Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 19:41:54
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Klickor wrote: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.
I feel like this is more of a detachmente-level set of rules than a unit-specific thing. We sort of had something similar last edition with the build-a-bear army traits, right? The right trait could potentially give you a flat bonus to movement, Strength, AP, saves, etc.
I think part of the reason GW is moving away from that is that they've realized just how tricky it is to balance one-size-fits-all rules like that. They don't necessarily want you to have easy access to +1 to-wound or +1 to saves because they've seen how easy it is for players to put those buffs on specific units and end up with a hyperlethal or deathstar unit. Plus, they seem to be trying to let people field whatever models they want in a given army with specific detachments serving to support certain units rather than banning others. That is, 40k detachments would give your uruk scouts the extra movement, but they'd still let you mix a troll into your list; they just wouldn't give the troll the extra movement.
Back to unit-level rules, the point of special rules is to make it easier for units to have niches without either adding in new subsystems or trying to differentiate units purely on their statlines. I don't know MESBG very well, but say you had Uruk-Hai and normal orcs and they both did essentially the same thing except one was slightly more lethal for its points. The less efficient unit kind of wouldn't serve a purpose, right? Now say you gave that weaker unit a sticky objectives rule or the ability to... idk... up their OC equivalent while war drums are on the table. This allows you to leave the more lethal unit lethal but also makes the weaker unit relevant in other ways.
Of course, the argument could then be made that the more lethal unit doesn't necessarily need its own special rule at that point. And it would be weird if the special rule you gave the weaker unit was something out of character for them like healing or whatever.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 19:43:41
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I can sort of agree - but I'm not sure its a bad thing.
There are clearly examples where GW have gone "this army should have ability X, lets give it to unit Y so its in the codex" regardless of the fluff. I think there's also been a more deliberate effort to go "this unit is for X, it should be good at X". Now there are obviously gradient on points efficiency - but there are I think fewer and fewer trap units that bedevilled older editions. I.E. "this is an assault unit that sucks at assault, never take this".
And I do think you get a bit of rose-coloured glasses. Late 9th edition for example at the competitive end had the widest range of armies and the widest range of units in those armies, appearing in top lists, of any era of 40k. And if you rated it that way, I think 10th would be pretty high up there. 5th, 7th? Really not the case. I can do my "3rd was balanced if you were 12 and collected armies like the ones you saw in White Dwarf". With a more optimising mindset, the edition fell over fast.
But yes, arguably this is a mechanical function. The quasi-mystical process by which you might conceive a fluffy or Johnny style list does seem to have faded. This is why I think there is a lot less interest in army building as theoretical process. (There's also the issue of optimising your secondaries, which is harder to do in pure theory I think. You need to play the list and see where it lands.)
Although arguably I think this is a process. There are more options I think with say Tyranids, Marines, Necrons and even Ad Mech (maybe) now. The rest are stuck with one dimension. Which in a way I think indicates how important subfactions are to encouraging list variety. We saw this with those factions stuck with an 8th edition index for a long time and for those of us who were there, ravening hordes in 6th edition Fantasy. Its was arguably the most balanced time in WHFB - but also dull because you didn't have much choices and those you took didn't seem to matter due to being a fairly balanced game...
I see a lot of people getting exciting/complimenting the army build rules they've shown for TOW. Partly I wasn't surprised - I mean its glorified WHFB 9th edition, how could it ever be anything else. But with my competitive hat on - this is a very liberal regime for allowing you to take whatever is the current hotness. Which I think people will do - and have done, at this point for decades. The game will depend on GW getting balance roughly right across the whole range of armies and units. And that seems like a difficult challenge even in a world where they update points every few months.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 19:59:35
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
And I do think you get a bit of rose-coloured glasses. Late 9th edition for example at the competitive end had the widest range of armies and the widest range of units in those armies, appearing in top lists, of any era of 40k. And if you rated it that way, I think 10th would be pretty high up there. 5th, 7th? Really not the case. I can do my "3rd was balanced if you were 12 and collected armies like the ones you saw in White Dwarf". With a more optimising mindset, the edition fell over fast.
But yes, arguably this is a mechanical function. The quasi-mystical process by which you might conceive a fluffy or Johnny style list does seem to have faded. This is why I think there is a lot less interest in army building as theoretical process. (There's also the issue of optimising your secondaries, which is harder to do in pure theory I think. You need to play the list and see where it lands.)
You jogged a thought, Tyel. Something I've been noticing (somewhat in 8th and 9th, but even moreso in 10th) is that there often seem to be mechanical incentives to *not* take too many copies of a given unit. This in turn, I think, makes a lot of lists end up feeling less obviously themed.
For instance, it used to be that eldar players could field a bunch of bike units, and those bikes could all move-shoot-move, and if you showed up with such an army, it felt like you were playing a fluffy Saim-Hann list that was supported by the rules. Now, you can only move-shoot-move a single one of those units every turn (using CP), so if you want to keep them alive, you probably don't want to have more than 1 or 2 windrider units in your army. And there aren't currently really any rewards for leaning into the biker theme to make up for it.
Or an even more obvious example. I like Phoenix Lords a lot, and one of my go-to ways of making a casual list in past editions was to pick a PL, spam their aspect, and do a list themed around that. But now if I want to take, say, Maugan Ra, I feel like I get diminishing returns after the first squad of reapers. I can't make a sniper unit with an exarch power and an attached Mark of the Incomparable Hunter autarch. I can sort of buff them with a farseer, but the farseer can't join their squad. I can't take smaller squads that focus on the tempest launcher exarch firing from behind terrain. I have to bleed CP to hide the units if I want to keep them alive.
Idk. This train of thought is a little half-baked, but I do feel like I've been having a harder time putting together a list that feels like it's expressing its fluff through my choice of units. My 'crons feel somewhat better in this regard post-codex, so maybe I'll feel differently once my space elves get their books. Then again, 'crons do sort of feel like their detachments are basically a pre-approved list of what units I can field...
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 20:50:25
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
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?
Actual equipment differences and options being relevant through a decent cover system and terrain mechanics, aswell as returning to armor values.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 20:52:54
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 20:54:45
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
As a consumer, I'm MUCH happier needing to buy and paint a variety of cool looking things than needing to spam one thing over and over. Honestly, 90% of the reason I mostly only toe in to 40k is simply because I don't feel like the feeling that I need to have so much stuff that works in such a limited framework that is so easily invalidated. I don't really trust GW to stay the current course, but I'll say the current paradigm, which really rewards a good breadth of a faction has me a lot more excited to collect a 1-2 of everything and bounce around playstyles within "my" army.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 21:03:47
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
As a consumer, I'm MUCH happier needing to buy and paint a variety of cool looking things than needing to spam one thing over and over.
On the whole, I am too. But I am starting to see some drawbacks. Ex: My 'stealers being subject to the rule of 3 and having fewer options for squad size and wargear means that my Vanguard detachment has to include some newer or weirder options that I don't necessarily associate with my faction's vanguard-y tactics as much. Or the aforementioned mechanical drawbacks to spamming windridres (which used to be a Troop unit for eldar).
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 21:22:14
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Not Online!!! wrote: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?
Actual equipment differences and options being relevant through a decent cover system and terrain mechanics, aswell as returning to armor values.
Soooo you want 7th ed 40k and consider it mechanically deep? I do not share the opinion sadly, most of what you want is either already represented, could be easily represented as is or simply renaming some of the problems. But to give an example:
You mention armour values rather than the vehicle damage chart, which is I assume a "can't be hurt by small arms" measure, which you can put in place with a keyword for some weapons that means they can never harm monsters/vehicles, or a minor tweak to the wound table to disallow wounds if T is more than double S or something. I wouldn't consider it adding deeper mechanics though.
Decent cover system, well 40k has never had one of these but I'd wager you mean an abstract LOS system that grants a form of modifier or ancillary save, neither of which are a million miles from what exist now really, apart form TLoS vs abstract, which isn't more depth imo.
Lastly taking off "random rules plaster" to reintroduce "lots of wargear that add rules to the unit" isn't adding core depth, just options to armies likely to replace some of what they have already.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 21:23:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 21:31:14
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I will say that I agree there's room for some extra mechanics in the core rules. I think there's probably a way to bring back hiding, maybe add spotter rules, add some flanking and/or crossfire rules, etc.
I got excited when I saw the plunging fire rule for ruins and was mildly disappointed that there wasn't more stuff like that sprinkled through the edition.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 21:34:11
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Wyldhunt wrote:You jogged a thought, Tyel. Something I've been noticing (somewhat in 8th and 9th, but even moreso in 10th) is that there often seem to be mechanical incentives to *not* take too many copies of a given unit. This in turn, I think, makes a lot of lists end up feeling less obviously themed.
I think this is true.
I think certain players have said "make the best lists more like a toolbox, and less spamming a skew".
But as you say - GW have done this by creating a situation where its good to have a unit (maybe 2 for redundancy) that will benefit from strategems/synergies - but not to have many multiples.
But as you say - there's a downside. Once you have an army with unit A, B, C, D, E etc - it looks much like everyone else's list with A, B, C, D and E. You aren't getting that "I love jetbikes, so I'm running Saim Hann with all of them, which, despite being drawn from the same book, is a very different list (mechanically, fluffwise, just general idea) to my friend who also plays Eldar, but is playing Iyanden because he loves Wraithguard." Even before say 3rd edition gave these armies specific bonuses/options.
I don't know how it feels to someone starting out in 10th though. You won't miss what you never had.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 21:35:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 21:42:18
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
The deeper mechanics I would group with Armor Values are:
1: The hard weapon effectiveness cutoffs (S6 can't hurt AV 13+)
2: Flanking (So that S6 weapon could maneuver to be effective)
3: Damage chart (so that a vehicle could be damaged or suppressed in order to maneuvre more effectively against it.)
Bonus mechanic:
4: Better grenade rules (So Infantry without high powered AT weapons could still have an effect against said vehicle, suppress, damage or kill)
Plus, each of those things make more sense than Intercessors spray-and-praying/running up to a tank and simply pounding on it with their fists.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 21:43:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 21:52:39
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Insectum7 wrote:The deeper mechanics I would group with Armor Values are:
1: The hard weapon effectiveness cutoffs (S6 can't hurt AV 13+)
2: Flanking (So that S6 weapon could maneuver to be effective)
3: Damage chart (so that a vehicle could be damaged or suppressed in order to maneuvre more effectively against it.)
Bonus mechanic:
4: Better grenade rules (So Infantry without high powered AT weapons could still have an effect against said vehicle, suppress, damage or kill)
Plus, each of those things make more sense than Intercessors spray-and-praying/running up to a tank and simply pounding on it with their fists.
I don't think a weapon cutoff adds depth per-se but can understand why it might be wanted/needed, but if you add in a vehicle damage chart and a monster equivalent that's good. I'd argue movement in general needs to be better encouraged, lower movement values for infantry, make guns worse if the user moves generally, have passive defensive rules for moving certain speeds. Some form of crossfire, or as mentioned spotter rules as core mechanics would be good. There's a lot of stuff that's been in 40k previously in some format that could be included and have a home, but I don't think just flicking the clock back to 7th ed (which I know you haven't said but that's where the mind goes) is going to fix much, it would still need a massive overhaul. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tyel wrote: Wyldhunt wrote:You jogged a thought, Tyel. Something I've been noticing (somewhat in 8th and 9th, but even moreso in 10th) is that there often seem to be mechanical incentives to *not* take too many copies of a given unit. This in turn, I think, makes a lot of lists end up feeling less obviously themed.
I think this is true.
I think certain players have said "make the best lists more like a toolbox, and less spamming a skew".
But as you say - GW have done this by creating a situation where its good to have a unit (maybe 2 for redundancy) that will benefit from strategems/synergies - but not to have many multiples.
But as you say - there's a downside. Once you have an army with unit A, B, C, D, E etc - it looks much like everyone else's list with A, B, C, D and E. You aren't getting that "I love jetbikes, so I'm running Saim Hann with all of them, which, despite being drawn from the same book, is a very different list (mechanically, fluffwise, just general idea) to my friend who also plays Eldar, but is playing Iyanden because he loves Wraithguard." Even before say 3rd edition gave these armies specific bonuses/options.
I don't know how it feels to someone starting out in 10th though. You won't miss what you never had.
I suspect that'll come back when they get their detachments though, it's likely there'll be a "bikes/jump"-centric one and wraith one.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 21:53:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 22:03:50
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Armor Value is dumb. It always was.
Simple solution is to make use of the "anti-<thing here>" traits, or to give vehicles and monsters a FNP vs "small arms".
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 22:07:37
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Wyldhunt wrote:As a consumer, I'm MUCH happier needing to buy and paint a variety of cool looking things than needing to spam one thing over and over.
On the whole, I am too. But I am starting to see some drawbacks. Ex: My 'stealers being subject to the rule of 3 and having fewer options for squad size and wargear means that my Vanguard detachment has to include some newer or weirder options that I don't necessarily associate with my faction's vanguard-y tactics as much. Or the aforementioned mechanical drawbacks to spamming windridres (which used to be a Troop unit for eldar).
Always drawbacks and always tradeoffs. I think I just prefer this set of drawbacks because I'm finding its resulted in competitive lists that closer align with my relatively casual collection where previous editions have felt like the competitive lists pingpong between massive skews that require a massive investment for something that will drop off relatively quickly.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 22:12:39
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Kanluwen wrote:Armor Value is dumb. It always was.
Simple solution is to make use of the "anti-<thing here>" traits, or to give vehicles and monsters a FNP vs "small arms".
Well, FNP vs small arms would reduce the amount of damage vehicles take from such weapons. The thing is, small arms already aren't doing much against vehicles. Heck, in 10th, the changes to vehicle Toughness have maybe taken small arms to the point of not being worth the time it takes to roll their attacks against tanks. When discussing this topic in the past, people who want to make vehicles immune to small arms often don't do so because they think bolters are killing too many rhinos; it's that they just don't want small arms to be able to interact with vehicles on principle.
Personally, I kind of liked where small arms vs tanks landed in 8th and 9th where bolters and such could contribute enough to matter but were generally still terrible at killing vehicles on their own. I'm not sure how I feel about the current state of small arms vs vehicles in 10th. All my vehicle kills have been with lances this edition. Automatically Appended Next Post: LunarSol wrote: Wyldhunt wrote:As a consumer, I'm MUCH happier needing to buy and paint a variety of cool looking things than needing to spam one thing over and over.
On the whole, I am too. But I am starting to see some drawbacks. Ex: My 'stealers being subject to the rule of 3 and having fewer options for squad size and wargear means that my Vanguard detachment has to include some newer or weirder options that I don't necessarily associate with my faction's vanguard-y tactics as much. Or the aforementioned mechanical drawbacks to spamming windridres (which used to be a Troop unit for eldar).
Always drawbacks and always tradeoffs. I think I just prefer this set of drawbacks because I'm finding its resulted in competitive lists that closer align with my relatively casual collection where previous editions have felt like the competitive lists pingpong between massive skews that require a massive investment for something that will drop off relatively quickly.
Totally get that. While I liked that leaning into not-super-competitive units meant I could easily field a fluffy list with a clear identity, I also hated seeing three riptides (or whatever was hot in the meta at the time) waiting on the other side of the table. Even if a list with variety is more OP than a spam list without variety, it does weirdly feel less frustrating to lose against a variety of units instead of one unit spammed 3 times.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 22:14:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 23:05:41
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Dudeface wrote: Insectum7 wrote:The deeper mechanics I would group with Armor Values are:
1: The hard weapon effectiveness cutoffs (S6 can't hurt AV 13+)
2: Flanking (So that S6 weapon could maneuver to be effective)
3: Damage chart (so that a vehicle could be damaged or suppressed in order to maneuvre more effectively against it.)
Bonus mechanic:
4: Better grenade rules (So Infantry without high powered AT weapons could still have an effect against said vehicle, suppress, damage or kill)
Plus, each of those things make more sense than Intercessors spray-and-praying/running up to a tank and simply pounding on it with their fists.
I don't think a weapon cutoff adds depth per-se but can understand why it might be wanted/needed, but if you add in a vehicle damage chart and a monster equivalent that's good. I'd argue movement in general needs to be better encouraged, lower movement values for infantry, make guns worse if the user moves generally, have passive defensive rules for moving certain speeds. Some form of crossfire, or as mentioned spotter rules as core mechanics would be good. There's a lot of stuff that's been in 40k previously in some format that could be included and have a home, but I don't think just flicking the clock back to 7th ed (which I know you haven't said but that's where the mind goes) is going to fix much, it would still need a massive overhaul.
I appreciate that you aknowledge that I didn't say "return to 7th", because 7th as a whole is definitely not something I'd advocate for. But there are good reasons why that AV paradigm is missed in particular, and I'd certainly say it provided more depth and verisimillitude than the current setup.
I'm open to alternatives. I'm just not expecting GW to deliver.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 23:10:15
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The 10th ed rules seem to be written to be a set of balanced game mechanics, from a purely game based perspective.
This is distinct from say a set of rules being a faithful translation of a setting into numerical values (somewhat subjective). A faithful translation may include redundant choices and subpar units. Because not everyone fits into a perfect jigsaw. Not every unit has a special ability.
To use an analogy, 10th is a digital system that makes everything fit neatly, but it has somewhat trimmed and added to units to make them fit a role in that system. A setting-first ruleset would be more analogue, all overlapping.
The 10th ed rules had decided each unit must have a discrete role and have shaped their rules to fit that, even when that unit in the setting is not so narrow.
10th ed looks more like it used RTS design philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think the focus on the mechanics creates a bit of a disconnect with what they are supposed to represent.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 23:25:58
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Dudeface wrote:Not Online!!! wrote: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?
Actual equipment differences and options being relevant through a decent cover system and terrain mechanics, aswell as returning to armor values.
Soooo you want 7th ed 40k and consider it mechanically deep? I do not share the opinion sadly, most of what you want is either already represented, could be easily represented as is or simply renaming some of the problems. But to give an example:
You mention armour values rather than the vehicle damage chart, which is I assume a "can't be hurt by small arms" measure, which you can put in place with a keyword for some weapons that means they can never harm monsters/vehicles, or a minor tweak to the wound table to disallow wounds if T is more than double S or something. I wouldn't consider it adding deeper mechanics though.
Decent cover system, well 40k has never had one of these but I'd wager you mean an abstract LOS system that grants a form of modifier or ancillary save, neither of which are a million miles from what exist now really, apart form TLoS vs abstract, which isn't more depth imo.
Lastly taking off "random rules plaster" to reintroduce "lots of wargear that add rules to the unit" isn't adding core depth, just options to armies likely to replace some of what they have already.
Honestly HH with a better cover systen. And no the current system was less deep and for that matter baseline functional in all it's iterations since the Big switch of 8th. And no i am not in favour of detachment type deals that 7th has had or the current unlimited System.
And equipment very well is a deeper system if you have f.e. a decent cover system in place, better terrain mechanics including area denial of chemical weaponry f.e. and functioning surpression, such equipment actually would Start to play a massive role. Automatically Appended Next Post: Insectum7 811846 11622337 wrote:
I'm open to alternatives. I'm just not expecting GW to deliver.
Which Part of gw? The HH side of things comes eerily close. Bit more work on the cover system like making it a dual system that benefits heavy and light infantry, aswell as more weaponry that can interact with cover and you pretty much have a foundation on the mechanical side that would be awesome.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/12/20 23:30:55
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 23:32:04
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
Mexico
|
I'm unsure how you could implement AV in a system in which S12 is relatively common and S16+ isn't unheard of.
Or how it would interact with Damage and AP modifiers.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/20 23:54:04
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Hellebore wrote:
10th ed looks more like it used RTS design philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think the focus on the mechanics creates a bit of a disconnect with what they are supposed to represent.
Example: Storm Guardians. Have been pretty bad since I started playing in 5th. In 10th, they have a bit more of a niche in that they have sticky objective control. But why they have this particular rule isn't especially clear. I *think* the idea is that they're supposedly shock troopers, so they're leaving objectives behind rather than stopping to defend them. But in practice, this means that I want to deploy them on top of an objective cover be darned, then spend the game advancing them towards uncontested objectives for the turn or two it takes them to do. Not very shock trooper of them. Not very eldar to be throwing their lives away for a land grab either.
A fluffier take on them was the Black Guardian rules they had at the tail end of 7th where they pop up out of the webway close enough to shoot you with their short-ranged special guns as soon as they arrive... Was that the first instance of the deepstrike mechanics of 8th edition onward? Anyway, much more shock-troopery. Played out like you were using them to sucker punch the enemy and maybe have a chance of keeping them alive rather than having them jogging toothlessly around the table until your opponent can be bothered to kill them.
So in 10th edition, they have a niche, and that's nice. The niche just doesn't feel very fluff-appropriate. They'd maybe be better served by just giving them deepstrike instead of sticky objectives or by lowering their squad size to 5 so that they become a cheap source of special guns that can share a wave serpent with someone. (And thereby avoid dying as they jog towards objectives. )
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/20 23:55:53
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 00:12:19
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Not Online!!! wrote:
Insectum7 811846 11622337 wrote:
I'm open to alternatives. I'm just not expecting GW to deliver.
Which Part of gw? The HH side of things comes eerily close. Bit more work on the cover system like making it a dual system that benefits heavy and light infantry, aswell as more weaponry that can interact with cover and you pretty much have a foundation on the mechanical side that would be awesome.
The 40k part. I think because it's the cash cow it probably gets more attention/interference by coorperate types, and/or because it gets tourney attention it gets influenced heavily by "tight-competetive" types.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 01:09:26
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
You don't need an AV system in a game where certain Toughness levels cannot be damaged at all by lower strength values. If 6's didn't always wound, this would no longer be an issue. Dudeface wrote:Soooo you want 7th ed 40k and consider it mechanically deep?
You cannot ask people want they want, and then just gak over everything they say when they give you a reply.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/21 01:11:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 01:51:31
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Which is true, but won't happen. Because for some reason people at GW think that just because one dude wins one in 100 games, because of an above avarge roll string, somehow balances out the other 99 games.
HH rules are very nice though. And don't have a lot of the problems regular w40k has. I think it would be nice, if it had the old apocalypse rule that removes deaths at the end of both players turn. But nice doesn't mean good for the game, and I have zero ideas how this could be implemented. Automatically Appended Next Post: Wyldhunt wrote:
So in 10th edition, they have a niche, and that's nice. The niche just doesn't feel very fluff-appropriate. They'd maybe be better served by just giving them deepstrike instead of sticky objectives or by lowering their squad size to 5 so that they become a cheap source of special guns that can share a wave serpent with someone. (And thereby avoid dying as they jog towards objectives. )
I don't think that giving eldar more CP, more teleportation and more anything is good for the game. If anything, in order to make the game fun for a lot of field, eldar should start losing rules and maybe units. And probably start getting 0-1 limitations of units too. Because right now with the buckets of re-rolls per game, setting dice to values they need and mind blowing powerful rules on units, it doesn't really matter if a unit of guardians even has a rule. Against most armies the unit could not even be deployed, and the eldar player still has an edge. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dudeface 811846 11622313 wrote:
Lastly taking off "random rules plaster" to reintroduce "lots of wargear that add rules to the unit" isn't adding core depth, just options to armies likely to replace some of what they have already.
Or adding stuff they should have had as an option from day one of index. There is 0 reasons for rules and gear choices GW did for some armies. The game would for sure not explode, if lets say thunder hammers became a weapon option on something else then just a single special character for GK. Or if the dropping of the ball with eldar dev wounds, didn't somehow result in multiple units and one army losing a core special rules.
In fact for my dudes I would love start seeing stuff old books had, gear wise, that GW removed. Special types of grenades, relic weapons and armours , special ammo for range weapons, so that not all armies are running with a +2sv when playing vs GK.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/12/21 02:01:13
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 02:23:54
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I don't think that giving eldar more CP, more teleportation and more anything is good for the game. If anything, in order to make the game fun for a lot of field, eldar should start losing rules and maybe units. And probably start getting 0-1 limitations of units too. Because right now with the buckets of re-rolls per game, setting dice to values they need and mind blowing powerful rules on units, it doesn't really matter if a unit of guardians even has a rule. Against most armies the unit could not even be deployed, and the eldar player still has an edge.
Cover yourself, Karol. Your hate-on is showing.
We weren't discussing whether or not storm guardians or their parent faction is OP; I was using them as an example of a unit whose special rule doesn't do an especially good job of capturing their lore and presenting ways that a different non-bespoke rule or even a simple change to their unit size might do a better job of giving them a niche/reflecting their lore than the bespoke rule they were given.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 06:52:11
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:You don't need an AV system in a game where certain Toughness levels cannot be damaged at all by lower strength values. If 6's didn't always wound, this would no longer be an issue.
Dudeface wrote:Soooo you want 7th ed 40k and consider it mechanically deep?
You cannot ask people want they want, and then just gak over everything they say when they give you a reply.
I don't have to agree with an opinion and I gave a clear and lengthy response as to why. I won't lie I did expect something a bit more nuanced than simply pointing at stuff old editions did a little differently when asking for expanded depth in the core rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: Karol wrote:
Or adding stuff they should have had as an option from day one of index. There is 0 reasons for rules and gear choices GW did for some armies. The game would for sure not explode, if lets say thunder hammers became a weapon option on something else then just a single special character for GK. Or if the dropping of the ball with eldar dev wounds, didn't somehow result in multiple units and one army losing a core special rules.
In fact for my dudes I would love start seeing stuff old books had, gear wise, that GW removed. Special types of grenades, relic weapons and armours , special ammo for range weapons, so that not all armies are running with a +2sv when playing vs GK.
Adding wargear options does not increase the depth of the core rules, because they're not core rules by definition of being included as options in a codex. Grey Knights have always and continue to suffer from being half an army, they need units adding, not gizmos adding to try and shape a small number of units into doing everything all at once.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/21 06:55:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 10:59:36
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Wyldhunt wrote:
Cover yourself, Karol. Your hate-on is showing.
We weren't discussing whether or not storm guardians or their parent faction is OP; I was using them as an example of a unit whose special rule doesn't do an especially good job of capturing their lore and presenting ways that a different non-bespoke rule or even a simple change to their unit size might do a better job of giving them a niche/reflecting their lore than the bespoke rule they were given.
I don't think I need to cover myself, and it is not a question of hate. GW , again, gave eldar bonkers rules. 30+ re-rolls per game, game skiping mechanics. Capturing the "lore" of eldar seems like a secondary problem, when there are factions that have botched core rules. If guardians and other eldar units would start getting even more rules, then where would it bring us? The early 10th again, or maybe a more casual 60% win rate eldar. The eldar autarch has more weapon options and load outs then my entire army. GW raced to fix the problem of some load outs existings as models, but not as rules. Well my dudes have thunder hammers, but GW decided that those are , aside for one special character with bad rules, cosmetic only. Index eldar right now, are beating the living snot out of armies that have codex right now. GW gave them enough rules, they don't need more. Lore accurate or non role accurate. And through my 3 edition expiriance I somehow came to the conclusion that niche eldar rules, somehow turn out to be non niche and somehow it ends with eldar double taping, being the "glass canon" faction, but somehow on the table being more resilient then marines etc. Instead of thinking about eldar rules GW should, maybe ,rewrite the ad mecha codex and try really hard to not release similar side grade/down grade books for other factions. Because 10th starts to look like index hammer, isn't just the entry to 10th, it is what you get.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dudeface 811846 11622402 wrote:
Adding wargear options does not increase the depth of the core rules, because they're not core rules by definition of being included as options in a codex. Grey Knights have always and continue to suffer from being half an army, they need units adding, not gizmos adding to try and shape a small number of units into doing everything all at once.
That is an interesting point of view. Because I would think that a melee army being unable to engage opponents is melee, because of share lack of weapons, combined with the inability to do any damage from range, which has rules in core rules and stats of the army, very much impacts the game play. You can even say it is crucial to those armies working. Plus we could make some thought expermints regarding gear. Would csm be as good as they are now, if their lords lost the option to have weapons with a higher strenght then accursed weapons? If GK could drop opposing units T by 1 and/or get a first strike option or lock out option through grenades, they could actualy engage other armies and not be the soliter non interaction army. Would getting Company champions in terminator armour, Cpts (which are GK Lt) with rules like other marine Lts, terminator purfires and other lore accurate units (swarms of melee servitors) be nice ? Of course, but that is asking for a whole model line reset, and GW ain't going to do it. What GW can do it, is at least to follow their own rules. Give units the weapon options that are in the box. Treat GK characters the same way they did marine ones. Explain to us what they were thinking making GK rules once per game, and why they didn't change them, even after their change the rules to what a free stratagem can be. etc
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/12/21 11:10:17
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 12:18:24
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Karol wrote:
That is an interesting point of view. Because I would think that a melee army being unable to engage opponents is melee, because of share lack of weapons, combined with the inability to do any damage from range, which has rules in core rules and stats of the army, very much impacts the game play. You can even say it is crucial to those armies working. Plus we could make some thought expermints regarding gear. Would csm be as good as they are now, if their lords lost the option to have weapons with a higher strenght then accursed weapons? If GK could drop opposing units T by 1 and/or get a first strike option or lock out option through grenades, they could actualy engage other armies and not be the soliter non interaction army. Would getting Company champions in terminator armour, Cpts (which are GK Lt) with rules like other marine Lts, terminator purfires and other lore accurate units (swarms of melee servitors) be nice ? Of course, but that is asking for a whole model line reset, and GW ain't going to do it. What GW can do it, is at least to follow their own rules. Give units the weapon options that are in the box. Treat GK characters the same way they did marine ones. Explain to us what they were thinking making GK rules once per game, and why they didn't change them, even after their change the rules to what a free stratagem can be. etc
So, you're confusing 2 points, the first being core depth of the ruleset, alongside the depth of tools available to an army via supplemental rules i.e. codex.
The core rules do not care if your strike squad has minor variations of force weapon, or that you have strike squads, or what guns you have. The depth of the core rules are what govern the interactions you have on the tabletop at the fundamental level, your struggles with grey knights are down to the army not the core rulebook, hence the difference here.
I don't need a thought experiment to respond to the rest though, world eaters are a viable melee army with comparable if not less movement options, fewer guns and no real wargear options to speak of. They tick fewer boxes than grey knights do. I don't think chaos marines would care much if lords lost their hammer overly on the whole (beyond the complaint of a lack of options), it's not the singular point propping the army up and they're not waltzing around destroying tanks with them. To that end every time there are a slew of weapon options available with minor variations (halberd, falchions in this case) there's always been a right or wrong choice and people grumble about how GW swaps them to make you change your minis.
GW will 100% redesign the entire grey knight range at some point, the terminator redesign basically forces them to and it's naive to think they won't get the primaris treatment eventually. They would 100% rather sell you more boxes to fill your army than let you snap a wrist off or add invisible wargear.
In short, none of your complaints will be fixed by having a bunch of S8 hammers in your units suddenly, which in turn is absolutely nothing to do with the topic of depth of the core rules.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 12:43:21
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Dudeface wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:You don't need an AV system in a game where certain Toughness levels cannot be damaged at all by lower strength values. If 6's didn't always wound, this would no longer be an issue.
Dudeface wrote:Soooo you want 7th ed 40k and consider it mechanically deep?
You cannot ask people want they want, and then just gak over everything they say when they give you a reply.
I don't have to agree with an opinion and I gave a clear and lengthy response as to why. I won't lie I did expect something a bit more nuanced than simply pointing at stuff old editions did a little differently when asking for expanded depth in the core rules.
I gave an opinion, you went with arguing that i want 7th which i don't. The only reason i have to even look at 7th would be to field my R&H in a heavily curated match. I pointed to it, enough but i can expand on it:
Regardless of how you make it , if you reimplement armor values or deny certain treshholds of S to wound, that denies already the tendency for certain mono weapon favouritism IF gw can controll the urge to not over do the Shot amounts on AT. Templates were a good fix to that aswell because they only always had a 3rd chance for a hit. So it made the system granular.
The coversystems GW always had were bad. Either favouring solely light infantry or beeing inefectual in general. Static coversaves were a good thing, if they'd also had increased the armor of heavy infantry. In the same way it would open a place for weaponry that always was never considered, like Nade launchers.
At the same point, area denial was funnily done in HH and is very usefull. And surprise surprise the bigger table make transports usefull even if they aren^'t massivly underpriced laden with Special rules spam.
|
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 13:50:25
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord
|
Not Online!!! wrote:Dudeface wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:You don't need an AV system in a game where certain Toughness levels cannot be damaged at all by lower strength values. If 6's didn't always wound, this would no longer be an issue.
Dudeface wrote:Soooo you want 7th ed 40k and consider it mechanically deep?
You cannot ask people want they want, and then just gak over everything they say when they give you a reply.
I don't have to agree with an opinion and I gave a clear and lengthy response as to why. I won't lie I did expect something a bit more nuanced than simply pointing at stuff old editions did a little differently when asking for expanded depth in the core rules.
I gave an opinion, you went with arguing that i want 7th which i don't. The only reason i have to even look at 7th would be to field my R&H in a heavily curated match. I pointed to it, enough but i can expand on it:
Regardless of how you make it , if you reimplement armor values or deny certain treshholds of S to wound, that denies already the tendency for certain mono weapon favouritism IF gw can controll the urge to not over do the Shot amounts on AT. Templates were a good fix to that aswell because they only always had a 3rd chance for a hit. So it made the system granular.
The coversystems GW always had were bad. Either favouring solely light infantry or beeing inefectual in general. Static coversaves were a good thing, if they'd also had increased the armor of heavy infantry. In the same way it would open a place for weaponry that always was never considered, like Nade launchers.
At the same point, area denial was funnily done in HH and is very usefull. And surprise surprise the bigger table make transports usefull even if they aren^'t massivly underpriced laden with Special rules spam.
Fair play, the leap to 7th edition was mine by interpreting the items you requested as being things that last existed in 40k in 7th edition, it's the nearest jump off point in the games history that had a different cover system, armour facings and expanded wargear options.
I'd agree all the GW cover systems are a problem, no argument there. Given that HH is also larger games in general at 3k, does the same propensity to have too many boots on the ground not also kick in? I've little experience with HH as I've no drive to get sort yet another marine army to that size with the expensive FW bolt ons and have an army bigger than a 40k one.
I preferred 40k at 1500 on a 6x4, so I'm on board with you regards making movement more important and having more limitations against units that move.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 14:41:42
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Karol wrote: Wyldhunt wrote:
Cover yourself, Karol. Your hate-on is showing.
We weren't discussing whether or not storm guardians or their parent faction is OP; I was using them as an example of a unit whose special rule doesn't do an especially good job of capturing their lore and presenting ways that a different non-bespoke rule or even a simple change to their unit size might do a better job of giving them a niche/reflecting their lore than the bespoke rule they were given.
I don't think I need to cover myself, and it is not a question of hate. GW , again, gave eldar bonkers rules. 30+ re-rolls per game, game skiping mechanics. Capturing the "lore" of eldar seems like a secondary problem, when there are factions that have botched core rules. If guardians and other eldar units would start getting even more rules, then where would it bring us? The early 10th again, or maybe a more casual 60% win rate eldar. The eldar autarch has more weapon options and load outs then my entire army. GW raced to fix the problem of some load outs existings as models, but not as rules. Well my dudes have thunder hammers, but GW decided that those are , aside for one special character with bad rules, cosmetic only. Index eldar right now, are beating the living snot out of armies that have codex right now. GW gave them enough rules, they don't need more. Lore accurate or non role accurate. And through my 3 edition expiriance I somehow came to the conclusion that niche eldar rules, somehow turn out to be non niche and somehow it ends with eldar double taping, being the "glass canon" faction, but somehow on the table being more resilient then marines etc. Instead of thinking about eldar rules GW should, maybe ,rewrite the ad mecha codex and try really hard to not release similar side grade/down grade books for other factions. Because 10th starts to look like index hammer, isn't just the entry to 10th, it is what you get.
You are missing all of my points in your eagerness to rant about a faction being OP. I wasn't commenting on how powerful storm guardians are. I was discussing whether or not their special rule did a good job of representing their lore. Whether or not storm guardians and eldar as a whole are OP is a completely different discussion. I'm not saying we should give storm guardians deepstrike or lower their squad size because they need to be buffed; I'm saying that doing either of those things (in place of giving them a bespoke sticky objectives rule) would do a better job of representing their fluff and giving them a niche than the sticky objectives rule does.
If anything, the min squad suggestion would be advocating for giving eldar *fewer* special rules. I was trying to provide an example of how simpler changes that don't rely on bespoke rules can sometimes be more effective for giving units niches.
I could be making the same point with a non-eldar unit. It's just that eldar are what I have the most experience with in 10th, and storm guardians were the first unit that came to mind.
FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of our free rerolls or the Strands of Fate mechanic and would prefer rules that change unit behavior (something like battle focus) rather than just making units more lethal. But again, that's a completely different topic.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2023/12/21 16:50:35
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Dudeface wrote:
Fair play, the leap to 7th edition was mine by interpreting the items you requested as being things that last existed in 40k in 7th edition, it's the nearest jump off point in the games history that had a different cover system, armour facings and expanded wargear options.
I'd agree all the GW cover systems are a problem, no argument there. Given that HH is also larger games in general at 3k, does the same propensity to have too many boots on the ground not also kick in? I've little experience with HH as I've no drive to get sort yet another marine army to that size with the expensive FW bolt ons and have an army bigger than a 40k one.
I preferred 40k at 1500 on a 6x4, so I'm on board with you regards making movement more important and having more limitations against units that move.
TBF HH 2.0 was 7th.
HH has some other issues, boots only are one if you play militia. My own full army is 2500 approx, so yeah space is an issue especially for them. And realistically even marines can get clogged. Honestly the board could go to 8x4 and would be perfectly well off at 3k. That said, i don't see as many 3k games and my own table is 8x4.
i do think 40k had it right at 1500 for a 6x4 field with the points at the time.
|
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
 |
 |
|