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.

Personally I'd be interested to see actual breakdowns of where those tournament games are being played and at what kind of event.

Down in my neck of the woods, and from speaking to multiple friends who live in continental Europe, the mid-small level tournament scene has basically collapsed in 10th. Big supermajors are still posting good numbers, but those mid-range GT's and regular RTT's events are struggling to even hit half-capacity. Firestorm and Factorum who do regular events are finding it difficult to get like 30/50 players for their GT's, despite always selling out in 9th. We do regular RTT's down here and again; they've gone from 40-60 max capacity events in 8th and 9th, to barely managing to get 20 people to show up.

On Thursday club nights 40k is always bouncing and very active but there has objectively been a huge drop off in tournament attendance down in the South-West and South Wales.

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

What makes you assume people are cool with playing that way? People do prefer board-edge neutral setups but that doesn't required same L Shaped buidlings.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.

Anecdotal data is just anecdotal.

And to the subject of the thread, that's another anecdotal point to the idea that 40k doesn't scratch the itch it used to.

Popular? Sure.
Sanitized? There's something to that label.

I agree on that, modern 40k and classic 40k scratch different itches, and there has been a considerable amount of sanitization to (somewhat) achieve the aims of modern 40k, but with the caveat that there is also a somewhat newer, overall larger demographic of competitive minded players that prefer a more sanitized game.

I also believe that a simplified, easier to balance and learn system is going to be more successful than a more complex, more simulationist but also borderline impossible to balance system.

There is the question if it is possible to create a system that combines the strengths of both approaches, a more complex classic lite system with the competitive approach of modern 40k. But I have seen plenty of people more familiar with game design pretty much state it is borderline impossible with the scope 40k wants to play with.

Which is why I guess GW has both 40k and HH and thus can monitor (and profit from) the appetite for both approaches at the same time.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.

Anecdotal data is just anecdotal.

And to the subject of the thread, that's another anecdotal point to the idea that 40k doesn't scratch the itch it used to.

Popular? Sure.
Sanitized? There's something to that label.

I agree on that, modern 40k and classic 40k scratch different itches, and there has been a considerable amount of sanitization to (somewhat) achieve the aims of modern 40k, but with the caveat that there is also a somewhat newer, overall larger demographic of competitive minded players that prefer a more sanitized game.

I also believe that a simplified, easier to balance and learn system is going to be more successful than a more complex, more simulationist but also borderline impossible to balance system.

There is the question if it is possible to create a system that combines the strengths of both approaches, a more complex classic lite system with the competitive approach of modern 40k. But I have seen plenty of people more familiar with game design pretty much state it is borderline impossible with the scope 40k wants to play with.

Which is why I guess GW has both 40k and HH and thus can monitor (and profit from) the appetite for both approaches at the same time.

All that makes sense. The issue for many now is that HH doesn't scratch that 40 itch either, because it's a human (virtually 95% Marine) enterprise anyways. It's also run by GW, who's practices have become more tranparently ahh . . . abrasive.

Breton wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

What makes you assume people are cool with playing that way? People do prefer board-edge neutral setups but that doesn't required same L Shaped buidlings.

Have more time for more in depth now -

I have two of the Kill Zone Fronteris (and a Charadon) sets because my main factions are Imperial. There are a few small L Shaped ruins but its not the majority of the kit.

I don't have the Ork terrain because I don't play Orks, The Pariah set is kinda meh when compared to these, and I don't play Necrons. I'd love it if they made Xenos (and some Chaos upgradesprues/sets) for each Xenos.

These sets - especially if they're little more than visually distinct mirrors of each other - Make not-cookie-cutter placement easier to manage neutrally.

The homemade terrain often lends itself to the Big Center Building that would be too unfair in either deployment zone and a bunch of "walls" to make "roads" because its an easy way to create both a killing ground objective AND a mirror match when it comes to terrain.

This boils down to the same problem GW had with The Fallen. Expecting people to carry around extra models just in case the run into a situation they're useful doesn't work. Few people carried around a unit of Fallen just in case their random pickup game was against a Dark Angels player. Few people are going to carry around a Kill Zone Fronteris set just in case they run into an Ork Player who just happens to be carrying around their Ork Village set that can be combined into a 2,000 point sized board with flavor terrain on each side.

The long and short of it is - not everyone is ok with it, and not everyone who hates it has done something to fix it but a bunch of people have.

Gibblets wrote:I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

Wayniac wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.

Don't you care at all about the spectacle? Having every table be the same layout with only L-shaped ruins is boring as feth, I don't know any other game that has such blandness. Even Warmahordes used to tell you specifically to NOT set up identical terrain, so choosing your deployment zone became a tactical decision, not an irrelevant one.

As a terrain nut this is a pet peeve of mine. 40K is not chess. the tables should be laid out like they make sense on the terrain or mat. no buildings in the middle of the road because there is one on the other side of the table for example. as pointed out on the previous page. when you roll separately for set up and first turn. winning the roll for setup allows you choose the table side you think your army would like to fight on. the flip side is that your enemy gets to react to your deployment.

Karol wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

Because it is the rules. That is how the tables are set up stores, mirroring how they are set up in events. No one has time to reset tables or build something that will end the game turn 1, w40k already has enough problems without people inventing additional ones. On top of that right now people have their armies build to fit specific terrain, those that only have a 2000pts army would be unable to adapt, if tables were changes all the time. Most people would just quit, if new set ups killed their armies. It did happen to a lot of biker army players, even before GW decided to kill that type of lists by making them mostly legends.

Nothing against you Karol, but that just is not a valid excuse. aside from being a good general and adapting to the terrain. there are plenty of fan made STL files that are fantastic and made for 40K (and other systems). you can print them or just buy the finished prints on etsy.
war scenery pull straight from the old dawn of war video games, and sacrusmundus has created at least 2 terrain sets for every single 40K faction. thats not even counting the generic industrial terrain from forbidden prints or other buildings from corvus games terrain.

I will give a few examples of our 40K tables- all this is my personal terrain and most of it is 3d printed or from gale force 9 battlefield in a box series.

mechanicus forge world-



Imperial city-



Space marine outpost-



Imperial guard outpost-



Necron ruins-



Eldar maiden world-



Imperial ruins-

Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

 aphyon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.

Wayniac wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.

Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.

Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.

Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.

Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.

I did look at em, they still look better than "every board is a city ruin because game is unplayable without it"

Those boards look more sparse than they are in game terms. Area terrain was a thing in 5th and blocked LoS at longer ranges.

Those circles with a single tree on represents forest area terrain, for example.

In my local area we have 14 players for 40K(used to be 30+): 5 of them are perpetual last minute no shows; 3 are real casuals who never learn their rules and you've always got to watch what they do. The other 6 are the WAAC, sweaties who will tailor their lists in between rounds based on who they think they'll be playing next. There's no changing their minds they're hard set on following everything GW puts out, no narrative games, no open games, just matched/tourney always. So 1/3rd of my Dark Angles army is no longer usable and YES all of the players are replacing their terrain will L shaped MDF on bases, just like the book. No forests/bunkers trenches anything fun. So if you like a story with your battle like me, then you frig off to AoS like the 16+ fun people in my aera who used to play 40K did before me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

As others have said, the majority of people don't.

It's always important to disinguish between what GW actually give us and the things that we get twisted into doing as a result of the communities and people with whom we pkay our games.

According to GW, Legends are legal anywhere but tournaments.
According to GW, games of 40k are anywhere from 1k-3k points, with smaller games restricted to Combat Patrol.
And according to GW, there are ZERO rules telling people to play exclusively with L shaped terrain.

If your community insists that you follow rules that are not written in any book, and you don't like that, you need to advocate for change within that community. Because they aren't taking their "orthodoxy" from any rulebook.

You're such a privileged person to have enough people in your group to have free thinkers come together and do fun stuff, understand, your experience isn't transferable to anyone else's situation.

Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.

Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.

i have made quite a few replies previously in this very topic where i indicated our group plays core 5th ed, so i thought it was understood. sorry if that led to confusion. and yes for ease of model movement we use "area terrain" the templates do indeed represent "forests" or some "ruins" in the abstract. our tables generally have quite a few bocking LOS pieces such as large buildings as well as 5+, 4+, and even 3+ hard cover. this existed in the previous edition specifically to address 1st turn alpha strikes. there is also the fact that the terrain in that edition also can hamper movement which is much reduced compared to everything since 8th. outside of special rules (like rage) all walking infantry based models that were not beasts or cav. only move 6", run a d6" (if they want to give up shooting) and charge 6" over open ground.

What is more important though is the tables look good and draw the players into the setting.

P.S. i think i should also mention that we roll for various table setups other than just basic 12" deployment across from each other such as end to end with 24" deployment, table quarters, L shaped deployments and so on. it really changes deployment options based on the terrain.

In my local area we have 14 players for 40K(used to be 30+): 5 of them are perpetual last minute no shows; 3 are real casuals who never learn their rules and you've always got to watch what they do. The other 6 are the WAAC, sweaties who will tailor their lists in between rounds based on who they think they'll be playing next. There's no changing their minds they're hard set on following everything GW puts out, no narrative games, no open games, just matched/tourney always. So 1/3rd of my Dark Angles army is no longer usable and YES all of the players are replacing their terrain will L shaped MDF on bases, just like the book. No forests/bunkers trenches anything fun. So if you like a story with your battle like me, then you frig off to AoS like the 16+ fun people in my aera who used to play 40K did before me.

Sorry to hear that man. there are a few players who play both 10th and older editions and the occasional non regular person that comes in but our old hammer group currently has the regulars/semi regulars that i can remember off the top of my head-

.myself-salamanders, dark angels, admech
.dakota-DKOK, demon hunters
.Bark-imperial guard, orks
.cha-nids, iron hands, knights
.ben-tau
.dave-everything but also lots of dark eldar
.fode-dark eldar, necrons, orks
.john and his son-chaos, necrons, angry marines (we created joke rules for them for fun)
.Jason-witch hunters, blood angels
.tre-custodes
.Ryan-crimson fists, chaos
.ray-imperial guard, iron hands, chaos
.patrick-eldar, chaos
.Tom-ultra marines

We have another friend who's work schedule is all over the place so we never know when he can play that has imperial fists as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.

Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.

Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.

SOME of them are. Some of them are (at least as I close as I can judge/estimate) overloaded with vehicle movement blockers. Some of them have pieces just too large for the scale it feels like. But that's also more of a personal subjective than an objective view.

 Gibblets wrote:
In my local area we have 14 players for 40K(used to be 30+): 5 of them are perpetual last minute no shows; 3 are real casuals who never learn their rules and you've always got to watch what they do. The other 6 are the WAAC, sweaties who will tailor their lists in between rounds based on who they think they'll be playing next. There's no changing their minds they're hard set on following everything GW puts out, no narrative games, no open games, just matched/tourney always. So 1/3rd of my Dark Angles army is no longer usable and YES all of the players are replacing their terrain will L shaped MDF on bases, just like the book. No forests/bunkers trenches anything fun. So if you like a story with your battle like me, then you frig off to AoS like the 16+ fun people in my aera who used to play 40K did before me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

As others have said, the majority of people don't.

It's always important to disinguish between what GW actually give us and the things that we get twisted into doing as a result of the communities and people with whom we pkay our games.

According to GW, Legends are legal anywhere but tournaments.
According to GW, games of 40k are anywhere from 1k-3k points, with smaller games restricted to Combat Patrol.
And according to GW, there are ZERO rules telling people to play exclusively with L shaped terrain.

If your community insists that you follow rules that are not written in any book, and you don't like that, you need to advocate for change within that community. Because they aren't taking their "orthodoxy" from any rulebook.

You're such a privileged person to have enough people in your group to have free thinkers come together and do fun stuff, understand, your experience isn't transferable to anyone else's situation.

Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.

I'm sorry, but perhaps we need to make two threads? I feel like this has de-railed into a "favorite edition rules discussion" and less how 10th is Sanitized....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry, but perhaps we need to make two threads? I feel like this has de-railed into a "favorite edition rules discussion" and less how 10th is Sanitized....

You can't discuss if it's sanitised without the context of previous editions rules and I'd wager a lot of players likely haven't existed through most of them. That discussion then triggers memory lane.

ccs 812953 11642993 wrote:
Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.

After going through forums, YT channels and especialy Reddit, I must say that the idea that the highly optimised list being limited to " 6 sweaties" does not seem to be the expiriance world wide. In fact what is voice very often by players of various level of skill and time spend playing is that, their armies do not work unless they highly optimise, to a point of optimising the fun out of the game, their lists and model collections. Ad Mecha have two modes of play. The you will never have fun, because your army works against you and "the sweaty 1200$ tournament list, fewer then 100 people around the world know how to or want to play". No car park IG, Orks , WE, all the elite armies. Practicaly the only army that let people play with large amounts of what ever were the pre change eldar, because they had the rules and point costs to carry 500-700pts of balast in a casual settting. But even they can no longer do it. Heck necron can't just play what ever, and they are "The Broken" right now.

Wayniac wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.

There's never really been an edition with great terrain rules. The L-Shape thing is just players designing something that functions within the limitations created by TLOS. Abstracted LOS rules go a long way towards enabling the game to function with a variety of dynamic terrain styles.

Karol wrote:

ccs 812953 11642993 wrote:
Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.

After going through forums, YT channels and especialy Reddit, I must say that the idea that the highly optimised list being limited to " 6 sweaties" does not seem to be the expiriance world wide. In fact what is voice very often by players of various level of skill and time spend playing is that, their armies do not work unless they highly optimise, to a point of optimising the fun out of the game, their lists and model collections. Ad Mecha have two modes of play. The you will never have fun, because your army works against you and "the sweaty 1200$ tournament list, fewer then 100 people around the world know how to or want to play". No car park IG, Orks , WE, all the elite armies. Practicaly the only army that let people play with large amounts of what ever were the pre change eldar, because they had the rules and point costs to carry 500-700pts of balast in a casual settting. But even they can no longer do it. Heck necron can't just play what ever, and they are "The Broken" right now.

You are putting too much thought into this.
It's simple:
Don't play with people who insist on playing in ways you don't like & who won't compromise.

It doesn't matter what armies they use, how much $ they've spent, how skilled they are/arent, how long they've been playing, how rules changes have affected thier armies, etc.

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.

There's never really been an edition with great terrain rules. The L-Shape thing is just players designing something that functions within the limitations created by TLOS. Abstracted LOS rules go a long way towards enabling the game to function with a variety of dynamic terrain styles.

I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.

Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.

4th ed terrain rules ftw.

 vipoid wrote:


I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.

Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.

For 3 editions GW has been learning the lessons that indirect fire is bad for game balance, dice manipulation in a game where procs on roll X exist create imbalances that are impossible to fix with points and mass re-rolls slow the game down/are unfun as a mechanic. For all I know GW may have learned the same same lessons before 8th ed too. Yet it doesn't stop them from writing the rules the same way. But the "best" thing they do is to punish people for having models in dynamic poses. Models that GW designed that way and which they make harder to model different each edition. It is litteraly punishing people for buying your models for your own game.

I assume the description "sanitized" is being used somewhat pejoratively? Like the game has lost some flavour or chrome? Each game edition has changed things, and sometimes things have gone away. I found the change from 2nd to 3rd very jarring as much of the flavour I liked disappeared. But I still enjoyed the gameplay so I soldiered on. I can understand that if someone really really like Armour Values, vehicle facings, templates and scatter dice that the shift from 7th to 8th would have been very negative. I get that, but I don't find myself missing those things and when I play Horus Heresy I am reminded of the problems. So if "sanitized" means a "cleaner" tabletop experience I suppose 40K is more sanitized than it was in early 2017. I am reminded of that when I do play Flames of War or Horus Heresy and we get into discussions of rules interactions and LOS. I don't mind losing some rules chrome as long as we keep faction chrome. If that makes sense. Other will have a different view that will also be valid.

Returning to today, if someone's only exposure to 10th Ed 40K is from livestreams of tournament games then it might look off-putting and indeed, sanitized. The symmetrical layout of terrain consisting of large LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins could look bland, as would the neoprene objective markers denoting where a model has to be to contest an objective. The speed of play and throwing around of terms such as "Lethal and Sustained on 5s due to Fire Discipline" might also seem off-putting to an observer from a past edition. I just wouldn't base your judgement of 10th Ed from Youtube videos - they are very useful and can be engaging, but watching is not the same thing as playing.

I've played since 2nd Ed, and I would much rather play a pickup game on a symmetrical board drawn from a bank of layouts that suit the mission. Spending three hours of leisure time on a "tilted table" is not my cup of tea for a given Saturday unless we have both agreed to play some "narrative" mission with an unfair terrain layout that is compensated somehow by special rules for the battle. I do play in local tournaments (five 40K tourneys a year), but this is more to be able to pick a weekend in my busy life and say "I am playing Warhammer all weekend, I will make it up to you for the rest of the month!"

I initially found the WTC format for player-placed terrain off-putting, but I found myself liking them after a while. I think that 10th Ed terrain rules for Ruins are finally in a place where you can have windows and still have functional terrain. We are a long-way from the Magic Boxes of late-8th and those Knight-high sheets of MDF.

In terms of 10th Ed being "sanitized", I do mourn the loss of Space Marine units to Legends. Having said that, we didn't lose any Chapters or Factions that I am tracking, and we recently saw Votann added at the end of 9th and World Eaters as a distinct faction. I feel that there is still lots of flavour in the game.

ccs 812953 11643154 wrote:


You are putting too much thought into this.
It's simple:
Don't play with people who insist on playing in ways you don't like & who won't compromise.

It doesn't matter what armies they use, how much $ they've spent, how skilled they are/arent, how long they've been playing, how rules changes have affected thier armies, etc.

It is not a question of thought. It is a question of rules design, core rules etc. It isn't even a question of skill, because the same problems pop up at all level or types of players. The advice is also, only true, if one has access to a gigantic community. It is also puts HUGE focus on added value fo spending time with other people. But in such a situation one has to ask why not just see each other and eat a few kebs/kfc and drink a coke/beer. Same fun, and much smaller investment, both money and times wise, then a w40k or AoS army. For a lot, and IMO majority of players, someone who decides that "I will not play vs people who have unfun armies" is going to end with them not playing at all.
Also this is half the problem too. People having unfun armies to play against one thing. And one can have a fantasy of playing vs people with fun ones. But what does one do, if GW designed their army to be unfun to play ? If a Ad Mecha player like robots, duh I know, there is nothing in their power they can do to have fun. WS player having an illegal army? DW player having half an illegal army and the other half being REALLY bad. I mean at some point in order to play and have fun, one starts to enter the uncanny valley of house rule self made codex. And good luck finding people willing to play against those, when they don't want to play vs legends.

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.

You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.

This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.

There's never really been an edition with great terrain rules. The L-Shape thing is just players designing something that functions within the limitations created by TLOS. Abstracted LOS rules go a long way towards enabling the game to function with a variety of dynamic terrain styles.

I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.

Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.

Just reread through them out of curiosity and honestly I wouldn't say they're any better at all. I would be curious to hear what makes them work however.

As far as progress is concerned, its important to remember that GW is rebuilding from the ashes of 8th, in which terrain rules didn't actually exist or function.

Karol wrote:

ccs 812953 11643154 wrote:


You are putting too much thought into this.
It's simple:
Don't play with people who insist on playing in ways you don't like & who won't compromise.

It doesn't matter what armies they use, how much $ they've spent, how skilled they are/arent, how long they've been playing, how rules changes have affected thier armies, etc.

It is not a question of thought. It is a question of rules design, core rules etc. It isn't even a question of skill, because the same problems pop up at all level or types of players. The advice is also, only true, if one has access to a gigantic community. It is also puts HUGE focus on added value fo spending time with other people. But in such a situation one has to ask why not just see each other and eat a few kebs/kfc and drink a coke/beer. Same fun, and much smaller investment, both money and times wise, then a w40k or AoS army. For a lot, and IMO majority of players, someone who decides that "I will not play vs people who have unfun armies" is going to end with them not playing at all.

Still, with the too much over thinking.
Don't play games with people you don't like to play with (during tournies maybe being the exception - hard to win the prize if you're forfeiting games.).
Doesn't matter what the reason for the dislike is, don't do it. Doesn't matter what size your community is either. You are better off playing NO game than wasting your time on something you don't enjoy because of the other people involved.

Karol wrote:
Also this is half the problem too. People having unfun armies to play against one thing. And one can have a fantasy of playing vs people with fun ones. But what does one do, if GW designed their army to be unfun to play ? If a Ad Mecha player like robots, duh I know, there is nothing in their power they can do to have fun. WS player having an illegal army? DW player having half an illegal army and the other half being REALLY bad. I mean at some point in order to play and have fun, one starts to enter the uncanny valley of house rule self made codex. And good luck finding people willing to play against those, when they don't want to play vs legends.

As for the armies:
*Robot loving Ad-Mech players unable to have fun (as a whole)? Pffft. I don't believe you.
Sure, some of them won't be able to. Most though should be able to look at the list & rules and figure out something that will work for them.

*WS having an illegal army?? Did they not add things up right? Are they violating the Rule of 6/3? etc etc etc?
Oh, you're still confusing Legends with being Illegal units..... Stop doing that. Because according to GW Legends are valid rules - though they recommend not using them in tourney play.
So outside of tourney play what the WS player is really facing is a problem of who they play with. Change that & the problem goes away. Now if they insist on playing in tourneys then they'll probably need to change up their force - but you get that if you sign up to play in that environment.....

*Deathwing! Well, right now they're all good as the Codex has yet to officially be released. We'll soon see if the DW Command squad etc shows up in Legends. If so, refer to my comments on White Scars.
Deathwing being really bad? That's more of a player skill problem. Like with the AdMech Robots.

*House Rules: This is why it's important to make friends!
"Hey guys, I had an idea yesterday!"
The people I play with on Sundays? We've played with all sorts of House Rules over the years. For all kinds of games (not just GW stuff) Some good, some bad, some just meh & forgettable. We can do this because there's nothing on the line. Just a bunch of guys playing with toy soldiers (or ships, or space ships, or WWII tanks, or Hot Wheels cars (for Gaslands), etc) and calling it a hobby. Couple months ago? We had a TRAIN running through the middle of a Sigmar game - ain't no rules for that in the book!.
at the dawn of 9th? When the Loyalist Marines all got that 2nd wound? We gave it to the CSM as well. A few years later GW caught up to us.
The one House Rule that's in effect when we play each other at the shop? Vehicles & Monsters aren't removed when destroyed. They become difficult/hazardous terrain, affect movement, and provide cover.

Karol wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.

Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.

For 3 editions GW has been learning the lessons that indirect fire is bad for game balance, dice manipulation in a game where procs on roll X exist create imbalances that are impossible to fix with points and mass re-rolls slow the game down/are unfun as a mechanic. For all I know GW may have learned the same same lessons before 8th ed too. Yet it doesn't stop them from writing the rules the same way. But the "best" thing they do is to punish people for having models in dynamic poses. Models that GW designed that way and which they make harder to model different each edition. It is litteraly punishing people for buying your models for your own game.

As an aside, I actually think 10th terrain rules are really solid. The obsession with Ruins mostly comes down to them being the only terrain feature that reliably breaks LOS specifically because it abstracts the area it blocks and breaks up firing lanes regardless of model pose or size. It's hard to ensure you have a good setup when a box suddenly stops blocking line of sight to a unit because that one Primaris Lt has his power sword pointed at the sky. A system of model size and terrain size determining LOS would dramatically improve the ability to play with other terrain types. TLOS just demands giant blank walls to remove ambiguity.

Karol wrote:

ccs 812953 11642993 wrote:
Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.

After going through forums, YT channels and especialy Reddit, I must say that the idea that the highly optimised list being limited to " 6 sweaties" does not seem to be the expiriance world wide. In fact what is voice very often by players of various level of skill and time spend playing is that, their armies do not work unless they highly optimise, to a point of optimising the fun out of the game, their lists and model collections. Ad Mecha have two modes of play. The you will never have fun, because your army works against you and "the sweaty 1200$ tournament list, fewer then 100 people around the world know how to or want to play". No car park IG, Orks , WE, all the elite armies. Practicaly the only army that let people play with large amounts of what ever were the pre change eldar, because they had the rules and point costs to carry 500-700pts of balast in a casual settting. But even they can no longer do it. Heck necron can't just play what ever, and they are "The Broken" right now.

I don't think "sweaties" means what you think it means - he's referring to "sweaties" as other players, another euphamism for a type of TFG.