A simple fix

[Plague _Lord]

We have to also recognize that CAs are also bad for them game in the long term. Let's take the latest one and the DG nerfs. There is a lot of talk that these nerfs were to be implemented some 6 or more months ago (printing and shipping time) when DG were doing ok in the meta. GW failed to realize that they were doing ok in a meta where half of the factions were still using 8th ed books. So when the nerfs actually came, they came into a meta, in which we have like 6 new 9th codexes. I'm 100% sure these nerfs weren't playtested against these new codexes, cause no sane person would have given it the go.

 

This poses a problem with how to balance a book against the armies it faces in the now at the same time balancing it in accord to future books. I think itvs cumbersome and very hard to do and gw have shot themselves in the foot. The fact that factions with new books also get new supplements doesn't help.

 

There is honestly only one option to fix this - a new edition with streamlined 9th rules that comes along with the release of every codex at the same time. Then you can milk customers with supplements (DLCs) and seasonal mission packs. Not changing the cores rules too much would make this transition an easy accept from the playerbase.

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

Which is my point Halandaar hence why codex slow drip is bad for the game

Right That's what we've been saying all along. You phrased all of this as if you were disagreeing because the "codexes were playtested together"!

Fair because rhe point they were playtested the togetbor but the “codexes” all existed in a form/releasable form at start of 9th. And had the all books released together while some books clear winners regardless it not been the case of 2 factions beinf dominant nerfed fhen 2 more dominant tjen merfed etc

[Valkyrion]

It's sometimes difficult to follow you, schlitzaf, but are you saying that all the books are playtested together and then drip fed to the playerbase? 

GW could release all of the codexes at once because they've been tested against each other, but they choose not to?

So CSM will be one of the last codexes, but Necrons (the first) will have been playtested against it?

 

Are you sure? Or have I misunderstood? 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Valkyrion

[Schlitzaf]

It's sometimes difficult to follow you, schlitzaf, but are you saying that all the books are playtested together and then drip fed to the playerbase?

GW could release all of the codexes at once because they've been tested against each other, but they choose not to?

So CSM will be one of the last codexes, but Necrons (the first) will have been playtested against it?

 

Are you sure? Or have I misunderstood?

That is what I believe to be the case anyways, I don’t know through. But given how GW communicated in the past, and statements they said. And espaxiallt sense we know codexes drip feed of ninth was not intentional (they’ve said as much). My 2 cents

[Schlitzaf]

We have to also recognize that CAs are also bad for them game in the long term. Let's take the latest one and the DG nerfs. There is a lot of talk that these nerfs were to be implemented some 6 or more months ago (printing and shipping time) when DG were doing ok in the meta. GW failed to realize that they were doing ok in a meta where half of the factions were still using 8th ed books. So when the nerfs actually came, they came into a meta, in which we have like 6 new 9th codexes. I'm 100% sure these nerfs weren't playtested against these new codexes, cause no sane person would have given it the go.

 

This poses a problem with how to balance a book against the armies it faces in the now at the same time balancing it in accord to future books. I think itvs cumbersome and very hard to do and gw have shot themselves in the foot. The fact that factions with new books also get new supplements doesn't help.

 

There is honestly only one option to fix this - a new edition with streamlined 9th rules that comes along with the release of every codex at the same time. Then you can milk customers with supplements (DLCs) and seasonal mission packs. Not changing the cores rules too much would make this transition an easy accept from the playerbase.

Pardon dbl post, but to get on my hill. You want to onow who approved those nerfs: This Forum (metaphorically speaking). Go back threw the forum and find every complaint, about OP, nerf pls units etc. The Plagueburst were complained about being not in LoS OP nerf pls. Without placing into context the current situation, GW acts as much on popular sediment as it does on data.

 

So when folks wre sending in FAQ answer without conceptualizing the whole view we get stuff like that. The nerfs are as mewnt to show “We are Listening” as much ws to actually balance. In what world someone thijk the Erad, or various other SM nerfs should have happened?

[Closet Skeleton]

Fire warriors and Necron Warriors need AP because they're in units where everyone has the same basic gun, same reason Intercessors have them. Plague marines can outshoot new fire warriors easily. Marines in cover aren't don't die quickly to AP1, I ran infantry heavy marine lists in over 5 tournaments last year and had no problems with survivability unless I ran into admech with their stupid buff stacking.

 

I'm not a fan of the new Fleshborer statline since it doesn't make sense to me but its one ST5 4+ BS shot, its not better than 2 S4 BS3+ shots in any world. 30 Termagants cost more than 10 intercessors have have no chance in that fight.

 

 

 

I can't speak for how to rewrite the rules to make the game work better, but I do have ideas for improving the overall health of the game.

>Treat tournaments how they should be treated- as a containment unit for powergamers and WAAC types and nothing more. Make it crystal clear that no, tournaments are NOT the standard for the average game of 40K, and that anyone who goes into a regular pickup game or a narrative campaign or whatever with some horribly cheesy netlist will be subject to summary Dreadsocking.

 

 

Sounds to me like you have no tournament experience at all. Big tournaments have a wide range of players, the only cut throat WAAC tournaments are invitationals and small events in big cities. The most toxic WAAC players are the scrubs who are too unsporting to have any fun at a big tournament

 

I've heard tons of stories online of people in small local groups that turn unfun and too power gamey and had maybe a hundred friendly non-power gamed mid-low table tournament games.
 

I agree with you about taking tournament lists to narrative campaigns but pickup games against unknown opponents are inherently similar to tournament games so what's good in one is always going to be the right choice in the other. Its possible to have bad unfun match ups in pick up games between two causal lists that are as one sided as any match between a competative list and a tournament list. I've brought casual lists to tournaments and massacred more meta competative lists due to the match up being in my favour. Playing pick up games just hold an inherent risk of being unfun, the only way to guarantee a balanced fun game is to talk things out with your opponent before either of you write your army lists.

 

Now they've boosted the ap of it to -1, considering it's been ap0 for the best part of 20 years, and then as anything within 12" of the enemy is usually dead in 9th, they've boosted them to 18" range. Now we hav bolters that are worse at penetrating armour than stuff that's bad at penetrating armour.
 

 

12" Shuriken Caterpults might have been around for over 20 years but it was still a mistake 20 years ago. 3rd edition was a rule set where rapid fire weapons could only fire at half range if you moved so Shuriken Caterpults had the same range as bolters since Eldar always wanted to move. 4th ed changed rapid fire but kept Fleshborers and Shuriken Caterpults at the same nerfed range as a stupid artefact that should never have stood for 20 years.

 

I want new codexes with new editions... Editions just need to last longer and codexes come out quicker.

 

 

You can't have quicker codex releases AND better balanced codexes.

 

 

We have to also recognize that CAs are also bad for them game in the long term. Let's take the latest one and the DG nerfs. There is a lot of talk that these nerfs were to be implemented some 6 or more months ago (printing and shipping time) when DG were doing ok in the meta. .

 

DG point changes were necessary and good for the book's internal balance. They were only a nerf because they were focused on internal balance rather than allowing competative builds while being hamstrung by the 18-21 point range assigned across marine books. If you took a casual balanced DG list you barely saw any points rise.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Closet Skeleton

[Plague _Lord]

 

We have to also recognize that CAs are also bad for them game in the long term. Let's take the latest one and the DG nerfs. There is a lot of talk that these nerfs were to be implemented some 6 or more months ago (printing and shipping time) when DG were doing ok in the meta. GW failed to realize that they were doing ok in a meta where half of the factions were still using 8th ed books. So when the nerfs actually came, they came into a meta, in which we have like 6 new 9th codexes. I'm 100% sure these nerfs weren't playtested against these new codexes, cause no sane person would have given it the go.

 

This poses a problem with how to balance a book against the armies it faces in the now at the same time balancing it in accord to future books. I think itvs cumbersome and very hard to do and gw have shot themselves in the foot. The fact that factions with new books also get new supplements doesn't help.

 

There is honestly only one option to fix this - a new edition with streamlined 9th rules that comes along with the release of every codex at the same time. Then you can milk customers with supplements (DLCs) and seasonal mission packs. Not changing the cores rules too much would make this transition an easy accept from the playerbase.

Pardon dbl post, but to get on my hill. You want to onow who approved those nerfs: This Forum (metaphorically speaking). Go back threw the forum and find every complaint, about OP, nerf pls units etc. The Plagueburst were complained about being not in LoS OP nerf pls. Without placing into context the current situation, GW acts as much on popular sediment as it does on data.

 

So when folks wre sending in FAQ answer without conceptualizing the whole view we get stuff like that. The nerfs are as mewnt to show “We are Listening” as much ws to actually balance. In what world someone thijk the Erad, or various other SM nerfs should have happened?

 

 

Sorry but this doesn't make any sense - people cried that PBC were OP so GW went and buffed them with a point decrease. How is that listening lol? Anyway I don't remember anyone saying that PBC or DG was OP at any point and I was studying the competitive curcuit for the whole of ninth. Sure they had their time in the sun when the only other 9th codexes were marines and necrons and even then DG had an about 55% WR.

 

I actually think that DG is a good example that 9th codexes weren't playtested against eachother or even made at the same time. We can see obvious lethality creep and buff creep that you can see in the newer codexes but which necrons and DG lack - for example transhuman in some form in every army - DG and necrons lack this, while elday and Tau have it. There are a lot more tell signs that show us that there is no way that DG, SM and Necrons were playtested against Tau, Custodes or Eldar. Unless GW wanted the first dexes to suck so bad that people would throw themselves at supplements and new books just to level the field - a sound business decision for sure but not healthy for the game.

[Plague _Lord]

You can't have quicker codex releases AND better balanced codexes.

 

 

You can - digital releases.

 

 

 

DG point changes were necessary and good for the book's internal balance. They were only a nerf because they were focused on internal balance rather than allowing competative builds while being hamstrung by the 18-21 point range assigned across marine books. If you took a casual balanced DG list you barely saw any points rise.

 

 

 

 

Come to the DG forum and you will see that the nerfs weren't good and did nothing for our internal balance and they for sure weren't necessary. DG lists in competitive play were rarely getting top table appearences and after the list are having a solid 35% win rate. Talk about casual play is irrelevant because you can tailor any army list to be bad enough for a fun casual game. Even in custodes you just have to not take the obnoxious choices and take a land raider or 2 and you can let your imperial guard opponent have fun - this is not what balance is about. If we are talking seriously about balance, then we have to talk about it in a competitive sense, otherwise this disscussion has no sense. 

 

Last but not least - don't try to turn the narrative that GW does certain balance changes to improve casual play because it's nonsense. They 100% look at competitve results, otherwise why would they nerf planes to be max 2? It's not like every casual ork player used 3 planes is it?

Edited March 18, 2022 by Plague _Lord

[Dark Shepherd]

The writers have said they do the codexes in a largely linear fashion, consecutive not concurrent

 

CAs are a good fix if they use up to date data ie DIGITAL release

 

Given how theyre treating the big Tyrannid beasties with 2+ saves and -1D they might have copped on re tanks/armour. New marine codex could be interesting in that regard

[Ahzek451]

I'm curious what the new marine dex will do to the humble bolter, now that nearly everyone's classic main gun makes the humble bolter look like pants, will be interesting if GW attempts to compensate in the new book...and if they do, will they release an update FAQ for all bolters or go the route of the +1 chaos marine wound. 

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

 

We have to also recognize that CAs are also bad for them game in the long term. Let's take the latest one and the DG nerfs. There is a lot of talk that these nerfs were to be implemented some 6 or more months ago (printing and shipping time) when DG were doing ok in the meta. GW failed to realize that they were doing ok in a meta where half of the factions were still using 8th ed books. So when the nerfs actually came, they came into a meta, in which we have like 6 new 9th codexes. I'm 100% sure these nerfs weren't playtested against these new codexes, cause no sane person would have given it the go.

 

This poses a problem with how to balance a book against the armies it faces in the now at the same time balancing it in accord to future books. I think itvs cumbersome and very hard to do and gw have shot themselves in the foot. The fact that factions with new books also get new supplements doesn't help.

 

There is honestly only one option to fix this - a new edition with streamlined 9th rules that comes along with the release of every codex at the same time. Then you can milk customers with supplements (DLCs) and seasonal mission packs. Not changing the cores rules too much would make this transition an easy accept from the playerbase.

Pardon dbl post, but to get on my hill. You want to onow who approved those nerfs: This Forum (metaphorically speaking). Go back threw the forum and find every complaint, about OP, nerf pls units etc. The Plagueburst were complained about being not in LoS OP nerf pls. Without placing into context the current situation, GW acts as much on popular sediment as it does on data.

 

So when folks wre sending in FAQ answer without conceptualizing the whole view we get stuff like that. The nerfs are as mewnt to show “We are Listening” as much ws to actually balance. In what world someone thijk the Erad, or various other SM nerfs should have happened?

Sorry but this doesn't make any sense - people cried that PBC were OP so GW went and buffed them with a point decrease. How is that listening lol? Anyway I don't remember anyone saying that PBC or DG was OP at any point and I was studying the competitive curcuit for the whole of ninth. Sure they had their time in the sun when the only other 9th codexes were marines and necrons and even then DG had an about 55% WR.

 

I actually think that DG is a good example that 9th codexes weren't playtested against eachother or even made at the same time. We can see obvious lethality creep and buff creep that you can see in the newer codexes but which necrons and DG lack - for example transhuman in some form in every army - DG and necrons lack this, while elday and Tau have it. There are a lot more tell signs that show us that there is no way that DG, SM and Necrons were playtested against Tau, Custodes or Eldar. Unless GW wanted the first dexes to suck so bad that people would throw themselves at supplements and new books just to level the field - a sound business decision for sure but not healthy for the game.

See forums here on B&C people complaining LoS PBC Demolishers. It is why Soup was taken to the back shot. Then shot again. Then cut into pieces and shot. Its Eradicators and Outriders were nerfed. And so on. Alot of GW “balancing” post release is because folks whom complain.

[Plague _Lord]

 

 

 

We have to also recognize that CAs are also bad for them game in the long term. Let's take the latest one and the DG nerfs. There is a lot of talk that these nerfs were to be implemented some 6 or more months ago (printing and shipping time) when DG were doing ok in the meta. GW failed to realize that they were doing ok in a meta where half of the factions were still using 8th ed books. So when the nerfs actually came, they came into a meta, in which we have like 6 new 9th codexes. I'm 100% sure these nerfs weren't playtested against these new codexes, cause no sane person would have given it the go.

 

This poses a problem with how to balance a book against the armies it faces in the now at the same time balancing it in accord to future books. I think itvs cumbersome and very hard to do and gw have shot themselves in the foot. The fact that factions with new books also get new supplements doesn't help.

 

There is honestly only one option to fix this - a new edition with streamlined 9th rules that comes along with the release of every codex at the same time. Then you can milk customers with supplements (DLCs) and seasonal mission packs. Not changing the cores rules too much would make this transition an easy accept from the playerbase.

Pardon dbl post, but to get on my hill. You want to onow who approved those nerfs: This Forum (metaphorically speaking). Go back threw the forum and find every complaint, about OP, nerf pls units etc. The Plagueburst were complained about being not in LoS OP nerf pls. Without placing into context the current situation, GW acts as much on popular sediment as it does on data.

 

So when folks wre sending in FAQ answer without conceptualizing the whole view we get stuff like that. The nerfs are as mewnt to show “We are Listening” as much ws to actually balance. In what world someone thijk the Erad, or various other SM nerfs should have happened?

Sorry but this doesn't make any sense - people cried that PBC were OP so GW went and buffed them with a point decrease. How is that listening lol? Anyway I don't remember anyone saying that PBC or DG was OP at any point and I was studying the competitive curcuit for the whole of ninth. Sure they had their time in the sun when the only other 9th codexes were marines and necrons and even then DG had an about 55% WR.

 

I actually think that DG is a good example that 9th codexes weren't playtested against eachother or even made at the same time. We can see obvious lethality creep and buff creep that you can see in the newer codexes but which necrons and DG lack - for example transhuman in some form in every army - DG and necrons lack this, while elday and Tau have it. There are a lot more tell signs that show us that there is no way that DG, SM and Necrons were playtested against Tau, Custodes or Eldar. Unless GW wanted the first dexes to suck so bad that people would throw themselves at supplements and new books just to level the field - a sound business decision for sure but not healthy for the game.

See forums here on B&C people complaining LoS PBC Demolishers. It is why Soup was taken to the back shot. Then shot again. Then cut into pieces and shot. Its Eradicators and Outriders were nerfed. And so on. Alot of GW “balancing” post release is because folks whom complain.

 

 

Again as examples you just gave 2 units that recently got buffed by GW - the PBC went down in points and the Demolisher got a 2+ save. GW really doesn't read reddit, nor B&C and even if folks over there do, then they certainly aren't taking into account commplaint or whines that happen on these social media sites. People literally complain about everything, let's not make this myth up that they listen to us. They listen to a certain degree to guys like goonhammer and maybe top competitive players, but still the changes GW actually implement are way off what the community would like to see. Just look at the whole Admech and Dark Eldar problem and it's pretty obvious that GW balances the game in accord to it's own weird system and it just doesn't work well.

[Dark Shepherd]

I'm curious what the new marine dex will do to the humble bolter, now that nearly everyone's classic main gun makes the humble bolter look like pants, will be interesting if GW attempts to compensate in the new book...and if they do, will they release an update FAQ for all bolters or go the route of the +1 chaos marine wound.

Chaos codex may have a few hints for marine codex

Would be a nice reversal to see marine players waiting for the goodies chaos got first

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

 

 

 

We have to also recognize that CAs are also bad for them game in the long term. Let's take the latest one and the DG nerfs. There is a lot of talk that these nerfs were to be implemented some 6 or more months ago (printing and shipping time) when DG were doing ok in the meta. GW failed to realize that they were doing ok in a meta where half of the factions were still using 8th ed books. So when the nerfs actually came, they came into a meta, in which we have like 6 new 9th codexes. I'm 100% sure these nerfs weren't playtested against these new codexes, cause no sane person would have given it the go.

 

This poses a problem with how to balance a book against the armies it faces in the now at the same time balancing it in accord to future books. I think itvs cumbersome and very hard to do and gw have shot themselves in the foot. The fact that factions with new books also get new supplements doesn't help.

 

There is honestly only one option to fix this - a new edition with streamlined 9th rules that comes along with the release of every codex at the same time. Then you can milk customers with supplements (DLCs) and seasonal mission packs. Not changing the cores rules too much would make this transition an easy accept from the playerbase.

Pardon dbl post, but to get on my hill. You want to onow who approved those nerfs: This Forum (metaphorically speaking). Go back threw the forum and find every complaint, about OP, nerf pls units etc. The Plagueburst were complained about being not in LoS OP nerf pls. Without placing into context the current situation, GW acts as much on popular sediment as it does on data.

 

So when folks wre sending in FAQ answer without conceptualizing the whole view we get stuff like that. The nerfs are as mewnt to show “We are Listening” as much ws to actually balance. In what world someone thijk the Erad, or various other SM nerfs should have happened?

Sorry but this doesn't make any sense - people cried that PBC were OP so GW went and buffed them with a point decrease. How is that listening lol? Anyway I don't remember anyone saying that PBC or DG was OP at any point and I was studying the competitive curcuit for the whole of ninth. Sure they had their time in the sun when the only other 9th codexes were marines and necrons and even then DG had an about 55% WR.

 

I actually think that DG is a good example that 9th codexes weren't playtested against eachother or even made at the same time. We can see obvious lethality creep and buff creep that you can see in the newer codexes but which necrons and DG lack - for example transhuman in some form in every army - DG and necrons lack this, while elday and Tau have it. There are a lot more tell signs that show us that there is no way that DG, SM and Necrons were playtested against Tau, Custodes or Eldar. Unless GW wanted the first dexes to suck so bad that people would throw themselves at supplements and new books just to level the field - a sound business decision for sure but not healthy for the game.

See forums here on B&C people complaining LoS PBC Demolishers. It is why Soup was taken to the back shot. Then shot again. Then cut into pieces and shot. Its Eradicators and Outriders were nerfed. And so on. Alot of GW “balancing” post release is because folks whom complain.

Again as examples you just gave 2 units that recently got buffed by GW - the PBC went down in points and the Demolisher got a 2+ save. GW really doesn't read reddit, nor B&C and even if folks over there do, then they certainly aren't taking into account commplaint or whines that happen on these social media sites. People literally complain about everything, let's not make this myth up that they listen to us. They listen to a certain degree to guys like goonhammer and maybe top competitive players, but still the changes GW actually implement are way off what the community would like to see. Just look at the whole Admech and Dark Eldar problem and it's pretty obvious that GW balances the game in accord to it's own weird system and it just doesn't work well.

After they got nerfs in other releases. And also I wasn’t talking about LR Demolishee. I was talking about how prople woulf said PBC Is OP becaude its a Demolishee which foesn’t require LoS

[Special Officer Doofy]

 

 

I want new codexes with new editions... Editions just need to last longer and codexes come out quicker.

 

You can't have quicker codex releases AND better balanced codexes.

Uhhh yeah you can. There is absolutely no way all 20+ codexes are being balanced against each other with their 2+ year release schedule. With that example I gave of a 4 year edition where all the codexes come out in the first year gives you the final few years of the edition to start on all 20+ codexes at once and balance them at the same time, to be released the following edition every 2ish weeks.

 

Look in the chaos space marine 9e leaks from a play tester. Do you think that person play tested it a few months ago or damn near two years ago when the necron codex was being worked on? Of course it was being tested more recently. No recent codex is as weak as necrons, vanilla marines or death guard (earlier codexes). They were all developed and tested so far apart, hence the creep.

[tychobi]

To create a balanced game you would write it as a whole and balance the constituent parts of the game before release.  I suspect most of us on this forum have thousands of pages of documents that suggest that Games Workshop does not follow this structure.  Balance matters a lot to us as players of the game but does it matter to the game designers? Evidence would suggest that GW rules writers are not in the position to provide a balanced 40k.  I generally suspect apathy as culprit but GW has been successful with their model so there is a reasonable suspicion of imbalance implemented as a design feature.

 

What is unreasonable is the assumption that GW will all of sudden change coarse and deliver balance to the 40k system.  The only evidence they have the will to do so are empty words.  The evidence of failure to do so is overwhelming.  

[Valkyrion]

A three year cycle is fine if everyone gets all their rules in the first year.

 

I think they should go a different route with their codex releases and maybe even do away with them altogether;

July 2023 10th edition drops

August - Index Space Marines which contains no fluff, art, photos, but 100% complete and comprehensive rules for each and every space marine permutation EXCEPT crusade. All datasheets, all doctrines, all stratagems, the works.

September - Index Xenos - as above, but for each Xenos faction

October - Index Chaos

November - Index Imperium

 

This would require a change in mindset from GW and from the player base, because these would be big books costing £50 each or so which may seem unfair if you only want the Tau section, but I think it's easier from a production stand point to have one big book with all the Xenos in rather than a £15 tyranid book, £15 eldar book, £15 ork etc, but on the plus side 'only' £200 would buy you the rules for every single faction

 

Six months after release, the same thing happens again but this time only containing Crusade rules for each faction and sub faction. 

 

Balancing could still be done via downloads or the munitorum books, new releases could have downloadable datasheets, and campaigns could still come along offering 10th Company armies, Nidzilla, Deff Dread Mobs and the like.

 

Modern codexes aren't exactly a treasure trove of new fluff anymore and are really just a glorified White Dwarf article and showcase, and whilst it might sound like a bit of 'I'm alright, Jack', I don't need to read about who invented the Codex Astartes or the fall of the eldar for the 10th time. 

[Redcomet]

Honestly before any kind of fix is discussed, or game release cycle, 40k needs to find out what kind of a game it wants to be. For many an edition 40k has waddled in a weird place, stuck between “fun beer and snacks” game, and serious competitive game. And it needs to choose one and stick to it.

 

it can either be a super streamlined games where you can bang out a tight competitive game in 90-120 minutes, or it can be a game full of layered and intricate rules. 
 

The rules team will never be able to satisfy both sides of the isle with the same rules set, particularly when they seem to change design direction as I change my underpants, and often do so part way through a game cycle.

 

You can’t have game like 9th start out with having “speeding up the game” as a core design mantra, and the suddenly plonk 768 different army rules on top. 
 

If I was the boss, I would hard reset 10th without constraints. Build a throughly modern, fast playing game, with frequent balance updates. The army rules would be in digital format only, with an initial print run and/or a made to order system. All updates free. This would be the tournament system also played in stores for events.

 

Then I would release a set of books for the home games, with all the whacky rules in them, that may or may not be balanced. Call it 40k advanced. The crusade system, stratagems for armies, advanced army rules, vehicle hit location tables, vehicle design rules all of that stuff.

 

And lastly I would have a set of lore books, that would be huge tomes, that would not get invalidated each rules cycle. These would also have painting guides and such in them,

[DanPesci]

Honestly before any kind of fix is discussed, or game release cycle, 40k needs to find out what kind of a game it wants to be. For many an edition 40k has waddled in a weird place, stuck between “fun beer and snacks” game, and serious competitive game. And it needs to choose one and stick to it.

 

it can either be a super streamlined games where you can bang out a tight competitive game in 90-120 minutes, or it can be a game full of layered and intricate rules. 

 

The rules team will never be able to satisfy both sides of the isle with the same rules set, particularly when they seem to change design direction as I change my underpants, and often do so part way through a game cycle.

 

You can’t have game like 9th start out with having “speeding up the game” as a core design mantra, and the suddenly plonk 768 different army rules on top. 

 

If I was the boss, I would hard reset 10th without constraints. Build a throughly modern, fast playing game, with frequent balance updates. The army rules would be in digital format only, with an initial print run and/or a made to order system. All updates free. This would be the tournament system also played in stores for events.

 

Then I would release a set of books for the home games, with all the whacky rules in them, that may or may not be balanced. Call it 40k advanced. The crusade system, stratagems for armies, advanced army rules, vehicle hit location tables, vehicle design rules all of that stuff.

 

And lastly I would have a set of lore books, that would be huge tomes, that would not get invalidated each rules cycle. These would also have painting guides and such in them,

 

This would be the ideal situation for me, but is probably far too sensible for GW to implement at this point 

 

 

Back to the original points about AP/'quick 'fixes

What would people think if there was a 10th edition release and AP returned to the 'fixed' values it was in previous editions (where lower AP was better).

 

E.g. A space marine used to always have its 3+ save unless the weapon was AP3 or above (in which case it simply got no save). The idea of space marines being the 'staple' unit type was intially built around them always getting that 3+ save against anything below a plasma level weapon. Power armour counted. However in the new system, when massive amounts of infantry now have -1 AP weapons (if not -2), marines are on a 4+ at best a lot of the time which just isn't good enough, and for me also in no way fits the fluff of power armour

 

e.g.

- marines shouldn't have to hug cover, power armour should be stronger than a ruin.

- To take the current fleshborers debate, a weapon like that shouldnt affect power armour, but they SHOULD affect lighter armour types they could chew through e.g. guard flak armour)

 

 

Returning to this system would also speed the game up slightly (you aren't rolling every armour save, you either get it or you dont, and its always the same value, so no calculations to make pre-rolling)

 

This would also help solve some of the issues with vehicles. E.g. the current AP-1/2 wouldnt really affect them save wise. And again would speed things up (no more rolling 6+ saves against lascannons, which can either seem very pointless, or infuriating for your opponent when you luck out and get that 6)

[MARK0SIAN]

I definitely think the old AP system was better. Marines hardly ever get a 3+ save against anything unless they’ve found a way to counter the AP like cover and given the increase in volume of fire for a lot of weapons, even a 3+ save isn’t what it used to be!

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I definitely think the old AP system was better. Marines hardly ever get a 3+ save against anything unless they’ve found a way to counter the AP like cover and given the increase in volume of fire for a lot of weapons, even a 3+ save isn’t what it used to be!

 

I think there are two factors that really make the old AP system really hard to bring back.

 

1) The new detachment charts. I just think its way to easy to make a list where every model has an AP3 weapon. The old FOC stopped that from being a possibility, but I I really think a 3+ save would be worse than it is now.... which is saying something. 

 

2) The extreme army variety we have now. Bringing back the old AP & cover system would just break some those armies. Imagine dealing with lootas with t5 and effectively a 4++. On the other hand you'd have knights which would force you away from the volume fire weapons you need for those orks because you'd need weapons that either deny knights a save or could penetrate their AV. I really don't know how you would even approach making an TAC list with it. Marines are slipping right now, but my list does ok vs. the different archtypes it just isn't as pushed as the competitive lists. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I definitely think the old AP system was better. Marines hardly ever get a 3+ save against anything unless they’ve found a way to counter the AP like cover and given the increase in volume of fire for a lot of weapons, even a 3+ save isn’t what it used to be!

I think there are two factors that really make the old AP system really hard to bring back.

 

1) The new detachment charts. I just think its way to easy to make a list where every model has an AP3 weapon. The old FOC stopped that from being a possibility, but I I really think a 3+ save would be worse than it is now.... which is saying something.

 

2) The extreme army variety we have now. Bringing back the old AP & cover system would just break some those armies. Imagine dealing with lootas with t5 and effectively a 4++. On the other hand you'd have knights which would force you away from the volume fire weapons you need for those orks because you'd need weapons that either deny knights a save or could penetrate their AV. I really don't know how you would even approach making an TAC list with it. Marines are slipping right now, but my list does ok vs. the different archtypes it just isn't as pushed as the competitive lists.

Yeah I don’t think either solution is ideal to be honest but I just hate marine armour feeling like paper.

 

In truth there’s actually nothing wrong with the current system in principle. The problem has (yet again) come from the codexes and the fact the designers haven’t been able to resist giving out excessive AP to every weapon in the game with wild abandon.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@MARK0SIAN - I actually think the problem has less to do with the base weapons, and more to do with just how many ways people have to increase the AP of things. I like the ideal of combat doctrines, but they definitely devalue our armor. With all the stratagems, auras, and army wide abilities that increase AP it just gets out of control fast. The worst part is that I feel like it's by design, and I don't think they realize how hard balancing units are when everything is so lethal. 

[Helias_Tancred]

I take a general approach. Based on history of the game going back to when I started in 6th edition, there are patterns that repeat every edition. Then look at those patterns and how they possibly increase profit and sales, and then you will have your answer.

 

They are a miniature/model company that has rules for a game, and those rules are used to target and sell their products, different products at different times to a degree, other products nearly all the time during an edition.

 

And contrary to the effort or appearance they create, I don't think they're too serious about the state of the games rules overall. For 8th and 9th edition they have shown an increased willingness to listen, and now commit to a twice yearly rules tinkering. Personally I think all it will do is promote new factions while previous OP factions are nerfed a bit ... again, look at it from how it drives sales.

 

and ... thats it man. Patterns speak truth. That's 40k, no more no less. You either accept that and move on pursuing the game that makes it fun for you or over time you get disgusted and bow out?

[Xenith]

Lots of info here, and good work keeping relatively constructive so far. 

 

 

August - Index Space Marines which contains no fluff, art, photos, but 100% complete and comprehensive rules for each and every space marine permutation EXCEPT crusade. All datasheets, all doctrines, all stratagems, the works.

 

 

They did this with 3rd, and I think it lasted an edition? Fans/players/hobbyists overwhelmingly wanted more fluff and photos. 

 

I still think stratagems are an issue (maybe the issue?). If you keep CP but remove stratagems from matched play and make them narrative only (which they are and should be, as described by the games designers themselves as moments of heroism units performing incredible feats). Matched play as standard uses RB strats. If players want to take skew armies, they suffer the CP detachment penalty. If armies suffer as they need powerful strats...then that's a fundamental issue with the army itself, and needs to be looked at and redesigned.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Xenith