Tenth Edition is really First Edition

[jaxom]

Hear me out. I think there's been such a change between what has come before and what has come now, that the current edition of 40k is like 1st edition AoS. It's a not-so-clean break from previous editions. The rules team still haven't really nailed down parts of the game and how army rules should work. It's half-baked on release, with a slow codex release schedule.

[Noserenda]

I mean, i dont like the armylists but 10th is clearly an iteration of 9th (And 8th).

And i dont think any edition has ever really nailed down how things are rolling with the first few codexes, its long been common knowledge that an early codex is a bad thing long term.

 

[DemonGSides]

Yeah this post is about 6 years too late. The rules are very much just a permutation of the 8th ed paradigm.

 

I also hate current force org but the actual rules are mostly fine. Theres annoyance on the edges and among some very important things, and the financials side is as greedy as ever, but otherwise 10th is fine. Not as good as 9th at the end of it but that had years of fixes baked in and full codex support.  10th'll get there (and then 11th sill be announced LOL)

[jaxom]

I think it's different from 8th and 9th in a few vital ways that make those successors to the 3rd-7th edition paradigm, while 10th is not. The lack of any sort of force organisation, single costs for units, the change to how psykers work; they've junked what were core components of the rules system and balance paradigm.

[Tyriks]

I do agree that 10th is more of a change than 9th was. But 8th was a complete overhaul of basically every part of the game. We had then huge changes to how points were calculated, how psychic powers worked and force organization, but also changes to movement, armor facing, how to wound, unit types, keywords, stratagems, et cetera.

 

And 9th did end up being fairly balanced, but the process of getting there was so turbulent it basically killed the hobby in my regular group. I like the slower, gentler approach to fixes. Remains to be seen if they'll screw it up, though.

[jaxom]

I think I understand where you all are coming from and I agree to a large amount of it. For me, there was the removal of so many of the balancing factors between 9th and 10th. Like rule-mechanics of 10th are a clear extension from 8th while the list-mechanics are all new(ish).

[TheArtilleryman]

It’s more like:

 

Rogue Trader = 1st

2nd edition = 2nd

3rd-7th = 3rd

8th-9th = 4th

10th = 5th

 

My reasoning behind this list is that the rule set at each of those points changed so dramatically that codexes became incompatible.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, TheArtilleryman said:

It’s more like:

 

Rogue Trader = 1st

2nd edition = 2nd

3rd-7th = 3rd

8th-9th = 4th

10th = 5th

 

My reasoning behind this list is that the rule set at each of those points changed so dramatically that codexes became incompatible.

 

While I think the codex bit is the important part about generations, if we're talking Rule-sets and how they operate, I think you would just not have a 5th gen rules, as 8th,9th and 10th are basically the same rule set with some specific indiosyncracies; it's when we saw the removal of the various Tables, the removal of templates, big changes to wargear and how it works, huge changes to unit organizations, and a major change in how the basics of the game itself work.

So;

 

RT - 1st Gen or maybe even 0th Gen

2nd Edition - 2nd Gen

3rd-7th - 3rd Gen

8th-10th - 4th Gen

I do agree that force organization is massively different, but in that same vein, Force Organization by the end of 7th edition was almost a completely different beast with how it operated than it did in 6th, but I wouldn't give 7th it's own generation (Though I think I could be talked into making 6th and 7th their own Generation, as they have a very specific feel, IMO), so I don't think it's really enough to justify.  Removal of Psychic Phase may be a good argument, though I would counter it with "The phase is now just every other phase of the game, mostly consolidated in Shooting.", so it's not like Psychic doesn't exist anymore, it's just not special.  Agreed that's a large difference, but I think games of 10th feel almost exactly the same as 9th in mechanics, tho how those mechanics interact within unit interaction is definitely very different, whereas 8th and 9th felt like basically the same game, and if they had called it 8.5th edition, that would've made sense to me, too.

Regarding your specific reasoning; I think that you could probably use most of 9th editions codexes in 10th edition without TOO much issue.  I know that they didn't go that way, and did an 8th ed style Index, but I don't think they HAD to.  It would've definitely required some different decisions, but the games themselves would work almost exactly the same, and if they had said "With your new codex, your units will switch to our new profile style.", you could probably have made it work; I do think the beginning of 10th would've been even worse, but it would've been cool if they had done a hybrid style, let your codex stand but here's all the new index profiles.  Maybe that would've been even messier LOL

Just my two cents!

Edited February 28 by DemonGSides

[ThePenitentOne]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

Regarding your specific reasoning; I think that you could probably use most of 9th editions codexes in 10th edition without TOO much issue.  I know that they didn't go that way, and did an 8th ed style Index, but I don't think they HAD to.  It would've definitely required some different decisions, but the games themselves would work almost exactly the same, and if they had said "With your new codex, your units will switch to our new profile style.", you could probably have made it work; I do think the beginning of 10th would've been even worse, but it would've been cool if they had done a hybrid style, let your codex stand but here's all the new index profiles.  Maybe that would've been even messier LOL

Just my two cents!

There are a lot of folks who share this point of view, but I'm with @TheArtilleryman; I personally feel that 10th is its own beast.

 

Any 9th ed dex will beat any 10th ed dex on the basis of strats alone. Even if you forced the 9th player to pick their favourite six, they'd still have better odds for having no duds in their six. And if I played 9th ed GK or Ksons? You wouldn't survive past the second psychic phase (since no matter what you were playing, you'd have zero capacity to act in the psychic phase and little if any opportunity to deny the witch).

 

I agree that of all the editions, 10th certainly does share the most in common with 8/9, but that's not the debate. 10th also blew up some of the things that were unique (and awesome) for 9th. I'm thinking specifically about rules representing subfaction identity for every faction in the game; build your own subfaction rules for every faction in the game and non-equipment unit upgrades for more factions than any other edition in history. The absence of those things goes beyond rules.

 

And don't even get me started on the way 10th just gutted the psychic phase.

 

And it does depend on the armies you play. If you primarily play Marines, you will not have even notice the subfaction stuff, because you've been privileged enough to have it for every edition since 2nd, and you continue to have the privilege of knowing that even if everyone else loses subfaction as a meaningful, in-game identity marker, you never will. There will always be mechanical differences for BA, DA and SW, as well as bespoke units. Right now, DA have more detachment options than any other faction in the game, and only BA and SW will ever catch up... Though it is possible that GK and DW will catch up, and depending upon the wording in the dexes, it's also possible for DG, Ksons, WE and EC to do it too... But it's unlikely.

 

If you play Sisters, from 2nd-7th it made no difference which subfaction you played. It was cool that it mattered in 8th/9th, and it's a shame that it's gone back to being meaningless in 10th. It will be cool to paint up 1 BSS and one character each Order and field them as an Honour Guard for the Triumph. In 9th, you could only legally get away with fielding 4/6 Orders, and even then only in a 3k game. But in 9th there would be a difference in the way each of those 4 Orders fought. In 10th, sure you can field all 6, but only because it makes no difference how many Orders you field when they're all the same.

Edited February 29 by ThePenitentOne

[Frogian]

Isn't that last bit mainly due to having no codex? Once they do they will surely have multiple detachments that represent the different orders.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, Frogian said:

Isn't that last bit mainly due to having no codex? Once they do they will surely have multiple detachments that represent the different orders.

Even when the codex comes out, they’ll still “play the same” within the same style of army. There were a lot of discussions about subfaction identity and detachments when 10th dropped. Long story short, if one really gets into a subfaction, a detachment is a poor substitute.

[Emperor Ming]

If you work for the Ordo Chronos

 

Then maybe