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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


Honestly, I'm not sure giving all armies an army-wide rule was a great idea in the first place. It works okay for something like tyranids that really ought to have synapse beasties in most or all lists. But for a lot of armies, they might have been better off just expanding on detachment abilities. So instead of giving fate dice to absolutely every eldar faction, you can make that an Ulthwe/Seer Support mechanic, representing the seer council being powerful and organized enough to help micromanage the battle. Meanwhile a Saimhann/We Like Skimmers list could replace the guardian defenders fate dice generation rule with the ability to fight better when working in tandem with a wave serpent or something.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

Currently, Eldar have Fate Dice as an ARMY RULE, and they have faction rules ON TOP of that.

You don't NEED to get rid of fate dice to have a Saim Hann appropriate detachment rule, because detachment rules co-exist with army rules. It isn't either or- just wait for the dex and you'll likely get some of the detachment rules you're looking for.

The idea that "some" armies should get army rules and others shouldn't is also a problem- just like how only marines and CSM having subfactions that matter is a problem. If armies can't be equal on the size of their ranges because "reasons" they should at least be equal in terms of the types of rules they have access to.

I personally believe 40k should have larger ranges and more subfaction development for neglected factions and fewer editions. These characteristics go hand in hand- increasing the units in a given army, or increasing the number of armies allows new money to come in without an edition reset. If there are fewer new models, editions must get shorter, because it becomes the only way to bring in new money.

This is also one of the problems GW has painted themselves into. the game is to big now with to many factions and the sku bloat is to large. it is why they keep having to turn everything on it's head which has led to all the other problems discussed in this entire topic(the balance boogieman) . PP press suffered the same issue with warmachine. to many units in to many factions that all basically do the same thing. GW brought this on themselves because the only way they can keep the train rolling is new minis to replaces the ones that are no longer selling for various reasons. they have chosen this "easier" route than building communities and solid core rules that draws players to their game.

How many versions of terminators do space marines need? or dreadnoughts? another giant tyranid monster with slightly different rules? they could trash can half the units in all the 10th ed codexes now and nobody would break a sweat in the NU-40K meta community, and lets face it those are the ones who care the most.

Then you add in the limits of the d6/IGOUGO game mechanics and your design space is very limited.

The only other comparable game system that is as old as (and as lore heavy) 40K and still active-classic battle tech- has effectively had the same core rules for over 30 years with only a few minimal tweaks. even better for the players you can use the same minis in any era or setting, or faction(usually a weapons loadout swap) with entire books of official optional rules for the players to swim in and thanks to catalyst fantastic new plastics/rules support. they are not even the original owners as the game has been scattered to the winds after FASA shut down, yet it still persists. the buy in is also ridiculously small for a miniatures game-4-5 minis for $25-$35 is a complete army with thousands of options in mechs, vehicles, VTOLS, aircraft, naval, infantry, support and even space assets to play with.

GW could learn from this, but they won't as long as the current business model keeps working.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:


Honestly, I'm not sure giving all armies an army-wide rule was a great idea in the first place. It works okay for something like tyranids that really ought to have synapse beasties in most or all lists. But for a lot of armies, they might have been better off just expanding on detachment abilities. So instead of giving fate dice to absolutely every eldar faction, you can make that an Ulthwe/Seer Support mechanic, representing the seer council being powerful and organized enough to help micromanage the battle. Meanwhile a Saimhann/We Like Skimmers list could replace the guardian defenders fate dice generation rule with the ability to fight better when working in tandem with a wave serpent or something.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

Currently, Eldar have Fate Dice as an ARMY RULE, and they have faction rules ON TOP of that.

You don't NEED to get rid of fate dice to have a Saim Hann appropriate detachment rule, because detachment rules co-exist with army rules. It isn't either or- just wait for the dex and you'll likely get some of the detachment rules you're looking for.

The idea that "some" armies should get army rules and others shouldn't is also a problem- just like how only marines and CSM having subfactions that matter is a problem. If armies can't be equal on the size of their ranges because "reasons" they should at least be equal in terms of the types of rules they have access to.

Nah. You've misunderstood me slightly. What I'm saying is that, if we think of armies as having X amount of "rules budget," some armies might be better off spending more of that budget on detachment-specific rules instead of having to allocate however much of the budget to army-wide rules. So hypothetically if we dropped Strands of Fate as an army-wide rule, that would free up Y% of the rules budget that could then be spent on rules that are specific to each detachment.

So instead of Saim-Hann getting Strands and a small skimmer/jetbike rule, you could instead give them a big (or multiple small) skimmer/jetbike rules. And units like guardians who are currently tied specifically to the Strands rule could have the ability to swap out their "generate fate dice" rule for something else based on the detachment. So for instance, guardians might get a rule that lets them shoot better when hopping out of a transport or lets them hide by hopping back into a transport or whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SideSwipe wrote:

I'm ok with small arms taking wounds off vehicles, but I'm against any situation where massed D2 weaponry is considered the best option for anti tank, especially when in competition with a traditionally dedicated anti tank weapon such as a lascannon.

We agree there as well. Plasma spam was a problem in 8th, but I think a modest increase in vehicle wounds and/or a tweak to dedicated anti-tank weapons to have a higher minimum damage (d3+3, d6 min 3, etc.) would have been enough of a solution. We sort of got that in 9th, but we also got a bunch of power creep that kind of ruined it.

I suppose that could work.

I think the concern might be that it is harder to balance when some army rules are "less than" by design in order to allow some detachment rules to be "more than" - but balance isn't really a priority for me- important, sure, but certainly not my primary concern.

Rules should be used where needed and as needed. There was nothing wrong with, say, 3rd-4th Ed where Tyranids had a bunch of army specific special rules while Imperial Guard worked mostly out of the rulebook.

What matters is whether the faction fits its background and is fun to play. Trying to accomplish that by stipulating that thou shalt have exactly one (1) army-wide rule is the wrong approach. We're currently seeing the result of this sort of quota-based design, where every faction gets a rule, every detachment gets a rule, nearly every unit gets a rule, and the result is that some armies don't have enough rules, some have rules that are unnecessary or weird for their background, and the stacking layers make it harder to keep track of a unit's capabilities.

PenitentJake wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Da Boss wrote:No offense meant to GK fans, but I always felt they were a poor choice for a full faction. A faction specialised at killing one other faction is a bit of a poor design choice. They'd work better as an auxillary unit for imperial forces for special scenarios or something. Cool idea in the background, great models, but the old codex where you had to distort the fluff of your army if you were playing against them always really irked me quite a lot.

Indeed they were never meant to be a full faction in the lore either, that is why it was codex demon hunters not grey knights. it would be more appropriate to call it codex ordo malleus. as the entire point is that the GK part of it was the chamber militant of the inquisitional ordo meant to deal with demons and chaos aligned forces. they do work best as an allied force to bulk up an imperial faction like guard. which is why they had a special unique allies rule.

It is why i still prefer the 3rd ed codex because the 5th ed codex did turn them into singular full faction instead of just a part of the inquisition.

Both of these attitudes are examples of the "Horizontal growth inhibitors" that I wrote about earlier.

The 3rd ed Hunter dexes were as they were not because that's all they were intended to be, but because that's all GW could make of them DURING THE 3RD EDITION.

It's funny that we've had almost four decades of edition churn, and people still believe that GW's planning is self contained within a single edition. If you don't think that the Hunter dexes were released as transitional "proof of concept" work prior to larger releases and integration of both Inquisition and the respective chambers militant, I think there might be some "big picture" skills in need of further development.

GW released an entire game about the Inquisition; the Overkill box set was great for Deathwatch; Hexfire for GK and Ashes of Faith is keeping the Inquisition present for 10th. As GW engages media- through WH+ and the Amazon deal, or the once rumoured Eisenhorn show, Inquisition will become more important- if this media pulls new players, they will expect to play what the media depicts. And Inquisition, including their Chambers Militant, are an important part of that- their stories have always been amongst the most intriguing in the Warhammer 40k Universe.

I personally believe 40k should have larger ranges and more subfaction development for neglected factions and fewer editions. These characteristics go hand in hand- increasing the units in a given army, or increasing the number of armies allows new money to come in without an edition reset. If there are fewer new models, editions must get shorter, because it becomes the only way to bring in new money.

I think you give GW way more good faith than you should be considering their history.

Referencing GK in particular, if they intended to make them into a full faction they should support them as a full faction. The same as with any other army they intend to "grow horizontally." You think that GW is such a big picture company that they are still using the Daemon Hunter codex as a launching point for some mythical soon to be released Ordo Xenos sub-faction? If you are honestly arguing that I don't even know how to engage you in conversation that they have a 20+ year plan on faction releases.

It feels like you are arguing that we should care about GW making money because your last paragraph is focused on that in a rather positive light. I couldn't care less how much money GW makes. I want their product that I am invested in to be something that I can continue to enjoy; their profits aren't even a blip on the radar in my considerations for the game and the setting. I can understand that they only care about profits and don't give a damn about me or any other player but the only time I care about the company is where our interest intersect.

I get that you are trying your best to exist within the environment that GW is providing you and work with what is versus what could be but that is such a cynical take on the hobby that I can't understand it; I say that as someone who is cynical about EVERYTHING in great quantities. Cynicism should be about pushing for what could be by understand what is, not accepting what is.

 catbarf wrote:
Rules should be used where needed and as needed. There was nothing wrong with, say, 3rd-4th Ed where Tyranids had a bunch of army specific special rules while Imperial Guard worked mostly out of the rulebook.

What matters is whether the faction fits its background and is fun to play. Trying to accomplish that by stipulating that thou shalt have exactly one (1) army-wide rule is the wrong approach. We're currently seeing the result of this sort of quota-based design, where every faction gets a rule, every detachment gets a rule, nearly every unit gets a rule, and the result is that some armies don't have enough rules, some have rules that are unnecessary or weird for their background, and the stacking layers make it harder to keep track of a unit's capabilities.

Exalted.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Rules should be used where needed and as needed. There was nothing wrong with, say, 3rd-4th Ed where Tyranids had a bunch of army specific special rules while Imperial Guard worked mostly out of the rulebook.

What matters is whether the faction fits its background and is fun to play. Trying to accomplish that by stipulating that thou shalt have exactly one (1) army-wide rule is the wrong approach. We're currently seeing the result of this sort of quota-based design, where every faction gets a rule, every detachment gets a rule, nearly every unit gets a rule, and the result is that some armies don't have enough rules, some have rules that are unnecessary or weird for their background, and the stacking layers make it harder to keep track of a unit's capabilities.

Exalted.

Likewise.

 catbarf wrote:
Rules should be used where needed and as needed. There was nothing wrong with, say, 3rd-4th Ed where Tyranids had a bunch of army specific special rules while Imperial Guard worked mostly out of the rulebook.

What matters is whether the faction fits its background and is fun to play. Trying to accomplish that by stipulating that thou shalt have exactly one (1) army-wide rule is the wrong approach. We're currently seeing the result of this sort of quota-based design, where every faction gets a rule, every detachment gets a rule, nearly every unit gets a rule, and the result is that some armies don't have enough rules, some have rules that are unnecessary or weird for their background, and the stacking layers make it harder to keep track of a unit's capabilities.

Agreed. I guess what I'm getting at is that detachment rules exist, and people generally seem to like getting detachment/subfaction style rules. We want each detachment to feel viable/valid, and that means making each detachment within a given codex similar in power. So there's sort of an implied "budget" for how impactful/powerful you can make each detachment. I'm basically saying that some armies might be better served by expanding that budget by taking away the army-wide rules that also give them a certain amount of power.

Or put another way, think of all the flavorful, cool with which you could replace something like Strands of Fate. Like, imagine taking the power/impact of Strands of Fate, but then spreading that out across some cool maneuvering mechanics for a Saim-Hann-style detachment, or spirit sight rules for a ghost army detachment or ranger disruption rules for an Alaitoc-esque detachment. But as-is, our hypothetical Saim-Hann/Alaitoc/Iyanden detachments will end up only being roughly as powerful/impactful/complex as the detachment rerolls we get from the current detachment.

PenitentJake wrote:

Both of these attitudes are examples of the "Horizontal growth inhibitors" that I wrote about earlier.

The 3rd ed Hunter dexes were as they were not because that's all they were intended to be, but because that's all GW could make of them DURING THE 3RD EDITION.

The issue here is that SMs as a whole have had many times more horizontal growth than most other factions combined.

Thus, when it comes to niche units like Grey Knights, it would seem far more logical to have them as allies or specialist units for existing SM/Imperium armies than to try and make them into a standalone codex.

PenitentJake wrote:

I personally believe 40k should have larger ranges and more subfaction development for neglected factions and fewer editions. These characteristics go hand in hand- increasing the units in a given army, or increasing the number of armies allows new money to come in without an edition reset. If there are fewer new models, editions must get shorter, because it becomes the only way to bring in new money.

I agree with the overall point, though I would argue edition churn is not remotely necessary, even with relatively few new releases.

PenitentJake wrote:

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

Currently, Eldar have Fate Dice as an ARMY RULE, and they have faction rules ON TOP of that.

You don't NEED to get rid of fate dice to have a Saim Hann appropriate detachment rule, because detachment rules co-exist with army rules. It isn't either or- just wait for the dex and you'll likely get some of the detachment rules you're looking for.

The idea that "some" armies should get army rules and others shouldn't is also a problem- just like how only marines and CSM having subfactions that matter is a problem. If armies can't be equal on the size of their ranges because "reasons" they should at least be equal in terms of the types of rules they have access to.

I believe the issue is one of design space. If Eldar didn't have a core army ability (or if they had a more minor one like Battle Focus), then that would free up design space so that their subfactions could have additional rules instead.

It would be a way to place more emphasis on the subfactions and their abilities as the defining feature of Eldar armies, rather than Eldar being defined primarily by the Fate Dice mechanic (irrespective of subfaction).

 catbarf wrote:
Rules should be used where needed and as needed. There was nothing wrong with, say, 3rd-4th Ed where Tyranids had a bunch of army specific special rules while Imperial Guard worked mostly out of the rulebook.

What matters is whether the faction fits its background and is fun to play. Trying to accomplish that by stipulating that thou shalt have exactly one (1) army-wide rule is the wrong approach. We're currently seeing the result of this sort of quota-based design, where every faction gets a rule, every detachment gets a rule, nearly every unit gets a rule, and the result is that some armies don't have enough rules, some have rules that are unnecessary or weird for their background, and the stacking layers make it harder to keep track of a unit's capabilities.

Agreed.

I think it also ties back to a point made earlier that 40k's rules are making it increasingly difficult to differentiate units with stats alone. However, rather than addressing that, designers are just piling more bespoke, special rules onto units.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Agreed. I guess what I'm getting at is that detachment rules exist, and people generally seem to like getting detachment/subfaction style rules. We want each detachment to feel viable/valid, and that means making each detachment within a given codex similar in power. So there's sort of an implied "budget" for how impactful/powerful you can make each detachment. I'm basically saying that some armies might be better served by expanding that budget by taking away the army-wide rules that also give them a certain amount of power.

Or put another way, think of all the flavorful, cool with which you could replace something like Strands of Fate. Like, imagine taking the power/impact of Strands of Fate, but then spreading that out across some cool maneuvering mechanics for a Saim-Hann-style detachment, or spirit sight rules for a ghost army detachment or ranger disruption rules for an Alaitoc-esque detachment. But as-is, our hypothetical Saim-Hann/Alaitoc/Iyanden detachments will end up only being roughly as powerful/impactful/complex as the detachment rerolls we get from the current detachment.

I just think the approach GW is taking is very sterile and narrowly focused, and the problem you're highlighting is an artifact of that. The guiding principle of 'make every detachment feel viable/valid' is a perfectly reasonable one, but the implementation is apparently restricted solely to no-cost army-wide special abilities. That's fine for some things, but how about wargear options? Or force org changes? Or stat adjustments? Or unique units? Or special rules significant enough to warrant a points cost, so they don't actually have to all be equally powerful, or 'borrow' power from the army-wide rule?

Point simply being that the need to balance a 'power budget' is an artifact of the rigid design constraints GW has set for themselves. A less formulaic approach could allow stronger detachment abilities in lieu of a faction ability, like you describe, but it could also facilitate a lot more besides that.

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Agreed. I guess what I'm getting at is that detachment rules exist, and people generally seem to like getting detachment/subfaction style rules. We want each detachment to feel viable/valid, and that means making each detachment within a given codex similar in power. So there's sort of an implied "budget" for how impactful/powerful you can make each detachment. I'm basically saying that some armies might be better served by expanding that budget by taking away the army-wide rules that also give them a certain amount of power.

Or put another way, think of all the flavorful, cool with which you could replace something like Strands of Fate. Like, imagine taking the power/impact of Strands of Fate, but then spreading that out across some cool maneuvering mechanics for a Saim-Hann-style detachment, or spirit sight rules for a ghost army detachment or ranger disruption rules for an Alaitoc-esque detachment. But as-is, our hypothetical Saim-Hann/Alaitoc/Iyanden detachments will end up only being roughly as powerful/impactful/complex as the detachment rerolls we get from the current detachment.

I just think the approach GW is taking is very sterile and narrowly focused, and the problem you're highlighting is an artifact of that. The guiding principle of 'make every detachment feel viable/valid' is a perfectly reasonable one, but the implementation is apparently restricted solely to no-cost army-wide special abilities. That's fine for some things, but how about wargear options? Or force org changes? Or stat adjustments? Or unique units? Or special rules significant enough to warrant a points cost, so they don't actually have to all be equally powerful, or 'borrow' power from the army-wide rule?

Point simply being that the need to balance a 'power budget' is an artifact of the rigid design constraints GW has set for themselves. A less formulaic approach could allow stronger detachment abilities in lieu of a faction ability, like you describe, but it could also facilitate a lot more besides that.

Agreed. The modularity of subfaction (now detachment) bonuses is kind of a weird choice. On one hand, it makes sense that they'd want to make it easy for players to choose their subfaction/detachment rules. However, there really aren't that many of them in 10th, so you'd think they'd prefer to use more bespoke rules for making each detachment feel unique (including using things like points to balance things.) The easily swappable nature of the rules would make more sense if they were expecting to come out with a bunch of additional detachments later on in 10th, sort of like the build-a-bear options in 9th. But even in 9th, they didn't come out with *that many* detachments.

The extent to which detachments are modular seems either underutilized or unnecessary, is what I'm saying.

I think the fact that detachments don't change the structure of your army in any way (battleline, unit restrictions, etc.) is a massively missed opportunity (one of GW's fav things!).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the fact that detachments don't change the structure of your army in any way (battleline, unit restrictions, etc.) is a massively missed opportunity (one of GW's fav things!).

What makes you think they've missed it?
They'll need something for their mid-edition design paradigm shift in 11 months.

Hmm... good point. Hadn't thought of that.

Some really engaging comments here- it's hard to reply to everything I want to reply to.

Here's a start:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

I personally believe 40k should have larger ranges and more subfaction development for neglected factions and fewer editions. These characteristics go hand in hand- increasing the units in a given army, or increasing the number of armies allows new money to come in without an edition reset. If there are fewer new models, editions must get shorter, because it becomes the only way to bring in new money.

I think you give GW way more good faith than you should be considering their history.

Possibly. But I think some context is also useful here: my first 40k game was Rogue Trader- I've been fairly engaged in this rodeo for a lot of years. So while a lot of people are concerned about this edition or that edition and how balanced they are or how good they are, I'm still thinking about what a large part this IP played in making me the person I am today. I met GW when I was 15 years old. GW gave me a peer group by providing Rogue Trader to the world in 1987, and I was there. The friends I've made, the stories that I've played a part in and written... It'll take more than a bad edition to undo the many things that GW has given me over the past four decades.

And my favourite edition of all time was 9th, so it's not that far in the rearview.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Referencing GK in particular, if they intended to make them into a full faction they should support them as a full faction. The same as with any other army they intend to "grow horizontally." You think that GW is such a big picture company that they are still using the Daemon Hunter codex as a launching point for some mythical soon to be released Ordo Xenos sub-faction? If you are honestly arguing that I don't even know how to engage you in conversation that they have a 20+ year plan on faction releases.

Hold up a sec- here's the context:

I was replying to someone who used the Hunter books as evidence that GW never intended to make full factions out of the Grey Knights, the Deathwatch and the Inquisition. Now I LOVED the Hunter Books, but they always struck me as an experiment and not a finished concept. I ALWAYS expected the Chambers Militant of the Ordos Malleus and Xenos to grow to the size of the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus... In other words, I expected both Deathwatch and Grey Knights to be as well developed as the Sisters, and I further expected that those three armies would would continue to grow at roughly the same pace from edition to edition. Which is why I said what those Chambers were in the Hunter books is not all they were meant to be: they were as much of what the armies were intended be as GW could give us at the time.

And I do expect another Imperial Agents Codex sometime; we've seen these before, and we could get a new one any time. It could happen this edition, but it might not. But right now, their are more Agent models in print than there have ever been, and they're organized (currently) as Inquisition, Arbites, Navy, Rogue Trader. That's four possible detachments that could be put into a dex. You need a few new HQ models- one for Arbites and one for the Navy, and then you need to add appropriate existing vehicles to each of the lists.

BUT Agent detachments would have been better in a game like 9th, where an army consists of multiple detachments.

Because the problem with Agents as is, really is just that they don't have access to any strats (except BRB), enhancements, and they don't have army or detachment rules that actually buff them. If you could field Greyfax, a generic Hereticus Inquisitor, an Arbites unit in a Repressor, a Henchmen unit in a Rhino and maybe an Enginseer with 4 servitors in an Inquisition Detachment with it's own Strats, enhancements and detachment rule, and also field a detachment of Sisters with its own strats, enhancements and detachment rule... That's about exactly what Inquisition needs to work well with their chamber.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

It feels like you are arguing that we should care about GW making money because your last paragraph is focused on that in a rather positive light. I couldn't care less how much money GW makes. I want their product that I am invested in to be something that I can continue to enjoy; their profits aren't even a blip on the radar in my considerations for the game and the setting. I can understand that they only care about profits and don't give a damn about me or any other player but the only time I care about the company is where our interest intersect.

Nope. Once again, context.

Yes, I talk about money- not to celebrate the money making capacity of the company or to excuse any shady business practice that may or may not be happening. I am only interested in the company having as much money as it needs to keep making products. Without revenue coming in, any business will fail, and in this case, that would mean no more game for us.

So what I'm saying is:

When an edition reaches the end of it's codex release cycle, the game designers have to figure out what to do next. If they just leave it, it can coast for a while... But eventually it will die, but without product development, the company will reach a point where anyone who is going to try it has, and anyone who likes it has all the things they need to play. So the company has to do something.

They can do what GW often does: release a new edition. When this happens, they can add some new models to each faction, and every now and again, they can even add a faction every now and again... But because they have to re-invent everything when they do this, a lot of their energy goes into recreating rather than creating.

They could also just do second waves for every faction without rewriting rules, but then the question becomes how to deliver the rules for the second wave models. Free digital distribution is on solution. Campaign books are another. Updating the Codex is another option, but it has to have value for money, and a single new data card is not value for money. So maybe they add new bespoke Crusade content- not to replace existing Crusade content, but add to it. And maybe they do a few tweaks here and there.

The second approach, regardless of how rules for new units are distributed, is more like the concept of horizontal growth as the term has been used in this thread. Reverting GK or DW back to single allied units in other armies, or smaller collections of units than the current range as some have suggested, is the opposite of horizontal growth- it contracts the range and gives GW fewer possibilities for additional model releases without an accompanying edition reset.

None of this is about celebrating capitalism. It's about ensuring the game is here for 40 more years.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

I get that you are trying your best to exist within the environment that GW is providing you and work with what is versus what could be but that is such a cynical take on the hobby that I can't understand it; I say that as someone who is cynical about EVERYTHING in great quantities. Cynicism should be about pushing for what could be by understand what is, not accepting what is.

I'm going to play 10th and give it an honest go. I haven't bought in hard- I'm not subsidizing this edition- the only product I have purchased so far is the Tyrannic War Crusade book. I'll wait until I read the Goonhammer review before deciding whether or not to buy the upcoming Pariah Crusade book. I might buy a Tau dex, because Kroot are getting love. We'll see about Sisters, Drukhari and GSC.

But I bought HEAVY into 9th, and even if I have fun with 10th, I know that it'll never replace 9th.

I suspect 11th will actually a 10.5 the same way 9th was actually an 8.5... And it might fix some of 10th's most egregious. Like just imagine 11th giving us back costed equipment, and some of the variety of load out options that we lost- at this point, 50% of what we lost would feel like a goldmine and still avoid the previous levels of "bloat."

Anyway gang, I was going to reply to more people, but this one response has eaten up enough time.

Right now the ultra simplification and parsing down of army rules and unit rules has basically made the game completely uninteresting.

10th is functional. It works. The missions work. It's even probably good at getting new people into it. But it is bland uninteresting flavourless slop.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the fact that detachments don't change the structure of your army in any way (battleline, unit restrictions, etc.) is a massively missed opportunity (one of GW's fav things!).

Wasn't this also how GW initially said (or at least heavily implied) that the new system would work?

Either way, I think this approach would have made a lot of sense. If anything, that sort of change would probably be a good deal better than just handing out buffs.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Right now the ultra simplification and parsing down of army rules and unit rules has basically made the game completely uninteresting.

10th is functional. It works. The missions work. It's even probably good at getting new people into it. But it is bland uninteresting flavourless slop.

This is where I'm at, sadly. For all the faults of past editions, I could usually find something to keep me invested. With 10th, I've yet to find anything that makes me want to build an army or to inspire a conversion project.

 vipoid wrote:
Wasn't this also how GW initially said (or at least heavily implied) that the new system would work?

It certainly seemed that way when they started talking about detachments in the leadup to 10th.

Then people here started screaming at me for merely suggesting it...

 vipoid wrote:
Either way, I think this approach would have made a lot of sense. If anything, that sort of change would probably be a good deal better than just handing out buffs.

It could certainly help to rescue things like the 1st Company and Crusher Stampede (not that those detachments don't have their own glaring problems).

I massively disagree with unit restrictions. But yeah it should give battleline to the units the Detachement is supposed to be built around.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Wasn't this also how GW initially said (or at least heavily implied) that the new system would work?

It certainly seemed that way when they started talking about detachments in the leadup to 10th.

Then people here started screaming at me for merely suggesting it...

Stu Black mentioned it in at least one interview, specifically in relation to a First Company detachment and Terminators - I believe it was the interview he did with Tabletop Tactics. The First Company detachment is a thing, but obviously no change in role is included in it. Definitely feels like a missed opportunity to me, especially because it's such an obvious change and likely not that impactful in terms of balance. 6 units of Terminators is not likely to break the game.

I've lost my zeal for unit restrictions as of late. I like them in theory, but they just kind of silo players and force collections that don't handle change very well. I think the carrots we've seen so far are enough to make detachments encourage a diverse selection of units as is. No need to ban things entirely.

 LunarSol wrote:
I've lost my zeal for unit restrictions as of late. I like them in theory, but they just kind of silo players and force collections that don't handle change very well. I think the carrots we've seen so far are enough to make detachments encourage a diverse selection of units as is. No need to ban things entirely.

I disagree. Players sometimes need to have a dreadsock upside the head, it seems. Look at the nonsense with Vanguard Spearhead with No Vanguard units or the people in the Detachments thread complaining that the Skitarii specific detachment encourages you to use Skitarii units.

It ain't 10th edition that's "drained the soul" from anything. The playerbase is a mess and has been for some time.

That's an issue of Vanguard mostly giving bonuses that the Vanguard units either already have or otherwise don't need rather than things that would shore up their weaknesses and encourage you to take them.

 LunarSol wrote:
That's an issue of Vanguard mostly giving bonuses that the Vanguard units either already have or otherwise don't need

Because they don't know what to do with Vanguard, conceptually, and their tournament-based feedback doesn't seem to wrap around the idea that Vanguard could have been the "control"/"area denial" setup.

FFS, they removed the Incursors' ability to deploy mines and instead turned it into a random attack.

rather than things that would shore up their weaknesses and encourage you to take them.

Or you could just...y'know, not do it.

If you ban all the things you don't want seen in the detachment without changing the rules to encourage taking the the things you want to see taken in the detachment, you just won't take the detachment.

They can just do what they did with the Tyranid vanguard and add a keyword requirement for benefiting from the detachment rule.

Which isn't the same as actually banning units.

 Tyran wrote:
They can just do what they did with the Tyranid vanguard and add a keyword requirement for benefiting from the detachment rule.

Which isn't the same as actually banning units.

See, that requires it to actually have been intended to be Vanguard from the outset. You can 100% see where they shifted gears from "These detachments should be Chapter specific" to "Make these able to be used by any Chapter; oh and also the Successor Books need to be able to play here too."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
If you ban all the things you don't want seen in the detachment without changing the rules to encourage taking the the things you want to see taken in the detachment, you just won't take the detachment.

Maybe, maybe not.

But it at least does not give false positives as to the actual efficacy of the detachments.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Wasn't this also how GW initially said (or at least heavily implied) that the new system would work?

It certainly seemed that way when they started talking about detachments in the leadup to 10th.

Then people here started screaming at me for merely suggesting it...

Stu Black mentioned it in at least one interview, specifically in relation to a First Company detachment and Terminators - I believe it was the interview he did with Tabletop Tactics. The First Company detachment is a thing, but obviously no change in role is included in it. Definitely feels like a missed opportunity to me, especially because it's such an obvious change and likely not that impactful in terms of balance. 6 units of Terminators is not likely to break the game.

There used to be a back door option to get six units of Terminators, which was you take 3 squads of ten and then Combat Squad them. Sadly that option's been cut out now too.

 LunarSol wrote:
If you ban all the things you don't want seen in the detachment without changing the rules to encourage taking the the things you want to see taken in the detachment, you just won't take the detachment.

I was going to suggest that detachments could make the units they want to encourage Troops and/or Core.

Then I remembered that neither Troops nor Core exist in 10th.