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.

You really think that stuff like Death Company or Wulfen or TWC or Sang Guard or locked gear patern (DA speeders, Baal predators etc) don't make factions that have them more flavoured?

Okey lets say we remove those things. They no longer exist, and lets say it happens to the ones GW already created for primaris too.
What is the difference between an ultramarines, DA and SW army? The core army rules given and how they are painted ? Awesome this is how we end up with sneaky centurions and ultramarines being the best, because they have a larger pool of special characters then other factions, which for some reason don't get nerfed like the BA or DA ones.

I don't understand why chapter specific stuff is considered flanderisation. SW had they grey hunters/grey slayers for ever. Stuff like wulfen or TWC is in the 2ed codex and model wise, there are metal ones of wulfen, so they are at least half the history of w40k old. I have seen the 2ed SW codex, dudes wear wolf pelts, have huge tusks on the black an white art, crazy hair etc
Death Company is in the 2ed codex. So are deathwing terminators. And the lore for those units is that they are chapter/legion unique and nothing like similar units of other chapters.

The problem with the "internal" balance GW tries to achive is that all those chapters shouldn't have shared a single codex to begin with. A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army. But GW decided that it is going to be good ,and I assume it is good for them, that players have to buy 2 books to play one army.

That is how we get not working detachments. Detachments of the DA type, where one wonders, why should anyone take them over a gladius. Siege centurions in IF "detachment" not even sure, if worth to be run at the points cost they have now. But run as ultras with access to venguard stuff? As characterful and lore accurate as the late 8th 15 centurions infiltrating Raven Guard lists.

And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance. That flanderised WS player with his biker army is suppose to do what? Wait for 11th and hope there are going to be bikes released in it and that they will have good rules, the core rules won't punish the use of bikes (like it is now) and that they only have to wait 2+ years for it.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

The problem was that it was mostly what...Tau and Eldar 'monstrous creatures' (ie: things that really should have been vehicles but the rules writers made monsters because the monster rules were stronger than vehicles) that were the problem. Nid monsters were actually fairly fun in low tier fights. Like if Grav didn't also have the ability to strip hull points off of vehicles as well it might have been a bit more reasonable - its not like vehicles were that good in 7th anyways.

But yeah, brings up another issue with the 6th/7th era - its when Monstrous Creatures got extremely out of hand, with higher and higher toughness values, lower and lower saves, layered saves and so on. They also tended to have more wounds than vehicles, while being equally as hard or harder to wound, and unlike vehicles got saving throws and didn't have the damage chart vehicles had to contend with. To add insult to injury, pretty much all of the Nid beasties did not get these buffs and languished as a low tier dex.

As I said, 7th could still be fun, two low tier dexes could still have a great game at it, or a higher tier dex that purposely kneecapped themselves could still be ok. To put into perspective just how out of hand some things got, thanks to unkillable necrons, eldar and tau getting buff after buff etc, Marines getting free transports for their entire army was considered mid tier and one of the few viable ways to run Marines at the time to basically just win by attrition and having too many models on the board to kill.

Vankraken wrote:

The codexes introduced formations and faction specific force orgs into the army building process and things started off toned down with Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels being rather tame (Orks and D Eldar got nerfed essentially) while Space Wolves had a few quite strong things (Thunder cav, Wulfen, Iron Priests on Thunder Wolves, the smaller wolves, etc) that made them a step or two above the rest but it was still somewhat reasonable. Then came Necrons which basically introduced the Decurion super formation that layered powerful bonuses on top of already decent formation bonuses that made the Necrons super powerful. Then almost every faction after that has their own super formation and it seemed like the rules writers completely abandoned balance restraints. Eldar was the most OP faction in 6th and basically their 7th edition codex was buffs across the board with the tiny exception that the OP busted unit of 6th was nerfed a bit. Tau was also incredibly strong in 6th (but struggled in 7th vs the super formation and psychic powers) got only buffs via the powerful formations and added war gear options but all the unit stat lines/point costs basically remained the same from 6th. The icing on the overpowered cake was Ynnari which was basically stacking the brokenly OP Eldar rules (including their OP formations) with a faction ruleset that was basically the strongest win more mechanic in the game. Also this is when Imperial Knights showed up which could field an entire army of super heavy walkers to be the end all be all skew list due to how vehicle rules worked.

7th was peak incompetence from GW as they lost the plot a 3rd of the way through the edition and the end result was a steaming pile of garbage. All that said, the key to making the edition fun was understand some basic concepts of game balance and making sure both players are fielding lists that where relatively on par with each other. If you could do that simple bit of sportsmanship then you could very easily have some fun games. If you expected to just slap down any army list blindly in a pick up game then your very likely to have some bad mismatches irregardless of player skill differences. Tournament play was a dumpster fire due to the horrible top end game balance but to be frank, 40k is a terrible tournament game regardless of the edition being played.

Yup, I remember popping back in shortly after Necrons dropped, and prior to that 7th was seen as scaling back the excesses of 6th with codexes that were nerfed from their previous incarnations etc. Then the wild stuff started to drop and it got more nad more insane. It is true though that with the right people and mindset, you could still have fun with 7th.

7th also did have 2 of my favorite army lists - Renegades and Heretics and Eldar Corsairs. Both originally had lists for 5th, but the 7th lists were more interesting and customizable and fun. I actually bought one of the Boarding Patrol boxes with a bunch of Corsairs in it to start a small list for oldhammer (though likely using 5th's core rules and tweaking things to make sure not too strong). Both lists had lots of fun things you can do to alter the play styles and so on. If you want a rough idea of what it was like, the free Imperial Militia list they released for Horus Heresy can basically trace its lineage back to these.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....

Quote was me, from memory, so could have it a bit wrong, it was first of all ap2, so basically ignored armor saves, and then wounded based on the saving throw of the opponent's model. So that big expensive model with a 2+ save now A) didn't get its save and B) was wounded on a 2+. Bonus points, it also could destroy vehicles in a pinch because on a 6 it would automatically strip a hull point, and I believe a later faq then said if it hit a second time it would auto-strip 2 hull points which would destroy most vehicles in the edition. It was something like if you got a 'crew shaken' result twice on the chart, instead of shaking them a second time it would deal the extra hull point.

Dudeface 812953 11642093 wrote:

No other army had this problem, becuase Marines had too much stuff.

Other armies had huge point costs problems in 9th too. Ones with few or almost no units comparing to what marines had. The problems with marines point cost was coming from the fact that GW forced marines in to the same single codex. And it wasn't just creating problems for marines. GK were getting points nerfs, because marines were getting nerfs, even if GK didn't have access to the unit combinations or rules. It is a long standing way for GW to work. They know the problem is eldar MW generations, two or three specific units that shot out of LoS. And how do they fix it? wreck the MW generation and defence for the entire game. Nerf point costs of all indirect platforms which still makes the best of the best used, but suddenly GK heavy weapon specialists cost as if they were a nigh spinner. etc Also most of the time, end of 8th being the exclusion to this, the actual unit choice list of sm list is so small that it doesn't matter how much lets say an intercessors costs. They just went down in costs, is anyone going to use them? no. But the scout, aggressors, interceptor package that went up in points will still be used, because without it marines don't really have good stuff to run. And in some extrem cases, like being a White Scar player, the codex doesn't even support having a 2000pts list.

 kurhanik wrote:


The problem was that it was mostly what...Tau and Eldar 'monstrous creatures'

That started earlier I think, I forget exactly when but I can remember Dread vs Carnifex being laughably one-sided because of Monsters getting bonuses vs Vehicles.

Breton wrote:
Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.

Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.

And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.

I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what you're getting at.

Everyone has 6 detachments and then IF players get SH1 with bolters and something else. Is that the general idea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance.

Have you not been paying attention to the dataslate? GW is perfectly capable of making mid-edition changes. Blood Angels got a buff. Custodes got FNP vs DW. Death Guard got extra debuffs. DE just got a glow up.

Breton wrote:

It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.

I wasn't talking about the Greater Good, just their visual style. It's an immediate, visceral reaction that this faction doesn't fit in with the rest of the grimdark, that WFB in space doesn't need Gundams. The annoying rules just magnified that sentiment.

Chapter tactics definitely flanderise paint jobs, if my blue ultramarines use imperial fists rules because the rules suit my collection better, then I've been pigeon holed by chapter tactics.

The problem was that everyone got SOMETHING inside of marines but the number of moving parts meant that the cumulative somethings catapult some units beyond the ability to be fairly balanced for other chapters. I don't understand why this is hard to grasp? If your flamer aggressors are autohitting max hits with +1 to wound as a salamander, are those worth the same points in an ultramarine army where they can fall back and shoot with no further buffs?

Was the unkillable bro-viathan dread with twin guns worth the same points as a stock blood angels one?

Karol wrote:
You really think that stuff like Death Company or Wulfen or TWC or Sang Guard or locked gear patern (DA speeders, Baal predators etc) don't make factions that have them more flavoured?

Okey lets say we remove those things. They no longer exist, and lets say it happens to the ones GW already created for primaris too.
What is the difference between an ultramarines, DA and SW army? The core army rules given and how they are painted ? Awesome this is how we end up with sneaky centurions and ultramarines being the best, because they have a larger pool of special characters then other factions, which for some reason don't get nerfed like the BA or DA ones.

I don't understand why chapter specific stuff is considered flanderisation. SW had they grey hunters/grey slayers for ever. Stuff like wulfen or TWC is in the 2ed codex and model wise, there are metal ones of wulfen, so they are at least half the history of w40k old. I have seen the 2ed SW codex, dudes wear wolf pelts, have huge tusks on the black an white art, crazy hair etc
Death Company is in the 2ed codex. So are deathwing terminators. And the lore for those units is that they are chapter/legion unique and nothing like similar units of other chapters.

The problem with the "internal" balance GW tries to achive is that all those chapters shouldn't have shared a single codex to begin with. A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army. But GW decided that it is going to be good ,and I assume it is good for them, that players have to buy 2 books to play one army.

That is how we get not working detachments. Detachments of the DA type, where one wonders, why should anyone take them over a gladius. Siege centurions in IF "detachment" not even sure, if worth to be run at the points cost they have now. But run as ultras with access to venguard stuff? As characterful and lore accurate as the late 8th 15 centurions infiltrating Raven Guard lists.

And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance. That flanderised WS player with his biker army is suppose to do what? Wait for 11th and hope there are going to be bikes released in it and that they will have good rules, the core rules won't punish the use of bikes (like it is now) and that they only have to wait 2+ years for it.

You basically followed the entire train of logic of the thread and summaries it for me, thank you.

Most of the unique marine units are hold overs from when they existed to provide army identity but thunderwolf cavalry simply existing does very little to differentiate the 13 great companies and their unique playstyles. You could make a new flyer, transport and dread unit for GK but that doesn't make it any more easy to identify how the brotherhoods all function differently necessarily.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Breton wrote:

It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.

I wasn't talking about the Greater Good, just their visual style. It's an immediate, visceral reaction that this faction doesn't fit in with the rest of the grimdark, that WFB in space doesn't need Gundams. The annoying rules just magnified that sentiment.

In 'The Exodite' I think it created a fantastic foil to the raw and brutal Imperium. The contrast only enhances the brutality and the Tau still had their own dogmatic failings.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.

Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.

And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.

I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what you're getting at.

Everyone has 6 detachments and then IF players get SH1 with bolters and something else. Is that the general idea?

I think so, which isn't terrible, but if you have a fists army without many bolters then you might as well not bother still.

Karol wrote:
You really think that stuff like Death Company or Wulfen or TWC or Sang Guard or locked gear patern (DA speeders, Baal predators etc) don't make factions that have them more flavoured?

Okey lets say we remove those things. They no longer exist, and lets say it happens to the ones GW already created for primaris too.
What is the difference between an ultramarines, DA and SW army? The core army rules given and how they are painted ? Awesome this is how we end up with sneaky centurions and ultramarines being the best, because they have a larger pool of special characters then other factions, which for some reason don't get nerfed like the BA or DA ones.

I don't understand why chapter specific stuff is considered flanderisation. SW had they grey hunters/grey slayers for ever. Stuff like wulfen or TWC is in the 2ed codex and model wise, there are metal ones of wulfen, so they are at least half the history of w40k old. I have seen the 2ed SW codex, dudes wear wolf pelts, have huge tusks on the black an white art, crazy hair etc
Death Company is in the 2ed codex. So are deathwing terminators. And the lore for those units is that they are chapter/legion unique and nothing like similar units of other chapters.

The problem with the "internal" balance GW tries to achive is that all those chapters shouldn't have shared a single codex to begin with. A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army. But GW decided that it is going to be good ,and I assume it is good for them, that players have to buy 2 books to play one army.

That is how we get not working detachments. Detachments of the DA type, where one wonders, why should anyone take them over a gladius. Siege centurions in IF "detachment" not even sure, if worth to be run at the points cost they have now. But run as ultras with access to venguard stuff? As characterful and lore accurate as the late 8th 15 centurions infiltrating Raven Guard lists.

And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance. That flanderised WS player with his biker army is suppose to do what? Wait for 11th and hope there are going to be bikes released in it and that they will have good rules, the core rules won't punish the use of bikes (like it is now) and that they only have to wait 2+ years for it.

Not sure who/what you're asking here but I'll give it a go:

Sure DC, Wulfen etc add flavor. But like a unit Specific Chapter Tactic, not enough. The "character" of the chapter should weave throughout the entire chapter, not just a few specific "special characters" so to speak. Every blood Angel has the Red Thirst not just the Sanguinary Guard. Chapter Tactics should be a somewhat minor tweak that twirls every unit just a hair.

Chapter Specific stuff isn't flanderisation, Chapter Specific stuff (or basically anything) to extremes is. Spacewolves were basically turned into a 1960s Batman spoof with wolf claws frozen to wolf bones wielded next to an ice pistol. Also see: Skulls on spikes on skulls on spikes.

I'm not sure which DA Det you're talking about but:
The Unforgiven Task Force is bad because Morale is bad.
The Inner Circle Task Force is bad but will probably be decent hopefully when the massive KEYWORD problems are resolved. Somebody who didn't know DA - or 40K in general - dropped the ball on this one.
The Company of Hunters doesn't look too bad and has some potential.

Also:

A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army.

Sure they should. The Black Knight bikes can't be in an Ultramarine's Army and currently there's no difference between an Ultramarines Outrider vs a Ravenwing Outrider. At most you could attach a Ravenwing Command Squad to the Outrider squad, but why would you - its a bad choice. Plus I disagree with that being Ravenwing only for multiple reasons. Finally, even if Chapter Tactics came back and each biker was modified by a relatively equivalent Chapter Tactic they're still worth about the same.

I have a question for you: How do you think Bikes are punished?

Dudeface wrote:
I think so, which isn't terrible, but if you have a fists army without many bolters then you might as well not bother still.

Yea I don't favor such a dynamic. I liked it. And I built lists around it, but I don't think it's better.

If we contextualize it within "is 10th edition heavily sanitized" -- ( this is directed at the forum )

We can have a setup that promotes bolters and heavy bolters for IF. And then people will build IF lists with bolters and heavy bolters. If such a setup is good people will build IF. If it is not, then they will not.

Why would that be "less sanitized" than IF who can --

- Take 1st Company with a terminator focus, which also contains lots of objective control and durability options
- Take Anvil Siege Force and focus on Heavy Intercessors, who carry lots of bolters with Heavy, an ability to stand back up, more objective control abilities, and access to SH on 5s
- Take Gladius and Tor leading some Aggressors and a character with SH1 on 5s in Dev and keep that unit in Dev
- Take Ironstorm with a vehicle heavy IF using dreadnoughts for objective control and another option to give a Heavy Intercessor ( or other bolter ) unit SH1 on 5s

Dai wrote:
Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.

It's always been a bit of a problem. Something can be pretty good but if it isn't against marine stats and armour it'll often as not be useless.

those 20 kroot wouldn’t even wipe 10 guardsmen in combat. If they were fighting any chaff tier combat unit (hormagaunts, ork boyz, ect) they’d get absolutely clobbered in return, usually at less ppm.

While the ubiquity of marines did have an effect on kroot effectiveness, they’ve been a bad combination of super squishy, low damage, and overcosted.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.

Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.

And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.

I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what you're getting at.

Everyone has 6 detachments and then IF players get SH1 with bolters and something else. Is that the general idea?

Probably not the bolter thing specifically. That specific boost would be on the borderline for what I'd be looking for - I mean bolters are fairly ubiquitous in a Space Marine army so it would hit a lot but I'd be looking for something casting a wider net. Something that hits every marine. Bolter Drill feels like more of a Strat than a Chapter Tactic. Red Thirst(BA), Grim Resolve(DA), Hunters Unleashed(SW), and Lightning Assault(WS) from 9th are the type if not the "power" (Could be, could not be, I'm not the one to math-hammer and theory craft that one out). But the contrast here is say Siege Masters (Ignore Cover, and SH1 for Bolters) vs Lightning Assault (Everyone can charge after Advance/Fall Back and no to-hit penalty for advance and shoot assault weapons). I don't like the Ignore Cover because Flamers are bad enough already and someone needs to throw them a bone - but the affects everyone is nice. The Bolt weapon again doesn't affect everyone. Lightning Assault has an affects everyone with Advance and Charge - the advance and assault weapon is again a little limited - not as much as the bolt weapon thing - and completely alien to the current edition. Something close to this but within the new design space wouldn't suck. Maybe everything gets ASSAULT, but that's probably a little stronger than I'm looking for.
The general point is they work together, they work on everything, so even a White Scars Assault Centurion still acts like a White Scar as it "runs" ahead shooting people with the Centurion Bolters until it gets into Clobbering Range. Meanwhile the less impetuous more stoic Dark Angel Assault Centurion is going to make a measured choice between getting closer or REALLY focusing on the shooting wtih the Bolter and the melta guns while being far less battleshocked at the Centurion next to him gurgling blood into his gorget.

An Assault Centurion is still an Assault Centurion with a ton of wounds, high Toughness, and the propensity to face punch no matter who his DNA mods come from - but I like it when they play just a little different that way. Sometimes it won't matter. Almost nobody is ever going to care if Blood Angels Devastators get to add 1" and +1 to wound when they charge, but I like the idea of gun toting BA Intercessors making that charge because being BA twirled the numbers just enough, while the Ultramarines Intercessors would be more likely to Fall back and shoot because their Chapter Tactics twirled the numbers just a little differently.

Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.

What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.

Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th8t is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.

What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.

Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.

I'd say it's due to the design goal of core rule simplicity since 8th edition. That makes an edition seem quite sanitised even if there are a ridiculous amount of very similar special rules added on top. The lack of customisation options just adds to that. There's undoubtedly some nostalgia goggles about earlier editions but i think the fact remains that 8th edition was a pardigm shift toward simple core rules and lots of "dlc" add ons that comes across as sterile.

8th was the most bloated mess of conflicting rules on top of rules ever.....

I am not sure we played the same 8th.

Also, the core of 8th was deathstars, which was boring and lame. There is no diversity behind building the loyal32 around a couple Knights and watching them break the game turn 1 with their op shooting.

The core rules of 8th were like 10 pages? It's all the DLC that made it a bloated mess of conflicting rules etc

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I think so, which isn't terrible, but if you have a fists army without many bolters then you might as well not bother still.

Yea I don't favor such a dynamic. I liked it. And I built lists around it, but I don't think it's better.

If we contextualize it within "is 10th edition heavily sanitized" -- ( this is directed at the forum )

We can have a setup that promotes bolters and heavy bolters for IF. And then people will build IF lists with bolters and heavy bolters. If such a setup is good people will build IF. If it is not, then they will not.

Why would that be "less sanitized" than IF who can --

- Take 1st Company with a terminator focus, which also contains lots of objective control and durability options
- Take Anvil Siege Force and focus on Heavy Intercessors, who carry lots of bolters with Heavy, an ability to stand back up, more objective control abilities, and access to SH on 5s
- Take Gladius and Tor leading some Aggressors and a character with SH1 on 5s in Dev and keep that unit in Dev
- Take Ironstorm with a vehicle heavy IF using dreadnoughts for objective control and another option to give a Heavy Intercessor ( or other bolter ) unit SH1 on 5s

Well No, that isn't exactly it.

I'd like to see these new Dets AND Chapter Tactics. The New Dets should enable the theme of the army - like a 1st Company Terminator Focused list. The Chapter Tactic should tilt just a little how the Terminators in that list play.

As for your question: Nothing would be less sanitized. Nothing would be more sanitized. They're all the same.

A UM who can --
- Take 1st Company with a terminator focus, which also contains lots of objective control and durability options
- Take Anvil Siege Force and focus on Heavy Intercessors, who carry lots of bolters with Heavy, an ability to stand back up, more objective control abilities, and access to SH on 5s
- Take Gladius and Calgar leading some Aggressors and a character with SH1 on 5s in Dev and keep that unit in Dev
- Take Ironstorm with a vehicle heavy IF using dreadnoughts for objective control and another option to give a Heavy Intercessor ( or other bolter ) unit SH1 on 5s

Whats the sum total of variety there? Tor's Aggressors ignore cover, and Calgar's can Advance, shoot, and charge. Oh, and Calgar gives +1CP per turn, while the IF list will have to find some way of 5+'ing a CP if it wants extra. Fairly minor and entirely locked into the Epic Special Character Hero not the whole army.

And lets not give GW too much credit here either. How many mounted HQ's who can take an enhancement are there in the core SM book? 1 - the Chaplain on a bike. Its got almost as many problems as the DA Inner Circle Task Force. So I suppose I should modify the above statement to say Model Support and Detachments should enable the theme of the army, while Chapter Tactics tilts it just a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.

What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.

Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. 10th is the Reboot. 9th was the up/side grade to 8th. I would expect 11th to be the side/upgrade to 10th.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.

What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.

Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.

I have laid it out out multiple times that the entire design system of 40k post 7th is fundamentals lacking in mechanical depth and makes it way too easy to have the game boil down to mathhammer. While 7th has its own issues (namely codex balance and rules stacking.... It's almost like this keeps happening), it has the bones of 5th edition which by many accounts is considered one of the better game editions for the players. With 8th to 10th I found the gameplay to be mindlessly boring and fails to scratch that tactical battle itch that 6th and 7th could. While many people didn't see things how I saw them with regarding to 8th and 9th, 10th somehow is getting even more bland results and it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm with the game because of it. That said it's kind hard to recognize vapid or bland gameplay while it's a lot easier to point to frustrating or imbalance issues and identify them as being an issue.

Sadly the greater Warhammer community will throw money at GW regardless of the quality of the rules they publish or how much they lose the main setting's plot. Mobile games make companies billions of dollars a year despite those games being absolute garbage from a gameplay perspective and literally designed to hook players into spending money to keep playing/buying power. The financial success of the company is not a good representation of how well designed or fun the game is to play unless you only care about profitability. Monopoly the board game was a highly successful game that continues to sell dozens of editions that had little to no gameplay changes in them. It sold well and was not an uncommon sight in people's homes despite it having absolutely terrible rules, a reputation of being a slog to play, and becoming a mockery of the original point that the game was trying to make.

To use an example from GW past, back in 7th (peak terrible 40k, worst edition ever, Tom Kirby time, etc) Necrons stuff was almost constantly sold out , especially those Tomb Blades despite them being a unit I rarely saw in Nercon players collections let alone on the table top before that codex came out. I strongly suspect that those units didn't have much appeal to the average Necron player be it design or maybe the stat line from their previous codex was terrible or something. It just so happened that Decurion needed Tomb Blades so people bought them up like crazy. Point being bad game design can sell product because people are not rational and will throw money at stupid things if they feel it gives them some benefit.

TL: DR Company profits and sales does not equal a good game.

I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.

I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, dropping initiative, strats, etc. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout and so on -- it's all the same with minor updates.

9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.

I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, and strats. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout.

9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.

7th to 8th was way more than a shift. It was a gutting of the entire assortment of gameplay mechanics that had existed up to that point and boiled everything down to move, shoot, stab, die. Cover and terrain rules were effectively gone, templates/blast was gone, USRs stopped existing besides "fly", just about all the unit mechanics vanished, psychic phase changed again, the entire process for directional wounding on infantry squads and armor facings went away, the entire AP system changed, adding in a damage value for wounding attacks, inflation of wounds on models.

Also 6th didn't have D weapons in the base game as those were still just in Apoc (there was a supplement book for using them in 6th but it wasn't widely utilized), 7th added them along with super heavy rules, and fortifications into the core ruleset.

 Vankraken wrote:

I have laid it out out multiple times that the entire design system of 40k post 7th is fundamentals lacking in mechanical depth and makes it way too easy to have the game boil down to mathhammer. While 7th has its own issues (namely codex balance and rules stacking.... It's almost like this keeps happening), it has the bones of 5th edition which by many accounts is considered one of the better game editions for the players. With 8th to 10th I found the gameplay to be mindlessly boring and fails to scratch that tactical battle itch that 6th and 7th could. While many people didn't see things how I saw them with regarding to 8th and 9th, 10th somehow is getting even more bland results and it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm with the game because of it. That said it's kind hard to recognize vapid or bland gameplay while it's a lot easier to point to frustrating or imbalance issues and identify them as being an issue.

Sadly the greater Warhammer community will throw money at GW regardless of the quality of the rules they publish or how much they lose the main setting's plot. Mobile games make companies billions of dollars a year despite those games being absolute garbage from a gameplay perspective and literally designed to hook players into spending money to keep playing/buying power. The financial success of the company is not a good representation of how well designed or fun the game is to play unless you only care about profitability. Monopoly the board game was a highly successful game that continues to sell dozens of editions that had little to no gameplay changes in them. It sold well and was not an uncommon sight in people's homes despite it having absolutely terrible rules, a reputation of being a slog to play, and becoming a mockery of the original point that the game was trying to make.

To use an example from GW past, back in 7th (peak terrible 40k, worst edition ever, Tom Kirby time, etc) Necrons stuff was almost constantly sold out , especially those Tomb Blades despite them being a unit I rarely saw in Nercon players collections let alone on the table top before that codex came out. I strongly suspect that those units didn't have much appeal to the average Necron player be it design or maybe the stat line from their previous codex was terrible or something. It just so happened that Decurion needed Tomb Blades so people bought them up like crazy. Point being bad game design can sell product because people are not rational and will throw money at stupid things if they feel it gives them some benefit.

TL: DR Company profits and sales does not equal a good game.

An anecdote about a sellout ( there's lots of those recently -- ones where they can't keep up with general demand ) when decurions got popular and before GW had an expanded factory isn't really a great metric. This is more telling :


You could of course hand wave people who are buying into the new system as mindless and make unsupported assertions like "it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm". It's kind of like a Fox News segment. I'm certain listening to people in a bubble will help reinforce those ideas. This forum probably isn't a great place to get a real assessment since it seems many people here have yet to actually play 10th.

None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.

I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, and strats. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout.

9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.

7th to 8th was way more than a shift. It was a gutting of the entire assortment of gameplay mechanics that had existed up to that point and boiled everything down to move, shoot, stab, die. Cover and terrain rules were effectively gone, templates/blast was gone, USRs stopped existing besides "fly", just about all the unit mechanics vanished, psychic phase changed again, the entire process for directional wounding on infantry squads and armor facings went away, the entire AP system changed, adding in a damage value for wounding attacks, inflation of wounds on models.

Also 6th didn't have D weapons in the base game as those were still just in Apoc (there was a supplement book for using them in 6th but it wasn't widely utilized), 7th added them along with super heavy rules, and fortifications into the core ruleset.

Very true. I didn't try to go to an exhaustive list, but certainly lots changed.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....

@FezzikDaBullgryn

Look again please, I quoted 3 different people to respond to multiple points. That part was under "kurhanik wrote:" and not part of your quote. Your quote was correct.

*Edit: Ah I see where it went wrong. Insectum7 attempted to quote and shrunk it down to comment on that point but erased the wrong quote links. In my post it is quoted correctly though

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Vankraken wrote:

I have laid it out out multiple times that the entire design system of 40k post 7th is fundamentals lacking in mechanical depth and makes it way too easy to have the game boil down to mathhammer. While 7th has its own issues (namely codex balance and rules stacking.... It's almost like this keeps happening), it has the bones of 5th edition which by many accounts is considered one of the better game editions for the players. With 8th to 10th I found the gameplay to be mindlessly boring and fails to scratch that tactical battle itch that 6th and 7th could. While many people didn't see things how I saw them with regarding to 8th and 9th, 10th somehow is getting even more bland results and it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm with the game because of it. That said it's kind hard to recognize vapid or bland gameplay while it's a lot easier to point to frustrating or imbalance issues and identify them as being an issue.

Sadly the greater Warhammer community will throw money at GW regardless of the quality of the rules they publish or how much they lose the main setting's plot. Mobile games make companies billions of dollars a year despite those games being absolute garbage from a gameplay perspective and literally designed to hook players into spending money to keep playing/buying power. The financial success of the company is not a good representation of how well designed or fun the game is to play unless you only care about profitability. Monopoly the board game was a highly successful game that continues to sell dozens of editions that had little to no gameplay changes in them. It sold well and was not an uncommon sight in people's homes despite it having absolutely terrible rules, a reputation of being a slog to play, and becoming a mockery of the original point that the game was trying to make.

To use an example from GW past, back in 7th (peak terrible 40k, worst edition ever, Tom Kirby time, etc) Necrons stuff was almost constantly sold out , especially those Tomb Blades despite them being a unit I rarely saw in Nercon players collections let alone on the table top before that codex came out. I strongly suspect that those units didn't have much appeal to the average Necron player be it design or maybe the stat line from their previous codex was terrible or something. It just so happened that Decurion needed Tomb Blades so people bought them up like crazy. Point being bad game design can sell product because people are not rational and will throw money at stupid things if they feel it gives them some benefit.

TL: DR Company profits and sales does not equal a good game.

An anecdote about a sellout ( there's lots of those recently -- ones where they can't keep up with general demand ) when decurions got popular and before GW had an expanded factory isn't really a great metric. This is more telling :

Spoiler:

You could of course hand wave people who are buying into the new system as mindless and make unsupported assertions like "it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm". It's kind of like a Fox News segment. I'm certain listening to people in a bubble will help reinforce those ideas. This forum probably isn't a great place to get a real assessment since it seems many people here have yet to actually play 10th.

None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.

I want to point out that those financials don't actually say anything beyond a vague hypothesis about the popularity of 10th edition 40k. They only say GW is making a lot of profit. I know GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase in sales or whether the increased popularity is due to the current edition. It could be, but those numbers don't tell us that. I don't think GW even splits out 40k vs AoS. Even if we knew how many rule books were being sold vs, say, 7th edition, it still wouldn't control for various confounding factors that can relate to the success of a company in shifting products (factors both within and outside GW's control, like marketing or recessions or pandemics). But that level of detail could give us inferences about how many people were interested in the rules at least.

To be clear, I'm not saying tenth isn't popular, I'm just annoyed by those financials being used in an unrigorous manner that they don't support.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....

@FezzikDaBullgryn

Look again please, I quoted 3 different people to respond to multiple points. That part was under "kurhanik wrote:" and not part of your quote. Your quote was correct.

*Edit: Ah I see where it went wrong. Insectum7 attempted to quote and shrunk it down to comment on that point but erased the wrong quote links. In my post it is quoted correctly though

Yeah, my bad. Sorry @Fezzik. I'll pull your name off the post.

Breton wrote:

An Assault Centurion is still an Assault Centurion with a ton of wounds, high Toughness, and the propensity to face punch no matter who his DNA mods come from - but I like it when they play just a little different that way. Sometimes it won't matter. Almost nobody is ever going to care if Blood Angels Devastators get to add 1" and +1 to wound when they charge, but I like the idea of gun toting BA Intercessors making that charge because being BA twirled the numbers just enough, while the Ultramarines Intercessors would be more likely to Fall back and shoot because their Chapter Tactics twirled the numbers just a little differently.

See, I'd be onboard with the high concept of distinct-but-slightly-different chapter tactics being layered on top of detachment rules if it was done well. However, I am dubious that it would be done well.

Using your BA devastator as an example, as you point out, extra melee ability isn't a terribly useful rule on them. So if there exists a different chapter tactic that is more powerful/obviously useful for devastators, then the BA dev is fundamentally at a disadvantage next to his peers from that other chapter. This is what people mean (or at least what I mean) when they talk about units being punished. That BA devastator is just straight up inferior to a devastator that gets Salamander re-rolls or Raven Guard to-hit penalties.

So in order for chapter tactics to avoid punishing some armies for taking units of the wrong paint scheme, you'd need every chapter tactic to benefit a given unit roughly as much as every other unit. That is, devastators would need to benefit from UM, BA, WS, etc. chapter tactics all equally as much. Because if any chapter tactic benefits the devastator significantly more or less, then anyone fielding devastators of that chapter is at dis/advantage.

Going back to the bike army, I don't want WS bikers to be better bikers than everyone else because the inverse of that is that anyone playing non-WS bikes is playing "worse bikes," and that doesn't feel good. The current detachment system avoids this by saying that WS and IF and UM bikes are all using the same rules. Bringing chapter/paintjob back into it risks reintroducing the problems described with the devastator above.

Also, having both a detachment and chapter tactic rule is made trickier to balance by the risk of some combinations having more chemistry than others. If your chapter tactic and your detachment both make units really good at, let's say, melee, then vanguard vets with that combination of rules are significantly stronger than vanguard vets using a better-melee tactic and a better-shooting detachment or what have you.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.

I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, dropping initiative, strats, etc. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout and so on -- it's all the same with minor updates.

9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.

I think this is why I feel 10th has lost its soul/is heavy sanitized.

10th isn't its own thing. Its not a real reset. I don't get the people who think it is - and have to assume they were not active in late 9th.

I think 10th is late 9th - but in a different language. And with loads of stuff taken out. (And a few rules updates, that happened 3rd-7th, or 8th to 9th).
I mean imagine if instead of resetting the codexex with indexes, they had just said "codexes carry on - but you can't take subfactions. You don't the purity bonuses (well I guess you kind of do, but not really). Rather than a big pool of WLT and Relics and Psychic Powers, you pick from 4 and get what you are given. Rather than having dozens of strategems you get six."

You'd say this is 9th edition - but a weirdly neutered/hamstrung 9th. Which is how I feel. I had the full fat version. Why would want this stripped down diet version with none of the content? Its functional - but worse.

 Insectum7 wrote:

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.

Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.

 Vankraken wrote:

I've had way more fun (or at least had potential for fun) getting beat playing Orks vs bloody Eldar in 7th than playing Orks in 8th/9th where it was just SOOO BORING. The 3rd to 7th style of core gameplay mechanics made the game fun to play as it had a lot more mechanical depth to how things worked. The new set of bare bones core rules suck for having an actually interesting game as it now feels very bland and uninteresting. At least for me, it very much isn't rose tinted glasses as the few times I got to play a game of 7th years after a year plus of 8th where still a ton of fun.

I really hate the argument that people only like 7th because of power gaming when completely overlooks all the gameplay potential the edition had at tables where it wasn't cutthroat WAAC games every match. Formations are a good example of how a good flavorful concept gets dumped on because of the 10% of OP formations that dominated the meta while a lot of the "not good" formations did a decent job of letting themed armies play out differently or at the very least plugging some holes in the viability of some underpowered units.

7th had a ton of stuff I hated. At the same time, it also seems much more solid as an edition to build and improve on than anything since.

It also had Corsairs, which is by far my favourite army book ever.

So obviously GW killed it stone dead in 8th and then proceeded to butcher its corpse, and handed bits of it bloody entrails to other factions.

^Well all that and they stripped out points-for-upgrades, killing a big part of listbuilding. And then they sent a whole bunch of firstborn/realmarine stuff to legends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.

Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.

Oh yeah, I agree with all that too. 7th was also the edition where they stripped off the ability for a whole squad to use grenades in combat against vehicles too, which really hurt Dark Eldar and Orks against Superheavies. Ork Tankbustas, and DE units with Haywire got shafted.

 Haighus wrote:
I want to point out that those financials don't actually say anything beyond a vague hypothesis about the popularity of 10th edition 40k. They only say GW is making a lot of profit. I know GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase in sales or whether the increased popularity is due to the current edition. It could be, but those numbers don't tell us that. I don't think GW even splits out 40k vs AoS. Even if we knew how many rule books were being sold vs, say, 7th edition, it still wouldn't control for various confounding factors that can relate to the success of a company in shifting products (factors both within and outside GW's control, like marketing or recessions or pandemics). But that level of detail could give us inferences about how many people were interested in the rules at least.

To be clear, I'm not saying tenth isn't popular, I'm just annoyed by those financials being used in an unrigorous manner that they don't support.

No, you're right - it is all encompassing and certainly GW's foray into more stuff has helps, however from the half year --

"Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set"