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.

The previewed Bretonnian rules for The Old World absolutely dunk all over 10th ed. 40k's army building.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The previewed Bretonnian rules for The Old World absolutely dunk all over 10th ed. 40k's army building.

I'm sort of on the fence, I think 40k is too flat and simple, but after this long in the game I'm stuck with wondering why some units are arbitrarily 1 per whatever. Either they're aimed at fluff players or the limited units are logically OP by intent, also not a fan of troops taxes again either.

Kinda hoped they'd back away from allies/mercs to begin with and instead get the lay of the land rock solid first for old world, then do an allied/mercs supplement later.

Then again maybe old world is in it for the fluff and fun whereas I'm now too conditioned to 40k trying to be a tournament thing.

I’m not sure they are putting in a troops tax. Did you look at that Man-at-arms units rules? Chaff infantry that can stop the hardest charging unit in its tracks if you don’t destroy it.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The previewed Bretonnian rules for The Old World absolutely dunk all over 10th ed. 40k's army building.

I haven't seen those yet, got a link?

The link!

There's actual army structure, limitations, and points values. It's fething wild what GW can do when they put rub their scant few brain cells together.

Fantasy has the statlines, upgrade list and army building structure that I crave for 40K. Officially gotta switch my gaming system now.

 Gibblets wrote:
Fantasy has the statlines, upgrade list and army building structure that I crave for 40K. Officially gotta switch my gaming system now.

And all of those 25 year old minis 40k has phased out, but it is a very different sort of game, glad if you've found something that jives for you.

I have had zero interest in 40k for a few months now. I'm pretty sure it's due to the completely sterile way 10th edition is. It feels hollow, lifeless. Still can't point to a specific reason though.

I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

It's also because in 10th unit loadouts aren't really a thing any more.

GW stripped a lot of upgrades, which honestly was fine some were getting a bit silly with it; but ontop of that they basically put 10th onto power-levels instead of points. So your fully kitted out marine unit costs the same as a barebones one.

Layer that with lost weapon options on some models

Layer that with units now bought in groups instead of individual models

Add it all up and you've a much more army building blandness.




Some of those things are not bad; some are pretty good honestly; and some (like forcing power level approaches) are just dull/bad/take out whatever semblance of balancing was being put into hte game.


So there's a lot of changes, some not asked for nor desired; and in true GW style they've taken an approach and then gone so overboard that what they aimed to gain is now creating problems of its own

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

Could be I don't actually know. I know that I played an eighth edition during the index period and it was a lot more enjoyable than the way 10th is right now. I'm not exactly sure what the reasoning for that was

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

They're completely different units, why shouldn't they have different rules/options?

ccs wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

They're completely different units, why shouldn't they have different rules/options?

Green Cultists, Blue Cultists, and Black Cultists aren't different units though. They're literally the same box of models with the same weapons which fulfil the same role in their respective armies. Red Cultists are different in that... they have chainswords and can take a big guy (get rekt Firebrand).
There is absolutely no good reason for Green Cultists not having the autogun/pistol & CCW option which Blue and Black ones do.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

They're completely different units, why shouldn't they have different rules/options?

Green Cultists, Blue Cultists, and Black Cultists aren't different units though. They're literally the same box of models with the same weapons which fulfil the same role in their respective armies. Red Cultists are different in that... they have chainswords and can take a big guy (get rekt Firebrand).
There is absolutely no good reason for Green Cultists not having the autogun/pistol & CCW option which Blue and Black ones do.

I think this is where the big divide is, tbh.

The grognards look at cultists and wonder wtf happened; with every color getting their own flavor and also having highly arbitrary restrictions, such as aforementioned pistol, which makes absolutely no sense. A cultist is a cultist and CSM (or the gods) couldn’t care less whether they live or die, let alone what weapons they show up with or how they organize. And yet we’re to believe that Nurgle apparently personally makes goop out of anyone cultist who shows up with a pistol and club.

Then the flip side are people who say they’re completely different units with different data sheets, so it doesn’t make sense why someone would be offended by the idea that their green cultists can’t have an option the others have. That’s what the dataslate says, why question it?

It’s this kind of thing which contributes to the sterility of 10th ed over all. Sure individual units have more rules (because that’s what makes a good game…) but army building is both absent of restrictions and absent personalization. This squad comes in this size and has these guns. That squad comes in another size and has a different load out, because they’re a different color. So on and so forth.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

They're completely different units, why shouldn't they have different rules/options?

Green Cultists, Blue Cultists, and Black Cultists aren't different units though. They're literally the same box of models with the same weapons which fulfil the same role in their respective armies. Red Cultists are different in that... they have chainswords and can take a big guy (get rekt Firebrand).
There is absolutely no good reason for Green Cultists not having the autogun/pistol & CCW option which Blue and Black ones do.

So your mental stumbling block is that 1 kit can be used to make several different units. Whose exact loadouts differ based on the army your building them for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

They're completely different units, why shouldn't they have different rules/options?

Green Cultists, Blue Cultists, and Black Cultists aren't different units though. They're literally the same box of models with the same weapons which fulfil the same role in their respective armies. Red Cultists are different in that... they have chainswords and can take a big guy (get rekt Firebrand).
There is absolutely no good reason for Green Cultists not having the autogun/pistol & CCW option which Blue and Black ones do.

I think this is where the big divide is, tbh.

The grognards look at cultists and wonder wtf happened; with every color getting their own flavor and also having highly arbitrary restrictions, such as aforementioned pistol, which makes absolutely no sense. A cultist is a cultist and CSM (or the gods) couldn’t care less whether they live or die, let alone what weapons they show up with or how they organize. And yet we’re to believe that Nurgle apparently personally makes goop out of anyone cultist who shows up with a pistol and club.

Then the flip side are people who say they’re completely different units with different data sheets, so it doesn’t make sense why someone would be offended by the idea that their green cultists can’t have an option the others have. That’s what the dataslate says, why question it?

It’s this kind of thing which contributes to the sterility of 10th ed over all. Sure individual units have more rules (because that’s what makes a good game…) but army building is both absent of restrictions and absent personalization. This squad comes in this size and has these guns. That squad comes in another size and has a different load out, because they’re a different color. So on and so forth.

THIS grognard looks at it, shrugs, & says, "Eh. Now GW wants cultists to be slightly different depending on what flavor of Chaos you want to play...."

Being generous I'll assume they did this to differentiate each force fluff wise. To show their flavor, etc etc etc.
Being cynical I'll assume they did this so people like Damocles can't just have one big blob of cultists that they use in 3 different armies. Now Damocles has to pony up the $ to run cultists in multiple Chaos forces as how he's glued his weapons doesn't work for 2/3 forces,.

Wayniac wrote:
I have had zero interest in 40k for a few months now. I'm pretty sure it's due to the completely sterile way 10th edition is. It feels hollow, lifeless. Still can't point to a specific reason though.

Stripping away the fluff. The Wolfy Wolf Squad of the Wolfy Space Wolves is a step too far. Taking away Chapter Tactics and their assorted parallels removed a lot of style from the play.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

Discussing only 10th, I see very little theme and a whole lot of rule. Many of the unit special rules read as something given to differentiate them from another unit, not because they innately should have that ability. That they gave them thematic names doesn't do anything to legitimise the rule.

This edition is very much a rules first approach. Every unit must be mechanically distinct from one another in order to create army list choice. Every unit must have exactly one unique rule, whether warranted or not.

The rules don't convince me they are representing 40k units. They look more like a set of rules that were then skinned with 40k language.

 Hellebore wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

Discussing only 10th, I see very little theme and a whole lot of rule. Many of the unit special rules read as something given to differentiate them from another unit, not because they innately should have that ability. That they gave them thematic names doesn't do anything to legitimise the rule.

This edition is very much a rules first approach. Every unit must be mechanically distinct from one another in order to create army list choice. Every unit must have exactly one unique rule, whether warranted or not.

The rules don't convince me they are representing 40k units. They look more like a set of rules that were then skinned with 40k language.

I think that's a fair stance to take and, for me, this is where comp play eventually leads to as all armies need to have XYZ for parity and all units exist distinctly in different niches to stop "why would I take A when B is 5% better value in the same role". Apart from some armies, they're not allowed full ranges ofc.

 Hellebore wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

Discussing only 10th, I see very little theme and a whole lot of rule. Many of the unit special rules read as something given to differentiate them from another unit, not because they innately should have that ability. That they gave them thematic names doesn't do anything to legitimise the rule.

This edition is very much a rules first approach. Every unit must be mechanically distinct from one another in order to create army list choice. Every unit must have exactly one unique rule, whether warranted or not.

The rules don't convince me they are representing 40k units. They look more like a set of rules that were then skinned with 40k language.

^ This is exactly my issue as well.

From a rules/mechanics perspective, it's cool that each unit does something unique and allows them to have unique roles in an otherwise shallow system.

From a fluff/narrative perspective, I don't understand why swapping the turret weapon on a Leman Russ has any effect beyond what turret weapon is on a Leman Russ.

And the fact that nearly everything has a special rule, which often has no apparent direct thematic relevance to the unit, makes it hard to remember who does what.

Overall I think the special rules are a huge step in the right direction of giving models different use cases other than raw efficiency. You can definitely tell though that there are inspired choices in this regard and places where they slapped the rule on to fill a quota. It's something I'd loved to see improved going forward, but GW is more likely to just replace it with something else entirely that is equally inspired in some places and phoned in elsewhere.

How about a deeper core mechanic system instead of just slapping in special rules band aid?

 LunarSol wrote:
Overall I think the special rules are a huge step in the right direction of giving models different use cases other than raw efficiency. You can definitely tell though that there are inspired choices in this regard and places where they slapped the rule on to fill a quota. It's something I'd loved to see improved going forward, but GW is more likely to just replace it with something else entirely that is equally inspired in some places and phoned in elsewhere.

Well put.

Discussing only 10th, I see very little theme and a whole lot of rule. Many of the unit special rules read as something given to differentiate them from another unit, not because they innately should have that ability. That they gave them thematic names doesn't do anything to legitimise the rule.

This edition is very much a rules first approach. Every unit must be mechanically distinct from one another in order to create army list choice. Every unit must have exactly one unique rule, whether warranted or not.

The rules don't convince me they are representing 40k units. They look more like a set of rules that were then skinned with 40k language.

I totally get what you mean. But on the other hand, there have historically been a lot of units competing for space where their stats and wargear alone meant that there were obvious winners and losers because math said that one unit simply did their job better than the other. Special rules can be a good way to give those units a clearer role. The problem, I think, is when...

A.) The unit doesn't really need a special rule. Maybe its stats or USRs make it good enough at what it does already. Or...
B.) The special rule doesn't feel like it's telling the unit's story/giving you a tasty, flavorful ability but instead just checking some boxes. The uninspired rules that LunarSol refers to.

I like the general direction they're going with using special rules to give each unit a niche. I just think there's room for improvement.

Not Online!!! wrote:
How about a deeper core mechanic system instead of just slapping in special rules band aid?

I think to discuss the relevance what would you want for "deeper core mechanics" to replace the special rules?

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
How about a deeper core mechanic system instead of just slapping in special rules band aid?

I think to discuss the relevance what would you want for "deeper core mechanics" to replace the special rules?

A good example could be make core stats matter more.

In MESBG for example most models are M6 and cav is M10 while a few flyers are M12. Terrain can easily halve movement or more. Some heroes and models can call heroic marches that increases movement speed by 3"/5" (3 for infantry and 5 for cav/fly) and expensive drum models can do the same and the 2 stack.

There are 2 legendary legions for Isengard that have the main benefit be that all the Uruk Hai Scouts, including heroes, in the list become M8 base for "free"(you can't have anything else than low armoured uruk scouts in the list). This change of going from M6 to M8 is quite massive due to there being no random charge distance so if you are outside of 6" most infantry just can't charge you so if you have good movement and a lot of bows you can skirmish really well. You can't shoot a bow if you move over half your movement distance but if you are M8 and have spent a lot of points on a drum and heroes with march you can move 14" a turn with your infantry and still move half, 7", and shoot while keeping out of charge range from infantry most of the time.

This trade off in getting extra move on the entire list while forsaking lots of options totally changes how you can play Isengard. It is only a 2" move bonus (that you could always get on 1 hero and up to 12 scouts in regular Isengard) but it does a lot without having to give an unique special rule to all models since the game mechanics care a lot about the basic stat line of models.

Any change to any stat is quite relevant in that game. There is no automatically wounding on 6+ so any increase in Defence value is relevant. With enough Defence the opponent needs to roll 2 6s in a row to wound or even be unable to wound at all. The lack of rerolls and modifiers for most models also mean that any increase in Strength is a huge deal since most models wound other models on 5s or 6s (Dwarves or ghost is even 6+/4+, 1/12, even to wound for most models). Just having a bad ass hero have +1S and +1D over the other heroes in a list make him stand out a lot without giving him any extra special rules at all. Even having high courage is very relevant in mesbg and the difference between a C2 goblin and a C3 Uruk is big. Uruk Hai Berserkers being C7 (Only the strongest elf lords are at this value) is what gives them the most value even over their increased melee capabilities and special rules due to how relevant of a stat it is.

 Hellebore wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

Discussing only 10th, I see very little theme and a whole lot of rule. Many of the unit special rules read as something given to differentiate them from another unit, not because they innately should have that ability. That they gave them thematic names doesn't do anything to legitimise the rule.

This edition is very much a rules first approach. Every unit must be mechanically distinct from one another in order to create army list choice. Every unit must have exactly one unique rule, whether warranted or not.

The rules don't convince me they are representing 40k units. They look more like a set of rules that were then skinned with 40k language.

^A good summary, here.

Karol wrote:

See this is a view you can only have, if you have been in wargaming for 30 years. A new players, especialy a young teen or kid, who started this edition does not care, which army has to be "punished" for being too good in X edition and which faction gets favoured treatment from the design studio. They spent a no small amount of money and they expect to have fun playing the game. They don't want to be told that they have to wait X years, so that maybe GW will fix the problems of their army. Or that they need learn to like side activities or else they are going to have a really bad time. A 35-40y old players with tens of armies, for different systems, may find w40k faction bad, or an edition, to be an annoying thing. But it pales in comperation to teen who saved for 2-3 years, bought an army, and had it legended or has it been unfun to play. For a game focused old player being told he need to update his army or switch an army, is something he can do. For someone who has 2000pts, telling them that now in order to keep playing, and not necessarly have a good time, they now have to spend 200-300$, paint it etc can be a huge barrier. The so called "extra elements" are only important, when the basic stuff is no longer a worry. And for new players, the main problem is not that, potentialy, their opponents can be "mean" or that the game requires basic math. Their problem is stuff like, I bought and painted a WS army and now I can't use them, or I bought 30 custodes guard and now I can't use them. People first being made to buy 4-6 boxes of a unit to make a working army, intended to run in their army by GW, to have them nurtered 3-4 months later. Now I understand that someone with a yearly income of 100k $ probably won't care much, especialy if he has no wife or kids. But someone with a regular salary does, even a western one. And for everyone outside of the west, GW policy, the way it is now, pro activly encourages people to use recasts. Because playing w40k on a 500-550$ monthly salary, as an adult, just does not work with what GW expects from players to field and play with.

Those are fair frustrations that you list.

However 30 years of experience tells me they're not fundamentally different difficulties than the sort that have always plagued 40k players:

-Armies/units that get nerfed/un-funned or just eliminated.
-Massive power imbalances between armies.
-Spending alot of money and finding that your army is now crap or illegal.
-Long waits for new codices (some which never come) or editions of the rules.

These are part and parcel of the GW experience and have been for at least 30 years (When second edition came out).

I don't want to downplay your accurate critiques. Just to say that longevity in the hobby doesn't merely convince me to look to gamers for my gaming satisfaction. Longevity also shows me that todays complaints are unfortunately nothing new. Todays new 40k gamers are getting on the same train, running down the same rickety track it's been rolling on for three decades.

ccs wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

They're completely different units, why shouldn't they have different rules/options?

Green Cultists, Blue Cultists, and Black Cultists aren't different units though. They're literally the same box of models with the same weapons which fulfil the same role in their respective armies. Red Cultists are different in that... they have chainswords and can take a big guy (get rekt Firebrand).
There is absolutely no good reason for Green Cultists not having the autogun/pistol & CCW option which Blue and Black ones do.

So your mental stumbling block is that 1 kit can be used to make several different units. Whose exact loadouts differ based on the army your building them for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition.

More rules isn't necessarily more good.

I look at unit datasheets and lose interest as soon as I can't remember which of the four different special rules each of the colours of Chaos Cultists has now, or which one arbitrarily doesn't have the weapon options of the others.

They're completely different units, why shouldn't they have different rules/options?

Green Cultists, Blue Cultists, and Black Cultists aren't different units though. They're literally the same box of models with the same weapons which fulfil the same role in their respective armies. Red Cultists are different in that... they have chainswords and can take a big guy (get rekt Firebrand).
There is absolutely no good reason for Green Cultists not having the autogun/pistol & CCW option which Blue and Black ones do.

I think this is where the big divide is, tbh.

The grognards look at cultists and wonder wtf happened; with every color getting their own flavor and also having highly arbitrary restrictions, such as aforementioned pistol, which makes absolutely no sense. A cultist is a cultist and CSM (or the gods) couldn’t care less whether they live or die, let alone what weapons they show up with or how they organize. And yet we’re to believe that Nurgle apparently personally makes goop out of anyone cultist who shows up with a pistol and club.

Then the flip side are people who say they’re completely different units with different data sheets, so it doesn’t make sense why someone would be offended by the idea that their green cultists can’t have an option the others have. That’s what the dataslate says, why question it?

It’s this kind of thing which contributes to the sterility of 10th ed over all. Sure individual units have more rules (because that’s what makes a good game…) but army building is both absent of restrictions and absent personalization. This squad comes in this size and has these guns. That squad comes in another size and has a different load out, because they’re a different color. So on and so forth.

THIS grognard looks at it, shrugs, & says, "Eh. Now GW wants cultists to be slightly different depending on what flavor of Chaos you want to play...."

Being generous I'll assume they did this to differentiate each force fluff wise. To show their flavor, etc etc etc.
Being cynical I'll assume they did this so people like Damocles can't just have one big blob of cultists that they use in 3 different armies. Now Damocles has to pony up the $ to run cultists in multiple Chaos forces as how he's glued his weapons doesn't work for 2/3 forces,.

This grognard is on the why tf are we removing options from cultists/any units side again.

Coorperate sterility is the very antithesis of what makes the setting of 40k great.

 Hellebore wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

Discussing only 10th, I see very little theme and a whole lot of rule. Many of the unit special rules read as something given to differentiate them from another unit, not because they innately should have that ability. That they gave them thematic names doesn't do anything to legitimise the rule.

This edition is very much a rules first approach. Every unit must be mechanically distinct from one another in order to create army list choice. Every unit must have exactly one unique rule, whether warranted or not.

The rules don't convince me they are representing 40k units. They look more like a set of rules that were then skinned with 40k language.

I'll add my support to this as well.

Yeah, it definitely doesn't feel like "setting first", that's for sure.