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

[phandaal]

31 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

When command points are plentiful, you might use it over paying points, but when they're in a squeeze you'll cut these out and spend them only on the strats that go the farthest.

In general, those Strategems are not used even when there are a lot of command points available. It is more or less always the powerful ones that affect an entire unit, smokescreens, reducing enemy charges, or preventing falling back.

Then you have wargear that does the same thing as a Strategem, like Helix Gauntlets vs Hexagramatic Wards.

And of course there is the irrelevant segregation of Strategems into Epic Deeds, Strategic Ploys, etc. The whole system is just a mess.

[Valkyrion]

A melta bomb costs 1CP and has a base 1 in 3 chance of missing, for 2-6 mortal wounds.

If it auto hit for D3+3 it might be worth might be worth the 1CP, but mostly you're going to want the 1CP to put towards transhuman, or a fight again strat, or fight interrupt, or command reroll (which you might have to use on the unit using the meltabomb, so you might spend 2CP to do 2 mortal wounds. Yay.)

Melta bombs, hellfire shells, flakk missiles....I'd make them a one use only, auto hit, unit ability. Most armies aren't going to have all 3 unit types (vehicle, monster and flyer) so it's hardly game breaking, and on the odd occasion a nidzilla list comes up against 3 units of heavy bolter devastators then that's just the way that particular cookie has crumbled. C'est la vie, non? 

[Misterduch]

I am just gonna throw in my 2 cents about the rules bloat to the ones arguing.

 

I have 5 or 6 pages of stratagems, about 2 pages worth of relics.

From the stratagems I can think of maybe 4 are very important ( trannshuman, +1 to wound... ) and another 5 or so that can be really handy if you have taken the unit that uses said stratagems.

 

That leaves me with about 4 pages of stratagems, spread throughout 2 books that never see the light of day because either the units that can use them are in a bad spot or they are just incredibly situational for little benefit.

 

If that doesn't mean that the stratagem section for my army is bloated I don't even want to know what "Bloat" would look like to some of you

[Lemondish]

On 8/3/2022 at 3:06 PM, Scribe said:

I truly believe it's a terrible system we could remove with no loss.

Only if the effects they bestowed become unit rules instead. All of my favourite memories of exciting events in games were tied to stratagems because an awful lot of what makes my army lists tick are timely, powerful bonuses applied temporarily but exactly when needed.

The normal datasheet with a statline and a weapon profile is inadequate as a replacement. 

14 minutes ago, Misterduch said:

If that doesn't mean that the stratagem section for my army is bloated I don't even want to know what "Bloat" would look like to some of you

Hardly seems to be an issue then if you aren't even grappling with them in any of your games. The result is the same for you in that case - you aren't using them, so whether they remain or not is ultimately irrelevant. Why remove it, then?

[Schlitzaf]

2 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

A melta bomb costs 1CP and has a base 1 in 3 chance of missing, for 2-6 mortal wounds.

If it auto hit for D3+3 it might be worth might be worth the 1CP, but mostly you're going to want the 1CP to put towards transhuman, or a fight again strat, or fight interrupt, or command reroll (which you might have to use on the unit using the meltabomb, so you might spend 2CP to do 2 mortal wounds. Yay.)

Melta bombs, hellfire shells, flakk missiles....I'd make them a one use only, auto hit, unit ability. Most armies aren't going to have all 3 unit types (vehicle, monster and flyer) so it's hardly game breaking, and on the odd occasion a nidzilla list comes up against 3 units of heavy bolter devastators then that's just the way that particular cookie has crumbled. C'est la vie, non? 

Problem is that partly (assuming tou are now paying points for flakk/melta/hellfire) is that you’ll bever see them used ever again. Personally, I’d rework thess strategems to be “1 strategem” (actually what I’d love ro do with marine cool weapons is go apoc route were we have a generic heavy + spec profile for everything)

[Karhedron]

On 8/5/2022 at 2:18 PM, Cpt_Reaper said:

If Captains granted +1 To Hit, and LTs gave +1 to wound, how much difference would that make to potential outcomes? I'm bad at math-hammer so I couldn't work out how that swings things. Would exchanging every re-roll, outside of select units like Abaddon or Guilliman, with a flat +1 be as good as a re-roll or significantly better? Then in other armies is a re-roll or a +1 modifier better?

Whether +1 or rerolling 1s it better depends on what the base hit/wound roll is. If you need a 6+ to hit/wound, then +1 will double your number of hits while rerolling 1s will only generate a marginal improvement. On the other hand, if you need a 2+ to hit/wound then a +1 bonus will do nothing while rerolling 1s will mean almost every dice will succeed.

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Lemondish said:

Hardly seems to be an issue then if you aren't even grappling with them in any of your games. The result is the same for you in that case - you aren't using them, so whether they remain or not is ultimately irrelevant. Why remove it, then?

Reverse the question - if the rules are never going to be used, why include them?

There has to be a limit, right? Four pages of unused Strategems are not too much. Are five pages too much? Six? At what point does it go from "who cares" to "ok now there are too many?"

If your answer is there can never be too many rules, that would be a strange position to take, because I think we can all agree that at some point there can in fact be too many rules.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Lemondish said:

Only if the effects they bestowed become unit rules instead. All of my favourite memories of exciting events in games were tied to stratagems because an awful lot of what makes my army lists tick are timely, powerful bonuses applied temporarily but exactly when needed.

The normal datasheet with a statline and a weapon profile is inadequate as a replacement. 

Hardly seems to be an issue then if you aren't even grappling with them in any of your games. The result is the same for you in that case - you aren't using them, so whether they remain or not is ultimately irrelevant. Why remove it, then?

That last bit is so asinine.

is people aren’t using it, why keep it?

why not just add 100 more strats that no one will ever use?

 

[Misterduch]

5 hours ago, Lemondish said:

Only if the effects they bestowed become unit rules instead. All of my favourite memories of exciting events in games were tied to stratagems because an awful lot of what makes my army lists tick are timely, powerful bonuses applied temporarily but exactly when needed.

The normal datasheet with a statline and a weapon profile is inadequate as a replacement. 

Hardly seems to be an issue then if you aren't even grappling with them in any of your games. The result is the same for you in that case - you aren't using them, so whether they remain or not is ultimately irrelevant. Why remove it, then?

except I do grapple with them.

Every match I have a "Hold on, I can do something here" which means I am looking though those 5 or 6 pages looking for the one that I vaguely remember I could maybe use if the situation I find myself fits certain criteria. 

As for for their removal, it is exactly because how irrelevant many of them are, either due to their inflexible nature or build requirements.

Some stratagems are essentially  "Once a blue moon, when the moon is at its zenith you may or may not do D3 mortal wounds"

[Valkyrion]

Error on my part

Edited August 6, 2022 by Valkyrion

[Lemondish]

7 hours ago, phandaal said:

if the rules are never going to be used, why include them?

That's a false statement to make, and I suspect you knew that before making it, but still went ahead and did it anyway.

I shouldn't have to tell you that just because you won't or don't use something doesn't mean nobody else will. It's the height of hubris to think otherwise, so I hope you were just joking.

[phandaal]

Just now, Lemondish said:

That's a false statement to make, and I suspect you knew that before making it, but still went ahead and did it anyway.

I shouldn't have to tell you that just because you won't or don't use something doesn't mean nobody else will. It's the height of hubris to think otherwise, so I hope you were just joking.

Wondered if you were going to comment only on that part and ignore the rest. But this is actually not personal so lower your deflector shields for just a minute.

Is there a point at which the game can have too many rules? I say yes. What do you think?

[UnkyHamHam]

Honestly, if the unit associated strategems were on the unit datasheets instead in army wide strat section, that would go a long way to cleaning things up. 

Strategem section only shows generic strats and army wide ones. Individual unit datasheets would just house theirs. Less "bloat" in the strat section. More "bloat" in the units of course. But if you aren't taking that unit, you no longer concern yourself with it. 

I just want to add the anecdote, that in 7th and before times, I paid for Flakk missiles, Hellfire Shells, and Melta bombs every single game. I used them all the time. Maybe not flakk, but definitely hellfire on my scouts and Melta bombs on my sergeants. 

So, roundabout way of agreeing that wargear should never be CP fueld, strategems, or any other gamey mechanic. 

Strats really are just a gamey mechanic that was meant to move us away from war simulation, and more towards streamlined competitive gaming. It's a universal mechanic that encompasses so many other concepts, like strategic ploys and heroic deeds, to allow the on boarding of newer players and help them wrap their head around 40k's complexity. 

I would happily see strats gone, as long as a lot of the rules encompassed in strats were redistributed appropriately to the unit datasheets.

Honestly, hamstringing units like Whirlwinds, Thunderfires, and Sternguard by removing their rules, and making you pay again (cp) to use a unit you already paid for (points) was dumb. 

Furthermore, locking shoot twice and fight twice to Intercessors, comes off as gamey to prop up units with lacking rules, and shady business since it just looks like GW wants to push those kits. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by UnkyHamHam

[StormLion]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a few thing from HH 2.0 come into 40k. Get rid of CP/strats, but allow reactions. Mix in rights of war and the detachment rules (including allies). This allows flavor to armies, cuts down on time consumption, and keeps things interesting.

[Valkyrion]

I think it's important to reintroduce the Initiative characteristic to eliminate the flow chart required to understand who fights when, and I think morale needs revamping as a serious stat, or removing entirely, but really that's probably the only significant changes I'd make to the core rules, which are basically good. 

The hard reset is required for the codexes, not the rules. They've just gotten out of control too quickly. 
 

 

[phandaal]

On 8/8/2022 at 6:57 AM, Valkyrion said:

The hard reset is required for the codexes, not the rules. They've just gotten out of control too quickly. 

Yep, core rules could probably use some tweaks but they are good overall. It is what comes after that causes the problems.

[Karhedron]

On 8/6/2022 at 3:14 PM, Valkyrion said:

Melta bombs, hellfire shells, flakk missiles....I'd make them a one use only, auto hit, unit ability. Most armies aren't going to have all 3 unit types (vehicle, monster and flyer) so it's hardly game breaking, and on the odd occasion a nidzilla list comes up against 3 units of heavy bolter devastators then that's just the way that particular cookie has crumbled.

I would actually bake them into the profiles of the associated weapons (as happened in previous editions IIRC). Missile Launchers and Heavy Bolters are already among the least popular heavy weapons in the game. Give Missile Launchers a Flakk profile (along with frag and krak) and give HBs a Hellfire shell profile. There are so many weapons in the game that already have multiple profiles it would hardly be unprecedented. It would cut down useless stratagems and provide a bit more reason to take these weapons.

[Schlitzaf]

HBolters used to he a solid option then GravCannon point reduction eclipsed them tbf

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Combat attrition tests should either not exist or have a level of attrition required to trigger the test. They make the game unnecessarily lethal.

it’s just stupid even for guard that one dude dying could cause a significant portion of the squad to run away.

id say it shouldn’t trigger unless at least 50% of the squad’s full strength is killed that turn.

[Captain Idaho]

I hate how Morale works. Shooting should cause failed Morale checks to be pinning whilst melee should fall back.

I liked how previous editions had morale fails in melee a dangerous thing.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[Noserenda]

Ech, people dont really run away in small melee skirmishes though. They tend to just cower, bunch up and die/surrender. Perhaps i the eras of big block of troops some would run away off the back, or units could collapse at the thought of melee or fighting particular opponents but if they stood in the first place then disengaging is haaard.

Pinning would be good if worked into a more comprehensive morale system but im not sure 40k in particularly has ever done it well, it kinda needs tokens or tables and those are both things GW is broadly moving away from.

Morale is a real pain to model in games in general but i actually quite like 40k's current system with models going combat ineffective and just dropping off the board whether thats someone KIA, sneaking off, hiding or just standing around being a liability fairly elegantly

Edited August 9, 2022 by Noserenda

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

38 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Ech, people dont really run away in small melee skirmishes though. They tend to just cower, bunch up and die/surrender. Perhaps i the eras of big block of troops some would run away off the back, or units could collapse at the thought of melee or fighting particular opponents but if they stood in the first place then disengaging is haaard.

Pinning would be good if worked into a more comprehensive morale system but im not sure 40k in particularly has ever done it well, it kinda needs tokens or tables and those are both things GW is broadly moving away from.

Morale is a real pain to model in games in general but i actually quite like 40k's current system with models going combat ineffective and just dropping off the board whether thats someone KIA, sneaking off, hiding or just standing around being a liability fairly elegantly

that's fine if they cower and surrender, if you fail the leadership check, then you either run away, cower and get slaughtered, or you surrender, makes some sort of sense at least.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

There was a good podcast on Auspex Tactics and I agree with his assessment. It is very unlikely there will be a complete reset… it is really not in anyone’s best interests either. If anything they should consider slowing down the release cycle.

[Captain Idaho]

I think there might be some backlash to a completely reset edition considering a bunch of Codex books will be out of date after a year or less.

Could go either way really.

Anyway, yes Morale is never going to be perfect, but it's hugely disproportionate right now with it either never mattering or causing some problems for units.

40K has always had Morale as a core part of its turn sequence so I expect it to feature somehow.

[Orange Knight]

8 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

There was a good podcast on Auspex Tactics and I agree with his assessment. It is very unlikely there will be a complete reset… it is really not in anyone’s best interests either. If anything they should consider slowing down the release cycle.

I watched that same video, he made equally valid arguments for both points of view.

"A complete reset will actually be more exciting and re-invigorate the hobby community." - Auspex Tactics. We all remember the index period during the start of 8th, and whilst it was a bit of a balance mess, it was also super fun and exciting and did not suffer from the convoluted bloat that is the current reality of 40k.

Where do I stand on the issue? I think the core rules of 9th edition are fine. I think terrain needs to be re-worked, and the missions need to be scrapped and replaced with something more similar to the HH mission set. Less admin, more fun.

I also think that stratagems and the way factions layer rules upon rules needs be re-worked or scrapped. And this is where the problem lies. GW took away special rules from units, made them more dull, and then relegated their abilities to stratagems. If strats are scrapped and replaced with something more fun (such as the HH reaction system) then the codex entries for units also needs to be updated. At this point every faction will need a new codex, and I would honestly prefer that over another round of Erratas and FAQs. Unfortunately, if this is what it's going to take then we may as well have a whole new edition and start from scratch.

40k 9th is an absolute mess. It's a giant, cracked ball of rules, with more and more being taped on every other month to keep it rolling. The game is also far too focused on list building, and games can be predicted and won before any dice are even rolled. Also the game involves an unreasonable volume of book keeping. It needs a cleansing.