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

[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. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Grots striking first versus Astartes will be lucky to drop one wound. Why should Orks or Necrons has a low initiative compared to Astartes ?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

21 minutes ago, Black Blow Fly said:

Grots striking first versus Astartes will be lucky to drop one wound. Why should Orks or Necrons has a low initiative compared to Astartes ?

As far as orks go, for the same reason they have worse leadership, BS, etc.

orks in aren’t known for showing initiative. They might like to fight, but that’s different from initiative. 
again it’s the difference between a well trained super human, and what is literally a fungal parody of a soccer hooligan.

it’s like saying the initiative stat for literal soccer hooligans as a member of the SAS…

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

At this points it’s purely opinion. So I will just let it ride now. 

[Helias_Tancred]

GW is not going to change how they do new editions, regardless of what rules they overhaul in an upcoming 10th edition. The core rules might be better but they are still going to produce and roll out successive over-powered codexes for the new edition because its part of their method to sell new armies and new codexes among their (already product saturated) customer base. It's been a well-established pattern on their part.

1. In a best-case scenario you will have a better set of game rules with successive over-powered codexes and supplements. 

2. But ... the other pattern they've established is the constant rules tinkering, additions, and bloat to the current edition's core rules over time. This leads to what we've experienced since 7th edition.

3. There is only one thing that gets GW to break established patterns, and that is sales/profits.

 

IMO the repeating big picture isn't going to change folks. You either accept it over time or stop playing 40k? I know plenty that still collect, paint, and read.

 

ps. I promise with most other things in life I'm definitely an optimist hahaha ....

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Eilio Tiberius

[Doctor Perils]

On 8/2/2022 at 7:03 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I know how to fix a major issue people have with the game, and it has nothing to do with rules bloat.

add a new phase after both players have had their turn, at the end of the turn.

the casualty phase.

theoretically everything in a turn is happening more or less at the same time, so theoretically the player who goes second should be able to have a chance to fire before removing models.

 

the casualty phase would allow the game to keep its current play style, but would largely eliminate the alpha strike, and give everyone an opportunity to at least play one turn with all of their models.

after all the shootings and combats and psychic attacks have resolved for both sides, and after morale tests taken, then the single casualty phase begins and both players add wounds and remove models as appropriate.

This is the thing I really hope for from 10th, it seems like a really elegant solution - unfortunately I have yet to try out 8e Apocalypse, but that looks like it was a fun way of playing. Not only does it reduce the "I didn't even have the opportunity to use my new toy", but it also gives more tactical choices: I've already placed 4 damage tokens next to that unit, which should  be enough to finish it off, but do I shoot that other unit or do my best to eradicate it?

 

 

Some other things I'd like to see:

- A limited list of USRs (stuff like Deep Strike, Fleet, Pinning) - ten or so max I'd say, stuff that is reused very often, but none of the more exotic stuff that called on another set of USRs, and no unit types that call on USRs. These should be stand alone and simple

- weapons having a "technology" keyword (like, Bolt, Las, Flame, etc.), to allow more legible rules that target specific weapon usage (like the Space Marines bolter firing rule, or Salamanders having a resistance to Flame and Melta weaponry)

- Pinning as a special rule for many weapons: if a unit is hit by such a weapon, take a morale test. If failed, place a token next to them. If they have a pinning token, they cannot take Actions and can only make Snap Shots when shooting. The token is removed in your next command phase.

- Melee weapon ranges, which would give us opportunities for spears, pikes, halberds, etc. to have a different tactical use.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Doctor Perils said:

Not only does it reduce the "I didn't even have the opportunity to use my new toy", but it also gives more tactical choices: I've already placed 4 damage tokens next to that unit, which should  be enough to finish it off, but do I shoot that other unit or do my best to eradicate it?

Not having the opportunity to even use new models before they get removed from play is the worst. I accidentally did this to a kid once - he had brought some Centurions and since they were the closest big scary model and I had first turn, I shot them up. Turned out they were new for him and he was really excited to finally play a game with them.

He seemed genuinely upset about it, so after the game we spent some time just fighting his Centurions against my units. Good reminder that both sides of the table want to have a good time.

Edited September 14, 2022 by phandaal

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

At this points it’s purely opinion. So I will just let it ride now. 

I would just love to have an explanation how initiative stat was any more unfair than any other stat.

even if my full 10man guard squad charges a 3 man aggressor squad and goes first it’s almost guaranteed the guard squad will be wiped by the end of the first morale phase after a charge.

stats vary and are different and yes it’s definitionally unfair, but each army has unfair advantages and each army has unfair disadvantages.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Doctor Perils said:

This is the thing I really hope for from 10th, it seems like a really elegant solution - unfortunately I have yet to try out 8e Apocalypse, but that looks like it was a fun way of playing. Not only does it reduce the "I didn't even have the opportunity to use my new toy", but it also gives more tactical choices: I've already placed 4 damage tokens next to that unit, which should  be enough to finish it off, but do I shoot that other unit or do my best to eradicate it?

 

 

Some other things I'd like to see:

- A limited list of USRs (stuff like Deep Strike, Fleet, Pinning) - ten or so max I'd say, stuff that is reused very often, but none of the more exotic stuff that called on another set of USRs, and no unit types that call on USRs. These should be stand alone and simple

- weapons having a "technology" keyword (like, Bolt, Las, Flame, etc.), to allow more legible rules that target specific weapon usage (like the Space Marines bolter firing rule, or Salamanders having a resistance to Flame and Melta weaponry)

- Pinning as a special rule for many weapons: if a unit is hit by such a weapon, take a morale test. If failed, place a token next to them. If they have a pinning token, they cannot take Actions and can only make Snap Shots when shooting. The token is removed in your next command phase.

- Melee weapon ranges, which would give us opportunities for spears, pikes, halberds, etc. to have a different tactical use.

Not a fan of the different melee range idea. I don’t think they did that even in WHFB. (I only played like 2 games of it like 20 years ago so I can’t say for sure)

as for pinning, I’m not a fan of how you describe using it, I’d prefer replace combat attrition with pinning during the morale phase. 
Again I think they had something like that in 3rd or 4th

combat attrition is just another ‘feels bad’ moment. 

[Marshal Rohr]

40K will never be fun again until they bring army lists back and make rules for units that dont have models but fit the lore, like Sniper Teams/Special Weapons Squad. 

[Doctor Perils]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Not a fan of the different melee range idea. I don’t think they did that even in WHFB. (I only played like 2 games of it like 20 years ago so I can’t say for sure)

as for pinning, I’m not a fan of how you describe using it, I’d prefer replace combat attrition with pinning during the morale phase. 
Again I think they had something like that in 3rd or 4th

combat attrition is just another ‘feels bad’ moment. 

I think they did melee ranges in AoS but haven't heard if it was considered good or not

Wrt combat attrition/pinning - are you advocating pinning a unit as a possible result of combat as well or instead of pinning during shooting? What would the pinning effect do in that case?

[Doctor Perils]

8 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

40K will never be fun again until they bring army lists back and make rules for units that dont have models but fit the lore, like Sniper Teams/Special Weapons Squad. 

Do you mean for Imperial Guard specifically? They already exist for Marines surely?

[Slave to Darkness]

Regarding Grots not being able to get a hit in on Marines first, in the Soul Drinkers novel their Chaplain got shanked by a kid because he wasnt paying attention to his surroundings (he wouldnt last 5 minutes in some parts of the UK lol), and in the Legion of the Damned novel a little girl did get the drop on a Biker Scout, clawed his face open and made him crash his bike into a gravestone, comically he did go flying over the handlebars and lands upside down like a starfish (ngl that bit did make me laugh out loud) and the kid got smeared across the floor like jam. So far that has been the best bit of the book, half way through and not a single Legion of the Damned marine other than 'spooky marine in the shadows'. Gutted. 

 

Could just flip a coin or roll off to see who attacks first, its not perfect but we have had worse. 

[RWJP]

On 9/9/2022 at 1:44 PM, Evil Eye said:

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.

So the trouble with this, this just exacerbates one of the existing complaints people had with 8th and how things are going with 9th... Too many books.

You need your Codex, plus any of the Expansion books that include rules you want to use. Lets say GW release one book a quarter, that could mean you need to purchase 5 books to run your army.

The only way the idea of "Release all Codexes up front at the start of the edition and then add extra units in as expansions" would work is for GW to move to a completely free ruleset, or at the very least make all expansions available for free. Of course, you're still left with having to download and print out all the extra stuff you want for your army, but at least you wouldn't have to pay for it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Doctor Perils said:

I think they did melee ranges in AoS but haven't heard if it was considered good or not

Wrt combat attrition/pinning - are you advocating pinning a unit as a possible result of combat as well or instead of pinning during shooting? What would the pinning effect do in that case?

Pinning a unit instead of the unit taking losses.

like when a unit hits 50% casualties take a Ld test and for every loss afterwards.

fail the test unit is pinned, can’t move, advance, or charge, or conduct any actions. Maybe -1 to shooting, if not in melee.

in melee, must fall back out of combat D6 inches

1 hour ago, Doctor Perils said:

I think they did melee ranges in AoS but haven't heard if it was considered good or not

Wrt combat attrition/pinning - are you advocating pinning a unit as a possible result of combat as well or instead of pinning during shooting? What would the pinning effect do in that case?

Pinning a unit instead of the unit taking losses.

like when a unit hits 50% casualties take a Ld test and for every loss afterwards.

fail the test unit is pinned, can’t move, advance, or charge, or conduct any actions. Maybe -1 to shooting, if not in melee.

in melee, must fall back out of combat D6 inches, see above as well.

[Toldavf]

No more CP buy for wargear or traits point buy only. 

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Slave to Darkness said:

So far that has been the best bit of the book, half way through and not a single Legion of the Damned marine other than 'spooky marine in the shadows'. Gutted.

Maybe the least accurate novel title in all of Black Library.

The Excoriators are a cool chapter though.

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, RWJP said:

So the trouble with this, this just exacerbates one of the existing complaints people had with 8th and how things are going with 9th... Too many books.

You need your Codex, plus any of the Expansion books that include rules you want to use. Lets say GW release one book a quarter, that could mean you need to purchase 5 books to run your army.

The only way the idea of "Release all Codexes up front at the start of the edition and then add extra units in as expansions" would work is for GW to move to a completely free ruleset, or at the very least make all expansions available for free. Of course, you're still left with having to download and print out all the extra stuff you want for your army, but at least you wouldn't have to pay for it.

See I would disagree, because you don't need the expansions. They're just that- expansions, purely optional, with the added units being primarily for flavour rather than changing the power dynamics of the game. It'd be little things like bringing back Chaplain Dreadnoughts or the triumphant return of the Vehicle Design Rules rather than "Throw your opponent's will to play out the window with the new Primaris Defenstrators!". If the added content doesn't interest you it doesn't matter because none of the Codex content is actually overwritten or superseded. And with any luck, if you only play one army you'll only want one extra book.

[JaM_TW]

My take:

 

I've played 3th, 4th and 5th. Possibly 6th, cant remember. Probably not a whole lot . 

I've stepped back into the game with one of those fancy boxes, halfway/end at 8th. Played some games with my (now) 12 year old son. 

Then came 9. Rules are clear and super simple, in those boxes. That's the whole idea, I get that. It's the gateway-drug. 

He had settled for Nurgle, I brought back my old Necrons and dabbled a bit with my new and old Spacemarines. So far so good. 

 

Then, however, came layer up on layer of new, special rules. This was an exception of that with the exception of... whatever. 

I may be (too?) old but I really had a hard time remembering the rules. Instead of a nice, flowing game I found myself looking up rules way too often. It started to feel like a layer cake. And if I want that I just watch the movie. 

So, basically, to save myself and my son's sanity () we just went back to the simple "kill each other off the table" games and houseruled stuff up. 

 

What do I want from 10th? 

Just a good, decent set of rules. 

I want a book with rules, examples, basic stuff. 

After that I want a codex with lore, painted models, background and stats for their models. 

And perhaps a few "special" powers. Not too much, but just enough to make that army special. 

 

I dont want exceptions on exceptions. Or extra layers/rules halfway through an edition. 

If I plonk my army on the table in the local shop, and my opponent does the same, I'd like to be able to flip through their codex, see some stats and see their specials. 

When I play a game I'd like to win through tactics, cunning plans or sheer luck. Not because I have so many special rules and exceptions that arent in the main book that I've basically baffled my opponent and therefore win the game. 

 

I am not a game designer but I think this shouldnt be too hard to pull off. It might make people actually come back to the hobby and perhaps pick up another army. Not because of the newest, latest, bestest rules or something but because the basic rules are clear, playable and fair. 

 

Just my 0.02€

 

Cheers. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by JaM_TW

[Captain Idaho]

I totally agree with you. What you're talking about is the on the ground, front line of the business. Whilst there are dedicated geeks like myself who follow the rules (though in recent times I'm struggling to keep up) the casual gamer, who are actually in fairly significant numbers, as well as the prospect of new gamers, just can't keep up.

The game needs to be accessible. My kids aren't interest in the game because of the needless complexity. A friend of mine said he plays games to have fun, not do an account and admin job.

The games needs an overhaul substantially for 10th.

[Orange Knight]

I think the combination of admin heavy missions and the sheer number of stratagems unique to each faction has really ground the game down.

The game has basically been reduced to moments of "Gotcha" between players, with stratagems breaking down the flow of play multiple times per phase.

The reason why the reactions work better in 30k is because they are a known quantity for both players, and any unique reactions are limited to once per game, and a singe unique action per army.

 

40k just got a patch a few days ago, the basically removes the effect of an earlier patch. An FAQ that un-does an FAQ. I think it's time to wind 9th down and start fresh with a new system. The core design of the game and every codex needs to be re-done.

[JaM_TW]

They started so well though. I really liked the small boxes where you get rules, models, a "playground" (paper mat) and a terrain piece. Super well thought out. 

36 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

A friend of mine said he plays games to have fun, not do an account and admin job.

So true. 

[Doctor Perils]

Yeah, I've been trying to keep up while not having played more than a test game, and trying to wrap your head arround forming armies now, taking into account all the stratagems and litanies and co. is a bit overwhelming - especially since GW has apparently decided to roll back from the loose rules for army constitution, while also changing up unit slots (for example, I currently have no idea how to form my eldar army, considering I have a bunch of Dire Avengers and basic Jetbikes but no guardians, and neither of those are troop choices now. If I were to throw in all the units I want, I'd end up with 4 or 5 detachments, each costing 3CP...)