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

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I think there might be some backlash to a completely reset edition considering a bunch of Codex books will be out of date after a year or less.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

[Cpt_Reaper]

34 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

"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.

You and I remember that very differently. I found the Index books lacking in lore and mechanics, and I suffered through using them because I knew they'd be replaced with real codexes.

A complete reset so soon after 8th would, in all likelihood, drive me from the game. It wouldn't solve anything, and we'd be back here in an edition, maybe two, begging for a full reset again, lamenting how "in hindsight 9th wasn't that bad".

Call me selfish if you must, but I oppose a 8th edition style reset. If I don't oppose it, I will end up standing by as I am chased from the game.

[UnkyHamHam]

30 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

You and I remember that very differently. I found the Index books lacking in lore and mechanics, and I suffered through using them because I knew they'd be replaced with real codexes.

A complete reset so soon after 8th would, in all likelihood, drive me from the game. It wouldn't solve anything, and we'd be back here in an edition, maybe two, begging for a full reset again, lamenting how "in hindsight 9th wasn't that bad".

Call me selfish if you must, but I oppose a 8th edition style reset. If I don't oppose it, I will end up standing by as I am chased from the game.

I have to echo this sentiment in its entirety. The only thing that made index 8th tolerable was the shiny new core mechanics and the potential that codexes were coming and bringing back all the fun stuff. And the fact that Captains, Apothecaries, and Standard Bearers (Ancients) now had usable and fun game play mechanics. 

Once the "newness" of the mechanics wore off, and the "shiney-ness" of the Primaris faded into the vanilla boring nature they were in those early days, I and most people I know were begging for codexes. 

[Orange Knight]

Exactly. Shiny new core mechanics.

Index books aren't a replacement for a full codex. But that's the trade for starting a new edition that acts as a fresh start, free from the bloat and hang-ups of the previous one.

There is no solution that is instantly better in every respect.

[Cpt_Reaper]

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Exactly. Shiny new core mechanics.

Index books aren't a replacement for a full codex. But that's the trade for starting a new edition that acts as a fresh start, free from the bloat and hang-ups of the previous one.

There is no solution that is instantly better in every respect.

You keep asking for a hard reset. Whether its to just drop mechanics or to replace them with entirely new ones.

I will always reply the same. No. To the idea that mechanics from other games be brought in, to the idea that mechanics from 9th be dropped, and definitely to a hard reset.

10th should only be a refinement of 9th. Not a replacement. A reset will only harm the game and the community. It cannot in any way bring about a positive outcome.

If another reset occurs, I will leave 40k. There will be others that leave too. it might not be enough to kill the game, but when after another edition, maybe two, you are asking for a hard reset again more will leave.

Right now I have the passion, the love for the game to speak up against all the voices calling for changes that will not help in the long term. Honestly I am tired. I don't know hoe much more I can stomach before all I can do is watch.

[Orange Knight]

There is absolutely no evidence that a ground-up update would cause any harm to the community as a whole.

In fact, the last time such a thing was done led to the biggest growth in the hobby, and the most excitement seen in decades. 

Why would this cause you to leave? Because you have to buy a new book? You have to do that with every new edition anyway. 40k is always changing, and you have to accept that. I find it a bit odd that you can't even imagine a better game than the one we have. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Orange Knight

[UnkyHamHam]

7 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

There is absolutely no evidence that a ground-up update would cause any harm to the game.

In fact, the last time such a thing was done led to the biggest growth in the hobby, and the most excitement seen in decades.

Why would this cause you to leave? Because you have to buy a new book? You have to do that with every new edition anyway. 40k is always changing, and you have to accept that. I find it a bit odd that you can't even imagine a better game than the one we have. 

The core ask behind your agenda is to fundamentally remove rules that others are saying aren't that bad, or that they legitimately enjoy. How is that hard to understand? 

Every edition comes with change, we know this. I for one loved 7th with all its unbroken mess. But I am not a competitive player. I was not abusing Formations and psychic deathstars. 

The thing about GW, is that they giveth and taketh. They have taken much over the years in codex and edition changes. Sadly. It had taken them quite a while to giveth back so to speak. 

9th is finally at a place near 7th where we have lots of options and fun flavor in the codexes again. To hard reset again, would put me out for years. 

I do agree that things are a mess, and the amount of rules is over the top. Given that I'm not bothered by that, and somewhat enjoy the complexity, I see my bias. But, like Reaper above, I won't just sit here and let everyone speak for me, and assume we all agree. 

If there is an inkling that GW sees these forums, I don't want them thinking we are some unified front and echo chamber. 

Also, like Reaper, I'm tired of standing firm against the ocean of "bloat" complaints as well. So this will be the last I say on it. If the majority wins, then so be it, democracy prevails. But at least I cast my vote. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

I find it equally perplexing that you think it wouldn't cause any harm.

There were positive changes that 8th brought. Vehicles and monsters were on a equal footing, stats were no longer capped at 10, weapons could cause variable damage and with movement units felt unique. I also remember how much every single one of those aspects were hated by at least one person. Even now I see people begging for blast markers to return, when I am glad they are gone and their inclusion in HH2.0 is another reason I won't start that game.

Not only did 8th invalidate every single book I had, it happened at the same time. That had never occurred since I started in 4th Edition, and I was using a 3rd Edition codex for my Daemon Hunters right through that edition. Not to mention learning all the new mechanics and having to forget enough mechanics to make up an entirely new game. 

I can imagine a better game. I imagine 10th edition where stratagems are refined and not removed, Relics are just ordinary wargear again, GW stops trying to make Armies of Renown a thing and remembers that the Spearhead/Outrider/Vanguard detachments exist, and Imperial Armour gets redone and no army has to pay a cost for taking a unit outside of points. Maybe a casualty phase would help, but I'd need to see proof of that.

So again I refuse to accept a full reset. I cannot see how it would lead to, at best, another reset in an edition or two and at worst the death of 40k.

[Orange Knight]

Sure, they could refine the current ruleset. But do you know what that would really entail? A new codex for each and every faction. 

It would require years - the full running length of an entirely new edition - during which time potentially large swathes of existing books would be redundant. Unless of course the changes are so small that the update is ultimately irrelevant?

A tune up of 9th does not resolve other massive issue - the bloat and avalanche of admin. It's not simply a balance issue, or how fun a set of core rules is. 

 

I'm happy for the game to take one step back if it then takes two steps forward. A small change from 9th to 10th will not resolve major problems with the design ethos. I'm simply not scared of change - I've been in the hobby for 27 years and have seen a lot of it. There is a chance some things could be worse of course, but we have to be prepared to roll the dice to see the outcome.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Orange Knight

[Cpt_Reaper]

It doesn't though. 10th refines some of the core mechanics with the new rulebook, maybe adds in that casualty phase, maybe doesn't. Maybe makes changes to detachments to non Battalions, maybe it doesn't.

Fixing stratagems in the short term can be done with a balance dataslate, or even just a FAQ for each codex. No new codex needed. Adjust costs and/or wording for the overly good/bad strats, delete a few that are too situational. Then, when it is time for a new codex make relics buyable wargear and the same for certain wargear strats (like flakk missiles) and done.

No hard reset needed. No steps back needed at all, just steps forward.

[UnkyHamHam]

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Sure, they could refine the current ruleset. But do you know what that would really entail? A new codex for each and every faction. 

It would require years - the full running length of an entirely new edition - during which time potentially large swathes of existing books would be redundant.

A tune up of 9th does not resolve a massive issue - the bloat and avalanche of admin. It's not simply a balance issue, or how fun a set of core rules is. 

 

I'm happy for the game to take one step back if it then takes two steps forward. A small change from 9th to 10th will not resolve major problems with the design ethos.

I think everyone expects to buy a new codex each edition regardless of if it's an edition 1.1 or 2.0 from the previous edition. Codexes will come hard reset or not. 

You keep speaking in absolutisms about game design and expected outcomes. We have evidence to support and knock down both points of view here if we look at the past 9 editions.

Why and how are you so confident you have the ultimate fix to 40k, and GW just doesn't know it yet?  

Not meant to be a personal slight, just genuinely curious where your place of confidence comes from. All you have cited is the documented exponential growth GW experienced after launching 8th. 

But there is more nuance than just the edition hard reset. There was the whole "advancing the narrative", the introduction of the Primaris, the change in leadership and design ethos in the company, the return of social media presence and active marketing,ect...

As you can see GW pushed hard at the beginning of 8th on all fronts. It would be really disingenuous to claim that 8ths mechanics and indexes were the sole reason for GW's growth and success. 

[Orange Knight]

40k needs outright changes and not just refinements.

You can't take a step forward if you're held back.

 

Look, I understand you love the game and that is a perfectly fine outlook to have, but recent polls carried out by people in the 40k community, such as Auspex Tactics, reveal that close to 70% of players are so unhappy with 9th that they want a ground-up rebuild of the rules for 10th. Nearly 20k people participated in this.

Dismissing the greater community sentiment is not going to lead to a flourishing hobby.

 

[Cpt_Reaper]

Stating figures like 20 thousand people is also irrelevant without context. Is it a massive amount of the playerbase, or barely a blip? Out of Auspex Tactic's 165 thousand subscribers, 18.6 thousand is 11%. I wouldn't say that represents anything at all. If only 11% bothered to answer, what is the thoughts of the other 89%? You can't say the results would favour your argument if all 165,000 subscribers responded, as I cannot say that it would turn in favour of mine.

So we go back to square one, your thoughts and opinions based on your experience against mine, formed the same way. You say a step backwards leading into a leap forwards is good, I say constant steps forwards is always preferable to any steps backwards.

If the answer is to just reset the game whenever things look poor rather than refining and improving them until they can be no longer fixed or refined, will you demand a reset after 1 edition? 2 editions? A reset won't result in anything other than ending up right where we are now - arguing to continue on or hard reset again. However continuing on, choosing to refine and improve, will lead to refinement and improvement until such a point where no more improvement can be made.

[Orange Knight]

I think it reflects a perfectly reasonable sample of people. 

The way to truly drive the hobby forward is to recognise the wider sentiment of the community. I'm personally dissatisfied with 9th, but I also see the sentiment echoed by the majority of people I interact with - both online and in person.

I think GW made several mistakes with 9th, chief of which is adopting a mission set inspired by the NOVA/ITC format that existed during 8th and prior. Another mistake was to double down on a game system built around excessive layering of special rules via army wide bonuses. The gradual transfer of unit specific rules into stratagems is also a significant negative, as is the reliance on FAQs and Erratas to keep the codex creep in check.

In many ways 9th edition is starting to resemble 7th. It's not as bad as that, but wiping the slate clean is now preferable to small amendments. This wasn't the case back in 8th but can be recognised as such now.

An entirely new edition of 40k can be thought of as "Schrödinger's 40k."  It can be both good, and bad, but until it comes we won't know.

[Cpt_Reaper]

2 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I think it reflects a perfectly reasonable sample of people. 

67% sharing an opinion out of only 11% of people who had the opportunity to answer is not a reasonable sample of people. At all. As I said, as the other 89% chose not to answer at all rather then even saying "I agree with neither option" then neither of us can say if the true majority favours either side.

5 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The way to truly drive the hobby forward is to recognise the wider sentiment of the community. I'm personally dissatisfied with 9th, but I also see the sentiment echoed by the majority of people I interact with - both online and in person.

You're personally dissatisfied, just as I am personally satisfied by 9th. Our personal feeling are irrelevant. As are the sentiments that you or I are exposed to in our personal groups as, like the sample size you referred to, it is not a representation of anything beyond the opinions we are personally exposed to.

If you can show me an actual representation of the player base and their wants for the game being, in the majority, in support of your position then I will continue to say they are wrong, as it would be disingenuous for me to say otherwise just because the majority disagrees with me. I will however, see that the majority disagrees with me and seeing as we both want a positive outcome for this game we all love, I will continue to defend my point and hope I am wrong and that your stance of a hard reset won't harm the game as I also hope that my stance of no more resets will be the positive that I believe it to be.

[Orange Knight]

By all means, please, show me a bigger sample size voting on that specific issue.

Nearly 20 thousand hobbyists have voiced their opinion. Even casual players like Valrak have forsaken 40k and jumped over to the Horus Heresy.

But that's not what this discussion is about. My wish for 10th edition is that they start from scratch in the same way they did with 8th. Index books are not required, they could even do downloadable rules. The finer details are for GW to decide.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Fan of the hard reset, not because I want it, but because the codex creep needs it. The core rules are great (not perfect, but better than 7th), it's the codexes that constantly have to out due each other that make it garbage. GW should not have started handing out extra AP on everything just to give out a rule like AoC part way through an edition (which is supporting evidence that later codexes were not balanced with previous power armor codexes).

How do you fix half of the datasheets at once? How could GW make codexes weaker and expect them to sell? The lethality has gotten stupid. A question for those against the reset, what is their alternative to reign in how bonkers and bloated individual factions rules have gotten? I don't mean that question as being snide, I'm curious as to what alternatives are out there. Because if it's just tone down the codexes and release them every 4-6 weeks like this edition, nobody will be excited for their book, nobody will be rushing to buy it or adding models to their army. GW honestly just wants money, and they are a miniatures manufacturer first and a table top rules creator second. They won't change their business model to make less money.

[Cpt_Reaper]

6 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

By all means, please, show me a bigger sample size voting on that specific issue.

You know I can't show you a bigger sample size, because it doesn't exist. However it not existing doesn't give a smaller sample size merit, especially because this particular smaller sample size favours your desire for a hard reset. If such am important topic brought up by a well known youtuber heavily involved in 40k can't get more than 11% of their subscribers to answer then that says the issue either isn't big enough for people to actually care or the source isn't reliable enough.

10 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Nearly 20 thousand hobbyists have voiced their opinion. Even casual players like Valrak have forsaken 40k and jumped over to the Horus Heresy.

Valrak, a known space marine enthusiast, is playing a game that is primarily about space marines fighting space marines. Even if he went on record saying the game is better, that statement would be affected by a very clear bias.

12 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

But that's not what this discussion is about. My wish for 10th edition is that they start from scratch in the same way they did with 8th. Index books are not required, they could even do downloadable rules. The finer details are for GW to decide.

This discussion is equally about wishlisting for 10th edition as it is for those taking part to offer fixes to perceived issues with the current ruleset going forward into the next edition. You have tried using flawed statistics to prove your point. I pointed out why said statistics are not the representation of support you thought them to be. If I had brought a screenshot of a survey posted by an equally well known 40k enthusiast and it was shown that the majority disagreed with you, yet you saw that it was 10% of their total followers that answered at all, would you let me have that? No, you wouldn't, or at the very least you shouldn't.

If index books aren't required, then the core rules weren't changed enough to warrant a hard reset. Ergo, no reset is required at all. If you just want the codexes reset...that happens every edition anyway. No reset needed in that case either. Just wait for the next codex to come out in 10th Edition.

I am unable to understand why you think a reset will stop codex creep. Remember before 8th how every edition had codex creep? Remember thinking 8th would stop that, resetting everyone to an equal level? A reset won't stop that because power creep sells, as it always has and always will. If you think it will stop "bloat", it won't. The abundance of rules will just come back with different names, because staying at a bare stripped down version wasn't fun at the start of 8th and it won't be fun in 10th and onward.

[hardcore1six]

Every single player in my local club plays 9th with no issues. I doubt they'd see it requiring a "hard reset".

The runaway issues seem to be stratagems, and with the win rates this week actually balanced at tournament level I honestly think the core 9th ed rules are pretty good.

A reset on some things surrounding the game, not the core rules, (CP nephilim limits and paying for relics/warlord traits for example) wouldn't be overly difficult to implement. We've seen that almost all stratagems now have a category (requisition, strategic ploy, heroic deed etc) - what if the limit is you can only use one from each category during the game? (clearly spitballing here)

It would be a slight deviation from the norm and might actually see some changes to how the game is played.

What rules are actually broken now? I think the only recurring one for the last few weeks has been the mixed unit toughness query.

[phandaal]

40 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

67% sharing an opinion out of only 11% of people who had the opportunity to answer is not a reasonable sample of people. At all. As I said, as the other 89% chose not to answer at all rather then even saying "I agree with neither option" then neither of us can say if the true majority favours either side.

20,000 people is a good sample size, especially for a geographically distributed audience like Auspex's.

11% response rate for a survey on YouTube sounds about right, given that the vast majority of people do not even "like" or comment on videos.

However, I know how the Internet works. Right now those goalposts are strapped to a space rocket and moving away as fast as they possibly can.

[Special Officer Doofy]

My whole gaming group (my brother and our friends) quit in 7th and came back in 8th because of the hard reset. All (myself included) but one has already quit and went back to video games and MTG because of the bloat and creep of later 9th. The 2 nearest hobby shops that were primarily Warhammer went out of business in the last 365 days. Most of the players around me would love a hard reset. That's why personal anecdotes mean absolutely nothing. The only large sample size was presented by Orange Knight but even that evidence is being immediately dismissed by those who don't agree with it.

[UnkyHamHam]

So moving the conversation forward a little. Say you get your wish, and we hard reset at 10th. We have to suffer barebones indexes again for a year or more. 

Whats stopping the cycle from repeating itself?  As has been mentioned thoroughly now, this process of codex creep isn't new. By allowing GW to get away with invalidating our purchases every few years, and double down on selling us indexes AND codexes, you really are just letting them double dip in our wallets with no recourse. 

You are allowing them to basically "get away" with subpar rules writing and shotty game design, because they know we will be begging them for new books on a year. 

How about put the onus on them to reel things in, fix their game, and find creative solutions that are both business friendly AND consumer friendly, before we let them rob us blind...

.. Instead of shoving easy money at them and begging for less content and more books. Please. 

Their have been many creative solutions and patches tossed out to try in these threads. And not even by game designers. 

We don't have to jump on the nuclear option of hard resetting, just because strats and missions are out of hand. We can patch these aspects while leaving the core rules and meat and potatoes of codexes intact. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

someone mentioned terrain, can we return to true LoS within reason? for example if you can see the model's torso, or hull you can see it, but if all you can see is a plume of hair or feathers, or a hand holding a weapon aloft you can't, but this idea that models can't see  and shoot through windows or something, it's absolutely ridiculous. terrain having to be a certain height to block LOS even if it's a 100% solid piece of terrain is ridiculous.