Anyone less excited for 10th than they were?

[Marshal Mittens]

After 9th, I have been pretty excited for 10th to hopefully fix a lot of the issues 9th was having, but seeing the previews and such, I have to be honest, I am not sure I am excited anymore. My largest painted army, deathguard, seems very nerfed, a lot of flavor has been pulled out of the ADMECH it seems, and they were also heavily nerfed, and in general I am just not feeling great about what we have been shown so far. 

[The Yncarne]

Maybe wait for day one to be disappointed? TBH, I’m done with the game side, but I’m not sure why all the sour grapes when so little is truly known let alone experienced  

[ThePenitentOne]

Everyone knows I hate edition churn- not only in 40k, but in every game I've ever played.

 

And everyone knows 9th was my favourite edition of the game I've ever played. I bought more 9th books than any other edition, because I was expecting that 9th would be my forever edition. Heck, it still might be- they haven't given us enough detail about how Crusade is going to work in the new edition for me to decide yet.

 

But weirdly, I seem to be more optimistic about 10th than you do.

 

If it's good enough to keep me wanting to know more before I judge, then I think it's good enough that you should wait to see more too. Indexes, datacards, and core rules free? 

 

You'll be able to play a few games without spending a dime and then make up your mind when the time comes. If you're disappointed with what you've seen, I can appreciate that, but what if all the things you haven't seen turn out to be better than they've ever been? 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

In general my excitement has been tempered, largely because of the silly and complicated sounding missions.

 

but in general i am excited to see what the rest of the datasheets look like.

9 hours ago, The Yncarne said:

Maybe wait for day one to be disappointed? TBH, I’m done with the game side, but I’m not sure why all the sour grapes when so little is truly known let alone experienced  

The core rules have been leaked…we know pretty much everything except the detachment rules

Edited May 18, 2023 by Xenith
swear dodge.

[BitsHammer]

I'm mostly just losing steam on building more Dark Angels because I don't know what my army will look like rules wise which could change a few things from there.

[Craig]

I am a bit less excited for 10th after seeing the previews. My measure of how good the rules are is measured by how easy it would be for my non 40k friends to try and pick up. 8th was great for that, 9th was not. The more I see of 10th the more I notice all the stacks of rules are still there (represented by keywords that need to be cross referenced with the rule book) which can really be a barrier to new players enjoying their early games. And we all know GW likes to add more complexity as the edition moves on. Seasoned and tournament players will pick it up easily but I do fear it is preventing new people getting in to the hobby. We'll see though, I'll wait until I see some games being played, I might be wrong.

[Warden-Paints]

I think it's always worth playing and judging from your own experience. I remember when the Space Marine codex dropped and somebody was adamant that Heavy Intercessors needed to be boycotted, months before the models released. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

17 minutes ago, Craig said:

I am a bit less excited for 10th after seeing the previews. My measure of how good the rules are is measured by how easy it would be for my non 40k friends to try and pick up. 8th was great for that, 9th was not. The more I see of 10th the more I notice all the stacks of rules are still there (represented by keywords that need to be cross referenced with the rule book) which can really be a barrier to new players enjoying their early games. And we all know GW likes to add more complexity as the edition moves on. Seasoned and tournament players will pick it up easily but I do fear it is preventing new people getting in to the hobby. We'll see though, I'll wait until I see some games being played, I might be wrong.

 

Yeah 10th seems more simple than 9th from what I have seen, but not more than 8th. I think reseting the armies but making the indexes online and free from day one is a good start though.

[Halandaar]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The core rules have been leaked…we know pretty much everything except the detachment rules

 

...and the datasheets for almost every unit in the game (barring the two or so per faction they've shown us so far).

Edited May 18, 2023 by Halandaar

[OttoVonAwesome]

9 hours ago, The Yncarne said:

Maybe wait for day one to be disappointed? TBH, I’m done with the game side, but I’m not sure why all the sour grapes when so little is truly known let alone experienced  

With the leaks and army articles we actually know alot now. Definitely enough to form an opinion. 

 

49 minutes ago, Craig said:

I am a bit less excited for 10th after seeing the previews. My measure of how good the rules are is measured by how easy it would be for my non 40k friends to try and pick up. 8th was great for that, 9th was not. The more I see of 10th the more I notice all the stacks of rules are still there (represented by keywords that need to be cross referenced with the rule book) which can really be a barrier to new players enjoying their early games. And we all know GW likes to add more complexity as the edition moves on. Seasoned and tournament players will pick it up easily but I do fear it is preventing new people getting in to the hobby. We'll see though, I'll wait until I see some games being played, I might be wrong.

40k is not and never has been rocket science. Complexity never turned anyone off and didn't need to be reduced as much as it has been lack of it gave birth to 9th but it was also never the problem and here we are reseting once again for good reason but at the same time throwing the baby out with the bath water. You don't see D and D players bitching about too much complexity.

 

The biggest barrier to new players is the expense and the insane corporate influenced decisions regarding the rules and the hyper competitiveness of a large part of the community and tournement focus wich is completely catered too by gw itself wich turns the average person off especially people who play other games and are just looking for a fun past time involving miniatures. GW is so focused on selling :cuss: that they lost sight of why people play these games and how much blood sweat and time they are willing to invest into them.

 

The average player doesn't care about perfect rules they just want to have fun they don't want to buy a new f'ing 140 dollar rule book and 60 dollar codex every other year they want to play games. Heresy used basically the same rule set for 10 years and Necromunda is filled with flaws but no ones begging for a new edition of that as much as I imagine no one really cared for a new edition of 40k to come out before we really got a chance to play games with a full set of codexes. 

 

GW has turned 40k into something that is no longer for the casual gamer and that's really the long and short of it. Sure at release it will be fun everyone on the same level field with indexes it will be basic as hell and then we'll fall into the same trappings that edition churn creates with power creep and people waiting for thier codexes only for the last few to come right as they announce the new edition and try and hype us up to repeat the cycle and I'm out. 30k and Necromunda guy now. Flawed maybe fun definitely. Predatory sales tactics and skinner box manipulation? Def not.

[Burni]

I like the core of 8/9th but greatly dislike how many gotcha rules there are with strats and faction abilities being combined. Seems like there wasn't a turn when an opponent didn't have a re-roll or other ability that changed the result of something I was doing. It doesn't help that I'm no good at finding these interactions nor am I interested in looking up net lists. Was also a bit fed up of watching huge chunks of my army disappear if I didn't win the first turn roll.

 

So I am excited for 10th as I can see changes to the things I didn't like. I'd say my hype level is about the same as it was at the announcement. Some of the faction articles have changes I don't like but I overall, I'm looking forward to 10th.

 

I do worry that as soon as the codexes start to drop, the arms race will be back on though...

[Captain Idaho]

Honestly, seeing the Eldar faction focus and comparing it to some of the Detachment and factions rules of other factions, it's already clear the game is going to unbalanced.

 

Combining Farseers, Guardians on objectives, Fate dice and the extremely powerful weaponry of the faction in every edition... it's already clear just how overbearing this will be. 

 

And the mental load on the edition has increased! We now need to keep track of 6 Strategums, more core rules Strategums, multiple unit special rules, same weapons working differently on different datasheets, Detachment rules, faction rules, how they all interact...

 

Games Workshop haven't reduced bloat at all, they've just put the bloat in more condensed places. There's still booking to do with the Detachment rules.

 

And the reduction of subfactions is a miss. There aren't any rules for White Scars or Iron Hand etc. They all play the exact same in the same Detachments. This is like 4th edition Chaos Codex but worse because GW gave subfactions to everyone not just Marines/Chaos Marines and have now removed them. It was possible to reduce bloat and still maintain subfaction flavour. Intuitive play and design works, considering other systems like Age of Darkness that has plenty of special rules and complexity yet flows easily enough when you play.

 

Ultimately the wind has been taken out of my sales quite early and as each new bit of information on the factions comes out, I've not been reassured.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Mandragola]

I think it's worth reflecting that even the limited previews that we've had are of the Indexes, not the Codexes. So yes, they lack the full flavour of the old codexes. Partly this is a deliberate attempt to reduce bloat (which they have, in countless ways) and partly it's because these are not the full rules. When we see the marine codex we'll be able to judge what the game is really like.

 

I'm relaxed about 10th. I don't know if it'll be a good game. The contents of the Leviathan box doesn't interest me much. Most likely 10th will follow the same pattern of the previous 9 editions: starting out quite good but then collapsing under the weight of the relentless release schedule that 40k demands. 

 

I'd quite like to get my Crimson Fists on a table again. I've built some bladeguard I've had in boxes for a couple of years and bought Strike Force Agastus and the boarding patrol. Those are in a cupboard and mentally marked "open if 10th is good, otherwise ebay".

 

Meanwhile, there are other games. I tend to think that the best thing about 40k is that it introduces people to gaming. We're then free to go and play any of the far better games produced by GW and others.

[Captain Idaho]

I'd contest the claim reduction of bloat; the efforts to reduce bloat has been just cleaning up the core rules and moving the special rules into more localised places. The game has more special rules and interactions than before.

 

When I think about teaching a new player who hasn't ever played a wargame before, or kids with their MTVs and their diet colas, the game will be very difficult to push.

 

We are all experienced players (generally speaking) so this is just evolution to us. But my kids haven't been convinced to play warhammer despite my best efforts simply because the game is too bloated with rules. 10th edition will not change that.

[OttoVonAwesome]

24 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Honestly, seeing the Eldar faction focus and comparing it to some of the Detachment and factions rules of other factions, it's already clear the game is going to unbalanced.

 

Combining Farseers, Guardians on objectives, Fate dice and the extremely powerful weaponry of the faction in every edition... it's already clear just how overbearing this will be. 

 

And the mental load on the edition has increased! We now need to keep track of 6 Strategums, more core rules Strategums, multiple unit special rules, same weapons working differently on different datasheets, Detachment rules, faction rules, how they all interact...

 

Games Workshop haven't reduced bloat at all, they've just put the bloat in more condensed places. There's still booking to do with the Detachment rules.

 

And the reduction of subfactions is a miss. There aren't any rules for White Scars or Iron Hand etc. They all play the exact same in the same Detachments. This is like 4th edition Chaos Codex but worse because GW gave subfactions to everyone not just Marines/Chaos Marines and have now removed them. It was possible to reduce bloat and still maintain subfaction flavour. Intuitive play and design works, considering other systems like Age of Darkness that has plenty of special rules and complexity yet flows easily enough when you play.

 

Ultimately the wind has been taken out of my sales quite early and as each new bit of information on the factions comes out, I've not been reassured.

Yeah it's kinda funny how they cut things like combi weapons and different pistol types for admech and sub factions but kept the super gamey gimmicky army special rules wich can't possibly be balanced beacuase they are totally unique in every faction.

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

Yeah it's kinda funny how they cut things like combi weapons and different pistol types for admech and sub factions but kept the super gamey gimmicky army special rules wich can't possibly be balanced beacuase they are totally unique in every faction.

 

Let's not forget the book keeping. Roll a bunch of extra dice and keep them to the side or write them down, to use in game like tokens.

 

That's not quite streamlined eh.

 

Also, I get we're in Indexes realms, but the release of Codex books is ages away. Some of the fans of factions have said how their rules are anaemic, or weak, or not thematic etc. Subfactions have disappeared. 

 

So even if GW fix those issues with Codex books, there's a long wait for many.

 

[The Unseen]

19 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Honestly, seeing the Eldar faction focus and comparing it to some of the Detachment and factions rules of other factions, it's already clear the game is going to unbalanced.

 

Combining Farseers, Guardians on objectives, Fate dice and the extremely powerful weaponry of the faction in every edition... it's already clear just how overbearing this will be. 

 

And the mental load on the edition has increased! We now need to keep track of 6 Strategums, more core rules Strategums, multiple unit special rules, same weapons working differently on different datasheets, Detachment rules, faction rules, how they all interact...

 

Games Workshop haven't reduced bloat at all, they've just put the bloat in more condensed places. There's still booking to do with the Detachment rules.

 

And the reduction of subfactions is a miss. There aren't any rules for White Scars or Iron Hand etc. They all play the exact same in the same Detachments. This is like 4th edition Chaos Codex but worse because GW gave subfactions to everyone not just Marines/Chaos Marines and have now removed them.

 

Ultimately the wind has been taken out of my sales quite early and as each new bit of information on the factions comes out, I've not been reassured.

 

Eldar have been, and probably always will be absolutely busted; this isn't news, its been standard 40k for like 30 years.

 

Anyone who says that having unique datasheet rules and a few weapons that work differently in different ARMIES, not datasheets in the same army, along with a single army rule and a single detachment rule and 6 faction-specific strats in any way compares to the current mess 40k is fooling themselves.

 

I'm tired of hearing it. Currently as an example, I have a squad of regular old tactical marines, I need to remember: Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault, ATSKNF, Obsec, potentially 4 different shooting weapon profiles (special, heavy, combi/pistol so also potentially the combi-weapon rule of shooting 2 profiles at a -1), and whatever melee weapon the sarge might have, my Chapter Tactic of choice, what doctrine I am currently in and therefore what weapons have boosted AP, and whether the super-doctrine is active, and however many of the baseline marine codexs 30+ stratagems, most of which won't apply to tacticals because half the books rules don't work on non-Primaris models, but I still need to remember which ones do and don't. This is BEFORE a supplement, which for Ultramarines adds an ADDITIONAL 15 stratagems.

 

Form what we've seen so far, a tactical squad will have its weapon profiles printed on its datasheet, along with any unique rules it might have, Obsec is now part of the profile, along with any BS modifiers inherent to the weapon and a large number of weapon abilities have been consolidated into easy to understand keywords, and you have your army rule, that will always be the same thing, Oath of Moment, which is a fairly simple ability, point at a single enemy unit and get rerolls against it, and your detachment rule, which is 3 one-use abilities, along with 6 unique strats and a dozen-ish generic ones that are available to everyone all the time.

Just stop. Will 10th end up as bloated as 9th? Maybe, but I am sick of this objectively untrue statement being repeated ad nauseam.

 

I'm personally not thrilled about quite a lot of 10th, I think the flat-out not giving 3+ armor save cover vs AP0 is a ridiculous "we tried nothing and were all out of ideas" failure, the changes to charge moves, pile-in, and consolidation seem needlessly punishing to melee, the gutting of Melta as a primary anti-tank tool has massive implications for faction balance that have currently not been dealt with in any of the teasers, the uneven power displayed by faction/detachment rules (the obvious winners being Aeldari and the obvious losers being the DG reveal), flamers still generally suck, plasma still blows up multi-wound models with no save (and characters still nearly die if their pistol explodes) But are contrasting against

Tanks/Monsters maybe being durable after multiple editions of being paperweights the vast majority of the time, Stratagems being cut down to a more manageable (and impactful) number, marine playstyles no longer being locked to a particular chapter, a hopefully more even sprinkling of lower quantities of mortal wounds between all factions, morale not being trivially ignored by the vast majority of armies, and transports actually being useful at their job.

 

This is going on my 6th edition change, the more things change, the more they stay the same. If you want to express disappointment in the direction 10th is seemingly pointed in (as we obviously have only a partial picture), that's fine, I definitely can't say anything about that, glass houses and such, but if you're gonna do that, you have to be *accurate*, otherwise you're just whining. 

[Orange Knight]

It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming something is powerful or weak after only a glimpse of some incomplete rules. We need to take a step back, and not assume the worst (or best) with anything we have seen thus far.

 

The only thing we know for certain is that the core rules themselves are functional, and are a refined version of the 8th and 9th edition rulesets. Eldar look strong at a glance, but they could be very expensive. Death Guard don't look nerfed to me, they look changed, like many other factions. 

 

I think people are making the mistake of comparing these new rules to the way armies work in 9th edition.

[Captain Idaho]

No one has said 10th is more bloated than 9th, but we're at Index stage and the mental load is still high. It's not false to say the game has more special rules and interactions than before, though it is easier to find the special rules on a data card and the main rules.

 

You might not agree, but plenty of people are looking at the rules and thinking "man this game isn't the cleaner and easier game they promised."

[Orange Knight]

If it was too simple and clean, an equal or even greater number of people would be complaining.
We have already seen some complaints that it's too basic in some ways, people are vocally unhappy about the simplification of psychic powers.

 

I'm personally reserving my final judgement until I have a few games under my belt, at the very least.

 

Unfortunately, the greatest downside of 10th is likely going to be the mission design - That is what's going to make or break the game for me.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Orange Knight

[Halandaar]

3 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

You don't see D and D players bitching about too much complexity.

 

I don't disagree with the majority of what you said but this line is so apples vs oranges it was worth singling out. Obviously an individual player* can tolerate more complexity in D&D because you are only having to manage a single character at a time; that is wildly different from a game of 40k where you might be fielding 20 different units each of which has it's own rules and potentially it's own mixed wargear as well, plus army rules, plus detachment rules, plus stratagems. A single D&D character with even as many as 100 variables/interactions to think about is still probably less than the number of individual things you need to worry about in a game of 40k.

 

*If you're DMing than frankly that's your own fault and you get what you deserve in terms of stuff you need to remember.

[Mandragola]

There are people complaining in this thread that the rules we've seen lack distinctiveness, while others complain about bloat. This illustrates the impossible job the designers have of making everyone happy.

 

There are many ways in which bloat is reduced. A really important one for me is in the reintroduction of USRs. Now we'll know what infiltrate does and how our own units' rules interact with it. In 9th they had different versions of the rule for every unit, often within the same army, which was a confusing mess.

 

Let's not pretend we have the faintest clue about the relative power of the factions yet. We don't know how many points they cost, for starters. Yes, some of the very few units we've seen appear stronger or weaker than before, but that's a tiny fraction of what a codex will contain.

[Vermintide]

I'm frankly never going to be "excited" for a new edition.

 

I bought into the hobby for the first time in my adult life during 8th, and at that point I didn't realise just how many new editions had been churned and burned since I remember playing as a kid way back in 3rd. I realised the edition was a big shake up, but I still kinda thought the rules were at least semi-permanent, with only slight revisions. I didn't realise whole units would go from being amazing to being worthless one month to the next, I didn't realise you have to do your homework keeping up with the changes every release to make sure you don't get obliterated by that guy who's always running the new hotness- And I mean frankly, in fairness, I didn't even realise there are people out there who take this silly little toy soldier game so seriously.

 

But I quickly came to realise what I was in for- The same thing as in MMORPGs, MOBAs and so on, where you have to keep your eye on the patch notes, chase the meta relentlessly to keep up, or else forever be a filthy casual. I'm happy to be a casual in this hobby, don't get me wrong, but it definitely means rearranging the chairs every 3 years is something that will only ever be a chore for me; and fundamentally I think it'd be naive to expect the same pattern isn't going to continue into the forseeable future. Thus, why get invested? It's only going to change again in a couple of years.

 

As for how this specific edition turns out, I will reserve judgement until playing it. There's some changes that look very sensible, there's even a few things in there I've suggested myself in the past (ie attaching characters to units instead of auras). But I do have reservations in that it looks like they are really locking down on the customisation options for characters, and listbuilding in general. If everything goes towards pre-determined loadouts and traits etc it'll kill a lot of my enjoyment in building an army that feels like my own.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Vermintide

[Captain Idaho]

It doesn't have to be anaemic and bland to be simpler.

 

Increasing the variance in stats works well to differentiate between units and I'm all for that. Less variance requires special rules to substitute the granularity that is absent. 

 

How many special rules are needed? Units special rules? Army special rules? Detachment special rules? Strategums? Let's add mission rules onto that and weapon special rules and take away consistency between unique datasheets for the same weapons.

 

GW went with all of it. Topping it off, they removed commonality between weapons and stats, so we have to reference the data cards (cynically for sales?) all the time or memorise it all which not everyone can do when they have the mental load of everything else.

 

The OP has asked if other people feel the same about 10th edition - less excitement. Yes, I do and this is why I feel like that.

[Orange Knight]

3 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

 

The OP has asked if other people feel the same about 10th edition - less excitement. Yes, I do and this is why I feel like that.

 

Well, OP specifically talks about the perception that some factions have been nerfed.

 

All my comments have been in discussion of this, and how it's a folly to assume things are one way or another. My point is that we shouldn't compare the army rules and stats to their power levels in 9th as all the factions are being re-aligned from top to bottom, and that it's too early to judge anything. We simply don't have a complete picture of anything save the core rules.