Anyone less excited for 10th than they were?

[2PlusEasy]

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

Why not just get a 5th edition rulebook and codexes and go from there? It'll save a lot of "what does this do" ing and making up your own datasheets etc. HH2.0 is based entirely on that version of the 40k rules anyway, so it'll be a similar experience, though Eldar were pretty nasty in 5/6th ed. 

 

Because Grey Knights in 5th edition were written by Matt Ward and playing them was like playing against The New Zealand All Blacks in Rugby Union with a team of 10 year olds that saw a game of touch football once. Even compared to the well-rounded Eldar Codex which many people thought was a solid performing codex (and in my opinion the best of Phil Kelly's early work with its internal balance), that codex was a league of its own.

[Antarius]

Yeah, 5th (especially towards the end of its life cycle) was completely bananapants bonkers, balance-wise. I hope and think that they've got a bit more of a unified design philosopy in place for 10th, as some of the previous balance-disasters have seemed (to me) to stem from some writers feeling that an army was defined by what it did well and what it wasn't supposed to do well, whereas others felt that what defined an army was what it did mind-bogglingly well (and then it would still be as good as the rest as everybody else or have nominal weaknesses with super obvious "fixes" built in, so the army would end up being better at everything in practice)

[Xenith]

Well, the original statement that was it was used for GK and Eldar, who were both strong in 5th. Personally I didn't find GK too strong back then, but I was playing Blood Angels, also a Ward-Dex. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Xenith

[Warhead01]

I'm not overly excited about 10th at this point. I like the idea of just playing the index version that was the best thing about 8th and got me excited to play again for a while. 7th was putting me out of the hobby, 9th more or less put me back out of being active in the hobby for these last few years. 
I'll give the free version a spin but I don't see spending any money on anything at this point. 

Added.
I don't think the DnD reference works in the context of 40K editions. DnD does have guidelines about how many supplements should be used in certian settings , outside of a group deciding how they wish to play. also each edition is less complicated than the ones before it, more streamlined much like 40K. 
Streamlined rules are all well and good to bring people in but for myself I found 5th ed DnD, the current edition completely confusing coming in, the previous edition I played was 3/3.5. Where skills were a thing. Now it's different and I'm not exactly sure it's different in a better way.  House rules are a good thing. 

I don't look forward to codex books in 10th. I know there will be a lot of disagreement on that. Frankly my favorite faction has only gotten worse and worse updated in every edition after 3rd. Orks are nearly unrecognizable to me now. I strongly dislike what I see and I know the trend is unlikely to end. GW dislikes not having control over anything they cannot put in a box and sell. So I expect yet another bland and mostly dull edition. Good rules mechanics and fun missions will be the only thing that get's me to play. I think GW should put the nail in the coffin already and move over to more games like their skirmish games and away from what they are doing now. Lower bar to entry and a way to encourage sales of more kits people would otherwise never buy. and no expectation of creativity.  GW streamline thy self.  

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Warhead01
Added another thought on some of the other comments.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

Yeah, 5th (especially towards the end of its life cycle) was completely bananapants bonkers, balance-wise. I hope and think that they've got a bit more of a unified design philosopy in place for 10th, as some of the previous balance-disasters have seemed (to me) to stem from some writers feeling that an army was defined by what it did well and what it wasn't supposed to do well, whereas others felt that what defined an army was what it did mind-bogglingly well (and then it would still be as good as the rest as everybody else or have nominal weaknesses with super obvious "fixes" built in, so the army would end up being better at everything in practice)

But wait, there’s more! In 6th they added allies, so if there was anything your army couldn’t do, you could just bring units from a totally separate army to do it instead. Fun! As long as your army had semi-arbitrary “battle brothers”, you could do things like have Eldar psykers casting their buff spells on Battlesuits. Balanced and interactive gameplay! I stopped playing in 6th edition and sold my armies. By total coincidence.

[MegaVolt87]

Speaking of streamlined, combat patrol will be interesting. Seems like the current boxes are fixed composition wise to balance against each other for 10th? I wonder if there will be an open combat patrol format we have now with lower points bracket equivalents we currently have in 9th. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Shhhhh.

If we say "streamline" too loudly someone else will scream "FLAVOR!!!".

[Magos Takatus]

On 5/21/2023 at 9:19 AM, CMDR_Welles said:

More I hear, the less excited I get. I'm getting a lot of transition to 3e vibes going, and I don't know if I like going through that again... 
I hate Twin Linked... I've hated it since it was introduced to the game in whatever edition (3rd?) it was... Hate that it is back, even if it is wound roll now and not to hit, Still sucks... 

Yeah, I've tried not to be negative about the new game but you've hit the nail on the head. This positively stinks of 3rd edition where they stripped all the character out of armies to fit them into indexes (The Orks lost almost all their "weird science" units and got generic "kannons" and "shootas" instead of all their cool Shokk Attack Gunz and stuff. Assault squads lost almost all their weapon options and Terminator Squads split into two entries, both of which invalidated models I owned.

 

I understand that there are teething problems with these big big edition shifts but I already want to cast the twin-linked and combi-weapon rules into the fiery pits of Mount Doom. I hate twin linked with a passion and it clearly doesn't work. Tenth hasn't even dropped yet and we have space marine units given exceptions to this rule. If the game lands and you have to constantly invent new profiles so that legacy units like Land Raiders don't end up packing two lascannons and a heavy bolter and being drastically underpowered so then you have to patch in "soopa lascannons" to make the new system work, something is wrong with that.

 

As for the armies themselves, just getting back into playing Eldar only to find that they are stripping out most of the psychic buffs and they will probably be restricted to particular units and can only be used on units they are attached to... it sounds like a great deal of freedom and creativity has been taken out of the hands of the players. The army doesn't seem to have been nerfed too badly, not like that hack job they did back in 3rd edition. On that subject though... the longer I spend looking at the Adepts Mechanicus changes the more I realise the new direction for the army is not for me. 7th edition gave me fanatical cyborg soldiers that were relentless and fought with mechanical precision. Now we are expecting mainline troops that are less durable than Tau scouting units and have lost their accuracy. Sure, you can give the whole army the Heavy rule, but I've lost several games with Admech where I've just sat in my deployment zone and blasted away at my opponent only to lose the game for not playing objectives. Besides, people don't seem to like playing against static gunlines and consider them to be boring to fight against, so giving players an incentive to be even less mobile and reactionary rather than mobile and dynamic seems like a step backwards. The army is notorious for being expensive to start, and that is because the army is getting steadily less elite as time goes by, with the units available feeling more and more like cannon fodder. When Skitarii were competent soldiers the Mechanicus' total disregard for their wellbeing was noteworthy and pretty shocking. Now that they are barely better than baseline humans it seems less wasteful, less callous somehow. 

 

I know this probably sounds like a laundry list of little nitpicks, and it probably is, but it's just been one thing after another that has slowly leeched away my enthusiasm for the new game. I'm not even sure if I'll be picking up the rules this summer at this rate. I might be going on a break after the escalation league I'm taking part in tapers off. I've got plenty to paint so I'll still be involved in the hobby but that Admech Codex might dictate whether I bother learning the rules. 

[Dam13n]

There is always a risk when announcing something months in advance, as maintaining hype over that period of time is difficult.  I'm still cautiously optimistic about 10th, as it does look like there are some significant improvements coming, compared to the bloated mess that was late 8th until now.

 

Unlike some of the recent comments, I'm fine with GW treating this like a hard reset (similar to 3rd edition) as what they currently have really doesn't work for me.  If this does mean that we need to be patient while they develop the game, that's fine... well, so long as they actually correctly identify problems and fix them.  Which is something GW have not been particularly good at of late.

 

Now, my personal excitement has dropped slightly compared to a month ago, simply due to the delay in updates that preceded Warhammer Fest followed by the faction focusses (of which only a couple of have really been of interest to me, as I would only be interested in playing certain factions).

 

But I'll be downloading the rules and lists when they become available, so I can make an informed decision as to whether I want to play again (something I haven't done since the 8th edition codexes started to get bloated by supplements, paid patches (Chapter Approved) and campaign books).  It'd be nice to dust off my armies and play again.  Well, so long as the game isn't decided by meta list building (like it has been) and rewards good tactical play.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I feel similar Brother, I actually hoped for a slightly harder reset but this will have to do.

Be good to get a couple of games in while it's an index game; 9th was mostly a hiatus for me too.

 

I really miss GW being the master of suspense, but same as the HH all explained being somehow less fluffwise for me, it's them not telling us stuff that creates my interest.

My imagination has nowhere to roam and the known info is ordinary. 

 

Now that doesn't mean 10th won't be fun and a success; that is everyone's hope, just it's a little diminished ATM.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz
Ownership of statement

[TheMawr]

While my current main faction is unlikely to survive the transition to 10th (and Im not just talking index.. it just wont really work in the detachment/datasheet system unless it will be its own codex or at least its own alternative datasheets, wich will never happen.) I actually am more exited than I usually am about rules. I really like what we are seeing so far.

 

Their design philosophy is seemingly a bit more "MtG" (identity is based on synergy,gimmicks and resource control) than "DnD" (identity is based on stat min/max and stat & roll modefiers) this time, and I personally like that better. While I understand what people are saying who dislike gimmick elements or some identity changes, to my personal taste a lot of things have become more fluffy than they ever have been.

 

For example I absolutely love the theme of the Deathguard special rule, I think its my favorite of those shown so far.. or at least.. I love the potential of it, because if it pans out the way I think it will its something you cant measure with comparing just 2 stat cards but has the potential of becoming really powerful ( my mind keeps saying Sliver deck.. though its not the correct comparison.. Admech seems more sliver deckish... Deathguard is more a green deck.. but remember the last time I even looked at MtG was in the 90s ;))

I do hope they add gellerpox to the roster and taking daemons isnt punished too much ( I like my armies with max 50% marines.)

 

Not all armies are as synergy focused I think ( Guardians for example I think are at their peak in the core stats, the faction lacks the leaders to boost units and the faction rule is less progressive than others, hence why they are seemingly stronger.) and Votann actually have me wondering what will happen as they dont have the numbers (in datasheet terms) to really add alot of synergy based boosts, and their progressive faction rule has a hard cap.

 

This is immediately also indicative of a huge mistake GW is making in their marketing, their faction focus articles threat 10th edition the way they threated 8th and 9th edition faction focus articles.. and if I understand 10th right so far, this doesnt work here... if stats have a slightly lower relevance than synergies compared to before then dont focus articles entirely on new stats. While it surely would also have people complaining for lack of information, it should maybe just have been designer feedback articles. Even better would have been to accompany each article with a pdf with multiple datasheets, it could even be the combat patrol ones.. after all everything will be free in a few weeks anyway.

 

Only real drawback for me is the emphasis on tanks, I strongly dislike tanks in 40k ( and most other vehicles.) and this so far seems to be an edition where you really going to need tanks, wether its transports to get your units across the big guns more savely or big gun tanks to counter the opponent's big gun tanks.

 

Its ofcourse also possible that I misunderstand or look further than GW actually ends up going in the synergy pile.. it wouldnt suprise me if they "start" something but only do it halfway.

[Xenith]

33 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

this so far seems to be an edition where you really going to need tanks

 

I don't think you'll need tanks in this edition, hopefully they've just brought it to the point where you're not actually hamstringing yourself by bringing vehicles. That said, the biggest guns have always been on tanks, and then you might need tanks to take on opposing tanks, or try to beat them on objectives, that adds a bit more tactical thinking to the game, as opposed to just stacking rerolls, +1 to hit and +1 to wound strats on basic weapons to make them into tank killers. 

[TheMawr]

14 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

I don't think you'll need tanks in this edition, hopefully they've just brought it to the point where you're not actually hamstringing yourself by bringing vehicles. That said, the biggest guns have always been on tanks, and then you might need tanks to take on opposing tanks, or try to beat them on objectives, that adds a bit more tactical thinking to the game, as opposed to just stacking rerolls, +1 to hit and +1 to wound strats on basic weapons to make them into tank killers. 

 

Make no mistake I truelly meant I dont like tanks personally and only personally, I do appreciate their existence and I think its a good thing that they want to make sure they work, and that they work as one would expect. ( no matter how badass they are.. an infantry model chopping a battletank to death is objectively ridiculous ;))

[MegaVolt87]

Not really strange, armoured units with no infantry screen/ support have been vulnerable to opposing infantry and lighter assets in game and IRL since forever. 

 

[Captain Idaho]

I'm certainly a Dread-nut and a tread-head (a Dread-nut-head?), so I'm happy to take lots of vehicles always. But I appreciate some armies seem to be lacking anti-tank in other avenues that could cause a problem.

 

This part of the edition is good for me if I'm honest.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:19 AM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Shhhhh.

If we say "streamline" too loudly someone else will scream "FLAVOR!!!".

FLAVOR!!!

[appiah4]

A streamlined rules set and flavor are not mutually exclusive design goals, this is a logical fallacy GW has basically instituted on their customer base because they can't write rules worth :cuss:.  Once you step outside to take a peek at even something free like GRIMDARK FUTURE you realize how disgustingly terri-bad 40K is as a game.

[Interrogator Stobz]

100%.

Kill Team and Titanicus have flavor and are fairly straightforward. 

GW know how.

 

But their main game will always be a mess because that sells books and minis.

[Interrogator Stobz]

7 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

FLAVOR!!!

Red Thirst got you again Son of Sanguinius???

You can't expect flavour when you just want blood.

[appiah4]

1 hour ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

100%.

Kill Team and Titanicus have flavor and are fairly straightforward. 

GW know how.

 

But their main game will always be a mess because that sells books and minis.

To be honest Kill Team is hardly a paragon of game excellence.  It's a game where every faction has a total of one build that can be expected to win games.  Even when it comes to skirmish games, GW rules suck ass.

[sitnam]

1 hour ago, appiah4 said:

To be honest Kill Team is hardly a paragon of game excellence.  It's a game where every faction has a total of one build that can be expected to win games.  Even when it comes to skirmish games, GW rules suck ass.

I like Kill Team, but the rules are complicated enough where my play group (consisting of me and non-mini collectors) can't really casually play it . Warcry howeve is excellent

[Interrogator Stobz]

@ appia4: My experience of KT differs but I see your point.

If played competitively the lack of options limits ways to succeed. That's fair.

 

But as long as winning isn't your only goal they still have tonnes of flavour and are relatively streamlined.

 

I have introduced several players straight into it and they loved the simplicity and intuitive rules. (Streamlined).

They have also commented that the Teams play and feel like the Factions they come from should play and feel. (Flavour).

 

It can be done with simple games, the challenge is getting GW to apply it to 40k.

Index resets sure help, but historically haven't lasted long enough to work.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz

[MithrilForge]

I Liked the Faction Focus For Orks  ,That's actually making me More interested in 10th Ed than i was previously  !!

As others said, I'd like to try the free rules at the start and see how it goes, if it's terrible then I've not wasted anything and will grudgingly go back to 9th Ed. I don't mind Tanks and Big Guns (I too like the Vehicles and Dreads, it's a good way to quickly get more points on the table and to paint something as a palette cleanse from lots of troops ) 

I'm Hopeful for 10th ... 

 

* Also Killteam is as Stobz said - it's a great game if your not stupidly over competitive (plus who want's to play stupidly over competitive people anyway, they're pretty boring to hang out with )   

[Evil Eye]

16 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

100%.

Kill Team and Titanicus have flavor and are fairly straightforward. 

GW know how.

 

But their main game will always be a mess because that sells books and minis.

To be fair, I think more complicated "flavour first" games (especially at skirmish level) can be a lot of fun, even if they do have unbalanced/broken builds or whatever. Mordheim is for instance very fondly remembered even with some notoriously cheesy builds- the answer to which is "don't use those builds and give anyone who tries to sneak them in a good glare". I think the problem is that (modern) 40K is neither streamlined, flavourful nor fun. You still have tonnes of book-keeping and cross-referencing; whereas before a plasma cannon on a Dreadnought would be identical to its man-portable version with the caveat it doesn't Get Hot, now you have two totally separate profiles. Meanwhile combi-weapons are rolled into one generic weapon which fails to represent anything meaningful.

 

One point I will give GW is that I think the abstraction approach with melee weapons was a good move; having "Heavy Power Weapons" for CSM for instance I actually like, as it can be represented by a power fist, thunder hammer, flail or whatever other cool hitty thing you want to give your model. Likewise, whilst Death Guard losing DR was a stupid move, I think they've combined all the melee weapons into one or two basic "plague weapons" which is how they should have been done to begin with. I built a mace and bolter-wielding Plague Marine with the only conversion being a headswap, and looking back I think he's actually illegal under previous rules! Point being, melee weapons being genericized to a reasonable degree is fair enough. Guns being a lot more varied in what they do and how they do it I think need more granular rules- even if I still think the bolter variants for Intercessors was a silly idea*.

 

As a TLDR to that, it seems like some of these changes are coming from good places but being slightly mishandled, and I'm hoping the Codex introductions course-correct the goofier bits whilst keeping the good changes in place. I'm actually starting to level out a bit with my expectations, and assuming they learn the right lessons from post launch feedback I think the game might actually end up being fun.

 

*At least, at 40K scale; for skirmish games I actually think it makes a lot of sense to have different bolter patterns as you're playing at a smaller scale where individual weapons make a lot more of a difference. Personally I'd have the Intercessor bolter rules retained for KT but deleted for 40K, so you can have any combination of bolters in a 40K squad and it makes no difference but use the same models as different options for Kill Team.

[Xenith]

^^ Exactly this - the degree of abstraction in 40k was such that the strongest genetically enhanced marine in an ancient relic suit of muscle-enhancing terminator armor was just as strong as a particularly buff dude from catachan. 

 

If there's no difference in their strength, and both can be S4 for game purposes, I don't think we can justify different profiles for what are all basically marine portable bolt rifles. They did a good job rolling all bolt rifles into one, though I miss the increased shots of the assault bolt rifle.