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

[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.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, The Unseen said:

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. 

You can have templates without scatter die…

[Cpt_Reaper]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

You can have templates without scatter die…

No, you can't. Templates without scatter dice became "everything under this template is autohit". That is horrifically broken, because then you just take Large Blast and bigger. If you substitute the scatter die for something else to determine what under the template gets hit, you've just made the current system but more complicated and worse.

Templates are dead for good reason. Their inclusion in HH2.0 is a black mark on that system.

[Triszin]

removal of templates its good.

 

It increased the time it took to move your models as everyone did the maximum spacing, and also removed the arguments of ( ITS IN, NO ITS OUT!)

 

I much prefer the simplification to BLAST X-X

but I do think that they are slowly improving it, by making non elite armies troops at a minimum of 10 per squad.

 

and hearing the rumored changes to termagants ( hyper gants- 5 on each base ),

 

meaning horde armies being able to move 30+ models, technically in 6 moves instead of 30 moves.

 

 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

14 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

I think templates should come back as an optional rule, same for some of the other controversial rules like challenges. Probably with some guidelines where each player gets to pick one if choose the players choose to use optional rules so that both sides can benefit.  

1) Templates can be a lot of fun, but they can make some incredibly miserable experiences if your opponent isn't carefree or a good sport. I'd much have that guy have to roll some dice to determine hits instead of telling me that his large blast hits my entire squad, and my large blast only hits 3 dudes even though I rolled a hit on the scatter die. That gray area just creates more conflict than it's worth IMO, and to be honest my W/L record probably reflected that to a degree cause I just didn't care enough to argue with some of them.  

2) Horde armies become really annoying to play against when you take templates because they will space out every unit. They first time you play an Ork army with a 100+ boyz and their first movement phase takes over an hour is the last time you want to play against that army lol.

 

On 8/10/2022 at 12:49 PM, 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.

 

I really think that the 40k player base has become large enough where you can't make a ruleset that makes everyone happy. My 10th edition wish at this point is an advanced and classic ruleset. Classic would be 5th edition with better wound allocation rules, make flyers and LoWs optional, and use the current battalion as its FOC. It would have separate codex and its own rulebook. Advanced would carry on from 9th and mostly streamline stratagems or make more of them worth it, tone down the re-rolls, and be the home for crusade system. 

GW has the profits to hire some devs to make it happen, and they can push the advanced rules with tournament support.  But the people who want an alternative would have one.   

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The problem with this solution is then there’s two things to complain about and it would happen. Seriously people complain about stuff that addressed things in the past that were complained about… geedub can’t win.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Lexington]

If love to see 5th’s wound allocation system come back, with the obvious fix for multi-wound models put in. Probably the best allocation system GW’s ever done, and remembered poorly for that one big loophole…

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Honestly I’m starting to think this whole topic is pointless now.

 

someone points out an older mechanic they like someone tells them how it would ruin the game.

 

someone mentions a new mechanic they don’t like and someone else tells them how the game would be ruined without it.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[phandaal]

19 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Honestly I’m starting to think this whole topic is pointless now.

 

someone points out an older mechanic they like someone tells them how it would ruin the game.

 

someone mentions a new mechanic they don’t like and someone else tells them how the game would be ruined without it.

 

 

Internet in a nutshell. Someone could say they like jam and butter on their toast and by noon the next day they would have an inbox full of death threats from naked toast purists.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

17 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Internet in a nutshell. Someone could say they like jam and butter on their toast and by noon the next day they would have an inbox full of death threats from naked toast purists.

Most of the discussions on here tend to not go this way, at least not to this degree anyway.

[Toldavf]

On 8/12/2022 at 11:59 AM, Azaiel said:

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.

I agree with basically all of this, I'll add a sensible point system that doesn't render vehicles useless and going in with a Bench mark they balance every book against.

 

[phandaal]

On 8/12/2022 at 5:59 AM, Azaiel said:

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.

Mortal Wounds are just an asinine mechanic. Pick out models to remove and bypass all the the core rules for dealing and mitigating damage. Neat!

Have to laugh at this point though, because that crutch has been leaned on so hard that it has gone beyond annoying and right into comedy.

Like watching a movie that is so bad it is good.

Edited August 13, 2022 by phandaal

[Evil Eye]

15 hours ago, The Unseen said:

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. 

Myself I'd argue the problem there is less blast templates and more that WAAC/tourney environments have come to be viewed as "the standard" of 40K. And in my experience such environments will take ANY game and reduce it to a form of torture, with slight loopholes that can be either happily ignored/discussed or simply avoided in normal games ("Yeah, if you take two wizards and have them cast these spells on each other you can create a gamebreaking feedback loop, so I'm not gonna do that) get ripped wide open by people looking to break the game.

Honestly IMO these sorts of environments should be confined to "destructive testing" of game systems, much like "white hat hackers" so GW can see what loopholes are liable to abuse by powergamers and then take steps to address them such that munchkins won't ruin the game without completely sterilizing the system. Alas, that's a community problem that GW can't really fix. It's the same nonsense that prevails with MTG: the community has gotten the idea that because you CAN break the game with infinite turn combos, you SHOULD.

I did have a more constructive idea, however- rather than trying to cater to everyone with one system using different play modes, embracing early DnD's answer of a "Basic" and "Advanced" ruleset, and having two related but separate systems. "Basic" would be faster, simpler and easier to understand, making newer players feel more at home and giving those more concerned with balance a more "controlled" environment to play. "Advanced" would be more indepth and "simulationist", trading speed and some degree of balance for deeper, more engaging rules and more options for equipment and listbuilding. This way everyone wins- want to get into 40K for the first time, or want a faster, more balanced game? Go for Basic! An experienced player looking for a more oldschool wargame experience, with as much verisimilitude as possible and the potential to recreate an entire fictional-historical campaign in detail? Advanced is your thing!

Honestly 40K's fanbase is so large and myopic that one ruleset is honestly no longer sufficient. You can't please everyone all the time, but you'll do a better job if you have different things on offer.

24 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Mortal Wounds are just an asinine mechanic. Pick out models to remove and bypass all the the core rules for dealing and mitigating damage. Neat!

Have to laugh at this point though, because that crutch has been leaned on so hard that it has gone beyond annoying and right into comedy.

Like watching a movie that is so bad it is good.

I would argue Mortal Wounds are not without merit- "There is no save allowed" is not a new concept. The problem is the overuse of the mechanic. Same with multi damage weapons; having something between "can only cause 1 wound" and "Instagib" is good, especially dealing with big monsters. A Tyranid Warrior might be slain outright by a lascannon, whilst a Hierodule would certainly take damage (and more damage than a penetrating multilaser) but wouldn't instantly die. However, the Damage stat is abused so heavily the game has become unnecessarily lethal.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Evil Eye
Added point re: Mortal Wounds.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

28 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Mortal Wounds are just an asinine mechanic. Pick out models to remove and bypass all the the core rules for dealing and mitigating damage. Neat!

Have to laugh at this point though, because that crutch has been leaned on so hard that it has gone beyond annoying and right into comedy.

Like watching a movie that is so bad it is good.

I don’t mind the idea of mortal wounds, but having ways to deal MWs should be rare.

it should represent damage from something that’s so massively overwhelmingly powerful nothing short of a titan could be expected to be able to withstand it.

[UnkyHamHam]

22 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I don’t mind the idea of mortal wounds, but having ways to deal MWs should be rare.

it should represent damage from something that’s so massively overwhelmingly powerful nothing short of a titan could be expected to be able to withstand it.

Would like to second this, but in addition, that Mortal Wounds themselves be uncommon. Not ever army needs to be putting out dozens of MWs a turn.  Unless it's your army's primary thing, like 1ksons for instance. 

I get they are their to take on deathstars, but we may have overdone it. Which is why GW escalated MW defense. 

[phandaal]

14 minutes ago, UnkyHamHam said:

Not ever army needs to be putting out dozens of MWs a turn.  Unless it's your army's primary thing, like 1ksons for instance.

Not even Tsons should be doing it. Tsons may even be worse, actually, because their psychic phase could be replaced with a dice simulator telling you how many Mortal Wounds they deal and the game would be no worse off for it.

As for the idea behind Mortal Wounds. If something is so mind-blisteringly powerful that only a Titan could hope to withstand it, then it should not be in a game of 40k.

[UnkyHamHam]

16 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Not even Tsons should be doing it. Tsons may even be worse, actually, because their psychic phase could be replaced with a dice simulator telling you how many Mortal Wounds they deal and the game would be no worse off for it.

As for the idea behind Mortal Wounds. If something is so mind-blisteringly powerful that only a Titan could hope to withstand it, then it should not be in a game of 40k.

Like I agree with you in theory.  But MWs are a great mechanism for representing mind bullets. Maybe we need multiple "types" of MWs. Like Psychic MWs and Destruction MWs for instance.

I know the word on the street is that more rules = bad. But granularity goes a long way in preventing unintended interactions. 

Rules like adamantium will and other "ignores MWs" mechanics can used against psychic powers, but not against vehicle explosions and titan killing weapons. 

Ya know? 

Edited August 13, 2022 by UnkyHamHam

[phandaal]

More rules typically result in more unintended interactions, not the other way around. Mortal Wounds are just nonsensical in their execution, so you end up with my Apothecary's steroid needle in the backside doing more to prevent damage than force shields from the Dark Age of Technology.

It should all follow the core Strength, AP, Damage paradigm.

Not sure what the right answer is to represent "mind bullets" in that system, but frankly that is what GW's rules designers should be figuring out in exchange for the premium cost of their rulebooks.

[Noserenda]

The problem with having a basic/advanced rules is one of those systems will be dead within the year, probably sooner, as people work out which is the most fun/entertaining by whatever metrics they value, the balance shifts over to one that gains in popularity, making it increasingly favoured over the less popular one until boom, one popular game system and one liability GW still has to support. Its why games companies haven't done it in years and why GW have never endorsed any of their similar working games as such.

And as much as i like playing casual, a mechanic that absolutely relies on players to make sure they dont sabotage their own good time is a bad mechanic.

[UnkyHamHam]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

More rules typically result in more unintended interactions, not the other way around. Mortal Wounds are just nonsensical in their execution, so you end up with my Apothecary's steroid needle in the backside doing more to prevent damage than force shields from the Dark Age of Technology.

It should all follow the core Strength, AP, Damage paradigm.

Not sure what the right answer is to represent "mind bullets" in that system, but frankly that is what GW's rules designers should be figuring out in exchange for the premium cost of their rulebooks.

That's a fair argument. When you put it into perspective that way (Apothecaries stopping MWs, but shields don't) I think I agree completely. MWs really are just another simple gamey catch-all rule meant to speed things up, but ends up killing some of the immersion. Like Strategems for the most part. 

26 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

The problem with having a basic/advanced rules is one of those systems will be dead within the year, probably sooner, as people work out which is the most fun/entertaining by whatever metrics they value, the balance shifts over to one that gains in popularity, making it increasingly favoured over the less popular one until boom, one popular game system and one liability GW still has to support. Its why games companies haven't done it in years and why GW have never endorsed any of their similar working games as such.

And as much as i like playing casual, a mechanic that absolutely relies on players to make sure they dont sabotage their own good time is a bad mechanic.

When I hear basic/advanced, I just hear the open/narrative/matched play variants. And we all know how that turned out. They even had the proto version in 7th with battleforged vs unbound. 

Power level exists, and nobody wants to use it. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

11 minutes ago, UnkyHamHam said:

Power level exists, and nobody wants to use it. 

Haha that's cause power level sucks and is less balanced. They update it less, and every 20 points is one PL, but a 21 point unit is the same as a 40 point unit, and it makes you have to spam the most expensive wargear options or you're wasting the PL because it's factored into the cost. It's a completely different list building experience and for the worse. I've yet to meet one person who prefers it. 

[UnkyHamHam]

49 minutes ago, Putrid Choir said:

Haha that's cause power level sucks and is less balanced. They update it less, and every 20 points is one PL, but a 21 point unit is the same as a 40 point unit, and it makes you have to spam the most expensive wargear options or you're wasting the PL because it's factored into the cost. It's a completely different list building experience and for the worse. I've yet to meet one person who prefers it. 

I know all that and totally agree. But was just trying to give examples of how GW has "tried" simpler rules before. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by UnkyHamHam

[Cpt_Reaper]

No rules should ever be "optional". If it is "optional" it may as well be "illegal". Sure, your local group of friends might use optional rules, but that doesn't mean every group will. What about people who can only play events? What about people who don't have the luxury of buying optional rules packs?

I've never met anyone who plays the current apocalypse, and Legends is basically a dirty word. Remember when Chapter Approved introduced Cities of Death rules...never saw them used. Remember when Forge World was "by agreement only" and how many people, including GW managers, said no by default?

In the context of 40k, opt out is always better than opt in.