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

[UnkyHamHam]

2 minutes ago, Putrid Choir said:

Again how does GW get away with selling weaker codexes? That's not a business strategy of theirs. They will make less money. And that's the main issue. If they released the codexes closer together (like all 20+ in the same year) and then released models or do partial/whole army revamps with separate datasheets that get collected the following edition, the game would be much healthier and codexes better balanced. But that will make them less money, so it won't happy.

And I'll gladly pay an extra $40 or whatever every few editions if it makes the game I spent $1000+ on for plastic soldiers playable and enjoyable.

GW won't sell weaker codexes unless everyone is weakened at once. So Unkyhamham what is your suggestion to reel in faction secondaries and strats, mono bonuses, second mono bonuses, MW spam, invulns, ignore invulns, ignores the ignore (Daemon save) and such without indexes? And again I don't mean that in a snide way or calling you out, I am actually curious what other options would be that are realistic that GW would do (cause remember they won't make a decision that makes them less money, even if it's better for the consumer and health of the game). 

Being that it's an edition change, obviously that comes with new missions and new mission structure. 

Strats and CP can be changed. Just as we saw CP change from 8th to 9th (getting one every turn), we can see a new method or more changes.

1.  I personally don't think CP amount should be tied to the Detachments.

2.  Implementation of unique ideas like WL generating CP, and losing access to certain/all Strats if they die. 

3.  Unit based Strats scrapped, and those rules return to units next round of codexes.

4.  Maybe units can only have 1 strat active on them per phase to prevent stacking. 

Mortal Wound damage could be capped per unit dealing them, or per unit taking them. Something as simple as "a unit may not give out more than 6 MWs per phase", or "units may not take more than 10 MWs per phase from all sources." that's just spitballing since you put me on the spot. I don't know the exact numbers. 

Invulns and ignoring invulns is fine to me. They have always been in the game. And Daemonic saves is fine in theory as long as it stays Daemons only. 

Things like AoC and other rules stacking on marines, I actually like. I've said that marines needed to be more elite and capable since like 6th ed on these forums. Things like armor modifiers and rerolls helps elite armies compete, and carve out a niche above hoards. 

My vision is that marines would keep a lot of these Astartes/Angels of Death bonuses, but other armies would cut back on rerolls and mods. Relying more on bodies, weapons profiles, and raw statlines. 

That's all I got for now. No offense taken. Thanks for asking. I appreciate a more productive conversation. 

[Orange Knight]

4 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

If there is a hard reset it will only be a matter of time until there are a new set of complaints. Also people forget what they had complained about previously… one common complaint was that geedub didn’t take action soon enough lol.

This is entirely possible, but it's also entirely possible that we get to enjoy years with a fresh new edition before it succumbs to the same pitfalls.

The hobby is cyclical, it rises and falls. Stagnation hurts it more than change.

[Special Officer Doofy]

My biggest prior complaints were formations and templates, and luckily those are gone. I don't forget about what I didn't like. Not taking action and cranking it to 11 and breaking the knob off is the same thing but in the opposite direction.

People will always complain about something they have virtually no control over but are very pationate about. If you sign up for a forum exclusively about plastic toy soldiers that is heavily moderated, chances are you are passionate about said toy soldiers. I like the product but not the people selling it, some people can't separate the two.

[Special Officer Doofy]

9 minutes ago, UnkyHamHam said:

Being that it's an edition change, obviously that comes with new missions and new mission structure. 

Strats and CP can be changed. Just as we saw CP change from 8th to 9th (getting one every turn), we can see a new method or more changes.

1.  I personally don't think CP amount should be tied to the Detachments.

2.  Implementation of unique ideas like WL generating CP, and losing access to certain/all Strats if they die. 

3.  Unit based Strats scrapped, and those rules return to units next round of codexes.

4.  Maybe units can only have 1 strat active on them per phase to prevent stacking. 

Mortal Wound damage could be capped per unit dealing them, or per unit taking them. Something as simple as "a unit may not give out more than 6 MWs per phase", or "units may not take more than 10 MWs per phase from all sources." that's just spitballing since you put me on the spot. I don't know the exact numbers. 

Invulns and ignoring invulns is fine to me. They have always been in the game. And Daemonic saves is fine in theory as long as it stays Daemons only. 

Things like AoC and other rules stacking on marines, I actually like. I've said that marines needed to be more elite and capable since like 6th ed on these forums. Things like armor modifiers and rerolls helps elite armies compete, and carve out a niche above hoards. 

My vision is that marines would keep a lot of these Astartes/Angels of Death bonuses, but other armies would cut back on rerolls and mods. Relying more on bodies, weapons profiles, and raw statlines. 

That's all I got for now. No offense taken. Thanks for asking. I appreciate a more productive conversation. 

All good ideas, specially for being on the spot. I appreciate productive conversations as well (but I do appreciate the occasional dumpster fire such as the HH spacewolf heads thread/release haha. Alot of good memes and laughs). 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

This is entirely possible, but it's also entirely possible that we get to enjoy years with a fresh new edition before it succumbs to the same pitfalls.

The hobby is cyclical, it rises and falls. Stagnation hurts it more than change.

Sorry but to me this is just more wishful thinking. Like I mentioned people now complain about changes in policy to address prior complaints. I don’t remember a time when people were happy in general regarding the game.

Going back to the Auspex Tactics podcast there were more good reasons why a hard reset is t imminent nor truly beneficial.

[Noserenda]

Right now 9th has a decent core rules but an awful set of bloaty codexes, a hard reset with only minor tweaks to the core rules would make it a lot more appealing to my group certainly, we got all excited for AoD 2nd until we got the actual rules in hand purely because we wanted a decent alternative (Which im not sure AoD is still) to that.

Its not even all the design choices, hell you could even keep some of the things we dislike if you run a 4th way to play for tournament games with extra rules and tighter army construction limits.

[Misterduch]

I honestly want the templates back, atleast for flamers :/

Playing fluffy salamanders has been a hit or miss depending on which phase of 8ed-9ed we are talking about. but the sheer amount of times that I got 1 or 2 hits with a heavy flamer or something similair has been bit of a buzzkill, while in HH 2.0 I can consistently get 5+ hits per flamer as long as I get in range making them actually feel worthwhile

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Misterduch said:

I honestly want the templates back, atleast for flamers :/

Playing fluffy salamanders has been a hit or miss depending on which phase of 8ed-9ed we are talking about. but the sheer amount of times that I got 1 or 2 hits with a heavy flamer or something similair has been bit of a buzzkill, while in HH 2.0 I can consistently get 5+ hits per flamer as long as I get in range making them actually feel worthwhile

I had a whole post in the guard sub about how underwhelming flame weapons are.

they don’t do anything well atm. Too swingy you reliably clear hoardes, too weak to reliably get a kill when they roll a 1 or 2 for shots.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

In general I think GW did a poor job of replacing templates.

a basilisk only fires 1 shot, but in game can get up to 6, and a direct hit is going to be way more devastating than a near miss that relies on the shock/explosives.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Templates are bad - they pad to arguments and slow down the game.

[Noserenda]

Id much rather see them just up the number of hits from flamers than bring back the damn templates, so much game time wasted while people arrange models optimally on both sides, especially flamer units like witchseekers! Its not even how flamer throwers work according to learned buddy, apparently it should be more like a T shape? Its one of his favourite rants anyhow :D 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

26 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Id much rather see them just up the number of hits from flamers than bring back the damn templates, so much game time wasted while people arrange models optimally on both sides, especially flamer units like witchseekers! Its not even how flamer throwers work according to learned buddy, apparently it should be more like a T shape? Its one of his favourite rants anyhow :D 

But wasting time rerolling a dozen 1s or misses is acceptable?

[Noserenda]

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

But wasting time rerolling a dozen 1s or misses is acceptable?

Flamers dont miss? But in general, yes, obviously, rolling is significantly faster than moving minis,especially if someone is being obsessive. Lord, i once had to end a campaign weekend during turn 2 because time ran out as my Ork horde playing opponent insisted on spreading all his infantry out to 2", i was playing Elysian D-99 and the biggest template weapon i had was a couple of mortars... Otherwise lovely opponent but he just felt compelled to not get blown up and that sucks.

[Misterduch]

Maybe it's because poeple I play HH 2.0 with aren't complete tryhards qho try and maximise coherency range, but in my experience templates are quite quick and no one takes the time to make sure a template scores only 3 hits instead of 4 ( for example )

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Flamers dont miss? But in general, yes, obviously, rolling is significantly faster than moving minis,especially if someone is being obsessive. Lord, i once had to end a campaign weekend during turn 2 because time ran out as my Ork horde playing opponent insisted on spreading all his infantry out to 2", i was playing Elysian D-99 and the biggest template weapon i had was a couple of mortars... Otherwise lovely opponent but he just felt compelled to not get blown up and that sucks.

I never said they missed.

just pointing out another waste of time most people seem to be just fine with.

granted I was young last time I played a game with templates, but I have never come across a player who was that anal and obsessive.

it seems that’s more of a rare occurrence especially outside of competitive play…where most games are played.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Noserenda]

Cant reroll misses if you never miss... Which you said one might need to.

Thats an extreme example but it does happen, and less extreme examples happen continuously, in every game with templates and its a little quality of life improvement to just be placing your models interestingly rather than messing around with exact spacing because some ordnance is around and thats the problem, even one template weapon with a bit of range can have implications for every model on the table if you are that way inclined, and its really something noone can ignore completely.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Templates are bad - they lead to arguments and slow down the game.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Cant reroll misses if you never miss... Which you said one might need to.

Thats an extreme example but it does happen, and less extreme examples happen continuously, in every game with templates and its a little quality of life improvement to just be placing your models interestingly rather than messing around with exact spacing because some ordnance is around and thats the problem, even one template weapon with a bit of range can have implications for every model on the table if you are that way inclined, and its really something noone can ignore completely.

I literally never said that.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

35 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

Templates are bad - they lead to arguments and slow down the game.

Yet they’re in their other 40kverse games…weird how it’s not a problem for those games.

[Noserenda]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

But wasting time rerolling a dozen 1s or misses is acceptable?

 

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I literally never said that.

 

I mean, its like three mouse wheels up, you said the thing, when we were talking about flamers, im not sure who you are trying to gaslight here?

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Yet they’re in their other 40kverse games…weird how it’s not a problem for those games.

Its not a problem in skirmish games, (though it can be a bit tedious in Titanicus when you are firing a lot of blasts in succession) because you are shuffling a handful or two of minis rather than 30+. It remains a black mark against AoD for exactly the reasons i mention above, but then archaic rules is kind apart of their marketing now *shrug*. There is certainly an argument that the writers of that very much downplayed and minimised blast weapons in second edition though, for a variety of reasons.

There are some valid arguments for templates feeling good, and they have long felt like the obvious answer to the question of how to model explosives and the like but its one of those things that falls down on closer examination. Leave them in the past where they belong.

[Azaiel]

Ok, I see that I'm late to the party but here is my wishlist for 10Ed. I´m a casual gamer who plays matched play since that is what is played around here.

If GW insists that stratagems are a vital part of their game then my compromise is, max 10 stratagems per army. And of those 10, 3-4 are general stratagems that all armies have access to. I'm fed up with all these strats who atleast 30% are useless, some are hypersituational and then you have a couple that are outright broken. And if your not playing all the time or have a savant memory you spending lot of time during the game trying to remember your strats and when to use them. Never mind your opponents strats. If I wanted to play a cardgame then I would play Magic!

Dial down the mortal wound spam, which I assume was a counter reaction to invuls in earlier editions. They are not a fun mechanic. The game is played by two players and being on the receiving end of mortal wound spam is just boring and frustrating. Same goes for FNP or equivalent which I assume was a counter reaction to mortal wounds (it all goes round and round doesn't it?), a unit or character shouldn't have a seemingly endless chain of saves to make every time it gets wounded. And yes, dial down the invuls aswell.

The AP system is so abused now with weapons having -3AP or better in seemingly every unit. GW were basically forced to come up with even crazier guns so then we got the Tau rail gun etc. Power armor is paper armor in this AP-riddled landscape which they tried to band aid with AoC. All of the above lethal rules even made GW make special rules for their named characters like Ghaz so they wouldn't die on turn 1.

I´m tired of GW trying to 1up itself with every new codex release and then try to band aid older codices with tacked on rules (All necron are Core, that should fix it right?!)
And lets take it easy with all the extra rules in each codex, if you can, then compare the 1st SM codex for 8th edition with the current codex, we have Angels of death, Doctrines and litanies etc etc. Sometimes I wonder if GW rules writers get paid for each extra unique rule they come up with for a codex.

[Misterduch]

How are templates archaic?

They work. All they require is a bit of good sportmanship and carefree attitude and they are fine.

I've never played before 8ed and I find the templates in HH2.0 to be so much better.

 

And even if they take a few seconds longer than rolling a bunch of dice, all my 30k games till now have been rather quick and fun. Sub 2/3 hours. Meanwhile my most recent 40k match with less stuff on the tables took a bit more than 4 hours because I am not going to remember 5 pages of stratagems, nor wil my opponent so time was wasted constantly checking the books

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Misterduch said:

How are templates archaic?

They work. All they require is a bit of good sportmanship and carefree attitude and they are fine.

I've never played before 8ed and I find the templates in HH2.0 to be so much better.

 

And even if they take a few seconds longer than rolling a bunch of dice, all my 30k games till now have been rather quick and fun. Sub 2/3 hours. Meanwhile my most recent 40k match with less stuff on the tables took a bit more than 4 hours because I am not going to remember 5 pages of stratagems, nor wil my opponent so time was wasted constantly checking the books

Bruh I don’t even worry about strats at all and some how my games all take a minimum of 3 hours lol

[The Unseen]

5 hours ago, Misterduch said:

How are templates archaic?

They work. All they require is a bit of good sportmanship and carefree attitude and they are fine.

I've never played before 8ed and I find the templates in HH2.0 to be so much better.

 

And even if they take a few seconds longer than rolling a bunch of dice, all my 30k games till now have been rather quick and fun. Sub 2/3 hours. Meanwhile my most recent 40k match with less stuff on the tables took a bit more than 4 hours because I am not going to remember 5 pages of stratagems, nor wil my opponent so time was wasted constantly checking the books

You've clearly never played against a guard army in previous editions, as your post states 

Try keeping that attitude when your opponent has a squadron of 3 wyverns and fires 12 small blast templates that all have to roll scatter independently, and are also all twin-linked. So potentially 24 scatter rolls, but probably averaging about 16-18. For ~400 pts, so they still have demolisher cannons, basilisks, and mortars, along with the buckets of Las shots.

In AoD, it'll probably be alright because spamming blast templates doesn't look to be super strong with nerfs to a lot of the previous problematic blast weapons, and a generally more narrative focus, but keep them the hell away from the WAAC land that is modern 40k. 

That laid back attitude is fine when you're gaming with your buddies, and immediately falls apart when your opponent in a tournament decides to always shift the angles and distance ever so slightly to always nail units and gets upset when you call it out. It's also almost impossible to prove intent because the blast templates are honestly finicky and easy to mess up. 

[Valkyrion]

I think auto hitting having random shots is fine - if you are auto hitting then you are ignoring an entire section of the rules, so the randomness acts as somewhat of a counter balance - it's nice when you get max shots but you can't build your tactics around always getting it. 

Things like the demolisher cannon though are a bit jarring. It can do 1-36 wounds. That big of a swing is also something you cannot build a strategy around, yet given the cost of the platform it sits on (vindicator, leman russ etc) you should be able to have better reliability than that. 

So maybe some powerful weapons could (re)introduce a variation of the Destroyer special rule, something like
'weapons with this special rule roll a number of damage dice indicated on their profile and add the S of the weapon to the number rolled if targeting an enemy unit with a Toughness value greater than half the strength of the weapon.
When targeting a unit with a toughness value equal to or less than the strength of the weapon, that weapon instead causes a number of wounds equal to the strength characteristic of that weapon, each causing 1 damage.'

Obviously need to be worded better, but the basic premise is that high strength multi shot weapons would become Destroyer X weapons - a demolisher cannon would therefore fire one shot, if it hit a tank or knight which then failed its save, it would do D6+10 wounds. If it hit a tactical squad it would then make 10 to wound rolls and carry on the attack sequence as normal. 

I've not spent any time on this, just thinking out loud.