Search Results
6/11/2025, 9:37:14 PM
Anyone have the full version of this?
6/11/2025, 9:08:47 PM
>>95848730
>It sounds cool on paper but in practice it's a mess, usually gamey and uninmersive and way too much to keep track of. Especially if it comes at the cost of wargear and listbuilding being fun and interesting.
Meh, I disagree. That's a lot of subjectivity there. I think we just have different tastes anon. I think listbuilding is plenty fun in 10th and my new recruit is filled with probably 50+ army list concepts. I dont think its way too much to keep track of at all, in fact reading through 2E and 3E codexes with all the wargear units can take it feels like there is way more to keep track in old editions than knew ones. My opponent can just tell me "these guys ignore cover and give everyone else who shoots that unit +1 to hit for the rest of the phase" and most of the time it thematically evokes the unit well and thats pretty easy to grock.
2E/3E had limited unit variety, like legitimately just not a lot of datasheets per army and half of them were epic heroes
4th-6th I have zero experience with
7th edition had ridiculous overpowered keywords and terrible balance (havent played this one, just had horror stories told to me from people ITT)
8th-9th edition had 40+ strats per army that was impossible memorize
10th has rubberband balance with armies being blatantly overpowered one week that barely playable the next
At the end of the day it IS a game, so it being gamey doesnt upset me. I dont think 2E 40k was particularly simulationist or immersive, though I liked all the random effect tables. That was something I really enjoyed at 2E. Each edition I've played has clear weaknesses to me. The character of the game comes from the models and paintjob.
>It sounds cool on paper but in practice it's a mess, usually gamey and uninmersive and way too much to keep track of. Especially if it comes at the cost of wargear and listbuilding being fun and interesting.
Meh, I disagree. That's a lot of subjectivity there. I think we just have different tastes anon. I think listbuilding is plenty fun in 10th and my new recruit is filled with probably 50+ army list concepts. I dont think its way too much to keep track of at all, in fact reading through 2E and 3E codexes with all the wargear units can take it feels like there is way more to keep track in old editions than knew ones. My opponent can just tell me "these guys ignore cover and give everyone else who shoots that unit +1 to hit for the rest of the phase" and most of the time it thematically evokes the unit well and thats pretty easy to grock.
2E/3E had limited unit variety, like legitimately just not a lot of datasheets per army and half of them were epic heroes
4th-6th I have zero experience with
7th edition had ridiculous overpowered keywords and terrible balance (havent played this one, just had horror stories told to me from people ITT)
8th-9th edition had 40+ strats per army that was impossible memorize
10th has rubberband balance with armies being blatantly overpowered one week that barely playable the next
At the end of the day it IS a game, so it being gamey doesnt upset me. I dont think 2E 40k was particularly simulationist or immersive, though I liked all the random effect tables. That was something I really enjoyed at 2E. Each edition I've played has clear weaknesses to me. The character of the game comes from the models and paintjob.
Page 1