Anyone less excited for 10th than they were?

[jaxom]

My personal opinion is that 10th will be a fun game to play, but is more of a game than a pseudo-competitive storytelling device (which I consider to be Rogue Trader through a chunk of 5th edition). The product has changed and I've learned to appreciate the new product for what it is, while looking for more options to fill the void left behind.

[Xenith]

41 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

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.

 

You're looking at this from a veterans perspective, where things have changed for you and you need to relearn, as opposed to the new player experience. 

 

For a new player, what's simpler to learn:

1) My seargeant has 1A base, but then he also gets +1A for being a veteran. However he then gets +1A for 2 combat weapons, but also +1A for charging. But one of the weapons is a specialist weapon so it's -1A.

or 

2) the profile says the sergant makes makes 3 attacks if he has a power fist. 

 

For 1, they need to know

• Unit profile
• sergeant has a different profile
• rules for 2 combat weapons
• rules that you get a charge bonus
• specialist weapon rules

 

For 2 they just need to be able to read. 

 

Call me an apologist or sympathiser or whatever, but I don't think the sky is falling, and I don't think you can validly claim that the game is as mentally load intensive as 9th without having seen all the rules.

 

From what we have already seen, the stuff to remember is much lower - even in your fate dice example, it's 12 dice rolled at the start (with in-game modifications - auto 6 from farseer and bonus dice from defenders), as opposed to remembering to roll and choose 6 dice per turn, rerolling some if you have farseers, then choose somewhere between 3 and 5 (game size and army build dependant). 

 

In terms of stratagems, most/all factions seem to have gone from 45+ to what, 15 or so? Yea, it's not great, but claiming 15 strats to remember carries the same level of mental load as 45 is objectively false. 

 

-------------

To answer the OP, I'm looking forward to the new edition, but not having to learn new stuff. I barely have time to read one full rulebook these days, never mind the HH rules, and 40k, and whatever codexes come out. I'm liking the direction they have gone in, with some changes being things I've been suggesting for a while, however I think they are still dominated by the US tourey scene and havent gone far enough.

 

They seem to forget that 40k tourneys were popular regardless of the complexity of the rules. It's not a new things for 9th. Tourneys only went down in popularity because GW stopped all support for them from 2007 - 2018 or so. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Xenith

[Emperor Ming]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

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.

 

This is the worst thing, and what's worse to come is the hundreds of abilities that units have that we haven't seen yet

 

Then there's the extra detachments going to be added by codexs

[Karhedron]

Broadly speaking, I am happy with the changes I have seen so far. Effort seems to have gone into making units more viable rather than just being a Troop-tax. I can now seem myself wanting to take Eldar Guardians again. Vehicles look like they will be worth a look again after 8th and 9th being very infantry heavy.

 

There are some small issues. The loss of distinct combi-weapons seems unnecessary oversimplification. Some factions seem to have suffered a loss of flavour but I am hopeful this is just due to the Index releases and we will get it back when the 10th ed codices start arriving.

[Ahzek451]

My excitement has ebbed a bit. Not from the varied opinions based on the army teasers. I have had a chance to look at the rulebook leak, nothing earth-shattering, just another edition(I have lived through every edition since 2nd). 

My ebbing stems from being a bit jaded. being teased by GW with a NEW AND IMPROVED edition that slowly ends up down the same path of bloat and codex creep. Credit where credit is due, GW's ability to be more proactive with balance has been a new thing since 8th. But as we got dragged though each army book release since, things got out of balance worse and worse until finally at the end of the rainbow of 8th or 9th we had somewhat of a decently balanced game once all armies have a codex. But before anyone can take a breath and enjoy it, BAM a new edition. And the process starts anew. 

At first, my excitement was the anouncement of free and digital rules. GW had not yet made mention of codex books. I figured that maybe GW had finally stepped up their game and we would see an edition with even more efficient proactive rule balance. And then the codex's were anounced and my gutt reaction was "here we go again". I always expect a bit of codex creep, I never expect a perfectly balanced game, but the fool in me always hopes for GW to do a better job in evolving the process. Instead, it's truly the same old ways but with a new mask. 

I'll roll with the punches per the usual. But I am on a slow trek to creeping bit by bit to giving GW less of my money on anything to do with an editon as far as book content. Not out of some kind of hate or boycott, just natural exhaustion and burnout. 

10th will be fine. Not great, not bad. Just fine, like every other edition. 

[Xenith]

I'd be super tempted to freeze the game at 10th ed release with the indexes and play the whole edition like that. I don't see myself at many 40k tourneys. Might be a fun and cheap way to play! 

[The Yncarne]

1 hour ago, Ahzek451 said:

<snip>

 

My ebbing stems from being a bit jaded. being teased by GW with a NEW AND IMPROVED edition that slowly ends up down the same path of bloat and codex creep.
 

<snip>

I'll roll with the punches per the usual. But I am on a slow trek to creeping bit by bit to giving GW less of my money on anything to do with an editon as far as book content. Not out of some kind of hate or boycott, just natural exhaustion and burnout. 

<snip>

This is pretty much my opinion too. I’ve played every edition and was really stoked for 8th and 9th when they were announced. Now I just don’t care.
 

GW has a cycle and I’m off its treadmill. I used to buy a new army every edition, but I use my existing collection elsewhere and while I may pick up models here and there, I’m not investing in 10th. It isn’t because of the rules leak (which I’ve not read), the insta-reactions from some players, or how my existing models or play may need to change, but because I’ve been down this road for decades and know things will change with every release through the edition’s lifecycle. 

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

You're looking at this from a veterans perspective, where things have changed for you and you need to relearn, as opposed to the new player experience. 

 

For a new player, what's simpler to learn:

1) My seargeant has 1A base, but then he also gets +1A for being a veteran. However he then gets +1A for 2 combat weapons, but also +1A for charging. But one of the weapons is a specialist weapon so it's -1A.

or 

2) the profile says the sergant makes makes 3 attacks if he has a power fist. 

 

For 1, they need to know

• Unit profile
• sergeant has a different profile
• rules for 2 combat weapons
• rules that you get a charge bonus
• specialist weapon rules

 

For 2 they just need to be able to read. 

 

No I'm looking at it from a perspective that my casual opponents and kids are already starting to groan looking at the rules. They don't care if the datasheet is cleaner, they still have a mountain of additional rules to memorise and interact with.

 

As a veteran I'll likely be fine, if a little tired after the end of a game or tournament day. But my mates and kids are already turned off and the edition ain't out yet.

 

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

Call me an apologist or sympathiser or whatever, but I don't think the sky is falling, and I don't think you can validly claim that the game is as mentally load intensive as 9th without having seen all the rules.

 

 

I'd never disparage your opinion. Whether I agree with it or not, you still have a right to express it. 

 

We have seen enough of the rule rules though to make a good educated guess:

 

• We have the leaked core rules.

• We know every unit will have at least one special rule.

• We know there's a Detachment special rule in addition to faction special rule, as well as how many of them work.

• We know that a Chaos Space Marine will not be a massive departure to a Space Marine and Veterans stats are likely just an extra attack etc.

 

We can do a lot with what we have. Otherwise the teasers are pointless. If you don't have information to make a determination as to how something sounds, then the positivity around teasers is also misplaced.

 

But I can definitely say Guilliman is good, probably better than Abaddon thanks to his rules, Oath of Moment and amazing stats, plus use of Epic Duel if needed etc. That's with the information to hand.

 

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

In terms of stratagems, most/all factions seem to have gone from 45+ to what, 15 or so? Yea, it's not great, but claiming 15 strats to remember carries the same level of mental load as 45 is objectively false. 

 

 

I'm not saying 9th is better than 10th though. I'm saying they're not that different.

 

Sure 15 Strategums are better than 45, but every unit having multiple (min 1) special rule means have just as many, if not more special rules to remember or look up.

 

[Doghouse]

I'm in the same boat as a few others here. I'm hoping it will be good in the same way I enjoyed early 8th but I fear it will start off simple then end up gathering more and more complexity as it rolls down hill till the next reset.

 

I won't be getting into it on release but will wait and see, in the meantime I'm going back to my comfortable old well worn slippers that is 1st edition. I hope people have a lot of fun with it on release though.

[Dr. Clock]

Nah - still definitely salivating to eat the entire meal of a game reset like this. I like the re-learning part, and the freshness of an 'unsolved' meta. 

 

It's admittedly likely that there will be clear advantages to armies with codexes rather than indexed ones though, so if creep starts too early or obviously I'll be fine to treat those armies as 'separate' and play index vs. index and codex vs. codex games separately. This could mean the first year or so of competitive play is pretty wonky, but that's not my scene anyway. Luckily my main opponent has 'Nids and 'Crons while I have Marines and AdMech, so we'll be okay keeping those match-ups separate if we need to self-police match-ups for balance while the codex pipeline heats up again. 

 

It does look like the detachment 1-in-1-out rule could constrain the worst unforeseen/unintended  internal codex balance issues: with luck the codexes will just mean that 'specialist builds' are distinct but not simply better than 'basic combined arms' lists, and indeed that the 'themed' detachments don't pale in comparison to the flexibility of standard ones.

 

Anyway - the attention suck of staying current in mainline GW rulesets isn't going away, clearly, so I can certainly respect anyone's choice to play a ruleset that won't change faster than your brush, wallet or interest can sustain.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Blurf]

On 5/18/2023 at 12:01 AM, ThePenitentOne said:

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? 

A new edition dropping is the absolute best time to play any tabletop game. It's a wonderland of nonsense and jankery that you only get to experience once every couple of years.

 

There's really nothing better.

 

17 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

No I'm looking at it from a perspective that my casual opponents and kids are already starting to groan looking at the rules. They don't care if the datasheet is cleaner, they still have a mountain of additional rules to memorise and interact with.

 

As a veteran I'll likely be fine, if a little tired after the end of a game or tournament day. But my mates and kids are already turned off and the edition ain't out yet.

 

 

I'd never disparage your opinion. Whether I agree with it or not, you still have a right to express it. 

 

We have seen enough of the rule rules though to make a good educated guess:

 

• We have the leaked core rules.

• We know every unit will have at least one special rule.

• We know there's a Detachment special rule in addition to faction special rule, as well as how many of them work.

• We know that a Chaos Space Marine will not be a massive departure to a Space Marine and Veterans stats are likely just an extra attack etc.

 

We can do a lot with what we have. Otherwise the teasers are pointless. If you don't have information to make a determination as to how something sounds, then the positivity around teasers is also misplaced.

 

But I can definitely say Guilliman is good, probably better than Abaddon thanks to his rules, Oath of Moment and amazing stats, plus use of Epic Duel if needed etc. That's with the information to hand.

 

 

I'm not saying 9th is better than 10th though. I'm saying they're not that different.

 

Sure 15 Strategums are better than 45, but every unit having multiple (min 1) special rule means have just as many, if not more special rules to remember or look up.

 

No to be unkind but... were you hoping it would just be marines shooting bolters at each other and that's the whole edition? No rapid fire, No wound table, no rerolls, just 3+, 4+ do a damage? Did units still get saves or was that too much?

 

Why would you even have a unit that doesn't have any special rules?

 

Also, units in 9th all had special rules. Significantly more special rules, in fact. Even ignoring stratagems, there's much less stuff going on than there was.

[ThePenitentOne]

12 hours ago, jaxom said:

My personal opinion is that 10th will be a fun game to play, but is more of a game than a pseudo-competitive storytelling device (which I consider to be Rogue Trader through a chunk of 5th edition). The product has changed and I've learned to appreciate the new product for what it is, while looking for more options to fill the void left behind.

 

Rogue Trader absolutely was a storytelling tool- damn near an RPG with minis. Second ed put more wargame in: some people think things like blast templates, pinning mechanics, and vehicle facings are storytelling tools, and it's usually what people who pine for days of yore are talking about. But there wasn't much storytelling going on in second.

 

Third put some back- for example the vs. missions in the Hunter books... But not much there either. Now 5th (I think) had Kill Team and Combat Patrol as storytelling tools, and both of those were prototypes, without which nothing that came later would have existed. I'd say that edition tried hard to include storytelling tools, but KT, CP and 40K were so poorly integrated in those days that you couldn't transition seamlessly between them.

 

Crusade is the roleplaying game lurking inside 40k, and only Rogue Trader comes even close. Now the caveat is that some of 9th's core mechanics, or content shared with other modes, supported the RPG elements of Crusade- the prime examples being the game size mechanics which facilitate escalation better than any edition in the game's history, the detachment system which was superior to 8th and better than formations, and subfaction identities for all factions. These are the RPG gamers bread and butter.

 

Now to respond to a few other topics:

 

RE: Ease for new players:

 

This is a false premise- Combat Patrol game-play mode is the default for newbs. It solves both the complexity and the cost issues that people are claiming 10th presents. No newb will begin by playing 2k matched. They'll either start with combat patrol or they'll start with skirmish Crusade (even though 10th has actually removed this from the game by eliminating 500 point games (with the exception of Arks of Omen and Combat Patrol variants, which like the Combat Patrol and Kill Team of 5th don't integrate as well with the main game as 25PL Crusade did).

 

@Idaho:

 

You are entitled to your feelings, and I am not going to say that your feelings are invalid, nor will I bother trying to change your mind. However, I think the pushback you are receiving is that the reasons you provide to explain your feelings are objectively false. Strats for example: yes, there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of twenty strats common to all armies and you get another 6 based on your detachment, and it's okay for you to think that's still too many, and it's okay to say that you are unhappy about that. But it's NOT okay to say that's as bloated as 9th because it is measureably, observably, and objectively not. There are 33 in the sisters dex, a dozen or more in each of the 13 campaign books, dozens in White Dwarf, more in the BRB (though not many here).

 

I hate the removal of the psychic phase, but you absolutely can't claim that it doesn't reduce bloat because it absolutely, objectively does.

 

You may hate the consolidations of bolt, combi and power weapons, but you can't claim that these do not reduce bloat because they absolutely and objectively do.

 

The number of rules on datacard hasn't really gone up, though this is somewhat complicated by the return of USRs because they sort of constitute special rules... they're just easier to use than other bespoke rules. As for the weapon profiles changing from card to card, that is mostly because WS and BS got moved to the weapon profile- and you claim to be okay with statline variation, which is really all these differences actually are- the stats are just attached to the weapon and the variance isn't really different than it's ever been. There may be one or two exceptions to that- it's harder for me to analyzed based on poor bootlegs and online drip feeds than it would be to look at a wide selection of datacards in a book or a deck.

 

So look, go ahead and be unenthusiastic about 10th- I'm not it's biggest cheerleader either. Your feelings and opinions are valid enough that you don't have to say things that objectively untrue to justify them.

 

 

[jaxom]

@ThePenitentOne, thank you. That was a very well written perspective/retrospective on the narrative and RPG elements of 40k.

[Noserenda]

Eh, ofc ive come down from the mad excite i often get when something looks good, FB reminded me that its 2 years today since our group played a night of "full meta 40k" with a few heavily houseruled and ignoring seasons games since that were fine, but loads of specialist games old and new instead. If 10th also stinks then we would likely just keep doing that and ill just knock out a few more random 40k models i like in the meantime.

Its really too early to be getting upset about the unreleased indexes though, the previews havent even been particularly consistent in what they show us :D 

[Silas7]

16 hours ago, Mandragola said:

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.

 

This is why House rulings should be emphasized again. As mentioned above DnD does have complexity but the players and DM also kinda agree to play the game with or without certain elements. In both cases the players decide whats best, competitive play is what's stifling that from happening.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The reveal trailer had me hyped, like super hyped, but now it’s like every week that hype dies a bit more.

 

im starting to get fatigued by it now. 
 

we don’t know every rule and every stat, but with the leak of the core rules, and the faction focus articles, we have a very good idea of what 10th will look like from the biggest toughest vehicles, to the squishiest infantry, to the most powerful weapons.

 

mystery of the new game is gone, and now it just seems pointless to keep putting off dropping the new edition.

 

4 hours ago, Silas7 said:

 

This is why House rulings should be emphasized again. As mentioned above DnD does have complexity but the players and DM also kinda agree to play the game with or without certain elements. In both cases the players decide whats best, competitive play is what's stifling that from happening.

How often exactly does DnD drop rules updates?

does DnD have a competitive scene at all? 
 

you can’t say the competitive scene isn’t the issue and compare to a game without the competitive scene.

 

if you have a significant portion of the player base that is focusing on tournaments that makes a major change in the climate of the player base.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Scribe]

19 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

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...

 

Same weapons are different depending on different data sheet?

 

I have to admit, after...I think Votann, I glazed over. I could probably look this up myself but yeah I'm just going to wait for the edition, I hate drip feed style marketing.

[The Unseen]

43 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Same weapons are different depending on different data sheet?

 

I have to admit, after...I think Votann, I glazed over. I could probably look this up myself but yeah I'm just going to wait for the edition, I hate drip feed style marketing.

The only one I know of is that the regular bolter is different between sisters (and probably guard) and any flavor of marine. Firstborn and Chaos get assault 2, sisters get rapid fire 1, otherwise the same.

[Xenith]

=][= Merged a bunch of double posting that the system didn't pick up. =][= 

 

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

Same weapons are different depending on different data sheet?

 

Only in that the WS and A values are now baked into the weapon profile instead of the model profile, so a Powerfist profile on a captain datasheet will have different, better WS and A value to a powerfist profile on the tactical squad datasheet, for example. 

 

If you could remember that your terminators hit on a 4+ with fists, and your captain hit on a 3+ with fists last edition, you should be ok. 

 

The reason for this is to remove to hit modifiers by assigning direct to-hit values to weapons, so instead of the captain being WS2+ and the sword being -0 to hit, and the fist having a -1 modifier to hit, the profile for the sword is just WS2+ and the fist is WS3+.

 

A perhaps unintended consequence, that might be fluffy, is that now things that are -1 to hit don't have that rule ignored by power fists - so weirdly a captai nwith a sword had a harder time hitting my my howling banshee, while a captain with fist didn't suffer any additonal penalty.

 

Likewise in 9th, if you were shooting at something that was -1 to hit, you might as well move and fire the heavy weapons as the -1 modifiers didn't stack. In 10th, you'll be at -1 to hit and also lose the BS bonus for standing still, so a battle sister moving and shooting a plane with a multimelta will be at BS5+ in 10th (new base bs4+ and -1 to hit), while in 9th they would be able to move and still hit the plane on a 4+. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Xenith

[Khornestar]

I think my excitement still vastly outweighs disappointment, in terms of changes between 9th and 10th. It’s all tentative, and I think will be more based on indices and their relative power versus each other. In other words, we’ll see when we get all the rules, but outlook is still good.

[Jalleo]

I want to learn the game. I started in late 8th. I found it frustrating to learn. I think 10th with the datacards will help me a lot.

[Doghouse]

12 minutes ago, Jalleo said:

I want to learn the game. I started in late 8th. I found it frustrating to learn. I think 10th with the datacards will help me a lot.

 

Don't forget that plenty of people around here will be happy to help you learn the rules if you get stuck. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 5/18/2023 at 8:02 AM, Xenith said:

I'd be super tempted to freeze the game at 10th ed release with the indexes and play the whole edition like that. I don't see myself at many 40k tourneys. Might be a fun and cheap way to play! 

 

Yeah my group has had a bit of discussion about possibly moving in that direction. Its tough because depending on your fraction the index detachments may not feel right. For example the SoB detachment is perfect for Our Martyred Lady but I don't know about its fit for the other subfractions. It'll be interesting to see how well it works for us, personally I'm not too optimistic because I think GW recognizes this as a bit of slippery slope towards free rules. I don't think that's what they want but hopefully I'm wrong.

 

On 5/19/2023 at 8:15 AM, Khornestar said:

I think my excitement still vastly outweighs disappointment, in terms of changes between 9th and 10th. It’s all tentative, and I think will be more based on indices and their relative power versus each other. In other words, we’ll see when we get all the rules, but outlook is still good.

 

My concern is about the health of the game after the first 4-5 codex releases. It's just getting to point where they need to walk the walk a bit as far keeping power creep in check. I do appreciate that from the sounds of it I'll be able to know what I think of the edition before i need to invest anything, but I really don't want an 8th edition style scenario. It was super frustrating to wait for my wolves as long as I did, then get a codex that was clearly designed alongside the marine book, and just felt horrible because of the creep. 

 

6 hours ago, Jalleo said:

I want to learn the game. I started in late 8th. I found it frustrating to learn. I think 10th with the datacards will help me a lot.

 

The cards will help out a lot, I also think the new combat patrol mode will really players in your situation that want to learn the game. Don't be afraid to ask questions on the boards as well, I've learned a lot from this community.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

I'm not excited for 10th at all. Maybe I'm getting old, but I think this new system is not for me. Too simple, for me, as far as I seen. I'm not saying is bad or good (I need to try it first a couple of times). i fact I believe 10th have some good mechanics. Is just, well, I don't find it appealing. Not at the same level of Necromunda or Horus Heresy.

 

I'll give it a try but with no expectations

[Indy Techwisp]

I just wanna see my faction preview to be honest.
The removal of the Psychic Phase means that the Thousand Son's primary gimmick is now up in the air, so it's kinda unnerving that we haven't seen either TSons or Grey Knights yet considering the removal of that phase is a major concern for our factions.