10th edition wishlisting/"How do we fix this mess?" thread

[Evil Eye]

I think it's safe to say that 9th edition has turned into a bit of a disaster. Elements that were improved from 8th have been superseded by an absolute tidal wave of groxdung and power creep that, coupled with the ADHD tier release schedules making it borderline impossible to have any kind of long-term hobby plans, sucked the fun out of the game.

 

Now I'm pretty sure we'll be due a new edition eventually, assuming GW doesn't go belly-up or decide that instead of doing new editions they're just keeping 9th indefinitely and just continually making new versions of the Codices to extract more money from us. So the question is, what could be done with a new edition to fix the game?

 

Here's my personal list of ideas/what I'd do if I were magically granted control of GW:

 

>Hard reset again. No Codex carry-over, do the 8th "index" solution to tide everyone over to start with.

>Try and combine the best elements from both "traditional" (7th and before) and "new" (8th-9th) rulesets. Notably bringing back USRs to some degree (not 7th levels of billions of special rules mind) and a damage table where not everything can damage anything (especially re: vehicles).

>Speaking of vehicles, they'd get a huge overhaul to make them worth taking (and actually feeling like vehicles) whilst not being too powerful. In practice this means the base rules are much the same as now, but with added rules for armour and the aforementioned return of the proper damage table, they should be far more survivable. To compensate for this and to avoid them dominating the game (and also because I never liked tanks being able to shoot their sponsons through themselves) bring back the rules of weapon arcs and the actual shape of the tank mattering.

>Datasheet bloat would be tackled by returning to having one sheet with multiple options rather than a separate entry for every single wargear permutation.

>This would also carry over to Legends, which would be overhauled and a lot of the current entries being made into upgrades for existing Codex units, so rather than having a Captain on a bike being a totally separate unit with incompatible rules, it would just be an upgrade for the Codex entry, meaning they'd be far more viable and far less divorced from the main army.

>Speaking of extra-Codex units, Forge World units would start with an Index like we have now, but would get proper updates alongside Codices via the triumphant return of Imperial Armour! This would keep them separate from mainline Codex units (and avoid the 'dexes themselves being overly bloated) but would make FW units far more viable, and also would allow for extra optional rules and fluff besides just resin tanks to be introduced.

>These books could also include something similar to the Age of Sigmar Anvil of Apotheosis, and allow for the creation of custom characters. They clearly haven't abandoned the idea seeing as an update to it was included in the latest AOS expansion after all...

>Drop the ridiculous anti-conversion stance and allow for options not explicitly in the box onto a datasheet. There's no reason that a Hive Tyrant can no longer take Devourers when FW used to produce arms for it to do just that, for instance. Plus, let's be real, I reckon GW has lost more sales from people getting sick of this (and the prices but that's another story) and just buying recasts/complete non-GW minis than ever they would have from bitz resellers or 3P conversion parts.

>Only release new books with actual worthwhile content in them. Expanded rules for special theatres of war (Planetstrike, Cities of Death etc)? Sure! £30 to invalidate the points values in the Codex? No thanks.

>Abandon the idea of tying points to Matched Play, and make it clear you can play any game with points or PLs (which I'd keep around for the sake of beginners who just want to learn the ropes). This would hopefully encourage people to actually try different scenarios.

[Redcomet]

1. Can the entire system.

 

2. Figure out what kind of game 40k should be. A fun, fast “beer and chips” game or an intricate simulation game with lots of systems.

 

3. Build a game that suits nr 2.

 

4. Figure out the army design philosophy and stick to it through and entire game cycle.

[Closet Skeleton]

9th is fine. Sure its a mess full of problems but doesn't feel worse balanced than 8th. At least 9th ed's power lists look like actual armies rather than a random collection of optimal choices.

 

4. Figure out the army design philosophy and stick to it through and entire game cycle.

That's really not been the problem with 9th the way it was in say 6th-7th (which were a single edition codex wise but 7th on its own was almost as bad).

 

9th ed's problem is too many modifiers making the points system unworkable as a balancer and leading to mental load bloat. Apart from that 9th has had the best internal balanced codexes yet released.

[Beams]

 

 

ry and combine the best elements from both "traditional" (7th and before) and "new" (8th-9th) rulesets. Notably bringing back USRs to some degree (not 7th levels of billions of special rules mind) and a damage table where not everything can damage anything (especially re: vehicles).

 

Hard no on this one. 

 

When I first started with the tail end of 6th, beginning of 7th, one of the things that made me almost quit the game was getting matched vs Lords of War and fliers in the same battle.

 

I had very very little that could reliably hurt the Toe-In-Cover behemoths with a 2+ Cover Save and a Toughness of "Your Weapons Don't Work" and had very few things that could throw out enough shots to hit the "I need a Six To Hit, Despite being Grey Knights" of Fliers.

 

It wasn't even a "Go Buy More", since Grey Knights just didn't have the options to handle those. At least now, if I fire my storm bolters, there's a chance that it hurts them. Makes it feel like we are actually playing a game in a bad matchup instead of just watching an opponent remove my models.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Beams

[Cleon]

One change I'd make is to the rule that caps modifiers at +1/-1 to cap each players modifiers at +1/-1, I find it immersion breaking and irritating the 'I have a -1 hit effect spell on my guys' means my opponent can now fire heavy weapons on the move with no (extra) penalty.

[Marshal Loss]

Only one thing is needed to fix the game:

1. Codex: Emperor's Children

With the most perfect legion/faction finally put in the game, everybody will play the same army, rendering everything balanced and ushering in a new golden age of respectful online dialogue and satisfied gaming groups.

[Evil Eye]

Only one thing is needed to fix the game:

1. Codex: Emperor's Children

With the most perfect legion/faction finally put in the game, everybody will play the same army, rendering everything balanced and ushering in a new golden age of respectful online dialogue and satisfied gaming groups.

...At least, until the debates of purple and gold vs black and pink start.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I'd really like to see a push towards the old FOC. I really think a lot of 9th issues are tied to the fact that you have so few restrictions on list building. 

[Viridovix]

1. No more LOOOOONG WAIT for new edition Codexes.

2. Help the Vehicles please!

3. No bloat CP. Take Kill Team, they are few but fun and simple.

4. Lots of Imperivm factions? LOTS OF CHAOS FACTIONS TOO!

 

5. No Tau.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3-5 strats per faction, and 2-4 strats per sub faction

 

Universal special rules that all use the same name

 

A return to larger table sizes

 

Points reductions on vehicles

 

Cost reductions on kits

 

Raise the T cap to no less than 12, possibly even 14.

 

S 1/3 of T rounded up, it cannot wound a target (or something like that. Makes no sense for a S3 weapon to be able to wound a super heavy/LoW.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Cpt_Reaper]

I think stratagems are completely fine. The number of them is irrelevant because you only use the same 5-6 depending on your playstyle.

 

The issue is the core game itself doesn't just favour certain playstyles, it enforces them. Spearhead, Vanguard and Outrider detachments exist but it is the Battalion that is only ever taken. I propose the following:

• Battalion - Troops gain Obsec. Under no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec
• Vanguard - Elites gain Obsec. Under no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec
• Outrider - Fast Attack gain Obsec. Under no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec
• Spearhead - Heavy Support gain Obsec. Under no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec

All of these detachments cost the same and refund the same CP when your Warlord is included. The number of CPs you have is, as it is now, determined by the game size. Patrol and Brigade remain as they are.

 

For stratagems I'd rework any stratagem that requires a roll for it to work. One should not pay a finite resource for a chance to have an ability proc. Remove the roll and just up the cost. If it's too powerful still, remove the stratagem.

 

For CPs I'd remove the CP cost for taking certain units. Looking at you Imperial Armour. I've paid the cost in points or power, I am not paying a further tax.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Another thing, only special characters and top level HQs should provide ANY sort of rerolls.(captains, company commanders, etc)

[Dagoth Ur]

Whatever the next edition does or is, I hope it does away with this whole Stratagem nonsense. Having to keep track of three-dozen+ potential abilities, having to parse which are actually good and which aren't, and then having to keep track of command points on top single handedly made me quit 40k in favour of Necromunda, AT and 30k. It boggles my mind how this is supposed to be better than 7th edition.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Whatever the next edition does or is, I hope it does away with this whole Stratagem nonsense. Having to keep track of three-dozen+ potential abilities, having to parse which are actually good and which aren't, and then having to keep track of command points on top single handedly made me quit 40k in favour of Necromunda, AT and 30k. It boggles my mind how this is supposed to be better than 7th edition.

coming from a pre-7th background into the end of 8th I’m in a middle ground.

 

I like that strats can provide a uniqueness and fluffyness that wasn’t really available in 3rd and 4th, but i do feel like they went overboard with them.

 

Just cut them down a little bit or limit them to each faction’s subfactions. It seems like I have to remember and look through about 20-30 strats as BA player.

[Lexington]

I honestly feel like the business model for both model and book sales has so thoroughly ensnared the game development process, it’s not going to be worth playing 40K again until GW goes through another financial crash.

[Scribe]

Write a system for players, instead of accepting the system provided by the company which is trying tell you plastic or books.

 

For my time and money, the current system cannot be redeemed.

 

Go back to 5th, and start from that as the baseline.

[spessmarine]

A return to glorious treads, and less of the perfidious hover tech

Feels like everyone and their mother is a foot or more off the ground at all times

Edited May 7, 2022 by spessmarine

[Halandaar]

I don't dislike stratagems as a concept, I just dislike how many there are and how many are simply unit-specific abilities that got removed from the datasheet. You're already paying points for a unit, you shouldn't then also have to spend CP for that unit to be able to do its main ability.

 

If they just stripped all those things out and put them back on the respective unit's rules, the amount of stratagems you need to consider would be much more manageable.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Halandaar

[Valkyrion]

Without bottoming out and starting again with a hard reset, forcing players to spend hundreds on new rules and codexes, I'd simply remove all Aura abilities from the game, and turn those abilities in to a 1 time only special ability that you can give to any unit anywhere on the battlefield.

 

I'd also remove the degrading profiles from vehicles, and give everything with the Vehicle keyword, except Aircraft, Armour of Contempt. 

 

I like the idea of Detachments granting Obsec, rather than FOC slots mentioned above, but i'd still keep Troops as always having Obsec.

 

But the preponderance of native and aura rerolls is the single biggest issue in the game at the moment. Allow them through stratagems, or one time only abilities, and the game immediately requires more skill and tactical nuance whilst becoming less deadly.

 

As the Stranglers said - 'no more rerolls anymore' 

[TPS]

But the preponderance of native and aura rerolls is the single biggest issue in the game at the moment. Allow them through stratagems, or one time only abilities, and the game immediately requires more skill and tactical nuance whilst becoming less deadly.

This!

Also, less stratagems. I like how Titanicus does them.

 

After dabbling with various alternating or random activation games in recent times, I find 40k's turn structure very tedious, as during my opponent's turn, I'm mostly sitting out. It's also very frustrating having units shot off the table before they even get to act. So I'd love to see a change to how turns work.

[tychobi]

I want all the rules needed to play the game in one place that I can direct new players to.

[OldWherewolf]

Only one thing is needed to fix the game:

• Codex: Emperor's Children Astra Militarum

With the most perfect legion/faction finally put in the game, everybody will play the same army, rendering everything balanced and ushering in a new golden age of respectful online dialogue and satisfied gaming groups.

 

FTFY.  ;-)

 

Hard no on models not being wounded by some weapons, and ObSec being determined by Force Org.  Both of these lead to nothing but skew lists and tons of feel bad moments.  Do you really want an entire army of ObSec Leviathan Crusher Stampede with 1HQ, or (assuming they're actually good) 19 LRBTs (6x3 plus 1HQ)?

 

HOWEVER, I agree that the wounding chart needs to be toned down.  S5 should not be wounding T8 on 5s.  I can see S5 wounding T7 on 5s, but then vehicles should then get Ramshackle.

 

Agree on Strats needing to be toned down, use-once, and/or cost more CP.  A strat should be a 'heroic moment', and not 'let me OMGgolly geeBBQ half your army every turn for 1 CP'.

 

Totally agree on USRs.  With the 9th codexes, as they have written new codexes, there's now a LOT of stuff that overlaps and is functionally identical.  Pull those up into USRs/Universal Strats (make cost by PL).  Things like -1 to hit from Smokescreen, jinks, etc.?  just make them all the same.  This provides space for army-specific abilities, but also design space to make each army unique.

 

And, just to reiterate (emphasis mine):

 

1. No more LOOOOONG WAIT for new edition Codexes.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

Only one thing is needed to fix the game:

• Codex: Emperor's Children Astra Militarum

With the most perfect legion/faction finally put in the game, everybody will play the same army, rendering everything balanced and ushering in a new golden age of respectful online dialogue and satisfied gaming groups.

FTFY. ;-)

 

Hard no on models not being wounded by some weapons, and ObSec being determined by Force Org. Both of these lead to nothing but skew lists and tons of feel bad moments. Do you really want an entire army of ObSec Leviathan Crusher Stampede with 1HQ, or (assuming they're actually good) 19 LRBTs (6x3 plus 1HQ)?

 

HOWEVER, I agree that the wounding chart needs to be toned down. S5 should not be wounding T8 on 5s. I can see S5 wounding T7 on 5s, but then vehicles should then get Ramshackle.

 

Agree on Strats needing to be toned down, use-once, and/or cost more CP. A strat should be a 'heroic moment', and not 'let me OMGgolly geeBBQ half your army every turn for 1 CP'.

 

Totally agree on USRs. With the 9th codexes, as they have written new codexes, there's now a LOT of stuff that overlaps and is functionally identical. Pull those up into USRs/Universal Strats (make cost by PL). Things like -1 to hit from Smokescreen, jinks, etc.? just make them all the same. This provides space for army-specific abilities, but also design space to make each army unique.

 

And, just to reiterate (emphasis mine):

1. No more LOOOOONG WAIT for new edition Codexes.

im sorry but a S3 lasgun or flamer damaging a baneblade is :cussing stupid. Any weapon damaging a target with T that’s 3x it’s strength is very stupid.

[Subtleknife]

-Switch to alternative activation

-Switch to a d10.

-Stratagems become strategic not tactical. Ie no more plus one to wound etc it often means weapons can harm things they arent designed to. Have unit rules baked into the unit not requiring strats to use a unit to its full affect.

-Bring back the to hit mechanic from past editions for cc but use the new 8th twist. A marine should not be hitting a primarch on a 3 plus.

-Expand toughness so there is bigger difference to allow greater granularity.

[spessmarine]

yeah, not fond about the guard getting auto-wound on 6's to hit too

they need work definitely, but I don't like that path