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

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

Honestly I don’t know why you’re so focused on initiative being a problem. It’s really not - this thread is actually the first I’ve seen anyone complain about it. I’d also like to kindly ask that you dial down the vitriol a bit - it does nothing to make your arguments more convincing.

I never said initiative is a problem.

im pro-initiative. I’m saying it solves a problem currently in game.

 

there was no vitriol in my post.

just reiterating what was previously stated that there is a group of people here poo-pooing peoples’ ideas while providing nothing to the conversation.

[Schlitzaf]

You realize degrading vehicles are rarelt actually in game relavance?

A 12 Wound Models. Take 6 wounds to degrade. And then degrades again at 3 more wounds taken. For most tanks whom only have 1 big gun. That actually preferable to weapon destroyed or immobilised. From prior edition. Furthermore math wise:

Its always better off full killing a vehicle due to how degradation actually functions. Sense 2 Vehicle shooting a little worse is bettee than 1 vehicle shooting at full capacity.

Secondary, Stun Locking was actual pain. But there is a difference between that. 

1) Fight First/Charge Fight First. We have counter attack. And fight last mechanics give you tools to interact. Previously an SM player could do nothing vs I5 Aeldari except pray to dice gods.

2) Fight Last has works around, such as charge. Etc

[Lemondish]

46 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

Utterly Irrelavent or Bad Feels Relavence. Ie I charge Elder whosehewhatit with my Marines. A few dice god cats sacrificed later: all my marines are dead cause even Gaurdians and Avengers are I5. Or if Orks charged still no I4 so :(. Conversely, if you were I4 it functionally did nothing in alot of cases. As struck same time as opponent AND had annoying bookkeeping “these died but not died”

This assumes the game couldn't provide a boost to Initiative for having charged or heroically intervening. Just because this was how Initiative was used doesn't mean it's the only way. Initiative as a stat is an independent concept from how that stat can interact with the game. Today, we have a number of fights first or fights last effects with a variety of different names and impacts and it became so unwieldy as a mechanic that a full on designers commentary document is written. Imagine how it'll be if they ever tried to add more onto this shaky foundation.

Instead of just the very simple steps of fighting in Initiative order and Initiative is a stat that can be modified. It adds additional nuance as a slow moving durable fighter who charges can still fight later against faster, nimbler opponents,  and therefore we gain some tactical variance. Charge with your faster hitting stuff, or like in HH, add a pinning mechanic to get the upper hand. Tactical thinking.

46 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

Rules that triggered on initiative had such obscene level variances from worthless to scoop. Jaws being the classic example. But even beyond that, Frag Grenades “I strike at initiative” “oh I am mono power fist or vs aeldari, actually irrelavent”

Again, nobody is saying that returning to Initiative has to mean bringing forward all the same baggage from 7th edition and earlier. One does not have to have a variety of unrelated effects applying to an unrelated stat. Once again, Initiative as a stat does not inherently mean we have Jaws returning. It doesn't mean anything except an opportunity to use a stat on a unit profile to determine how to order combats with much more nuance than the current system.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Lemondish

[Schlitzaf]

For clarity sake: I do dislike the current fight (at current defined place between first/last meme). If I had my way. I’d have it so charger always fight first. Then for future rounds we do “initiative” orders vs alternations we have now. After charges are done.

If lemon saying what think you are saying I agree. What I don’t agree with is folks saying that initiaitve is a pancea to current situation “of fight (x)” meme.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

You realize degrading vehicles are rarelt actually in game relavance?

A 12 Wound Models. Take 6 wounds to degrade. And then degrades again at 3 more wounds taken. For most tanks whom only have 1 big gun. That actually preferable to weapon destroyed or immobilised. From prior edition. Furthermore math wise:

Its always better off full killing a vehicle due to how degradation actually functions. Sense 2 Vehicle shooting a little worse is bettee than 1 vehicle shooting at full capacity.

Secondary, Stun Locking was actual pain. But there is a difference between that. 

1) Fight First/Charge Fight First. We have counter attack. And fight last mechanics give you tools to interact. Previously an SM player could do nothing vs I5 Aeldari except pray to dice gods.

2) Fight Last has works around, such as charge. Etc

define rarely.
most of the games i've played using vehicles with degrading profiles, i've had my vehicles utilize each and every profile level.

what tanks only have 1 big gun, and why do people keep bringing up old mechanics that no one else mentioned?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Vindicator quickly comes to mind.

[Schlitzaf]

then your opponents are incompetent and not focus firing:

Leman Russ, Hammerheads, frankly most MBT. And in general one main gun. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

then your opponents are incompetent and not focus firing:

Leman Russ, Hammerheads, frankly most MBT. And in general one main gun. 

multiple opponents against 3 factions, never had a single vehicle with multiple profiles nuked in one turn, so i guess everyone i've played is incompetent
however if degrading profiles are rarely relevant then it shouldn't matter if they're done away with completely.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Schlitzaf]

If you have multiple vehicles its better to completely remove one from the board then end up, doing "half" wounds to 2. Its in a macro level very similar to how Necron WBB functions on the the table. And yes I would rework degradation. It should 100/66/33 vs 100/50/25 it is now. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

59 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

If you have multiple vehicles its better to completely remove one from the board then end up, doing "half" wounds to 2. Its in a macro level very similar to how Necron WBB functions on the the table. And yes I would rework degradation. It should 100/66/33 vs 100/50/25 it is now. 

again if it so rarely makes a difference or matters, then it should just be removed.

[Schlitzaf]

It only makes a difference because it kicks in very “late” into a unit life span. And its in part frustrating sense it doesn’t last very long either.

[Special Officer Doofy]

6 hours ago, Lemondish said:

If the power and viability of vehicles is the fault of codexes, then I think this experience is the fault of who you're playing with.

Well codexes give the units individual stats, rules, costs, faction buffs, access to strats and more, so yes it is the codexes fault if a unit is bad, vehicle or not. And there is a reason GW went away with vehicle facings and templates, it allowed room for a less objective and more subjective argument to be had about where and what is hit, and made the game take longer with positioning and spacing out units. Regardless if my opponent is a rando at a store or if it's my brother who I've been playing with since we joined in 3rd edition, I would rather there not even be room to have the discussion in the first place. Which is why GW did away with them in their main game (40k).

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

AV, and vehicle facings are two separate subjects.

replacing AV for T, and capping T so low was just a bad idea.

having T stop at 7 and AV start at 8 with some built in rules to make vehicles more durable would make perfect sense.

True, I lumped them together because they came and went together. I like vehicles having wounds like the rest of units, but I'm not opposed to vehicles having a higher toughness. I personally thought it was a bit silly that in the base game without FW units the highest toughness was T8 but there are things that can swing at S16. Hoping 10th edition fixes that. Would you be opposed to higher T instead of AV that changes depending on the side?

[Schurge]

I'm surprised not to see what I think should be done. Maybe it's because everyone knows it's not going to happen.

Release everyone's Codexes up front every edition, as balanced as they can make them.

If they really want to prioritize the game and us this would also include planned new models... Or at least their rules. (I'd settle for expansions having already been planned and balanced at launch of the edition.) But that would risk losing sales. (Though for me, a guy who plays dedicated armies, making me wait forever for new models just means I am not spending my money with GW. I'm not spending it on whatever their shiny new thing is while I wait for World Eaters and Grey Knights to get updates.)

I've been playing this game for over a decade. In that time I've played almost exclusively World Eaters. I am tired of the same old stuff happening every edition because of their staggered release schedule tailored to sell models.

As an aside. I want armor values, initiative, and templates back. I don't know what is more popular. My in person groups all want those things back. I do know the more broadly popular this game becomes the less I like it. This isn't because I am a bigot or a hipster, it is because the more broad appeal something has, its appeal necessarily becomes less targeted.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Schurge said:

I'm surprised not to see what I think should be done. Maybe it's because everyone knows it's not going to happen.

Release everyone's Codexes up front every edition, as balanced as they can make them.

If they really want to prioritize the game and us this would also include planned new models... Or at least their rules. (I'd settle for expansions having already been planned and balanced at launch of the edition.) But that would risk losing sales. (Though for me, a guy who plays dedicated armies, making me wait forever for new models just means I am not spending my money with GW. I'm not spending it on whatever their shiny new thing is while I wait for World Eaters and Grey Knights to get updates.)

I've been playing this game for over a decade. In that time I've played almost exclusively World Eaters. I am tired of the same old stuff happening every edition because of their staggered release schedule tailored to sell models.

As an aside. I want armor values, initiative, and templates back. I don't know what is more popular. My in person groups all want those things back. I do know the more broadly popular this game becomes the less I like it. This isn't because I am a bigot or a hipster, it is because the more broad appeal something has, its appeal necessarily becomes less targeted.

Unfortunately GW has said they’re in the business of selling minis not in the gaming business 

[Karhedron]

37 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Unfortunately GW has said they’re in the business of selling minis not in the gaming business 

Yes, the rules just need to be good enough to keep the models selling. This is not like big-league sporting events where the money rests on ensuring a perfectly balanced set of conditions.

Having said that, recent developments like regular FAQs and points updates suggest that they are taking the issue seriously. Even so, I expect Votan to be borderline god-tier on release and then to get significantly toned down in 10th. Maybe that's just me being cynical. I guess time will tell.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 8/22/2022 at 2:36 PM, Putrid Choir said:

Well codexes give the units individual stats, rules, costs, faction buffs, access to strats and more, so yes it is the codexes fault if a unit is bad, vehicle or not. And there is a reason GW went away with vehicle facings and templates, it allowed room for a less objective and more subjective argument to be had about where and what is hit, and made the game take longer with positioning and spacing out units. Regardless if my opponent is a rando at a store or if it's my brother who I've been playing with since we joined in 3rd edition, I would rather there not even be room to have the discussion in the first place. Which is why GW did away with them in their main game (40k).

True, I lumped them together because they came and went together. I like vehicles having wounds like the rest of units, but I'm not opposed to vehicles having a higher toughness. I personally thought it was a bit silly that in the base game without FW units the highest toughness was T8 but there are things that can swing at S16. Hoping 10th edition fixes that. Would you be opposed to higher T instead of AV that changes depending on the side?

Personally I think AV vs T is largely a pointless debate as long as the T cap is appropriate debate.

the most important thing to me is finding reasonably simple rule or way to minimize the effect of weapons that aren’t AT/AM weapons on tanks and monsters.

maybe -1 AP and -1D and -1 to wound to weapons under S6 for tanks and monsters lumped together under a single keyword

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

52 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Yes, the rules just need to be good enough to keep the models selling. This is not like big-league sporting events where the money rests on ensuring a perfectly balanced set of conditions.

Having said that, recent developments like regular FAQs and points updates suggest that they are taking the issue seriously. Even so, I expect Votan to be borderline god-tier on release and then to get significantly toned down in 10th. Maybe that's just me being cynical. I guess time will tell.

Does it indicate they’re taking issues seriously for the sake of the game or because they spent $10k on a study to find new ways to sell more models, like release new kits that are 100% OP or new rules that make an old kit 100% OP, let that sit for a few weeks for the initial sales boom and let people complain, then nerf to give the appearance they care what we say?

[Karhedron]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Does it indicate they’re taking issues seriously for the sake of the game or because they spent $10k on a study to find new ways to sell more models, like release new kits that are 100% OP or new rules that make an old kit 100% OP, let that sit for a few weeks for the initial sales boom and let people complain, then nerf to give the appearance they care what we say?

And I thought I was cynical. 

While everyone remembers the overpowered new models/armies, it is worth remembering that GW undershoots with new stuff as often as they overshoot. I have never faced a Gladiator or Stormspeeder despite them being part of the Primaris hotness.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

And I thought I was cynical. 

While everyone remembers the overpowered new models/armies, it is worth remembering that GW undershoots with new stuff as often as they overshoot. I have never faced a Gladiator or Stormspeeder despite them being part of the Primaris hotness.

Oh I am very cynical 

I don’t remember the exact numbers or yearbut in like the 80s an airline found out they could save millions of dollars a year if they removed peas from their in flight meals, and they’ve been doing that sort of stuff ever since just to save some money.

 

come out here in a week or two and I’ll trounce you real good with a stormspeeder ;)

Edited September 8, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think it comes down to attention sometimes as well. The rules writers spend more time on new datasheets, and on older ones that were bad because they need looked at.

This also tends to show up in subfactions, like Dark Angels being bad in 8E and getting reworked, same with Word Bearers for Chaos.

[Captain Idaho]

Just going back a couple pages on something important I never had time to discuss...

Initiative values in combat. I actually like there being an Initiative value and its use to show a swifter combat, but @Black Blow Fly isn't wrong that initiative can be grossly unfair and if directly implemented as it had in previous editions, it doesn't make things any better now.

So where do I stand on that? Well I believe the damage potential of the game is at fault. Killing swathes of the enemy before they strike makes combat fairly one-sided and undesirable no matter which way you wing the axe.

Solutions can include reducing the damage potential of units as well as bringing back Weapon Skill as per HH. Consider those Eldar striking first again the Orks and you just think "well that's then deleted" normally but if the Wyches only have 2 attacks each, wounding on a 5+ helps the Orks a ton.

That's why Firstborn Marines had 1 attack base, 2 for veterans and so on back in previous editions. So they couldn't attack with 40 attacks and wipe out anything they touched.

It gave a reason to be in melee against faster opponents, because being tough mattered. With the damage of every unit being measured by how many models they can wipe out in a single turn or just going home, we have no chance for melee balance if one side strikes before the other.

[Evil Eye]

On 9/8/2022 at 12:51 PM, Schurge said:

I'm surprised not to see what I think should be done. Maybe it's because everyone knows it's not going to happen.

Release everyone's Codexes up front every edition, as balanced as they can make them.

If they really want to prioritize the game and us this would also include planned new models... Or at least their rules. (I'd settle for expansions having already been planned and balanced at launch of the edition.) But that would risk losing sales. (Though for me, a guy who plays dedicated armies, making me wait forever for new models just means I am not spending my money with GW. I'm not spending it on whatever their shiny new thing is while I wait for World Eaters and Grey Knights to get updates.)

I've been playing this game for over a decade. In that time I've played almost exclusively World Eaters. I am tired of the same old stuff happening every edition because of their staggered release schedule tailored to sell models.

As an aside. I want armor values, initiative, and templates back. I don't know what is more popular. My in person groups all want those things back. I do know the more broadly popular this game becomes the less I like it. This isn't because I am a bigot or a hipster, it is because the more broad appeal something has, its appeal necessarily becomes less targeted.

Upfront Codexes would be great, and would unquestionably be better for the health of the game. Issue is of course, because GW seems to be making money hand over fist with the update cycle and constant FOMO/"Buy NEW thing!" hype, if they were to do that they'd lose their ability to make quite so much cash from people buying the HOT NEW UNIT (regardless of whether it's actually a new model or just an old kit that's been buffed to the stratosphere, intentionally or otherwise). So all the while exploitation of powercreep/an unstable game is making them so much money they probably won't be interested.

There is another issue which I can almost sympathize with them on, and that's that if every Codex is released at once, so too do any new units for said Codex. Mass drops of like 100 new kits on launch would potentially be very difficult to manage, given they have to get them all designed, tooled etc and then somehow manage the logistics of the entire release. Now obviously, the best solution would be "stop making new units every 5 minutes!" and to focus on updating older kits whilst spreading out the releases throughout the edition. I say this because GW's absurd "no model no rules" policy means if they introduce a new unit in a Codex, they need to have a model for it given how determined they are not to be undercut by 3rd parties, even if ironically enough most 3Ps these days are just making cheaper/nicer looking alternatives to existing units, thus rendering the whole "no model no rules" thing a bit pointless.

As for how GW could keep releasing content whilst having the Codexes all out at the start of an edition, my preference would be to go back to the old Imperial Armour system of expansions rather than DLC/patches. So once a Codex is released, barring FAQ or errata to fix actual errors, the rules in the book itself are final and won't be "obsolete" until next edition; if you have the core book and the Codex, you can play without worrying about out of date rules. However, new books would be released introducing actual new content that doesn't replace what already exists. This might be new weapon options for existing units (letting us take the full range of weapons on Dreadnoughts again for instance), a more fully-fledged return of Legends (or in some cases outright deleted) units, or even entirely new units. but that won't make an existing list obsolete/illegal. Using the Dreadnought example above, if the inferno cannon becomes usable once more, your assault cannon Dreadnought is still identical, and as the actual points values haven't changed you don't have to change your list at all. If you want to add a Dreadnought with the inferno cannon you can, but your existing list is no less valid.

As for your other points I agree. AV I think works better for vehicles (a tank is very different from a Carnifex after all) even if the actual damage mechanic is different from earlier editions. Initiative I 100% agree needs to return, and I feel if the game is less lethal overall such that melee actually means something, it wouldn't be anywhere near such a problem. Templates I'd like to see return mainly because I feel they're far more intuitive (not to mention satisfying) to use than whatever we have at the moment. I've heard people argue that they cause fights over "is that model actually under the blast" but that seems less a "poor rules" issue and more a "stroppy player" issue- if uncertainty over something like that is going to cause actual hostility/argument then I'd say there are problems with the matchup outside of GW's ability to fix. After all, wargaming is a co-operative experience, your opponent is supposed to be your friend, and the point of the game is for both players to have fun whilst playing out a battle, not butting heads trying to find out who is the Warhammeriest.

One other idea I have is that units in a Codex should have a "traffic light" system of how easy to use or potentially powerful they are that can't quite be quantified by points, for the aim of working out how actually powerful an army is. Obviously one 1500 point army isn't guaranteed to be as powerful as another one despite using the same points limit, so having some idea of how strong a unit is would be useful, both for friendly games to make netlisting easier to root out and for tourneys to impose some kind of guidelines on broken units. I'd have it as such:

Green: Basic, normal unit, the baseline. An army made mostly out of green is probably going to be fine to play against.

Yellow: Slightly stronger, not overly so but more "elite" than a lot of units. An army shouldn't take too many of these, outside of more competitive games or "stress testing" scenarios to see how effective they really are.

Red: Very strong, borderline super-weapons. Not inherently broken in and of themselves but if used in conjunction with lots of yellow or other red units could be really nasty. Obviously the number of red units in a Codex should be low to begin with, thus an army consisting primarily of red units should be considered unfit for play and anyone trying to bring one to anything short of an "experimental" game (again, stress-testing the system to see just how bad these units are) should be subject to summary Dreadsocking.

I'd also suggest having the following category that doesn't actually have a colour I can think of (Octarine?):

EXTRA THICC STRONG: Beyond red, these are units that, whilst they have a place in the game due to fluff significance/rule of cool, are so powerful that they require extra precautions for use. These should be discussed with your opponent prior to fielding them, and in the average game should be limited to one per side/per 1500 points. These should be exceptional units, things such as Stormsurges (those are the super-broken Tau suits right?) that whilst very cool, should not be mainstays of play. Anyone trying to weasel in one or more of these without express permission should have the pewter Dreadnought in the sock replaced with a pewter Penitent Engine (a punishment also applicable to any rules writer who goes out of his or her way to make a unit like this to begin with!).

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Just going back a couple pages on something important I never had time to discuss...

Initiative values in combat. I actually like there being an Initiative value and its use to show a swifter combat, but @Black Blow Fly isn't wrong that initiative can be grossly unfair and if directly implemented as it had in previous editions, it doesn't make things any better now.

So where do I stand on that? Well I believe the damage potential of the game is at fault. Killing swathes of the enemy before they strike makes combat fairly one-sided and undesirable no matter which way you wing the axe.

Solutions can include reducing the damage potential of units as well as bringing back Weapon Skill as per HH. Consider those Eldar striking first again the Orks and you just think "well that's then deleted" normally but if the Wyches only have 2 attacks each, wounding on a 5+ helps the Orks a ton.

That's why Firstborn Marines had 1 attack base, 2 for veterans and so on back in previous editions. So they couldn't attack with 40 attacks and wipe out anything they touched.

It gave a reason to be in melee against faster opponents, because being tough mattered. With the damage of every unit being measured by how many models they can wipe out in a single turn or just going home, we have no chance for melee balance if one side strikes before the other.

They definitely need to bring some old stuff back.

the idea that grots/Gretchin can come in and charge a unit of space marines and get the first attack off.

there needs to be a way to level different units and their combat abilities.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Initiative is just terrible. It is a completely unfair mechanic and good riddance.  Now thanks we have to have at least 20 posts about fights first fights last.

[Lemondish]

6 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

Initiative is just terrible. It is a completely unfair mechanic and good riddance.  Now thanks we have to have at least 20 posts about fights first fights last.

I think it's true that neither Initiative as it was, nor this current system, is fair. Today's system is just worse. Way worse.

It makes zero sense that grots charging Astartes strike first. It also dumbs down your weapon choices at list building for melee options to a selection of which is mathematically better with zero trade-offs considered.