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

[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.

 

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

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.

 

Anecdotally, my local scene has almost abandoned 40k entirely. Myself included.

It's why I'm now in the midst of painting up a 3k points HH army, and members of my community have enthusiastically embraced the game as their new primary focus.

As has been mentioned already, the only objective evidence we have for the greater sentiment of the 40k community is the poll carried out by Auspex Tactics, which indicates close to 70% of hobbyists want to see an entirely new edition that erases all existing codex books and rules.

If done correctly, this could re-ignite the hobby for a lot of people. It's very important that Games Workshop don't repeat the same mistakes in the next edition and this is something I have less confidence in.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

There’s nothing wrong with the ruleset. The problem is the codices. Also that’s just not true regarding the % you stated for the poll.

[Orange Knight]

1 minute ago, Black Blow Fly said:

There’s nothing wrong with the ruleset. The problem is the codices. Also that’s just not true regarding the % you stated for the poll.

It's absolutely true. It's 67% - That's almost 70.

If you think the codex books are the only issue (which they aren't. The mission design in 9th is too admin heavy) then we would need to wait a further 3 years for GW to update them all again, and in a way that makes them LESS powerful?

That's not going to happen.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’ll watch the podcast again.

In regards to the mission design you have access to missions from the rule book itself, Open War and Tempest of War. You don’t have to play the missions in the GT Pack (e.g., Nephilim). Many people are greatly enjoying Tempest of War. GT (tournament) missions will always be more complicated. The ITC missions used in 8th edition were very popular at the time.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Okay the 67% in regards to the poll was referring to replacing the codices…

[Noserenda]

Thats not exactly what the poll was asking, it was talking about resting the codexes with the new edition, not the new edition itself, which we know is coming next year regardless of how much change they put into it. 

My own group isnt playing any 40k either (As mentioned the codex overdesign killed it for us, though you arent wrong about the scenarios either those are easy to replace) but we also did some test games of AoD 2 when i wasnt there and it seems to have killed that enthusiasm too, at least for buying new armies. I suspect mostly because of how good Adeptus Titanicus is mostly :D But thats not really a replacement for 40k.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

He literally says that 33% of the people who took the poll want the core rules updated.

[Emperor Ming]

Core rules are fine

Its the codex bloat that's the problem, hence the 67% of people wanting a reset of codexs

10th rulebooks could already be printed if its next year  

 

 

 

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

I’ll watch the podcast again.

In regards to the mission design you have access to missions from the rule book itself, Open War and Tempest of War. You don’t have to play the missions in the GT Pack (e.g., Nephilim). Many people are greatly enjoying Tempest of War. GT (tournament) missions will always be more complicated. The ITC missions used in 8th edition were very popular at the time.

Tempest of War is the best. Pretty much the only mode I play these days.

It is significantly harder to find people willing to play anything besides the "standard" GT mode though.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Everyone in my area pretty much only plays Tempest of War now.

[spessmarine]

not terribly familiar with him, but it seems he runs content and caters to a more competitive crowd
that in itself lends itself to possible sampling bias

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, spessmarine said:

not terribly familiar with him, but it seems he runs content and caters to a more competitive crowd
that in itself lends itself to possible sampling bias

He makes assessments based on the competitive scene because the posted win rates and what not is the only way to get reliable data.

[Orange Knight]

4 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

He literally says that 33% of the people who took the poll want the core rules updated.

And 67% want a full reset with the existing books being scrapped.

A full reset implies by default that a new set of core rules is being introduced, otherwise the existing codex books would still be usable.

Try telling people that a new edition of 40k which is only mildly different from the previous one has somehow invalidated their 1yr old codex.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

20 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

And 67% want a full reset with the existing books being scrapped.

A full reset implies by default that a new set of core rules is being introduced, otherwise the existing codex books would still be usable.

Try telling people that a new edition of 40k which is only mildly different from the previous one has somehow invalidated their 1yr old codex.

I think you’re misunderstanding…

people want the codexes reset. 
maybe some old rules to come back, some current rules gone, maybe hoping for all new rules completely for their armies.

for example you don’t need a full game reset to trash 90% of the strats.

you don’t need to reset core rules to drop AP, and D on a lot of weapons and to remove all the mortal wounds and invulns that have been thrown about lately.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

4 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

And 67% want a full reset with the existing books being scrapped.

A full reset implies by default that a new set of core rules is being introduced, otherwise the existing codex books would still be usable.

Try telling people that a new edition of 40k which is only mildly different from the previous one has somehow invalidated their 1yr old codex.

You believe what you want, I’m done discussing it with you here. Others here understand. That said I’ll be the first to tell you I told you so.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Orange Knight]

The core rules are pretty good, I agree there. But they can be better and more thematic.

They could adopt elements from the Horus Heresy, or move the system away from the D6 limitation, or return the game to a USR system. 

Any of these changes would require re-working the game from the ground up. That doesn't mean it will no longer be recognizable, after all 8th edition does share some common elements with 7th for example, but it's more than a simple tune up.

[Orange Knight]

3 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

You believe what you want, I’m done discussing it with you here. Others here understand.

 

I'm sorry but you should go back and watch the video from Auspex Tactics.

He does specifically outline that the options in his poll come down to whether people want a minor update that tunes 9th edition up, or a substantial rework that requires a return to an index system for the short term or something equivalent to one.

[Captain Idaho]

Moving on.... 

I quite like the ideas Inquisitor_Lensoven has brought up, in that a reduction in damage and AP would do wonders for the game. Reduced need tor Invulnerable saves, additional rules such as Armour of Contempt, etc etc. Also allows for more modular method of adjustment instead of special rules - just up the wounds characteristics and it's mostly solving issues.

Added to that, weapons doing set damage is much more effective than random. Just quicker, cleaner and easier to manage.

[Special Officer Doofy]

The only way reducing damage and ap will fly though is if it's everyone at once. Those against the reset, is the suggestion maybe a pdf type deal at the start of the edition for each faction that alters some stats on units and wargear? Because I got to imagine the only thing worse than waiting for your codex to come out to buff your army is dreading your codexing coming out and nerfing it haha.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

"Because I got to imagine the only thing worse than waiting for your codex to come out to buff your army is dreading your codexing coming out and nerfing it haha."
 

Like the ninth edition SM codex.

[Special Officer Doofy]

3 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

"Because I got to imagine the only thing worse than waiting for your codex to come out to buff your army is dreading your codexing coming out and nerfing it haha."
 

Like the ninth edition SM codex.

Yep, almost like payback for getting a new codex in 8th with mono bonuses while every other faction got a bandaid called "psychic awakening" while marines ran the tables.

Jokes aside, yeah they made newer codexes based off the strength of the second 8th one not the toned down 9th one. Poor necrons weren't any better haha.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I also hope advance gets removed from the core rules and makes transports more feasible.