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.

 vipoid wrote:

leopard wrote:
its weird, having played more of 10th.. is it soulless? maybe, but you can add the soul to it yourself for your army, give your army its own history etc

And then you put your army on the table and watch it instantly revert to a soulless, grey blob.

Hey, it's only grey because I haven't painted it yet!

But seriously? 10e does nothing to erase the stories/fun memories/epic wins & losses/campaigns fought through etc attached to any of my forces.
My forces souls are intact.....

ccs wrote:
Ok, but wich 40k do they like? RT? 2e? 3e-7e? 8e-10e? Some subdivision of 3e-7e/8e-10e? Some mix?

That's not really a relevant point.

ccs wrote:
1) Most of those people will have already watched ST anyways.

Neither is that.

ccs wrote:
2) On the off chance they haven't, why not? Am I supposed to recommend something else to them?

Oh! I see. You didn't understand my point. Ok, cool. I'll try to be clearer:

If someone likes 40k, it's because they like 40k. And if they're having problems with 40k, suggesting something that isn't 40k really all that helpful, because whatever that other thing is, it isn't 40k, which is the thing that they like.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

If someone likes 40k, it's because they like 40k. And if they're having problems with 40k, suggesting something that isn't 40k really all that helpful, because whatever that other thing is, it isn't 40k, which is the thing that they like.

What do you do when they don't like 40k - y'know, like many if the people in this thread?

You're right though, if someone's trundling along happy and they like 40k, it certainly is just an donkey-cave move to say "akshully you should be playing X".

This shouldn't need to be said, but there is a difference between "I don't like x" and "I like x but have problems with how it's being run". Probably something where someone should try to find out why someone else is saying "I don't like x" before trying to make suggestions.

problem with "I like 40k" simply is that 40k is constantly changing at a very fast rate

so the 40k you may like will be gone and never come back within 3-6 years
either you like the the new version, or you are screwed as it will never come back

there is a reason why OPR gets attention, because it is as closer to 40k people like than 10th (with all the problem 40k have)

it is just that some people still think that GW might reverse and they 40k they like will come back they just need to wait long enough (and playing anything else in between is wasted time)

As a Space Wolves and Thousand Sons player, after several Editions I know that the 40k I liked will never come back and therefore I play other games instead

 waefre_1 wrote:
This shouldn't need to be said, but there is a difference between "I don't like x" and "I like x but have problems with how it's being run". Probably something where someone should try to find out why someone else is saying "I don't like x" before trying to make suggestions.

Which doesn't work when a lot of the people in this thread have been saying "I don't like 40k" for the last three editions of the game.
There comes a point where people need to just move on and find something they do like because constantly complaining about how much they don't like all the current things means people who do like the current editions can't actually talk about them without having a conversation derailed by complaining or feel pressured into hiding their enjoyment so they don't have to get told they're wrong and stupid by people who should just move on.
Because that's what everyone else does. If you don't like a given hobby you find something else. Don't like 40k? Find another game to enjoy or take enjoyment from the modelling aspect and stop constantly complaining about how much you hate everything.

ccs wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

leopard wrote:
its weird, having played more of 10th.. is it soulless? maybe, but you can add the soul to it yourself for your army, give your army its own history etc

And then you put your army on the table and watch it instantly revert to a soulless, grey blob.

Hey, it's only grey because I haven't painted it yet!

ccs wrote:
But seriously? 10e does nothing to erase the stories/fun memories/epic wins & losses/campaigns fought through etc attached to any of my forces.
My forces souls are intact.....

Let me try and better explain what I mean, just so we're not talking at cross-purposes.

When I say that 10th has drained the soul from my army, I mean that it prevents me from enacting core elements its fluff on the tabletop. Let me give an example:

My army has two Archons (one is more akin to a Dracon but alas that's yet another option long since stripped from my book) - one is a frontline warrior who charges into battle accompanied by a unit of Incubi warrior-bodyguards. The other is more cautious, taking shots at range and only moving into melee when the time is right. He is accompanied by a unit of Mandrakes, as he has an unusually close connection to them.

In 9th I could represent this just fine. Both Archons were free to join their respective units and while their wargear choices are frankly pathetic I could at least tailor their WLTs and Artefacts to bring across their distinct roles (e.g. giving the melee Archon the Djin Blade and the ranged Archon the Soul Seeker).

I would add, too, that neither of these seem particularly egregious or exploitative. A ranged Archon hardly seems unreasonable given that they used to be able to take fully-functional Blasters. In terms of units, Incubi are well-known in the fluff for being bodyguards and have filled that role ever since 3rd. Mandrakes are a little more unusual but hardly seem beyond the pale. Even more so when you consider that GW can't be bothered to support them in any other way - having steadfastly refused to give DE an actual Mandrake HQ, whilst canning the one we used to have.

In 10th, however, both Archons are now unit-locked. My melee Archon cannot join Incubi, nor can my ranged Archon join Mandrakes. I could perhaps toss aside all my fluff relating to Mandrakes and have my ranged Archon join Warriors (so that he'd at least be a part of a ranged unit). But even this falls flat because my ranged Archon no longer has any credible ranged options. Indeed, his loadout is now exactly the same as that of the melee Archon. And the pitiful selection of enhancements similarly fails to offer any meaningful way to distinguish the pair.


This is just one example, obviously, but my point is that 10th has completely stripped away so many things that let you customise your force and bring your own lore to the tabletop. It's all very well saying that 10th doesn't change your lore, but if your lore doesn't match the extremely narrow view of GW, then you're stuck with an army that isn't allowed to even come close to resembling your lore when you put it on the table.

Although I played the most during 3.5-5th edition, I think 40k truly 'lost' something from the 2nd to 3rd transition. Not only in rules, but some presentation things that started around 3rd (or maybe even late 2nd) which really bore fruit during 5th edition where many more people caught onto it.

Rogue Trader to 2nd probably lost a few things or made some mistakes, but it feels kind of different.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Telling people disillusioned with 40k's rules to play HH doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even before we get into the Xenos side of things.

People like 40k because they like 40k.

You don't say "Well, just watch Star Trek!" to someone who's had enough of current Star Wars.

If they say they would prefer a franchise that is more episodic in nature, is more accessible without watching and reading every bit of existing content as each series or film is sufficiently standalone, and is generally more philosophical and thoughtful in its in its storytelling and attempts to tackle complex social issues without being in your face preachy about it, etc. then yeah - I'm recommending they check out Star Trek if they are disillusioned by Star Wars (or at least the older Trek series, haven't watched any of the newer stuff).

 catbarf wrote:
If we all agree that HH isn't a like substitute to 40K, I don't see the relevance in bringing it up to begin with. I play HH because I like HH, but if someone who is disillusioned with 40K is looking for a new game and isn't expecting either thematic relevance to their 40K faction or the ability to use their 40K models, I'd sooner recommend Chain of Command, Infinity, or Battletech. For using their existing 40K army, then the two main options are OPR or older editions of 40K.

I guess if you really like Space Marines and you don't mind how they're different in 30K or that HH is a significantly different game and you're comfortable with re-buying your army, then shifting from 40K to HH makes sense.

Otherwise suggesting HH amounts to 'hey, did you know that games other than 40K exist and you can play them?'. Okay, sure. Nobody needed that reminder.

The main point in suggesting HH is that most people complaining about 40k are saying "I wish 40k rules worked this way instead" or "I want to play a game thats exactly like 40k, but differs in these key ways" - and more often than not those descriptions are exactly what HH is. Sure I can recommend any number of non-GW games to people, but Chain of Command, Infinity, and Battletech are nothing like 40k, and making those recommendations to someone that is explicitly saying that they want an experience that is similar to 40k but differs in certain key ways isn't helpful, because those games do not fit that criteria in any way, shape, or form.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Telling people disillusioned with 40k's rules to play HH doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even before we get into the Xenos side of things.

People like 40k because they like 40k.

You don't say "Well, just watch Star Trek!" to someone who's had enough of current Star Wars.

It's more akin to telling someone to watch the prequels who liked Episodes IV-VI but hated VII+ and is complaining about it.

If you said to that person "you should try the prequels, they're not as bad and the setting is the same", and they turned around and said "sorry, Leia isn't in that trilogy, you might as well have told me to watch Twister, I only watch Carrie Fisher content", you might be right to be confused.

This is a pretty apt analogy.

 vipoid wrote:

In 9th I could represent this just fine. Both Archons were free to join their respective units

Point of order, in 9th they couldn't join units at all and were always separate units, and in 10th you don't *have* to join a character to a unit, so you are free to have one of your archons/dracons stand next to a unit of mandrakes or incubi or whatever it is that you want them to be hanging out with, and you won't be in a position thats really much different from where you were in 9th.

I don't disagree - but would flag up that DE probably have the weakest connection between the lore and how your army works on the table. So its arguably unfair to judge all of 10th on that basis.

(The fact its been the case since 5th can however leave you doubtful GW will do anything about it. Making everything 20% cheaper so the win% shoots up isn't resolving the issue.)

chaos0xomega wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

In 9th I could represent this just fine. Both Archons were free to join their respective units

Point of order, in 9th they couldn't join units at all and were always separate units, and in 10th you don't *have* to join a character to a unit, so you are free to have one of your archons/dracons stand next to a unit of mandrakes or incubi or whatever it is that you want them to be hanging out with, and you won't be in a position thats really much different from where you were in 9th.

Sigh. I see we're going for the wilfully-obtuse angle.


No, you're right, Characters in 9th didn't technically join units. But they could nevertheless hang out with whichever units they pleased and receive protection from doing so.

I could have a Succubus hang out with a unit of Beasts or even Cronos if I considered it appropriate. I could have a Haemonculus join Warriors or an Archon join Grotesques. Whether or not their abilities buffed those units, they would at least still be protected by being in proximity to such.

And then we look at 10th. Yes, I can have an Archon hang out with Mandrakes or Incubi. And then I can watch as he's immediately sniped because he doesn't have Lone Operative and so gets zero protection when not attached to a unit of Warriors or the Court of the Archon.

Tyel wrote:
I don't disagree - but would flag up that DE probably have the weakest connection between the lore and how your army works on the table. So its arguably unfair to judge all of 10th on that basis.

Why not? It's still stripped away every last iota of fun and flavour from my army.

Yes, other editions have done this (and I haven't exactly held back when talking about them in the past). However, 10th is the first that has firmly crossed the threshold of making the army no longer fun to even try to play.

And if I am not allowed to judge it on that basis - when the question is literally if 10th has drained the soul from 40k - then on what basis am I permitted to judge it?

 Daba wrote:
Although I played the most during 3.5-5th edition, I think 40k truly 'lost' something from the 2nd to 3rd transition. Not only in rules, but some presentation things that started around 3rd (or maybe even late 2nd) which really bore fruit during 5th edition where many more people caught onto it.

Rogue Trader to 2nd probably lost a few things or made some mistakes, but it feels kind of different.

I think though the player base changed. Lots drifted away but far more came with the style of game 3rd onwards was, so it made sense for the company.

Yeah, I forgot about the lone operative thing, thats on me, my bad. I don't have a lot of experience actually playing 10th yet, just one game, and not even a full one at that.

Rogue Trader, now that I have the rulebook, strikes me as more of an open-ended skirmish RPG than an actual set of hard and fast rules for playing a wargame. Theres a lot of stuff in there which is basically optional, superfluous, padding, or what-have-you, and from what I understand a lot of stuff that was replaced or given alternate rules in the compendium and compilation or whatever they were called, etc. I've come to view it as more of a public beta test or a rules prototype than an actual solidified game engine. What I know of 2nd seems like a refinement of the concept coalesced into a proper standardized game/ruleset. 3rd streamlined a lot and simplified it in many ways - id agree that something was "lost" from the game in the process for better or for worse.

 vipoid wrote:

Yes, other editions have done this (and I haven't exactly held back when talking about them in the past). However, 10th is the first that has firmly crossed the threshold of making the army no longer fun to even try to play.

Not defending anything post 8th edition, but 7th edition Dark Eldar codex made me sell out of the army... the 5th edition codex was so packed full of flavor and options. Unfortunately DE were one of the pre-necron 7th edition bland books that stripped all the flavor from the army. While 10th may seem poor for Dark Eldar flavor, everything after the 7th edition codex has really been crap for the faction.

i tried making a list with my DE for a meme game this week, couldnt even bring myself to complete it

The only reason i'm not 100% set on selling the army is because i own a legit tantalus

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

If someone likes 40k, it's because they like 40k. And if they're having problems with 40k, suggesting something that isn't 40k really all that helpful, because whatever that other thing is, it isn't 40k, which is the thing that they like.

What do you do when they don't like 40k - y'know, like many if the people in this thread?

You're right though, if someone's trundling along happy and they like 40k, it certainly is just an donkey-cave move to say "akshully you should be playing X".

And yet, you keep doing it. You kind of did it in this very comment.

I too have been utterly disappointed with the Dark Eldar in particular. What is currently about the only thing stopping me just ebaying my models is the hope that this is just interim index blandness, and they make more of an effort in the codex.

With that in mind I'm wondering; for those of you who've bought the SM or Tyranid books - is there any significant change from index to codex in terms of rules, equipment, options etc for models / units - or does the codex basically just repeat what was in the index but with additional detachments etc?

 vipoid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

In 9th I could represent this just fine. Both Archons were free to join their respective units

Point of order, in 9th they couldn't join units at all and were always separate units, and in 10th you don't *have* to join a character to a unit, so you are free to have one of your archons/dracons stand next to a unit of mandrakes or incubi or whatever it is that you want them to be hanging out with, and you won't be in a position thats really much different from where you were in 9th.

Sigh. I see we're going for the wilfully-obtuse angle.


No, you're right, Characters in 9th didn't technically join units. But they could nevertheless hang out with whichever units they pleased and receive protection from doing so.

I could have a Succubus hang out with a unit of Beasts or even Cronos if I considered it appropriate. I could have a Haemonculus join Warriors or an Archon join Grotesques. Whether or not their abilities buffed those units, they would at least still be protected by being in proximity to such.

And then we look at 10th. Yes, I can have an Archon hang out with Mandrakes or Incubi. And then I can watch as he's immediately sniped because he doesn't have Lone Operative and so gets zero protection when not attached to a unit of Warriors or the Court of the Archon.

Tyel wrote:
I don't disagree - but would flag up that DE probably have the weakest connection between the lore and how your army works on the table. So its arguably unfair to judge all of 10th on that basis.

Why not? It's still stripped away every last iota of fun and flavour from my army.

Yes, other editions have done this (and I haven't exactly held back when talking about them in the past). However, 10th is the first that has firmly crossed the threshold of making the army no longer fun to even try to play.

And if I am not allowed to judge it on that basis - when the question is literally if 10th has drained the soul from 40k - then on what basis am I permitted to judge it?

This is BLATANT revisionist history. 7th edition DE wasn't worth putting on the table. You guys were on the same level as Digital Only Codex sisters of battle. There wasn't a single faction in the game you had a decent matchup against, and your rules were even more bland than they are now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crispy78 wrote:
I too have been utterly disappointed with the Dark Eldar in particular. What is currently about the only thing stopping me just ebaying my models is the hope that this is just interim index blandness, and they make more of an effort in the codex.

With that in mind I'm wondering; for those of you who've bought the SM or Tyranid books - is there any significant change from index to codex in terms of rules, equipment, options etc for models / units - or does the codex basically just repeat what was in the index but with additional detachments etc?

Can't speak for the Marine dex but the Nid dex is actually awesome. It doesn't really change much on a unit basis (because who cares? A gun's a gun, a sword's a sword) but the detachments completely change how the army plays.

An assimilation swarm is completely different from a Vanguard Infiltrator list. Synaptic Nexus functions VERY differently than Endless Swarm.

It's pretty great. And no, I don't care that I can't give captain librarian chapter master leftenent snuggletoots a powerfist, a chainsword, AND a parking meter.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i tried making a list with my DE for a meme game this week, couldnt even bring myself to complete it

The only reason i'm not 100% set on selling the army is because i own a legit tantalus

Don't let that stop you.

Sold my ~4k points of dark eldar (Tantalus and 2 Reapers included) a few months after the 7th edition codex

ERJAK 811846 11607945 wrote:

It's pretty great. And no, I don't care that I can't give captain librarian chapter master leftenent snuggletoots a powerfist, a chainsword, AND a parking meter.

How about bikes? Losing the option to have bike units, attack bikes, bike characters was a gigantic blow to people with White Scar armies. They got a detachment in the codex, but no units to run them with. And as weapons go if you had all "fists/hammers" removed from a melee marine army you would not like to play the army. Especialy if the army also had no good shoting to replace the melee.

Karol wrote:

ERJAK 811846 11607945 wrote:

It's pretty great. And no, I don't care that I can't give captain librarian chapter master leftenent snuggletoots a powerfist, a chainsword, AND a parking meter.

How about bikes? Losing the option to have bike units, attack bikes, bike characters was a gigantic blow to people with White Scar armies. They got a detachment in the codex, but no units to run them with. And as weapons go if you had all "fists/hammers" removed from a melee marine army you would not like to play the army. Especialy if the army also had no good shoting to replace the melee.

ERJAK clearly stated they don't care about wargear for characters I'm this case, it's pointless you asking as that's a very subjective question anyway. It's a shame that some options have gone, some people will be more bothered than others. Personally I'd rather they threw a bone somewhere for bike lovers but I'd also add that white scars being memed into BIKES!BIKES!BIKES! isn't necessarily great either, they were masters of mounted combat, I.e. mounted on a bike, jetbike, mounted in transports which is the key one people forget.

Karol wrote:

ERJAK 811846 11607945 wrote:

It's pretty great. And no, I don't care that I can't give captain librarian chapter master leftenent snuggletoots a powerfist, a chainsword, AND a parking meter.

How about bikes? Losing the option to have bike units, attack bikes, bike characters was a gigantic blow to people with White Scar armies. They got a detachment in the codex, but no units to run them with. And as weapons go if you had all "fists/hammers" removed from a melee marine army you would not like to play the army. Especialy if the army also had no good shoting to replace the melee.

Well that conversation has to start with wether or not one uses Legends (and you know this).
●If you don't use Legends for whatever reason? Then you're probably pretty sad/angry concerning bikes. Or whatever other 1st born units are no longer in the codex.
●If you do use Legends? Then Life's still good.

I guess its reasonable to go "DE sucks, edition sucks" - and I agree that DE suck right now.

But it just feels a bit... one-dimensional. Like if someone said "9th sucks... because I played Guard and they were awful aside from the last 6 months." Or say GK in 8th.

Its not wrong - but you are picking the worst faction. Its sort of inevitably not going to feel good. Maybe we'll get a good update in 2025. (Here's a codex, and a new version of Urien, don't say we don't do anything for you...)

ERJAK wrote:

This is BLATANT revisionist history. 7th edition DE wasn't worth putting on the table. You guys were on the same level as Digital Only Codex sisters of battle. There wasn't a single faction in the game you had a decent matchup against, and your rules were even more bland than they are now.

Are you seriously claiming that I've misinterpreted my own opinion?

As to 7th, it was an absolute travesty of a codex that stripped away tons of options from the 5th edition book. It was dismal in terms of both power and flavour.

However, 7th also had a few saving graces - most notably the Haemonculus Covens book. While still not without issues, that book added a ton of flavour and fun builds that were sorely missing in the main codex. It was only for Covens but at least it was something.

If 7th made you quit DE, I can fully understand that. I don't by any means defend it. However, for me it never quite reached the level of wanting to abandon the army entirely. 10th has already exceeded that threshold.

What I scratch my head at is why people follow the edition trends so religiously or are so unwilling to try other wargames in the first place. The most depressing thing about 40k isn't that it's a bad wargame, it's that it so often seems to be peoples' first and only wargame. Rather than picking up something like Stargrunt or some other system where you can reasonably cram non-monster critters into it they just burn/sell/abandon their armies in a fury and storm off from wargaming altogether. A large reason for why the 40k situation feels so gak is a lack of community effort in the first place. Fantasy for example continues to survive in pockets clustered around either two fan 'editions' or on historic examples and doesn't seem nearly as beleaguered by what I could only describe as "edition loyalty". Hell the entire behavior of the 40k community is just strange in how people so readily pick up new editions in the first place.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Hell the entire behavior of the 40k community is just strange in how people so readily pick up new editions in the first place.

I'd wager that much of the reason you see this for 40k is that for a long time, and probably still, it's the easiest game to get a pickup game with. It's the game that's played, and people want to keep up with the editions because that's what they're likely to run into in the wild.

There's strong pressure to play what is played. It makes things easier and in the best circumstances helps to create a thriving community.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Hell the entire behavior of the 40k community is just strange in how people so readily pick up new editions in the first place.

I'd wager that much of the reason you see this for 40k is that for a long time, and probably still, it's the easiest game to get a pickup game with. It's the game that's played, and people want to keep up with the editions because that's what they're likely to run into in the wild.

There's strong pressure to play what is played. It makes things easier and in the best circumstances helps to create a thriving community.

Except it's also the only TT related thing where I can think of this sort of phenomena occurring. RPG's? People run old systems all the time or just outright make up their own systems. Card games? Magic has immense popularity with both normal and commander modes. Usually when there's edition loyalty in wargames it's more because there's only two or three editions and they release decades apart so people have no familiar with the old ruleset in the first place. 40K meanwhile turns the whole thing into a fad but the strange thing is that the rules team themselves don't even want this. The interviews with them lay out that they make the game with the intention of everyone just bashing stuff together without terrible amount of structure, and then the actual 40k players start shouting matches because your dudes aren't WYSIWYG or your loadout isn't legal. I don't think it's so much just ease of play as the community has infected itself with a strangely legalistic culture that even the game makers never intended for which creates some of the huge problems 40k suffers from, 10e being gak or not.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Hell the entire behavior of the 40k community is just strange in how people so readily pick up new editions in the first place.

I'd wager that much of the reason you see this for 40k is that for a long time, and probably still, it's the easiest game to get a pickup game with. It's the game that's played, and people want to keep up with the editions because that's what they're likely to run into in the wild.

There's strong pressure to play what is played. It makes things easier and in the best circumstances helps to create a thriving community.

Strong agree. W40k's two biggest strength's are a) its lore and b) its ubiquity. And the cost of ubiquity is staying up to date, no matter what the rules actually look like that quarter, since the only thing that matters about the quality of the rules is their publication date.

Personally, 8E got me back after I left the game in 5E, and was a welcome return. Then 9E drowned that goodwill under the obnoxious complexity of uninspiring stratagem play (plus releasing the Chaos codexes woefully late in the cycle). I've yet to play 10E but have some good friends getting into the game for the first time that make me excited in a way that the edition itself certainly does not.

Ultimately, I realized some time in the last years that the happiest you'll be "playing warhammer" is to focus on the hobby and get a few games in with your mates every year. Make cool stuff, put it on the table, muddle through the rules at your own pace, roll dice, have some laughs, make more cool stuff.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Hell the entire behavior of the 40k community is just strange in how people so readily pick up new editions in the first place.

I'd wager that much of the reason you see this for 40k is that for a long time, and probably still, it's the easiest game to get a pickup game with. It's the game that's played, and people want to keep up with the editions because that's what they're likely to run into in the wild.

There's strong pressure to play what is played. It makes things easier and in the best circumstances helps to create a thriving community.

Except it's also the only TT related thing where I can think of this sort of phenomena occurring. RPG's? People run old systems all the time or just outright make up their own systems. Card games? Magic has immense popularity with both normal and commander modes. Usually when there's edition loyalty in wargames it's more because there's only two or three editions and they release decades apart so people have no familiar with the old ruleset in the first place. 40K meanwhile turns the whole thing into a fad but the strange thing is that the rules team themselves don't even want this. The interviews with them lay out that they make the game with the intention of everyone just bashing stuff together without terrible amount of structure, and then the actual 40k players start shouting matches because your dudes aren't WYSIWYG or your loadout isn't legal. I don't think it's so much just ease of play as the community has infected itself with a strangely legalistic culture that even the game makers never intended for which creates some of the huge problems 40k suffers from, 10e being gak or not.

I think that's more a combination of tournaments setting expectations, and the aggressive release cycle.

Also an active effort of GW to insulate it's market share, as to not lose players to other ecosystems-