the whole setting of the game is a war of one set of marines vs another set of marines. There are other factions, sure, but the game isn't ABOUT them, even when you're telling your stories from there point of view.

They may be factions... But their entire involvement in the story is picking a side in someone else's war.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

0 months to play any other fully complete older edition.

with many choices as to which to use.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

1: No Xenos.
2: No Marines in proper Tactical, Assault, Devastator organization.
3: Not particularly willing to throw GW any money at this point.

1 sadly,
2 that's untrue.
3 understandable-

aphyon wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

0 months to play any other fully complete older edition.

with many choices as to which to use.

Chances are lower where i am to get an oldhammer game rather than HH. And i rekon that's a general fact sadly.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

1: No Xenos.
2: No Marines in proper Tactical, Assault, Devastator organization.
3: Not particularly willing to throw GW any money at this point.

2 that's untrue.

Oh?

So all I know is that at some point Ultramarines Veteran Squads were organized like a true Tactical Squad.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

1: No Xenos.
2: No Marines in proper Tactical, Assault, Devastator organization.
3: Not particularly willing to throw GW any money at this point.

2 that's untrue.

Oh?

So all I know is that at some point Ultramarines Veteran Squads were organized like a true Tactical Squad.

Veteran squads are for all legions available, and can take up to two specials or heavies, can be a troops choice and often have some legion specific bling ontop.

^So what about Devastators? A clump of Heavies with a retinue of bolters.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what about Devastators? A clump of Heavies with a retinue of bolters.

only heavies, but up to 10

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what about Devastators? A clump of Heavies with a retinue of bolters.

only heavies, but up to 10

Well then, point 2 stands

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what about Devastators? A clump of Heavies with a retinue of bolters.

only heavies, but up to 10

Well then, point 2 stands

Oh noes, still ample enough room for a normal chapter to be fit into though, so no, not really.

^Hey man, I presented my terms. No Dev bodyguards, no deal.

HH 2.0 is great for my Salamanders vs the Night Lords of a friend of mine, but I would still rather play my xenos and I have other friends that are xenos only.

I know this thread is kind of all over the place but I'm considering getting 40k Apocalypse and I'm curious if there are any here that play it fairly regularly. I've only seen it mentioned once here so I'm assuming not.
I have no intention of collection Epic scale but Apocalypse seems like a better system than 10th for the games my group likes to play.

As for the topic, I agree that 10th along with 9th and 8th before it seem to be GW's faulty attempt to get 40k more accessible and mainstream. I wish they were managing it in a way that wasn't so soul-draining but they are probably just a shell of their former selves. No passionate hobbyists at the helm anymore, just the corporate administratum.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what about Devastators? A clump of Heavies with a retinue of bolters.

only heavies, but up to 10

Well then, point 2 stands

Oh noes, still ample enough room for a normal chapter to be fit into though, so no, not really.

Yes, selling it as a viable alternative to people upset that they just lost units and options, go play this other game where you also lose units and options and receive no extra sympathy

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what about Devastators? A clump of Heavies with a retinue of bolters.

only heavies, but up to 10

Well then, point 2 stands

Oh noes, still ample enough room for a normal chapter to be fit into though, so no, not really.

Yes, selling it as a viable alternative to people upset that they just lost units and options, go play this other game where you also lose units and options and receive no extra sympathy

? It is an alternative, sadly 40k will remain primaris spam, Cut appart and frankenstein fused together chaos, lackluster xeno support.

Atleast he would have the alternative.
Current state of 40k sucks but complaining that the alternative doesn't work on the marine side is a tad ironic.
And its not like he couldn't use the bolter Marines as legio or vets so he wouldn't realistically lose anything.
Contrary he'd gain on the infantry side quite a bit and on the hq side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kingpbjames wrote:
HH 2.0 is great for my Salamanders vs the Night Lords of a friend of mine, but I would still rather play my xenos and I have other friends that are xenos only.

I know this thread is kind of all over the place but I'm considering getting 40k Apocalypse and I'm curious if there are any here that play it fairly regularly. I've only seen it mentioned once here so I'm assuming not.
I have no intention of collection Epic scale but Apocalypse seems like a better system than 10th for the games my group likes to play.

As for the topic, I agree that 10th along with 9th and 8th before it seem to be GW's faulty attempt to get 40k more accessible and mainstream. I wish they were managing it in a way that wasn't so soul-draining but they are probably just a shell of their former selves. No passionate hobbyists at the helm anymore, just the corporate administratum.

Rarely saw it when it was current, but from what i heard the rules were well done. Which is a shame.