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:

I could live with this, but I'm not sure it's really needed. How often do psykers fail to use their powers in BL novels? Probably not 1 in 6 times. Possibly never? If anything, it might be more appropriate to have a small chance of suffering mortal wounds, but have the power go off regardless so long as the psyker doesn't die from it.

Ok maybe not an inbuilt test, but there are many psychic defenses in the lore that have been either reduced to FNP+ vs psychic or completely dropped (e.g the Shadow in the Warp rework into causing morale).

And I can actually think of at least one BL example of a Librarian being suppresed by the Shadow in the Warp and later killing himself by overexerting himself psychically.

So maybe a return of Deny the Witch or other types of psychic nullification beyond FNP.

Yeah. I'd be okay with that. Sort of surprised we don't have more anti-psychic abilities in 10th worded something like:

"Wolf Tail Talisman: When this unit is targeted by an enemy unit's Psychic ability, roll a d6. On a 5+, this unit is unaffected. Additionally, this model's unit has FNP5+ against Psychic Attacks."

Honestly, I'm not against anti-psychic effects. However, the increased prevalence of everyone and their mom being able to randomly shut down a farseer from 6th edition onward was a major pet peeve. If I paid points for a librarian to put up a forcefield, you should have to pay points to turn off that forcefield, y'know?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Which rules? A lot of the nitty gritty (read: mostly a waste of time) rules got dropped in the transition from 7th to 8th. From 9th to 10th, we lost subfaction rules and some of the generic strats, but we gained a bunch of unit-specific rules plus some USRs.

Flavor rules aren't a waste of time to everyone - as shown by this second thread on basically that topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Bland, maybe?

Shallow is what I'd go with in this context, and I'd add Overly Rigid/Regimented in an additional context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that what the OP is largely noticing is that they don't need to waste time adding up wargear costs.
And then doing it again with the next Balance Sheet..

Because rules? There's plenty of rules. Every unit has 1,2, 3+ unique rules. And 1/2+ of the weapons as well.

And a lot of the rules feel pretty dull or unimpactful.
Plus, without any costs for anything besides unit size (in bulk) there's often a clear winner in terms of gear to pick.

I wouldn't say clear winner, but there's often a clear loser. Most people will take the bolt Aggressors, but there's a niche role for the flamer Aggressors for example - not a clear winner. 10 Vanguard Vets deep striking to just outside 3" with Inferno or Plasma Pistols - neither is a clear winner, but there is a clear loser in the bolt/grav pistol and mostly hand flamer which probably has a less than good niche use.

Breton wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Which rules? A lot of the nitty gritty (read: mostly a waste of time) rules got dropped in the transition from 7th to 8th. From 9th to 10th, we lost subfaction rules and some of the generic strats, but we gained a bunch of unit-specific rules plus some USRs.

Flavor rules aren't a waste of time to everyone - as shown by this second thread on basically that topic.

To clarify, I was mostly referring to the rules that tended to be a lot of dice rolling for limited impact on the game or for moderate impact but they felt bad. Ex: a vehicle exploding used to involve 3 dice pools instead of 1. Difficult terrain added a fair bit of rolling for an end result of either not mattering or else mattering and it felt bad (hooray for rolling snake eyes on the movement distance of your footslogging melee unit). Failing morale meant rolling to see how far you moved away from the fight (possibly resulting in a unit death if you're near the board edge or as good as a unit death if the unit was a slow melee specialist), then extra rolling to see if kept rolling... Plus snapshots being prevalent meaning lots of fishing for 6s to not a lot of effect. That sort of thing.

 LunarSol wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that what the OP is largely noticing is that they don't need to waste time adding up wargear costs.
And then doing it again with the next Balance Sheet..

Because rules? There's plenty of rules. Every unit has 1,2, 3+ unique rules. And 1/2+ of the weapons as well.

I feel like the on table experience has a lot more going on but there's less to mess with off table and over the years I've realized for a lot of people that's the main draw.

I'd disagree with that as most of what people are talking about are the fluff-tailored stuff like Chapter Tactics, and Strats that are applied in game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Which rules? A lot of the nitty gritty (read: mostly a waste of time) rules got dropped in the transition from 7th to 8th. From 9th to 10th, we lost subfaction rules and some of the generic strats, but we gained a bunch of unit-specific rules plus some USRs.

Flavor rules aren't a waste of time to everyone - as shown by this second thread on basically that topic.

To clarify, I was mostly referring to the rules that tended to be a lot of dice rolling for limited impact on the game or for moderate impact but they felt bad. Ex: a vehicle exploding used to involve 3 dice pools instead of 1. Difficult terrain added a fair bit of rolling for an end result of either not mattering or else mattering and it felt bad (hooray for rolling snake eyes on the movement distance of your footslogging melee unit). Failing morale meant rolling to see how far you moved away from the fight (possibly resulting in a unit death if you're near the board edge or as good as a unit death if the unit was a slow melee specialist), then extra rolling to see if kept rolling... Plus snapshots being prevalent meaning lots of fishing for 6s to not a lot of effect. That sort of thing.

That isn't what I see most people "missing". Its the differentiation/fluff/flavor rules - especially the ones that worked. Bolter Drill for Imperial Fists, Unique but similar psychic powers with fluffy names between (sub)factions - specialist phase perfomance (BA Fights, DA Shoots, GK Psyches) to include a generalist all-phase performance (UM Demi Company Kitchen Sinks).

Breton wrote:
That isn't what I see most people "missing". Its the differentiation/fluff/flavor rules - especially the ones that worked. Bolter Drill for Imperial Fists, Unique but similar psychic powers with fluffy names between (sub)factions - specialist phase perfomance (BA Fights, DA Shoots, GK Psyches) to include a generalist all-phase performance (UM Demi Company Kitchen Sinks).

A rose by any other name though.

Anvil Siege Force is probably Imperial Fists.

Until the end of the phase, ranged weapons equipped by models in your unit have the [SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability. If your unit Remained Stationary this turn, then until the end of the phase, each time a model in your unit makes a ranged attack, a successful unmodified Hit roll of 5+ scores a Critical Hit.

That's pretty much bolter drill.

Firestorm Assault Force is Salamanders.

Each detachment enables you to focus more on a particular facet that you enjoy - regardless of your name or paint scheme.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
That isn't what I see most people "missing". Its the differentiation/fluff/flavor rules - especially the ones that worked. Bolter Drill for Imperial Fists, Unique but similar psychic powers with fluffy names between (sub)factions - specialist phase perfomance (BA Fights, DA Shoots, GK Psyches) to include a generalist all-phase performance (UM Demi Company Kitchen Sinks).

A rose by any other name though.

Anvil Siege Force is probably Imperial Fists.

Until the end of the phase, ranged weapons equipped by models in your unit have the [SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability. If your unit Remained Stationary this turn, then until the end of the phase, each time a model in your unit makes a ranged attack, a successful unmodified Hit roll of 5+ scores a Critical Hit.

That's pretty much bolter drill.

Firestorm Assault Force is Salamanders.

Each detachment enables you to focus more on a particular facet that you enjoy - regardless of your name or paint scheme.

But some factions have yet to get any additional detachments.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
That isn't what I see most people "missing". Its the differentiation/fluff/flavor rules - especially the ones that worked. Bolter Drill for Imperial Fists, Unique but similar psychic powers with fluffy names between (sub)factions - specialist phase perfomance (BA Fights, DA Shoots, GK Psyches) to include a generalist all-phase performance (UM Demi Company Kitchen Sinks).

A rose by any other name though.

Anvil Siege Force is probably Imperial Fists.

Until the end of the phase, ranged weapons equipped by models in your unit have the [SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability. If your unit Remained Stationary this turn, then until the end of the phase, each time a model in your unit makes a ranged attack, a successful unmodified Hit roll of 5+ scores a Critical Hit.

That's pretty much bolter drill.

Firestorm Assault Force is Salamanders.

Each detachment enables you to focus more on a particular facet that you enjoy - regardless of your name or paint scheme.

But some factions have yet to get any additional detachments.

And that's an issue with release patterns, not the system itself.
I'm with Daed on this-not locking detachments to paint schemes is good.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And that's an issue with release patterns, not the system itself.
I'm with Daed on this-not locking detachments to paint schemes is good.

That's a problem with game bloat. There are so many factions now that even if GW were to release one codex a month (which they already don't do, making it even longer), it would take them 2 years until everyone had a book, which means everyone gets 1 year of having a codex before the new edition potentially invalidates it since we are on 3 year edition cycles (and, I suspect, 6 year edition resets but we don't know that for sure yet)

As for detachments I'm sort of torn, as I liked having subfactions be specific as it meant there was an actual reason to play the subfaction and not "grey tide" where you picked whatever was the meta crap, but a lot of the subfaction rules weren't actually specific. Marines are the most prevalent in this case because most of their special rules were just combat doctrines that any of them could use, so the new style makes more sense.

Thirded. It was weirdly limiting that your BA could *only* be good at melee and your white scars could *only* be good at riding bikes. Now, if your unmounted White Scars need to hold a fortress, they're allowed to do so using the Anvil Siege Force rules rather than having to "steal" the IF rules or punish themselves by going without benefits because you wanted to field something other than bikes that day. And conversely, your Salamanders are allowed to field a mounted strikeforce with everyone on bikes and in transports and get rules to support that (recent legend-ing of various bike units aside).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And that's an issue with release patterns, not the system itself.
I'm with Daed on this-not locking detachments to paint schemes is good.

That's a problem with game bloat. There are so many factions now that even if GW were to release one codex a month (which they already don't do, making it even longer), it would take them 2 years until everyone had a book, which means everyone gets 1 year of having a codex before the new edition potentially invalidates it since we are on 3 year edition cycles (and, I suspect, 6 year edition resets but we don't know that for sure yet)

That's still more a matter of release patterns than game bloat, per se. The customer-friendly thing to do would probably be to move away from physical books and towards pdf's, which would then make it extremely easy to release as many PDFs as they want all at once without worrying about shipping concerns. Presumably they don't do this because it's seen as more profitable to steadily release physical books every couple months rather than putting everything out in one wave. The long wait for everyone to get their rules is more the result of a business decision than an inherent flaw with the number of factions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


A rose by any other name though.

Anvil Siege Force is probably Imperial Fists.

But the problem, from a fluff perspective is that Anvil Siege Force ISN'T Imperial Fists; it's ANY Chapter. Which means the rule invalidates the fluff. Imperial firsts AREN'T noted for being good at siege tactics anymore: all space marine forces, baring faction specific models, are now all equally good at everything. And marines are the only faction lucky enough to actually get faction specific units beyond a character or two.

But for other factions? Like, when any sisters order can specialize in melee, what even is the Bloody Rose?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It was weirdly limiting that your BA could *only* be good at melee and your white scars could *only* be good at riding bikes.

This is a misinterpretation of what the case was.

Blood Angels melee units used to be able to do things that other chapter's melee units couldn't do, but their non-melee troops were no better or worse than anybody else. If BA bikers and UM bikers and SW bikers all compete against each other, each has equal odds. They aren't bad at biking- they just don't specialize in it.

Now if you throw a Ravenwing bike army into the contest, it's likely to beat any of the other armies, not because the other armies are bad at biking, but biking is an area of specialization for Whitescars, they are likely to win a contest against other bikers.

Being extra good at a thing does not mean that you are bad at all other things. It just doesn't.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Now, if your unmounted White Scars need to hold a fortress, they're allowed to do so using the Anvil Siege Force rules rather than having to "steal" the IF rules or punish themselves by going without benefits because you wanted to field something other than bikes that day. And conversely, your Salamanders are allowed to field a mounted strikeforce with everyone on bikes and in transports and get rules to support that (recent legend-ing of various bike units aside).

But since White Scars don't specialize in siege units according to their fluff, SHOULD their siege units be allowed to be as good as Chapters whose fluff says they DO specialize in siege tactics? Because if so, then nobody is actually specialized in anything.

Wayniac wrote:
There are so many factions now that even if GW were to release one codex a month (which they already don't do, making it even longer), it would take them 2 years until everyone had a book, which means everyone gets 1 year of having a codex before the new edition potentially invalidates it since we are on 3 year edition cycles (and, I suspect, 6 year edition resets but we don't know that for sure yet)

The issue isn't the number of factions, it's the length of the edition, and the way to fix it isn't removing factions, it's lengthening the edition cycle. The formula for the MINIMUM length of an edition should be 2.5 x codex release cycle with NO CAMPAIGN BOOKS taking up book release slots UNTIL all dexes are out.

A BA Tactical squad, in 8th and 9th, was better in melee than an UM Tactical squad.
Were they better enough to make you want to melee with them? Probably not. But they were better.

You really went out of your way to pad out the difference between one additional dead terminator as somehow meaningful choice. The Infernal Master is a better choice, you even left out that Infernal Master grants two cabal points to the sorcerers one.

A harder choice is between an Exalted Sorcerer and an Infernal Master but it is clear based one what you want out of the squad. If you want some more staying power you go Exalted, you want more killing power you go Infernal Master.

On the point of battleshock, you can pull out what ever anecdotes you want but I have yet to see it make a difference in a game. I concede that it may potentially make or break a game but I think it is a terrible mechanic that is just so empty of significant impact that I think it to be a terrible rule. I though Fearless wounds were dumb in 5th but that was a better mechanic than battleshock.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
That isn't what I see most people "missing". Its the differentiation/fluff/flavor rules - especially the ones that worked. Bolter Drill for Imperial Fists, Unique but similar psychic powers with fluffy names between (sub)factions - specialist phase perfomance (BA Fights, DA Shoots, GK Psyches) to include a generalist all-phase performance (UM Demi Company Kitchen Sinks).

A rose by any other name though.

Anvil Siege Force is probably Imperial Fists.

Except It's not - A: Its everybody not just Fists, and B: Its a shallow shadow of their previous flavor. The point/appeal of the Tactics and Super Doctrines etc. was to differentiate the different chapters using the same playbook. How it changed how they were built and play. A unit of Aggressors from the Imperial Fists and the Salamanders was likely to look very different. Fists were more likely to take Devastators than Raven Guard because Fists got a specific bonus to Devs, while Ravenguard were more likely to use their bonus in hand to hand thus favoring Jump Packers.

Until the end of the phase, ranged weapons equipped by models in your unit have the [SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability. If your unit Remained Stationary this turn, then until the end of the phase, each time a model in your unit makes a ranged attack, a successful unmodified Hit roll of 5+ scores a Critical Hit.

That's pretty much bolter drill.

Firestorm Assault Force is Salamanders.

Each detachment enables you to focus more on a particular facet that you enjoy - regardless of your name or paint scheme.

You keep proving my point. A flavor everyone gets isn't unique. What used to be a unique flavor turned into a shared Strat isn't flavor. Giving an Aeldari player a 1 CP Strat that gives an Aeldari unit MV12 4++ until the end of turn isn't Harlequinesque - its diminishing Harlequins by giving their thing to Wrathguard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And that's an issue with release patterns, not the system itself.
I'm with Daed on this-not locking detachments to paint schemes is good.

Some Dets should be locked, most should not. But none of the Dets should be the (sole) source of Chapter/Klan/Sept/etc flavor. Nor should we go back to one basic system each faction is hammered through. Chapter Tactics worked for Assorted Marines, and probably Nids, it didn't work for Orks, they and Guard probably needed something similar but different.

Breton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
That isn't what I see most people "missing". Its the differentiation/fluff/flavor rules - especially the ones that worked. Bolter Drill for Imperial Fists, Unique but similar psychic powers with fluffy names between (sub)factions - specialist phase perfomance (BA Fights, DA Shoots, GK Psyches) to include a generalist all-phase performance (UM Demi Company Kitchen Sinks).

A rose by any other name though.

Anvil Siege Force is probably Imperial Fists.

Except It's not - A: Its everybody not just Fists, and B: Its a shallow shadow of their previous flavor. The point/appeal of the Tactics and Super Doctrines etc. was to differentiate the different chapters using the same playbook. How it changed how they were built and play. A unit of Aggressors from the Imperial Fists and the Salamanders was likely to look very different. Fists were more likely to take Devastators than Raven Guard because Fists got a specific bonus to Devs, while Ravenguard were more likely to use their bonus in hand to hand thus favoring Jump Packers.

Until the end of the phase, ranged weapons equipped by models in your unit have the [SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability. If your unit Remained Stationary this turn, then until the end of the phase, each time a model in your unit makes a ranged attack, a successful unmodified Hit roll of 5+ scores a Critical Hit.

That's pretty much bolter drill.

Firestorm Assault Force is Salamanders.

Each detachment enables you to focus more on a particular facet that you enjoy - regardless of your name or paint scheme.

You keep proving my point. A flavor everyone gets isn't unique. What used to be a unique flavor turned into a shared Strat isn't flavor. Giving an Aeldari player a 1 CP Strat that gives an Aeldari unit MV12 4++ until the end of turn isn't Harlequinesque - its diminishing Harlequins by giving their thing to Wrathguard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And that's an issue with release patterns, not the system itself.
I'm with Daed on this-not locking detachments to paint schemes is good.

Some Dets should be locked, most should not. But none of the Dets should be the (sole) source of Chapter/Klan/Sept/etc flavor. Nor should we go back to one basic system each faction is hammered through. Chapter Tactics worked for Assorted Marines, and probably Nids, it didn't work for Orks, they and Guard probably needed something similar but different.

The doctrine and super doctrine is why internal balance for Marines was basically taken out back and shot. It was needless layering of rules that nobody else got and all it meant was that if combinations of made up rules made little timmys unit A too good when their yellow "ultramarine successors" with fists symbols on the shoulders, that every other "chapter" was punished for their sins.

Unless they get individual codexes so units can be priced differently, the current implementation is far better. The old one gave more flavour and personality, won't deny that, but it was at an extreme cost to game play.

I don't see a problem with this.

If I'm really into a chapter because of their preferred fighting style, I can still do that and not lose anything.

If somebody else likes Ultramarines and bikes at the same time, why should they either be playing with worse rules or cosplay as a DA successor?

Why punish people for their colour scheme?
Are Blood Angels (and their successors) the only chapter in the galaxy that ever had the idea to put a wounded Librarian into a Dreadnought?

Dudeface wrote:


The doctrine and super doctrine is why internal balance for Marines was basically taken out back and shot. It was needless layering of rules

The number of people complaining about how shallow/sanitized/whatever the current edition is suggests it wasn't as needless as you imply.

that nobody else got

As far as I knew, most factions had some version of it.. Hive Fleet, Chapter, Klan Kulture, Shield Host Katahs, and so on.

and all it meant was that if combinations of made up rules made little timmys

Denigrating people who disagree with you by calling them "Little Timmy" probably isn't helpful.

unit A too good when their yellow "ultramarine successors" with fists symbols on the shoulders, that every other "chapter" was punished for their sins.

Unless they get individual codexes so units can be priced differently, the current implementation is far better. The old one gave more flavour and personality, won't deny that, but it was at an extreme cost to game play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.

If I'm really into a chapter because of their preferred fighting style, I can still do that and not lose anything.

If somebody else likes Ultramarines and bikes at the same time, why should they either be playing with worse rules or cosplay as a DA successor?

Because they get other rules that might not interact in a balanced manner. Ultramarines should absolutely be able to do an all or mostly biker army and it should be relatively effective. They shouldn't get the boost to bikers that White Scars, Wolves, or Ravenwing should get because their chapter tactics with Ravenwing Strats wouldn't be balanced for use together for the same reason Wolves shouldn't field Sammael, and Raven Guard shouldn't field Commander Dante.

Why punish people for their colour scheme?
Are Blood Angels (and their successors) the only chapter in the galaxy that ever had the idea to put a wounded Librarian into a Dreadnought?

Probably not, but even now they're the only ones who can field one without "breaking" the rules.

Simplifying the Marine rules was one of the actual simplification efforts that was sorely needed. The fact the accessible beginner faction couldn't move their basic infantry model without triggering like 5 different rules was an absurdity.

The issue is GW took that and then applied it to every faction, even the ones who historically have always had lots of unique mechanics. No Aeldari, Drukhari or GSC player was complaining that their army was too complicated, but they all got hit with this absurd "You Get One Army Special Rule" nonsense that just hobbles 10th. In fact Marines in 8th and 9th were all more complicated, or just had more layers of stacking rules, than those armies which was just bizarre.

Of course rather than fixing that singular problem everyone else got hit too. Collective punishment in Games Design; you love to see it.

Breton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.

If I'm really into a chapter because of their preferred fighting style, I can still do that and not lose anything.

If somebody else likes Ultramarines and bikes at the same time, why should they either be playing with worse rules or cosplay as a DA successor?

Because they get other rules that might not interact in a balanced manner. Ultramarines should absolutely be able to do an all or mostly biker army and it should be relatively effective. They shouldn't get the boost to bikers that White Scars, Wolves, or Ravenwing should get because their chapter tactics with Ravenwing Strats wouldn't be balanced for use together for the same reason Wolves shouldn't field Sammael, and Raven Guard shouldn't field Commander Dante.

Aren't Ultramarines and Black Templars right now the most competitive Marine chapters to play exactly because they get something that others do not have access to? The 5th edition codex had this little blurp right before the army list:

You'll notice that the named characters in the Space Marines army list are drawn from several different Chapters, but they can still be used in the same army if you wish. This can represent the common occurrence of different Space Marine Chapters fighting alongside one another.

Alternatively, you can use the model and rules for a named character to represent a mighty hero of a different Chapter - for example, using the rules and model for Marneus Calgar as the Chapter Master of the Imperial Fists, or a Space Marine Chapter of your own design - you just need to come up with a new name.

This is a perfect way to personalise your army - just make sure your opponent is aware of what everything counts as.

Best way to handle it, in my opinion. Provide the crunch and let players reflavour to their liking.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.

If I'm really into a chapter because of their preferred fighting style, I can still do that and not lose anything.

If somebody else likes Ultramarines and bikes at the same time, why should they either be playing with worse rules or cosplay as a DA successor?

Why punish people for their colour scheme?
Are Blood Angels (and their successors) the only chapter in the galaxy that ever had the idea to put a wounded Librarian into a Dreadnought?

Because the game has lost the point. it isn't 40K anymore, it is just a game with models wearing a 40K skin suit. the entire point of when they (Rick, Phil, Andy etc..) designed 40K and set the lore between 3rd and 4th ed. it was to fight in the 40K setting. they went out of the way in the older editions to allow players to make the armies their own in a way. rather through your own paint scheme that counts as army fighting style A, B, or C. to the the point they made a trait system in the 4th ed marine codex, a doctrine system in the guard codex and various craftworld core choices etc.. that you could make your own. and they did it with just a page or 2 of unique rules that made each force fight in it's own way. ravenwing was a bike army just as much as white scars could be a bike army but the rules that each had made them fight very differently.

the scars have never had a better set of rules than this-



The same as the forces of the chaos legions never having anything better than the 3.5 codex.

players are people and they become very invested in the setting and the factions they love(this is true of any game with deep lore behind it). they are not being punished if anything they are given all options and they choose the one that fits them best. if you truly love ultra marines and bikes you can still use bikes in an ultra marines army but they will not fight the same way that the scars fight with bikes.

The "one rule" for each faction in 10th edition is absolutely absurd if not offensive considering how deep and interesting the game was when it's creators were still around. of course the new players have no idea how much they are missing out on.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


The doctrine and super doctrine is why internal balance for Marines was basically taken out back and shot. It was needless layering of rules

The number of people complaining about how shallow/sanitized/whatever the current edition is suggests it wasn't as needless as you imply.

that nobody else got

As far as I knew, most factions had some version of it.. Hive Fleet, Chapter, Klan Kulture, Shield Host Katahs, and so on.

and all it meant was that if combinations of made up rules made little timmys

Denigrating people who disagree with you by calling them "Little Timmy" probably isn't helpful.

unit A too good when their yellow "ultramarine successors" with fists symbols on the shoulders, that every other "chapter" was punished for their sins.

Unless they get individual codexes so units can be priced differently, the current implementation is far better. The old one gave more flavour and personality, won't deny that, but it was at an extreme cost to game play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.

If I'm really into a chapter because of their preferred fighting style, I can still do that and not lose anything.

If somebody else likes Ultramarines and bikes at the same time, why should they either be playing with worse rules or cosplay as a DA successor?

Because they get other rules that might not interact in a balanced manner. Ultramarines should absolutely be able to do an all or mostly biker army and it should be relatively effective. They shouldn't get the boost to bikers that White Scars, Wolves, or Ravenwing should get because their chapter tactics with Ravenwing Strats wouldn't be balanced for use together for the same reason Wolves shouldn't field Sammael, and Raven Guard shouldn't field Commander Dante.

Why punish people for their colour scheme?
Are Blood Angels (and their successors) the only chapter in the galaxy that ever had the idea to put a wounded Librarian into a Dreadnought?

Probably not, but even now they're the only ones who can field one without "breaking" the rules.

No, orks etc did not get to pick 2 custom subfaction traits, declare they were iron hands for the day and unlock another layer of free stuff to access. This is the main point, there is no integrity to the argument. People "chapter hopped" for rules all the time and it made internal balance miserable. It's a milder version now but functionally the same, they just removed the chapter tags.

Edit: for reference little timmy is a long standing meme in this hobby, it's not demeaning to people, it's to represent random young person A learning stuff.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I'd be okay with that. Sort of surprised we don't have more anti-psychic abilities in 10th worded something like:

"Wolf Tail Talisman: When this unit is targeted by an enemy unit's Psychic ability, roll a d6. On a 5+, this unit is unaffected. Additionally, this model's unit has FNP5+ against Psychic Attacks."

Honestly, I'm not against anti-psychic effects. However, the increased prevalence of everyone and their mom being able to randomly shut down a farseer from 6th edition onward was a major pet peeve. If I paid points for a librarian to put up a forcefield, you should have to pay points to turn off that forcefield, y'know?

GW decided to give every GK rule, which for other armies are just rules, the psychic trait. GK don't get any benefit from the psychic trait. There are not buff weapon/skill/etc, if it is psychic. But there are rules like the WE, 1ksons or BT rules which punish the living hell out of an army based around psykers. Giving most or all armies easy access to anti psyker stuff would make GK struggle even more.

That is one of the main problems with "psychic" skills of the GK. Other armies be it eldar or 1ksons just have their skills, and the psychic stuff is a bonus or an upgrade to rules the armies already have. There are synergies, rules over lap etc
A GK chaplain or Brother Cpt, which GW somehow forgot is GK rank of Lt, has rules just like or similar to those of other marines. Only his are psychic. GK melee weapons? psychic. Well ogryns have similar and they aren't. GK range weapons, psychic too. Benefits, non, but suddenly anti psyker protections of certain armies suddenly kick in.

On top of that GK have odd "once per game" rules spread over the army, when other armies have those on a per turn use. And GKs versions are somehow psychic too. And maybe, if in spite of that GK were some tournament power house, because "movment is king" (turns out it isn't when you can't also kill stuff). But now necron have hyper crypt which is being GK with better rules, buff defensive, offensive, points per model/rule cost wise, etc.

But again this is just rules, it would be nice have powerful one, it would be good to have good ones. But right now the feeling one gets while playing GK is like playing Ad Mech (only for less money, but with a higher chance of a phase out of model line). It is just not fun. An army which faciton fantasy is about knight mages/shamans/paladins/etc is relagated to "let me not interact with the opponent, and try to max out secondaries, while staying outside of LoS". Ad mecha dudes want their robots, tech stuff, maybe a knight splashed in, and not a 3000$ army that plays like IG and has turns last 45min. Now most GK players are used to GW pulling stuff like that, but I can imagine that if someone new was suppose to start their w40k adveture with GK, they could be asking questions why some armies can feel right, while others can not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 812953 11640131 wrote:

No, orks etc did not get to pick 2 custom subfaction traits, declare they were iron hands for the day and unlock another layer of free stuff to access. This is the main point, there is no integrity to the argument. People "chapter hopped" for rules all the time and it made internal balance miserable. It's a milder version now but functionally the same, they just removed the chapter tags.

Edit: for reference little timmy is a long standing meme in this hobby, it's not demeaning to people, it's to represent random young person A learning stuff.

The thing with this is that for a long time, since end 8th ed, you can't really chapter hop. No one knows or cares how an ork should be painted to be clan X, or how a specific hive fleet looks like. Eldar can have their dudes painted what ever, same with chaos. But with marines, if they aren't painted correct, then you can not play your BA as IH. Now you can play them as a succesor chapter, but in some cases this just doesn't give the proper game effects. Why play ultramarines without Ventris and Calgar? Why take a DA successor army, if you can't use Azrael. Maybe for the really bad chapters like RG, WS or Fists of all types it doesn't matter much, but then again they are so bad, then it would be hard to find new players for those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Simplifying the Marine rules was one of the actual simplification efforts that was sorely needed. The fact the accessible beginner faction couldn't move their basic infantry model without triggering like 5 different rules was an absurdity.

The issue is GW took that and then applied it to every faction, even the ones who historically have always had lots of unique mechanics. No Aeldari, Drukhari or GSC player was complaining that their army was too complicated, but they all got hit with this absurd "You Get One Army Special Rule" nonsense that just hobbles 10th. In fact Marines in 8th and 9th were all more complicated, or just had more layers of stacking rules, than those armies which was just bizarre.

Of course rather than fixing that singular problem everyone else got hit too. Collective punishment in Games Design; you love to see it.

Only marines without all the extra rules just didn't work. We have seen it in 8th, when the streamlined primaris came out.
one weapon, no melee weapon on the sgt of the basic troop squad, maybe a weapon option change for the whole squad.
And what happened? all those hellblasters, interceptors, intercessors etc were not used. And the balance of +1W ended up not being much of a balance when 2D became the norm for all weapons. end 8th ed marines, when they finaly became fun to play and had more then one list, required rules over lap, use of models GW thought people wouldn't (because they weren't primaris or were FW) etc Then 9th came, the rules were removed and marines dropped hard, with one exeption of WS, which had a good synergy with melee units. And even then it is not like WS were peak of game entire 9th. They were just a good army, and the best of marines for long time. BA were good because GW, again, didn't not think that people would play with 30 old sang guard or bricks of DW terminators (again old models).

Even now, the marine army that works best is an army that is marines+ton of extra special rules and MM on vehicles. Venguard, pre change, was that too over lap of rules, GW forgetting that centurions exist. When someone tries to build a space marine the way GW wants it. The army just doesn't work, and they don't just not work in tournaments (just check how often non venguard marines are played and what is their win rates), but they also don't work in regular store games.

Dudeface wrote:

Edit: for reference little timmy is a long standing meme in this hobby, it's not demeaning to people, it's to represent random young person A learning stuff.

It is when you're using it to belittle and demean the people disagreeing with you, not an actual young person learning stuff.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Edit: for reference little timmy is a long standing meme in this hobby, it's not demeaning to people, it's to represent random young person A learning stuff.

It is when you're using it to belittle and demean the people disagreeing with you, not an actual young person learning stuff.

It was not used in that context at all, I'll reword it to prove the point: "a young random player finding their feet with the hobby rocks up to a game with yellow marines painted with fists icons using ultramarine rules because those happen to be what works best for their collection, if this happens in events it skews results and results in internal balance issues. The fact they're yellow with fist icons hasn't factored into the choic of rules, gameplay has, hence the entire argument lacks integrity."

You are looking to be offended fellow forum person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 812953 11640131 wrote:

No, orks etc did not get to pick 2 custom subfaction traits, declare they were iron hands for the day and unlock another layer of free stuff to access. This is the main point, there is no integrity to the argument. People "chapter hopped" for rules all the time and it made internal balance miserable. It's a milder version now but functionally the same, they just removed the chapter tags.

Edit: for reference little timmy is a long standing meme in this hobby, it's not demeaning to people, it's to represent random young person A learning stuff.

The thing with this is that for a long time, since end 8th ed, you can't really chapter hop. No one knows or cares how an ork should be painted to be clan X, or how a specific hive fleet looks like. Eldar can have their dudes painted what ever, same with chaos. But with marines, if they aren't painted correct, then you can not play your BA as IH. Now you can play them as a succesor chapter, but in some cases this just doesn't give the proper game effects. Why play ultramarines without Ventris and Calgar? Why take a DA successor army, if you can't use Azrael. Maybe for the really bad chapters like RG, WS or Fists of all types it doesn't matter much, but then again they are so bad, then it would be hard to find new players for those.

I'm confused. Your argument makes it sound like you agree, you shouldn't be punished for playing the way you want to play with what you want to play irrespective of what chapter your minis visually identify with. Flavour being added via characters and other unique options. Did I read that right?

Dudeface wrote:


No, orks etc did not get to pick 2 custom subfaction traits, declare they were iron hands for the day and unlock another layer of free stuff to access. This is the main point, there is no integrity to the argument. People "chapter hopped" for rules all the time and it made internal balance miserable. It's a milder version now but functionally the same, they just removed the chapter tags.

I'm sitting here looking and Leagues have a Warlord Trait and a Strat. Ork Klans had both, a "chapter tactic" and a relic. Similar with Nids. Similar with Aeldari. Looking at this: Custodes have Aegis of the Emperor (Chapter Tactics), a Martial Ka'tah (doctrines), and a Shield host Fighting Style (Super Doctrine) The Aeldar have Strands of Fate (Doctrines) Attributes (Chapter Tactics) and probably skip the Super Doctrine because Strands of Fate is so much better than Doctrines by themselves which is probably why they added Super Doctrines in the supplements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


It was not used in that context at all, I'll reword it to prove the point: "a young random player finding their feet with the hobby rocks up to a game with yellow marines painted with fists icons using ultramarine rules because those happen to be what works best for their collection, if this happens in events it skews results and results in internal balance issues. The fact they're yellow with fist icons hasn't factored into the choic of rules, gameplay has, hence the entire argument lacks integrity."

You are looking to be offended fellow forum person.

Sure it was.

Dudeface wrote:
all it meant was that if combinations of made up rules made little timmys unit A too good

the people who disagree with you are children power gamers trying to make Unit A too good.

Karol wrote:The thing with this is that for a long time, since end 8th ed, you can't really chapter hop. No one knows or cares how an ork should be painted to be clan X, or how a specific hive fleet looks like. Eldar can have their dudes painted what ever, same with chaos. But with marines, if they aren't painted correct, then you can not play your BA as IH. Now you can play them as a succesor chapter, but in some cases this just doesn't give the proper game effects. Why play ultramarines without Ventris and Calgar? Why take a DA successor army, if you can't use Azrael. Maybe for the really bad chapters like RG, WS or Fists of all types it doesn't matter much, but then again they are so bad, then it would be hard to find new players for those.

That's not really true. Aeldari are theoretically more color-locked than Space Marines because Aeldari don't have Successor Craft Worlds. But that doesn't really matter because an overwhleming number of players are perfectly willing to do whatever fluffing Counts-As is necessary for a game. Marneus Calgar and a company of Ultramarines have escaped from a Black Fortress, exited the webway on a Dark Angels recruitment planet where their raid the DA Armory for armor and equipment. So my Green Ultramarines are using the UM Rules even though they look like Dark Angels. The nearly immortal warriors of the Biel Tan craftword have joined up with the Alaitoc craftword for a defense and because of their longevity can adapt their style to Biel-Tan using their rules instead of Alaitoc. Paint color has never locked in any Sub Faction for the vast majority of players.

When I think of 10th edition 40k, the comparison that comes to mind is 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons.

It was an edition that made sweeping changes to the core rules and especially to how the different classes functioned - with a very heavy emphasis on balance.

In past editions, a Barbarian played very differently to a Wizard, who in turn played very differently to a Cleric.

In 4th, though, every class was cut from the exact same mould. They would each get the exact same number of at-will abilities, encounter-abilities, daily abilities, utility abilities etc., and at the exact same intervals. Moreover, the abilities were all near-identical, with only minor differences in rider abilities or such. Gone were the wide variety of spells that spellcasters used to have access to. Instead, virtually every boiled down to 'do damage + effect'. So in essence you had something like this:
Hit with Sword - 1d8 damage + an ally can move 2 squares.
Holy Smash - 1d8 damage + an ally can spend a hit dice.
Magic Missile - 1d8 damage + enemy is pushed back 2 squares.

Now, these mechanics worked and far better balanced than prior editions of the game. However, it also felt very flat to a lot of people. It felt more like a MMORPG than D&D, as almost everything was built for combat, with all the rules so rigid that the advantages that normally came from playing an offline game were all but non-existent.

Even the little things felt off. For example, D&D had traditionally measured range in ft (where necessary, maps would traditionally use 5ft squares). However, all the distances in 4th edition were measured in squares. It was a small change but one that felt very off and was anti-immersive, as every single description reminded you of the grid you were presumably expected to rigidly stick to at all times.

The point is, while 4th Edition was perfectly functional as a game, it no longer felt like D&D. So much choice and flavour had been sacrificed in the name of balance that it just wasn't fun.

This is what I'm reminded of when I think of 10th edition 40k. We seem to have sacrificed far too much in the name of balance. Every faction must have Exactly One faction ability and Exactly One subfaction ability and Exactly Four relics etc.. Characters may only join Ze Designated Units! Plus the annihilation of wargear as NMNR (the worst policy ever enacted by GW) is hammered down even more. Except now the characters who've been hardest hit no longer even have warlord traits (or a meaningful selection of artefacts) to compensate.

Even list-building has been stripped back to the point that GW might as well just pre-write your lists for you.

However functional or balanced the game is, it's just no longer a game I have any desire to play.

 aphyon wrote:

Because the game has lost the point. it isn't 40K anymore, it is just a game with models wearing a 40K skin suit. the entire point of when they (Rick, Phil, Andy etc..) designed 40K and set the lore between 3rd and 4th ed. it was to fight in the 40K setting. they went out of the way in the older editions to allow players to make the armies their own in a way. rather through your own paint scheme that counts as army fighting style A, B, or C. to the the point they made a trait system in the 4th ed marine codex, a doctrine system in the guard codex and various craftworld core choices etc.. that you could make your own. and they did it with just a page or 2 of unique rules that made each force fight in it's own way. ravenwing was a bike army just as much as white scars could be a bike army but the rules that each had made them fight very differently.

the scars have never had a better set of rules than this-

Spoiler:

The same as the forces of the chaos legions never having anything better than the 3.5 codex.

players are people and they become very invested in the setting and the factions they love(this is true of any game with deep lore behind it). they are not being punished if anything they are given all options and they choose the one that fits them best. if you truly love ultra marines and bikes you can still use bikes in an ultra marines army but they will not fight the same way that the scars fight with bikes.

The "one rule" for each faction in 10th edition is absolutely absurd if not offensive considering how deep and interesting the game was when it's creators were still around. of course the new players have no idea how much they are missing out on.

It's interesting to see the stark difference in how rules were written then (where you'd have notes on flavour/story baked in) as compared to now.

Breton wrote:

Sure it was.

Dudeface wrote:
all it meant was that if combinations of made up rules made little timmys unit A too good

the people who disagree with you are children power gamers trying to make Unit A too good.

You're really reaching here. Are you denying that people changed "chapter rules" to fit with their play style? That chapter rules were oddly restricting to some players? That marines gained more flexibility and options in list construction through keyword choice than other forces?

If you want to answer no to those, I'd honestly tell you that you've been very sheltered if you haven't encountered meta list blue iron hands because they're "totally fluffy for my ultramarine dread army" etc.

The current method benefits more people including marine players, than the few who played strictly to the exact fluff their rules reinforced.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
You really went out of your way to pad out the difference between one additional dead terminator as somehow meaningful choice. The Infernal Master is a better choice, you even left out that Infernal Master grants two cabal points to the sorcerers one.

A harder choice is between an Exalted Sorcerer and an Infernal Master but it is clear based one what you want out of the squad. If you want some more staying power you go Exalted, you want more killing power you go Infernal Master.

The terminator count is a demonstration that the a-typical Infernal Master choice isn't the be-all end-all regardless of cabal points.

To carry the problem further and bring it back to "list building decision making within 10th" --

The best placing TS list ( WWWLWW ) in LVO ran 11 characters : Ahriman, Magnus, 2 Exalteds, 3 Exalteds on Disc, IM, 3 Shamans. The guy right behind him ( WWWWWL ) ran Magnus, Ahriman, IM, DP w/ Wings, and 2 Sorcerers. The next guy ( WLWWWW ) was fewer characters still, but double mutalith double forgefiend.

Even Eldar lists don't run the same things. There's a significant amount of variety.

An exalted provides a 4++ and will resurrect a model per turn ( unless he hurts the unit or you spike a 6, but those outcomes wash ). My nemesis the nightspinner who sits in the corner and wants to open up my backfield doesn't care at all about an invulnerable either from regular shots or spiking devastating wounds. There is no better protection than not being able to be targeted. For the 4++ to matter it needs to be AP3 weapons, which is generally melee territory ( Deathguard ) and I don't want to be in melee.

On the point of battleshock, you can pull out what ever anecdotes you want but I have yet to see it make a difference in a game. I concede that it may potentially make or break a game but I think it is a terrible mechanic that is just so empty of significant impact that I think it to be a terrible rule. I though Fearless wounds were dumb in 5th but that was a better mechanic than battleshock.

I think a lot of people look for it to swing games. It shouldn't really do that often, because it'd create a win more situation where the army that's ahead stays ahead.

My thesis, on the original question, is that GW was trying to reset bloat. 40k has had three big burn-it-down-and-start-over moments in its past, in 3e, 8e, and 10e, all of which happened because the edition before was or was perceived to be bloated beyond usability. In trying to reset the bloat while also trying to preserve their bare-bones core mechanics they've produced a game that doesn't really have much substance left.

Breton wrote:
Except It's not - A: Its everybody not just Fists, and B: Its a shallow shadow of their previous flavor. The point/appeal of the Tactics and Super Doctrines etc. was to differentiate the different chapters using the same playbook. How it changed how they were built and play. A unit of Aggressors from the Imperial Fists and the Salamanders was likely to look very different. Fists were more likely to take Devastators than Raven Guard because Fists got a specific bonus to Devs, while Ravenguard were more likely to use their bonus in hand to hand thus favoring Jump Packers.

I feel like a lot of this sentiment revolves around "my guys can do this cool thing and your guys can't so it makes my choice more unique and special". Kind of a purity test, I guess? I'm not saying these are anyone's words.

Someone playing "IF" could certainly run Stormlance ( as one example ) and it might feel weird, but it's not outside the scope of possibility that the jack of all trades marines can pivot. Horus Heresey IF likely still run Scimitar Jetbikes I'd bet even if more players lean heavy on vehicles or terminators.

How might one run a fluffy IF bike list in 40K?

Well, IF love bolters. Outriders have those. An ATV with a gatling fits the mold, too. Like all marine detachments they can use AoC - durability fits. Then there's Blitzing Fusillade, which grants Assault and SH1 - more bolter hits = good. IF should love to run a flying brick as well. Stormlance provides a -1 to be hit and -1 to be wounded strat that gels nicely with it's -1D. A super durable beefcake flyer? Totally.

So three strats that fit how IF might operate on a slightly more mobile list. Would it be the best list ever? No, but that shouldn't matter.

Realistically anyone running Stormlance will likely think of their army as White Scars. It doesn't diminish what White Scars are if someone else uses them as Imperial Fists. In reality I don't think anyone will do this. People will look at units and perhaps they really like bikes. So they pick Stormlance. And then they read about marines and here are these guys who love bikes, too...and a WS player is born.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My thesis, on the original question, is that GW was trying to reset bloat. 40k has had three big burn-it-down-and-start-over moments in its past, in 3e, 8e, and 10e, all of which happened because the edition before was or was perceived to be bloated beyond usability. In trying to reset the bloat while also trying to preserve their bare-bones core mechanics they've produced a game that doesn't really have much substance left.

Different substance.

- Picking the unit dynamics I want rather than whether or not I should take 7 Rubrics instead of 10 so I can fit "more good stuff".
- Picking characters that perform the task I need rather than the spells I want.
- At some point there will be a detachment layer to pick from, which will influence all the choices below it.

And these are just pre-game things. No one is talking about the mission format or how that operates.

I suspect people miss the really strong combinations and that's what is meant by heavily sanitized.