Anyone less excited for 10th than they were?

[Marshal Mittens]

You can have flavor and be streamlined. 

 

For instance, having 3 pistol and 3 melee weapon choices for my admech skitarii SGTs is flavor. Having to have like 4 books to play with my admech, plus several FAQs and erratas and balance slates is bloat. Having a huge amount of stacking buffs that are also not on their data sheets is bloat. 

 

Making it so I can play my army out of the core rules + army book, is streamlining. I would mind seeing less buffs from army rules too, which 9th edition is already failing at. Like, is it crazy to ask that the stats for my models are mostly what's reflected on their little unit profile, and not modified a bunch of ways by other rules and such? 

[Captain Idaho]

I'm certainly not particularly impressed with the additional army rules that are replacing subfaction special rules. The Space Marines Detachment rules appear to be homage to Codex Chapters with the old Doctrines but not sure what subfaction the Eldar, Ork, Chaos Marines etc are supposed to represent?

 

And if they're not representing a subfaction, then why are they even a thing?

 

Detachment rules are turning out to be my biggest problem with 10th, followed by every unit getting a special rule or 2 across every faction. Just too many special rules for no real reason but most of all, GW are removing Subfactions and replacing them with Detachments which basically means everything counts as everything in the same faction which just... sucks.

 

Reminds me of the death of the Chaos Marines 3.5 Codex all over again. Special characters in every army rather than creating your own, because that's the only way to be "Ultramarines" or whatever.

 

Such a shame.

[appiah4]

26 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

I'm certainly not particularly impressed with the additional army rules that are replacing subfaction special rules. The Space Marines Detachment rules appear to be homage to Codex Chapters with the old Doctrines but not sure what subfaction the Eldar, Ork, Chaos Marines etc are supposed to represent?

 

And if they're not representing a subfaction, then why are they even a thing?

 

Detachment rules are turning out to be my biggest problem with 10th, followed by every unit getting a special rule or 2 across every faction. Just too many special rules for no real reason but most of all, GW are removing Subfactions and replacing them with Detachments which basically means everything counts as everything in the same faction which just... sucks.

 

Reminds me of the death of the Chaos Marines 3.5 Codex all over again. Special characters in every army rather than creating your own, because that's the only way to be "Ultramarines" or whatever.

 

Such a shame.

 

This is but one of my gripes with what I have seen so far but you've put it into words so much better than I could.

 

But then, we all know the reason for this is NOT because they can't write better rules, but because they want to sell outrageously overpriced character models while at the same time further and further limiting modularity and moddability of the range.

 

God forbid someone can kitbash an alternative to their $50 single model plastic kit and paint it in a different color.. let alone some other company build a proxy model for an option they do not have at 1/3 the price..

Edited May 26, 2023 by appiah4

[Prim]

I used to love 5th ed, I tolerated 6th and gave up on 7th. I hated the way 8th changed things like vehicle armour and where you drew LoS from, but I gave it a shot before I threw in the towel. I never even tried 9th. When 10th was announced, I was optimistic at first. All of the changes sounded fairly positive and I was looking forward to each new preview every day. But as time has passed, my interest has waned. While GW's stated goals sound good, it seems like they aren't hitting them. Bringing back USR's is good, but then they give the same rule to two units and name them differently. Reducing rerolls is good, but the previews show that there are still lots of them. Every army and unit seems to have a special rule or two on its datasheet, which doesn't reduce bloat, it just spreads it elsewhere.

 

So while the rules layout is dreadful, some units are clearly over/under valued and the FAQ's are barely worth the effort of downloading, I plan on sticking to the 30K rules. 

[Xenith]

25 minutes ago, Prim said:

I used to love 5th ed, I tolerated 6th and gave up on 7th

 

Between that and the old school terminator in your avatar, sounds like you need to join us in the heresy! 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 5/25/2023 at 4:36 AM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Red Thirst got you again Son of Sanguinius???

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

Heretics have some very spicy blood

[aura_enchanted]

very much so but not by the rules reveals, its more that the prices are getting seriously beyond my means, i think that i will not play anymore if this is how games workshop wants to be, its simply getting no longer feesable to supply yourself with what you need to fight a battle

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, aura_enchanted said:

very much so but not by the rules reveals, its more that the prices are getting seriously beyond my means, i think that i will not play anymore if this is how games workshop wants to be, its simply getting no longer feesable to supply yourself with what you need to fight a battle

 

"if this is how games workshop wants to be"

when accounting for inflation prices haven't really risen except for character models. most nations have simply had relatively stagnate wages while inflation has continued on.

 

[Atrus]

Yeah my excitement for 10th died with much of my armies faction focuses.

The gutting of necrons reanimation takes a lot of the fun of them out of it fir me.

Sisters seeming to be built around act of faith in order to be functional.

 

I don't see myself embracing 10th at this stage.  8th was gutted of practically all battlefield tactics /positioning/pay-offs and turned into a very gamey game and not a wargame like it was in previous editions.

9th continued that and looks like 10 will continue the trend.

Giving serious thought to just going back to 5th ed.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Atrus

[Interrogator Stobz]

8 hours ago, Atrus said:

Yeah my excitement for 10th died with much of my armies faction focuses.

The gutting of necrons reanimation takes a lot of the fun of them out of it fir me.

Sisters seeming to be built around act of faith in order to be functional.

 

I don't see myself embracing 10th at this stage.  8th was gutted of practically all battlefield tactics /positioning/pay-offs and turned into a very gamey game and not a wargame like it was in previous editions.

9th continued that and looks like 10 will continue the trend.

Giving serious thought to just going back to 5th ed.

Agreed. The removal of spacial skills from the game is not for everyone. 

 

I do think 10th will be better than 8th and 9th as the balance, at least for the short term will be better. 

Mathhammer games need to be a bit simple or they are too hard to balance. This streamlined approach may yet work put OK.

I mean it's not as good as templates, arcs and guessing ranges but nothing is perfect. 

[Lord_Valorion]

First I wasn't hyped, I was angry that all books become obsolete again. Then I was a little hyped, but the Hype died, everything is so exhausting, this goddamn drip feed. Just interested in Heresy now.

[appiah4]

I really look forward to someone releasing the 40K version of "The IX Age".  Just give me "The 40K Age" that feels and plays like 4E/5E and has no units beyond 7E.  Done.

Edited May 27, 2023 by appiah4

[WrathOfTheLion]

I'm not less excited, just somewhat indifferent. They started the drip feed of rules and all really early this time, so it was only natural that interest would waver before we get the actual release. I knew it would happen, so for me I'm just waiting for it to come out in what, three or four weeks?

[Karhedron]

On 5/26/2023 at 12:04 PM, Captain Idaho said:

Detachment rules are turning out to be my biggest problem with 10th, followed by every unit getting a special rule or 2 across every faction. Just too many special rules for no real reason but most of all, GW are removing Subfactions and replacing them with Detachments which basically means everything counts as everything in the same faction which just... sucks.

 

I really like the unit special rules, now we have a good reason to take units beyond their raw killing power. I think GW noticed that Space Marine players were gravitating towards Infiltrators for Troop tax because their special rules. As far as we can tell, Troop tax is not going to be a thing in 10th so we need a different reason to take the "basic" units for each army. Frankly I am really glad that I can take units because I like their rules rather than because GW has decided I need to take 3 Troop units, however rubbish they are. The good thing is the special rules are printed with the unit rules so they won't really cause bloat because you just take the units you want and the rules come with them.

 

I also have a concern about subfactions/detachments but since we haven't really seen any examples of how subfaction rules are going to be implemented, I don't know what to think. I gather BAs, DAs SWs will be getting an article next week so that should give us a much better idea of how GW plan to handle subfactions. I will worry (or not) after I have read that.

[spessmarine]

On 5/26/2023 at 5:04 AM, Captain Idaho said:

I'm certainly not particularly impressed with the additional army rules that are replacing subfaction special rules. The Space Marines Detachment rules appear to be homage to Codex Chapters with the old Doctrines but not sure what subfaction the Eldar, Ork, Chaos Marines etc are supposed to represent?

 

And if they're not representing a subfaction, then why are they even a thing?

 

Detachment rules are turning out to be my biggest problem with 10th, followed by every unit getting a special rule or 2 across every faction. Just too many special rules for no real reason but most of all, GW are removing Subfactions and replacing them with Detachments which basically means everything counts as everything in the same faction which just... sucks.

 

Reminds me of the death of the Chaos Marines 3.5 Codex all over again. Special characters in every army rather than creating your own, because that's the only way to be "Ultramarines" or whatever.

 

Such a shame.

 

I think the SoB detachment may be the template for sub-factions of importance. It is OoOML in all but name. So you can run it but it isn't so strictly named as to constrain paintjobs, which seems to be something GW wants to avoid?

So the UM detachment in this scenario would be called, Codex Exemplars or something and is Ultramarines in all but name. Not sure how relics would play out in such a case.

 

 

[phandaal]

11 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I'm not less excited, just somewhat indifferent. They started the drip feed of rules and all really early this time, so it was only natural that interest would waver before we get the actual release. I knew it would happen, so for me I'm just waiting for it to come out in what, three or four weeks?

 

This is where I am. My hype limit is pretty low, so I got my fill early on and now it is just a waiting game.

[Doghouse]

I'm wondering if the drip feed is anything to do with the impact of leaks in recent times.

 

I am really trying to get interested in this edition but struggling. I was putting together some ideas but if we can't take allies it kind of puts the dampeners on it for me. Ideally if agents of the Imperium allows you to take Death Watch with things like storm troopers and breachers lead by an inquisitor or rogue trader I may take a crack.

[WrathOfTheLion]

3 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

I'm wondering if the drip feed is anything to do with the impact of leaks in recent times.

 

I am really trying to get interested in this edition but struggling. I was putting together some ideas but if we can't take allies it kind of puts the dampeners on it for me. Ideally if agents of the Imperium allows you to take Death Watch with things like storm troopers and breachers lead by an inquisitor or rogue trader I may take a crack.

I think so. Since all the stuff ends up leaked anyways, I think they decided to just start putting the information out earlier instead of holding out on a ton of it. They went all out giving quite a bit of rules information since Adepticon back in March, so it's been two months.

 

Again, it's why I'm just not worrying about it until I got some indexes to read through. We're in kind of a simmer of information, but once those drop, that'll change overnight.

[Dr. Clock]

On 5/26/2023 at 7:04 AM, Captain Idaho said:

everything counts as everything in the same faction

Excepting, likely, unique units and Legendaries. So very likely no Astorath and Blood Claws, and indeed no Adrax and Korsarro together. Hard to tell.

 

But overall? For me this seems like a welcome change, as long as they can avoid the risk of poor balance between Detachments, and they include enough of them (thinking 6?) to make the actual Codexes worth the time and expense.

 

I think it'll be really interesting to be able to play, say, Eldrad in a bike-themed list, or change the focus of my Salamanders from 'mounted assault' to 'Fury of the Firedrakes' between games depending on what minis I want to use that day.

 

The problem with the 'sub-factions' model is that it disincentivizes broad/deep collections by basically telling people 'always focus on this specific thing your sub-faction does better than comparators'. Like, why shouldn't Kayvaan show up from time to time in support of a lightning assault formation of bikes and speeders, with the relevant strategies to the theme?

 

Strong sub-faction rules also tend to divide people into 'never substitute' or 'just choose best rules for list I have/want' camps, to no small degree of tooth gnashing. I've been treading this line differently depending on the army for years, refusing to play my Salamanders or Ulthwé as anything but, while giving my DIY Khorne, Drukhari and esp. GSC complete license based on what I'm trying to accomplish in a list.

 

My favorite part of this is truly that it separates the hobby and game so as to leave us with more creative space in colour schemes at the table. For instance, it makes me feel alot better about fielding my Lamenters terminators (Space Hulk sculpts) and Salamanders together in a post-Badab bro-fest crusade list. This becomes a unified 'First Co.' theme force instead of just having to handwave them as 'all Salamanders for this game I guess' forever.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

[Captain Idaho]

The thing is, you always could take these variant takes on your armies. I ran my Ultramarines like Iron Hands - basic infantry, Terminators and Dreadnoughts with some big tanks thrown in. I had Ultramarines themed rules for the pleasure.

 

Sure GW didn't do great at balancing things internally so it wasn't always wise to take a bike mounted Imperial Fists army, but you always could do that.

[bigtrouble]

I can understand being disappointed by some of the changes, especially because this edition is clearly trying to be competitively balanced, and that means losing some of the variety that comes with sub-factions, etc. This can appear really bad for some factions (poor Death Guard) in the previews.

 

If things play out the way it seems they are going though, the changes shouldn’t be a net nerf for any faction for long. The focus on slimming down rules to only datasheets and a 2 page spread means it’s vastly easier to get balance updates pushed out. When we see codexes bring back unique unit rules, new detachments, and such, I expect that we’ll be used to the basics enough that we’ll all appreciate it.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bigtrouble said:

I can understand being disappointed by some of the changes, especially because this edition is clearly trying to be competitively balanced, and that means losing some of the variety that comes with sub-factions, etc. This can appear really bad for some factions (poor Death Guard) in the previews.

 

If things play out the way it seems they are going though, the changes shouldn’t be a net nerf for any faction for long. The focus on slimming down rules to only datasheets and a 2 page spread means it’s vastly easier to get balance updates pushed out. When we see codexes bring back unique unit rules, new detachments, and such, I expect that we’ll be used to the basics enough that we’ll all appreciate it.

The problem is that power creep is an inevitable result of GW wanting to sell the latest hotness. If said hotness is later nerfed, there is a moral hazard as long as GW doesn’t go all digital “living rules” as I could see some players “forgetting” to carry around errata that nerfs their units from the printed codex rules.

 

That said, 10th is looking to be a big step in the right direction from the cluster of 9th.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Rain

[Doghouse]

I think ultimately the fate of 10th will be we'll get the same as with 9th starting off modestly then have it eventually collapse under it's own weight and then sell us 11th. 

 

I want to believe they will keep it trim but have little faith in them doing so.

[ZeroWolf]

To be fair, 11th edition will be the one where all the bugbears of 9th are addressed as they'll be discussing it right now and start proper production on it soon enough.

[Dr. Clock]

4 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

The thing is, you always could take these variant takes on your armies.

Yes - and the same is likely to be true when the multiple detachment rules appear: there are unlikely to be 'Army of Renown' style restrictions to access different Detachments, meaning the choice will be almost arbitrary as long as you're following the rule of 3. My guess is that if Detachments change army construction options at all, they will simply assign Battleline to one or more units, say Outriders & Bike squads for 'Lightning Assault' marines. That change might come alongside the removal of Battleline from Heavy Intercessors and Infiltrators (two units because we probably want to follow a one-in-one-out principle).

 

It seems like GW really wants the gloves to be off in terms of our traditional 'FOC' mindset: no more battlefield roles, just rule of 6/3/1/n for Battleline, 'Conventional', Legendary and Dedicated Transports. The fact that we basically never have to think through a limitation on Fast Attack slots just to take a third bike squad alongside 2 jump troops and 2 speeders or whatever opens the sandbox in a way that puts this amongst the biggest 'meta' changes since 3rd edition. Heck - if this is the last time I need to think or read the phrase 'Troops Tax' then it'll be a clear win on that score alone lol.

 

I prefer this model because it means that I can more 'pick the list first and then see which Detachment best applies to my (daily) vision of it' without having to feel like I'm disgracing my faction by playing Eldrad in a Swordwind list one day and a Windrider the next, even if I haven't changed the list at all. I want to change my list, Traits, Relics and Strats each game, more or less, and doing it through detachments rather than 'sub-factions' gives everyone pretty much the same license to just play around and find the combination of units, colours and army rules that suit them best, whatever their reasoning, and without gatekeeping. 

 

I certainly understand the appeal of being 'officially' not just in a faction, but 'authorized as Chapter X', and having that label connect to the game to differentiate myself from 'the same list but Chapter Y'. Losing this does feel like it puts about 20 pins in any hopes that one day all Primogenitor Chapters will have their own books, or at least 'bespoke unique/representative unit'. It nevertheless feels like every time they've tried to differentiate much across sub-factions, one or two possible choices tend to rise above the others for efficiency in a way that too easily alienates players, whether because they're 'stuck' with rules that are just pretty bad in comparison, or because they feel stigma when playing their list as 'something it's not'.

 

In sum, I dislike having to make the choice between using the cool rule and using the 'army name' or colourway(s) that I like. I will be happy to be rid of that particular burden, even if it means I can never claim the arguable cache of having stuck with a Chapter 'even when they were bad'.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.