Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can get behind a giant tome of chaos with tons of options.
But I wouldn’t remove any existing armies.

 Tyran wrote:
The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".

Based on GWs sales history from 2001 (Tau) to 2016 (AoS) I would think it's you who dares to enjoy what the majority did not.
The only thing that saved GW was letting other companies use the IP for videogames. A market that directly impacts their own.

Uptonius wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.

Ok explain these last two to me.

The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".

Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.

Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.

I didn't stutter.

"Sorry Dave we scrapped 5 of the armies planned for the next 5 years, I know you're a miniatures designer, but you're a playtester now. Yes, we know you didn't sign up for that. Yes we know we FAQ once a year and yes we expect you to drastically improve the game playtesting... on your own." Signed, 5th ed GW.

Uptonius wrote:

Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.

Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.

I didn't stutter.

I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".

Kinda hypocritical don't you think?

Uptonius wrote:
Based on GWs sales history from 2001 (Tau) to 2016 (AoS) I would think it's you who dares to enjoy what the majority did not.
The only thing that saved GW was letting other companies use the IP for videogames. A market that directly impacts their own.

That's utter tosh. Licensing to game developers didn't "save" GW, getting rid of a poor sales system and revitalising its flagship products did.

Uptonius wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.

Ok explain these last two to me.

The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".

Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.

Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.

I didn't stutter.

I agree with many of these. Particularly knights belonging in Epic or Apocalypse. Might be different if GW put a shred of effort into their rules but I after 5 editions with the bastards I think it's pretty clear that's never going to happen.

However, Harlequins seem a bit of an odd one to complain about. It's not as if GW has invested many resources into them to begin with. They've got what? 10 models in this entire repitoir? And since 9th, they haven't even had their own codex.

 Tyran wrote:

Uptonius wrote:

Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.

Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.

I didn't stutter.

I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".

Kinda hypocritical don't you think?

Does Uptonius play GSC?

 Tyran wrote:
I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".

Kinda hypocritical don't you think?

I'm not sure there is a rationality - but I think there is a sort of argument that GSC represent a meaningfully different army/way to play - especially if GW aren't going to do a full on Chaos Cultist list.

I think you can argue knights don't belong in a skirmish scale game, and endless flavours of Marine are somewhat redundant.

I mean its an old saw for me - but I think Grey Knights would be much better represent to the fluff by having one super-mega Marine - who is half chapter master, half chief-librarian that you take like an Assassin or something. Rather than a whole army. Because that forces you to go "these are just... kinda... better Marines who are all psykers, and all get force weapons, and storm bolters, and teleporters because idk it seemed cool at the time."
But then I'd apply that to thing like Custodes. One should be a massive thing in itself. A whole army of them inevitably forces them to be kind of nothing special.

Its arguably the same as Harlequins. Are they giving you anything you aren't getting (or should be getting) from the other flavours of Eldar? As a colourful/flavourful allied unit its fine. As a whole army, you are stepping on everyone's design space.

But the ship has sort of sailed.

Isn't that list missing the most obvious too rare army? Custodes?

Has 10th drained the soul?

Are you sure you’re not thinking of 3rd Ed? When yes, 2nd did need an overhaul and refinement, but nobody had suggested putting baby and bath water on one of the ICBM’s Superman threw into the sun in Superman IV, The Quest for Peace.

But as for 10th? Way too early to say.

We’re barely 2 Codexes in, and given we no longer have FOC restrictions? There’s a lot of bedding in and fiddling around for folks to get used to.

The next two Codexes out of the gate (Ad Mech and Necrons) are release light, each getting a single character type model. But, both of those armies have had a lot of attention. Necrons in 9th, and Ad Mech have come from a standing start in…….I wanna say late 7th Ed, to become a force with a decent range of kits and units.

So in terms of what we can really expect Codex wise is still settling, and who can expect what releases wise remains entirely up in the air.

Wayniac wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Still, something is missing from the current editions. Even just look at the miniatures. A lot of the old ones just had way more "life" than the new. Compare a space marine army around 5th or 6th edition to 8th/9th/10th. The old one carries a lot more appeal, both visually and in composition, and I can't fully explain why.

It's the monopose, over-repeated CAD designs throughout the armies, belief the "GW way" is the only way to paint them (e.g. Marines must be edge highlighted, because someone said so...), the general tone on the internet that any GW model over ~8 years old is "trash" and desperately in need of an update (so won't be included in said armies) and a lack of incentive (or even knowledge) to convert. Every single army now just looks far too samey and homogenised. It's just boring to look at people's armies now that are mainly composed of modern GW plastics. Sure, they look good, but there's no life to them. Coupled with the internet's general obsession with "the meta" and where random army placed in some tournament in bumfeth nowhere, and you just get the same things repeated ad nauseum.

Yeah, that sounds right. And the scale creep on models so that even relatively new but still old ones don't look right against brand new ones.

Yeah they want people to replace entire collections/rebuild armies. If I buy anything now, it's to the 2nd-7th scale . . . And on ebay, because I don't want to give GW any money. I'm in the "miniature rescue" hobby now.

Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.

Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.

New terminators are ever so slightly taller than the chaos terminators. Again just enough to be noticeable but not like firstborn vs primaris; pretty comparable to old Mk3 and new Mk3 differences. Put them side by side and it'll look off.

Which shows the issue more because there's no consistency at all with the designers. Scale is all over the place.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.

Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.

Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.

Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.

Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.

Yeah playability is totally a thing . . . but so is visual consistency. I'll take the more consistent scale of the classic lines. Not to mention the smaller model bases being used on larger tables.

You know what was really wild to see, was the scale discrepancies in the HH starter kit. If I remember it was the plastic Cataphracti, the new MkVI sculpts, and then the hero models, all looked like they were modelled to different scales.

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.

Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.

Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.

Yeah playability is totally a thing . . . but so is visual consistency. I'll take the more consistent scale of the classic lines. Not to mention the smaller model bases being used on larger tables.

You know what was really wild to see, was the scale discrepancies in the HH starter kit. If I remember it was the plastic Cataphracti, the new MkVI sculpts, and then the hero models, all looked like they were modelled to different scales.

The scale for 40k has always been all over the place, an ork boy, tactical marine, eldar guardian, cadian are all awfully similar in height mini wise if you get their 3rd/4th ed counterparts. I seem to recall firewarriors being a but dumpy in comparison, but it's still a bit of a mess.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.

Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.

Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.

Yeah playability is totally a thing . . . but so is visual consistency. I'll take the more consistent scale of the classic lines. Not to mention the smaller model bases being used on larger tables.

You know what was really wild to see, was the scale discrepancies in the HH starter kit. If I remember it was the plastic Cataphracti, the new MkVI sculpts, and then the hero models, all looked like they were modelled to different scales.

The scale for 40k has always been all over the place, an ork boy, tactical marine, eldar guardian, cadian are all awfully similar in height mini wise if you get their 3rd/4th ed counterparts. I seem to recall firewarriors being a but dumpy in comparison, but it's still a bit of a mess.

I don't mind minor discrepancies between different armies, except is certain circumstances (Chaos Terminators compared to loyalist Terminators, for example, since they're wearing the same armor). What I'm collecting is armies. I want those to be more internally consistent. It's more important to me that all the infantry within an army match up well with each other and the vehicles that they travel with. The scaling issue with the modern kits is that the scale consistencies within armies has started coming apart more, like with the HH starter example. A secondary issue is that the size of some models just makes them much more unplayable. Larger bases don't pack into urban terrain as easily. It's hard to keep a Greater Daemon out of LOS. Stuff like that.

But even in the old days, the old Marine vs. Guardsman thing never bugged me too much because the Marine models looked sufficiently more impressive in size at a tabletop distance. The visual narrative between a Marine at the time and the Guardsman at the time remained consistent because the Marine still looks like he would smash the Guardsman even though they are a more comparable height. I also started in an era when Marines weren't depicted as being so gigantic anyways.

As much as I dislike the fluff behind the change (unnecessary, they could have just released Primaris as new version of marine models, no change in fluff or rules) the visual change is striking and absolutely for the best for me.

Old marines look so derpy with absurd proportions, like from a Nick Park movie. They looked derpy for me then (never wanted a marine army when I played wh40k) but now, in comparison they are just laughable. I think what was the most ridiculous for me was always how tiny skinny they have to be under this armour. Just compare their thighs with, say an Imperial Guardsman arms. And these huge helmetless heads (bigger then helmet onesXD ) coming out of those gummy bear bodies... Old marines were awful, just admit

 Gert wrote:

Uptonius wrote:
Based on GWs sales history from 2001 (Tau) to 2016 (AoS) I would think it's you who dares to enjoy what the majority did not.
The only thing that saved GW was letting other companies use the IP for videogames. A market that directly impacts their own.

That's utter tosh. Licensing to game developers didn't "save" GW, getting rid of a poor sales system and revitalising its flagship products did.

I was just going off of market research and the GW marketing teams own words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

Uptonius wrote:

Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.

Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.

I didn't stutter.

I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".

Kinda hypocritical don't you think?

Not at all. GSC were a reasonable good addition to the game. A non-power armored faction. They also had a niche to fill.
Small roster? ... Really?

I forgot Custodes because I never considered them a legitimate faction.

Cyel wrote:
As much as I dislike the fluff behind the change (unnecessary, they could have just released Primaris as new version of marine models, no change in fluff or rules) the visual change is striking and absolutely for the best for me.

Old marines look so derpy with absurd proportions, like from a Nick Park movie. They looked derpy for me then (never wanted a marine army when I played wh40k) but now, in comparison they are just laughable. I think what was the most ridiculous for me was always how tiny skinny they have to be under this armour. Just compare their thighs with, say an Imperial Guardsman arms. And these huge helmetless heads (bigger then helmet onesXD ) coming out of those gummy bear bodies... Old marines were awful, just admit

Kind of have to agree. As much as I didn't like the idea of "upgrading" my marine models to the modern scale, looking back on the old models now that I'm used to the new scale, the old ones look bloody awful

What is painful about this is the fact that the "new scale" is a relatively new concept, and the vast majority of all models are stuck in the old scales.. which means the scales are all over the place unless you seriously limit what you are fileding in your army

That's the worst part about them constantly messing with the scale. If you want to use certain models, they can look stupidly out of place. Like using 1/72 scale and 1/56 scale together type of nonsense.

Has 40k lost its soul? I wouldn't say it's lost it, more that its soul has changed.

I've played since mid-4th and I think 10th is the most rounded edition we've had since 5th. We've had some real shitstorms of rules issues and powerplays but I like to think most, if not all of these have been ironed out at the start of 10th.

From my perspective, the changing nature is two-fold:
- Crucify me all you like, but it seems that the regular thing to do now is just criticise, moan and bitch about GW for every single thing they do*. No, GW isn't perfect. Not even close, but I've seen on various sites and social medias how some users seem to just get off on finding any reason to whine about something for no actual reason other than to appear contrarian and in their minds, superior. I mean most of the threads I see on here are just finding a reason to complain. Hell, I even saw a FB post a couple of paragraphs long complaining why two Drones in the old Tau book were different colours to the rest, with the typical hyperbole of "typical GW, sloppy work, why should anyone pay for it, etc, etc".

- The overall aesthetic and theme has markedly changed. When I first started this hobby the Warhammer sets were in the toyshop amongst all the other models, and they were this distinct image of grimdark against the more colourful Airfix and diecast sets. They looked far more adult than the surrounding products. Now it's cleaner, there's less grimdark and more child/teen-friendly imagery. I'm not stating this to be a good or bad thing; I don't know whether it's just expanding their player base or due to various political interpretations, but it's significantly different from the ones I grew up with.


So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.



*Yes I'm well aware of the irony of complaining about people complaining, so don't bother pointing that out.

 Valkyrie wrote:
So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.

This is, I think, the real point. The game now is basically unrecognizable from the game back in its heyday. 2nd/3rd/4th even 5th. Both in visuals, and in approach/style.

Wayniac wrote:
That's the worst part about them constantly messing with the scale. If you want to use certain models, they can look stupidly out of place. Like using 1/72 scale and 1/56 scale together type of nonsense.

Just on the scale point, I'd say there's also an issue with 'diorama' models.

Partially because it makes models far larger than they need to be but also because of the 'soulless' aspect. The Silent King is one of the best examples of this. There's obviously a load of detail on his throne, but the Silent King himself might as well be Necron #11472. He's far less visually interesting than characters like the Stormlord or Anrakyr, and has less personality than even the Necron Lord from back in 3rd edition.

Cyel wrote:
As much as I dislike the fluff behind the change (unnecessary, they could have just released Primaris as new version of marine models, no change in fluff or rules) the visual change is striking and absolutely for the best for me.

Old marines look so derpy with absurd proportions, like from a Nick Park movie. They looked derpy for me then (never wanted a marine army when I played wh40k) but now, in comparison they are just laughable. I think what was the most ridiculous for me was always how tiny skinny they have to be under this armour. Just compare their thighs with, say an Imperial Guardsman arms. And these huge helmetless heads (bigger then helmet onesXD ) coming out of those gummy bear bodies... Old marines were awful, just admit

See, i see those and go: "Oh, I want some!" It's also not a fair comparison because those aren't the current devestator squad, those are pretty clearly the old ones, as they're on 25mm. Better comparison is this:



But I will concede that the technology has advanced and models that were good then are rough now. My issue is that whenever they update a kit, especially from marines, they suck absolutely everything I like about the kit from it, from aestetics to build process.

Wayniac wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.

This is, I think, the real point. The game now is basically unrecognizable from the game back in its heyday. 2nd/3rd/4th even 5th. Both in visuals, and in approach/style.

Not sure I agree with you. Sure, marines have changed, and a couple factions have been added, but what else has visually changed? Take eldar for example, I don't see much diff to how they looked in 2nd edition times vs how they look now

 tauist wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.

This is, I think, the real point. The game now is basically unrecognizable from the game back in its heyday. 2nd/3rd/4th even 5th. Both in visuals, and in approach/style.

Not sure I agree with you. Sure, marines have changed, and a couple factions have been added, but what else has visually changed? Take eldar for example, I don't see much diff to how they looked in 2nd edition times vs how they look now

It's hard to cite a specific reason. But I look at old battle reports from White Dwarf during 2nd/3rd/4th edition, and they look nothing at all like battle reports of today, visually. They look better, more unique, more interesting, more appealing. I just can't explain WHY.

I sorta think that 40K is coming out of its GrimDerp phase, not entire sure where it started.

Now I just think it’s fairly Average stuff, there some good ideas in there but GW isn’t good at getting them out.
And some awful writing that really should be buried away as Imperial propaganda, a scribe being heretical or an insane inquisitor.

Some factions I think narrative wise have lost their soul, Eldar feel a bit like they got no ideas after their last one got shuttered.
Necrons I think were a good idea, but now have some of the worst writing I think I have read for a miniature game ever.

And I just think it’s lack of focus at GW on the setting, even the big event things tend to feel small since they just don’t get the big universe they have.

As for the rules, 40K been bad a while now. No one really cares, so GW won’t.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

See, i see those and go: "Oh, I want some!" It's also not a fair comparison because those aren't the current devestator squad, those are pretty clearly the old ones, as they're on 25mm. Better comparison is this:

Spoiler:

Oh, these don't look too good either. Take a look at this garden gnome (proportions-wise) sergeant with this huge helmet on top of relatively tiny chest. Try to imagine his body inside this thick armour.

Or for another comparison, take this guy and imagine what his thighs look like. How thick and how long they are under the armour...and now compare them to his head XD

Cyel wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

See, i see those and go: "Oh, I want some!" It's also not a fair comparison because those aren't the current devestator squad, those are pretty clearly the old ones, as they're on 25mm. Better comparison is this:

Spoiler:

Oh, these don't look too good either. Take a look at this garden gnome (proportions-wise) sergeant with this huge helmet on top of relatively tiny chest. Try to imagine his body inside this thick armour.

Or for another comparison, take this guy and imagine what his thighs look like. How thick and how long they are under the armour...and now compare them to his head XD

He's as old as that first devestator squad, they just got reboxed with new bases when they added a monopose captain to the kit.

The thing is though the old models still have a charm that the new ones are lacking. I don't know exactly what it is but while those do look goofy a lot of the old models have a life to them which the current brand of 3D designed ones look bland.

And It can't just be because there are 3D generated because there's plenty of 3D printed models that have life and look a lot more visually interesting