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

[Noserenda]

Power level works fine for some armies and ive used it from time to time just fine. The older lists with buckets of options break it if you abuse it though, which is why it only works with people you can trust, and, as in my last post, if you have to rely on that its not a good mechanic.

(Though in this case i kinda wish it was :D ) 

[UnkyHamHam]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

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.

Reminds me how back in the day, pre-5th, Special characters actually required your opponents permission to play. Had a friend who hated them and refused to allow them.

When 5th came and they were finally just part of the normal ruleset, he almost quit the game. He gave me so much grief for "abusing" them. Especially, since it was rather new in 5th that characters let you change the force org. Like Dante and Kantor and such. 

He also hated Forgeworld, and then flyers, and then Knights/super heavies. But he couldn't fight the rules once they were "legal". 

IMO Legends would be amazing, great, and awesome if they just didn't add that ever so pesky "not recommended for organized play" bit. Or however it's worded. 

Just let people use their overcosted but still fluffy models. I mean so many legal codexes have been worse for years. 

[Evil Eye]

6 hours 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. 

Myself I find the sheer resistance to PLs odd, simply because the games they're meant for (introductory, simple games to get you started, and fluffy games where the goal is less about winning and more telling a story) don't live or die by perfect balance. I have quite a few friends (albeit mainly online) who actually prefer PLs or even use points but with much more lenience on "overspill" because they're doing narrative campaigns, and aren't  building their lists solely around optimization. Sure, if you're playing Matched then yeah it's a no go. But for friendly games and heavily fluff-based games (where constructing the scenarios and special rules takes a lot of effort and removing some of the army restrictions both makes representing a fluffy army easier and saves time that can be spent on cool campaign...stuff) I actually think they're a perfectly sensible idea. Horses for courses and all.

This kinda comes down to the idea of there being a single "valid" way of playing and all other ways are either secondary/ niche and shouldn't be focused on, or actively harmful and holding the game back from perfecting the "proper" game. The fact that the "proper" game is considered to be the absolute worst way to play it (as a competitive sport) is not helpful. This also applies to the Basic/Advanced quandary; if people were less focused on the idea of either being the "proper" way of playing, and everyone just played what they wanted to play it would be a total non-issue, and both systems could coexist. The problem is, the moment some YT guy goes "Is ADVANCED 40k actually the REAL best way???" in some awful clickbaity video and does what influencers do best/worst (influence), people will immediately follow his advice like sheep and start parroting his opinion as if it was theirs. And then the downward spiral begins, the less popular system will die regardless of how good it is, and the "survivor" will become progressively more hyperfocused, and the problem starts all over again.

Sadly, this is less a problem of 40K and more a problem with modern pop culture in general. It's not enough to just enjoy something with a circle of friends and maybe share your fun times/war stories/cool models with the wider world, you have to either make your way of doing things popular or else be sure you're enjoying your hobby the "right" way! Gotta get those influencer points!

Now TBF there is some pushback against this and a lot of small homebrew, mini-agnostic games have used this "influencer" system against the Tide of Monotony to actually promote more individual-led games (Brawl Arcane and Turnip28 spring to mind). But honestly until the community at large learns that not every game has to be played identically, the problem will persist. A single "popular" way of play will exist, anything else will be drowned out and because it sells, GW will make more of it, with no incentive to change (and not having the guts to use their position of influence to actively fight against the homogenizing of the hobby) and it will continue on and on in an eternal downward spiral of apathetic mediocrity, granting Nurgle dominion over us all...

Finally, one point I'll make on the "a mechanic which requires players not to sabotage it is bad" thing is to counter with the fact that wargames by their very nature are based on mutual understanding and agreements. After all, it's not in the rules that I can't just shoot/punch/insult my opponent in the event of defeat, but it's fairly obvious that I shouldn't do that, because even in the least excessive cases that's known as "being a bit of a tool" which is in fact frowned upon, in all forms. It doesn't have to be that extreme either- it can come down to intense rules-lawyering/pedantry, bringing an overoptimized netlist to a friendly game (like taking a gatling gun to a rifle shooting competition). If the community needs special rules put in place to just stop them from playing like tools then we haven't got a rules problem, we have a community problem, and no wargame- regardless how well-written- can solve that.

[Madao]

I have an idea to fight the codex creep and improve balance of the rules - make open beta tests of the rules before releasing them, so the community could spot most of the broken combos and interactions (as it is done now already, but GW either doesn't care or cannot do anything about it). Once the beta ruleset is refined and balanced against the current meta, it could be released as official (and used in tournaments from now-on).

I know, that it won't work well with printed rulesets, as they need to be printed some time before the release, but maybe it could be one more thing for GW to reconsider the full digitalisation of the codex rules, while leaving the printed codices for fluff, photos, narrative stuff. They could also contain the faction rules - just print them AFTER the rules for the faction are considered balanced, so they are not invalidated on the first-day FAQ/errata. I guess, that it could even increase the paper codices sales - I won't buy any codex now due to their instant invalidation, but if the rules inside were valid for the long time in the edition, then I would buy them for the factions I play, as I prefer using printed books rather than electronic rules.

[Special Officer Doofy]

I hope more of the rules can go digital in 10th.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Putrid Choir

[Evil Eye]

Digital rules would be nice as long as paper rules aren't made obsolete. Either way, I'd rather we moved away from the schizophrenic update cycle and stopped 'dexes being partially outdated within a week.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

22 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

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.

I agree that GW can't win, but having a choice at least lets you choose the lesser evil. I'll be honest I haven't bought anything from GW in a while, and with how burned I felt with Saga of the beast being legal for less than a year, I don't see myself buying anything till 10th, and if I don't like 10th maybe 11th if I'm still even interested. I've spent an embarrassing amount on this hobby in the last 20 years, GW should at least try keep me. 

15 hours 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.

Magic has various ways to play and people that don't like standard still buy the cards because they have formats that they do like. GW would support an advanced ruleset because they get to sell you 2 chapter approved, a codex, a supplement, and a campaign book for each fraction you have. I don't think people would spend that much on a classic version because there isn't the rule complexity. That said for people who are turned off by the current game it would give them an option and reason to keep buying more models.

 

13 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

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.

 

In all fairness I do think if you make a classic ruleset that flyers and LoWs should be illegal. Flyers regularly break the game, and an army of knights would be really tough to handle with older army construction rules. If you can only play events the mission pack is going to tell you what you can use, and typically has some additional rules like your army being painted with a 3-color minimum which isn't in the rulebook. 

As far as people that don't have the luxury to buy optional rulesets I get it, but that's just life I've had extended periods where I didn't spend money on models, and I have split rulebooks with friends (never owned the third or fourth edition BRB for example). I would love GW to lower the barrier of entry to our hobby, but I've made peace with the fact they won't. 

Apocalypse was a huge money grab with good boxsets, and really expensive unit trays... I'm sure we'll see it again because they sold out the kits fast but it's not a product for everyone plus its pain to transport that many models to a store most people that play are going to play at their house.

Legends should be a dirty word; they're rules that aren't updated in a meta with 4 balance dataslates and two chapter approved a year. GW wanted those rules to disappear and quite frankly buried them. Even if they made a classic ruleset they wouldn't bring those rules back. 

Forge world is finally being balanced by the 40k team and the rules are still all over place hence the bad reputation and honestly why would a GW store let them be used they don't get the sell the models (at least in the states). 

[Special Officer Doofy]

GW can and does win. Every decision they make is to make more money, not make their game better. That's them winning and us losing. They can make every print rule book a digital one as well. They can put money into their :cuss:ty app. They can release codexes closer together at the start of the edition and you know, balance them with each other while not constantly trying to out due the last one and stretch it out over two years. All of those are easy things to do to make the game healthier but they would not make as much money. My sympathy for GW does not exist, they create a vast majority of their own issues.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Putrid Choir
Grammar

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

When they do something positive to address a common complaint then people turn around and find things to complain about the fix that’s not a win for them, nor is it fair.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, Madao said:

I have an idea to fight the codex creep and improve balance of the rules - make open beta tests of the rules before releasing them, so the community could spot most of the broken combos and interactions (as it is done now already, but GW either doesn't care or cannot do anything about it). Once the beta ruleset is refined and balanced against the current meta, it could be released as official (and used in tournaments from now-on).

I know, that it won't work well with printed rulesets, as they need to be printed some time before the release, but maybe it could be one more thing for GW to reconsider the full digitalisation of the codex rules, while leaving the printed codices for fluff, photos, narrative stuff. They could also contain the faction rules - just print them AFTER the rules for the faction are considered balanced, so they are not invalidated on the first-day FAQ/errata. I guess, that it could even increase the paper codices sales - I won't buy any codex now due to their instant invalidation, but if the rules inside were valid for the long time in the edition, then I would buy them for the factions I play, as I prefer using printed books rather than electronic rules.

GW doesn’t want balanced rules, they want the power gamers to buy the new OP codex and potentially the new OP models.

 

[Orange Knight]

Valrak has said that his sources are advising him that 10th will indeed be a hard reset, and not just a tune up.

I wonder if GW will again release index books covering multiple factions, or if they'll trial something new like free online rules, usable until the faction at hand receives a codex.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

He said the rumors are 50/50 at best.

[Orange Knight]

Perhaps, but no one with any sense would advertise a rumour as a guarantee. His track record has been good in recent times.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Orange Knight

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The BA rumors have been dispelled so there ya go.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

3 hours ago, Putrid Choir said:

GW can and does win. Every decision they make is to make more money, not make their game better. That's them winning and us losing. They can make every print rule book a digital one as well. They can put money into their :cuss:ty app. They can release codexes closer together at the start of the edition and you know, balance them with each other while not constantly trying to out due the last one and stretch it out over two years. All of those are easy things to do to make the game healthier but they would not make as much money. My sympathy for GW does not exist, they create a vast majority of their own issues.

I should've clarified my statement; GW can't win when it comes to making an edition that makes everyone happy. Your right that financially they are winning, how well it works long term who knows. Like you said they create a lot of their own issues its why I don't expect what I want, and that's why I've been selling off parts of my collection. I still put my 2 cents because it doesn't hurt anything to do so. 

29 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Valrak has said that his sources are advising him that 10th will indeed be a hard reset, and not just a tune up.

I wonder if GW will again release index books covering multiple factions, or if they'll trial something new like free online rules, usable until the faction at hand receives a codex.

I'd have mixed feelings if they went this route. It'll definitely make them the most money in the short term though so I wouldn't bet against it. I probably would wait until wolves had new rules before I bought anything, and even then, the edition would have to be what I want. 

[Orange Knight]

42 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

The BA rumors have been dispelled so there ya go.

 

What was the BA rumour? That the next starter will be themed around the Baal invasion?

We haven't seen the next starter yet so the rumour is simply unconfirmed at this time.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Starter kits have generic units.

[Orange Knight]

Is that a question or a statement?

Because the 6th edition Starter kit did not have generic units. It was themed to the Dark Angels and Crimson Slaughter and had scults associated with the particular chapter.

If the next starter set is themed around the Battle for Baal, the kits may or may not be generic, but the rumour will still have truth to it either way.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

 

What was the BA rumour? That the next starter will be themed around the Baal invasion?

We haven't seen the next starter yet so the rumour is simply unconfirmed at this time.

There was also a rumor of a super sanguinor who is going to be on primarch level of power, essentially a stand in for sanguinius.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I thought the rumor there was that the starter set very well may be generic marines (not known yet), but painted as Blood Angels?

Now what would surprise me would be if that Sanguinor was in the box, and they gave you decals/iconography for Blood Angels and a bunch of successors, having BA, Flesh Tearers, etc. decals. That would be out of left field to me, but painting them red instead of blue, not at all.

Edited August 15, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Dual wielding melee weapons should provide an extra attack, I hope that comes around in 10th.

the gravis captain made me think this might become a thing.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Not that they shouldn't do that in a box. It's for another topic, but I'd reckon specializing a little bit into BA, but making the sculpts generic enough it's easy to put Flesh Tearers, etc. decals on them would also be a commercial success, as it'd get people to start BA or a BA successor.

----

More on topic, one thing to me is that the AP system, having merged vehicles in, etc., needs to be revisited. I think a lot of the issues there, now patched with armor of contempt, ignore invuln, etc. is that their AP system doesn't function correctly. When I saw armor of contempt, it looked like they were trying to almost slightly recreate the previous AP, or hearken back to it, by making sure you always got your armor save for a bit for those factions. With the AP bump, then invuln save distribution, then ignore invulns, armor of contempt, daemon saves, etc., it just looks to me like that current armor system just doesn't work right, and it'd be worth their time iterating again there.

[Valkyrion]

7 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Not that they shouldn't do that in a box. It's for another topic, but I'd reckon specializing a little bit into BA, but making the sculpts generic enough it's easy to put Flesh Tearers, etc. decals on them would also be a commercial success, as it'd get people to start BA or a BA successor.

----

More on topic, one thing to me is that the AP system, having merged vehicles in, etc., needs to be revisited. I think a lot of the issues there, now patched with armor of contempt, ignore invuln, etc. is that their AP system doesn't function correctly. When I saw armor of contempt, it looked like they were trying to almost slightly recreate the previous AP, or hearken back to it, by making sure you always got your armor save for a bit for those factions. With the AP bump, then invuln save distribution, then ignore invulns, armor of contempt, daemon saves, etc., it just looks to me like that current armor system just doesn't work right, and it'd be worth their time iterating again there.

I'd keep the AP system in theory, but I'd make it so that every attack is AP0 unless the Strength of the weapon is higher than the targets toughness when targeting Vehicles. 
That would make it much more difficult, but still not impossible, to chip a tank to death with bolters and really forces players to bring dedicated anti tank weapons, which I feel is proper. 

I'm not sure you could make that a generic rule - e.g custodes always having a 2+ save against anything less than S6 - but it would increase vehicle survivability immensely. 

 

[Wulf Vengis]

Power Level vs Points wasn't meant to be an easier rule system however. It was meant to be an easier list building mechanic and it's failure was rooted in GW's inability to dedicate themselves to just one list building mechanic.

 

The multiple ways to play scheme was also undermined from the beginning by GW again being unable to definitively say "this is the game and these are the rules". Promoting multiple ways to play, then dedicating themselves to the tournament scene and pushing model sales via errata.

 

Now for tenth edition I feel GW should finish getting the rest of 9th out the door (obviously). However instead of 9th being replaced by 10th I feel they should try something different:

"Warhammer 40,000 Xth edition: Age of Darkness"

Let the new Horus Heresy system be 10th edition. Let people use whichever models they prefer to build armies with.

Then when all the books/rules/etc are out see how people react. Which rule set do people like more. Which one is getting the love from fans and which is getting the hate. When it's all said done 11th edition can be released based on the fan favorite system.

Note: I guess it should be said that throughout 10th the 9th edition rules will not be invalidated and would continue to receive errata updates and even tournament support. But no new codecies or expansions.

[Noserenda]

I suspect the enormous and sustained boost in sales around 8th kinda answered that one already, though obviously intrinsically linked to Primaris and the whole New-GW so its not definitive.