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

[phandaal]

The balance is also a disgrace, its boiled down to- release new unit/codex, busted rules, check sales numbers, 3-6 months good sales, nerf unit/codex via FAQ. Then release new unit/codex. Its trash game design.

It is bad, to the point where if something like GSC releases without being ridiculously OP, it is a surprise.

 

Most of it boils down to a seeming lack of concern for how busted something is, as long as it sounds cool. So we end up with layer after layer of rules that sound like kids trying to one up each other on the playground.

 

And the end result of THAT is that one guy ends up feeling like he wasted all the time he spent modeling, painting, and traveling out to play a game that ends in a 2 turn blowout.

 

If it is going to be fixed, indexes sound like a good way to get things back on an even keel.

[Eib.Almera]

While there is an option to play smaller games, its obvious after several smaller games the balance goes out the window. Old 40k, 1500-1750pts was the sweet spot. You saw terrible skew in smaller games. 8th-9th, is clearly also balanced around the 2,000pt game. The power levels and smaller brackets are just afterthought bolt ons with no regards to how they play or balance. 8th-9th prided itself on simplicity, yet went out of its way to layer on needlessly wordy/ complex mechanics that can be made much simpler for the same or similar outcomes in the codexes.

Planned obsolescence is what it is. Unless GW ditches that practice, I won't bother playing 40k.

 

Current GW games are all very expensive beta versions. You're never buying a finished product. You could keep playing an old edition after a new one has launched, but as new editions are normally* branded as an improved version of the last one, the old edition still wasn't a finished product.

 

In a sense community-supported games like BFG and Warmaster are in a better place than they have ever been. Their rulesets have been thoroughly playtested and have ripened. Model availability is better than ever.

 

As to OP's question, GW should first decide:

1. If 40k is a casual (beer & pretzels) or competitive (tournaments) game. Having one ruleset for wildy differing player types does neither consumer group justice. Current system of open/narrative/matched is insufficient.

2. Where 40k sits on a scale from Combat Patrol to Apocalypse. Different game sizes ask for different levels of abstraction. Constant point reductions pulls 40k towards Apocalypse size without appropriate rule changes.

 

Then it would be nice if they settled on a design philosophy, a number of game mechanics and layers of rules and stuck with that throughout the complete design process.

 

Finally, if they'd release rules for all factions at the same time or in a short time span and the only expansions to the game would be scenarios and campaigns, I might consider playing 40k again.

 

*) The exception IMO being going from 2nd to 3rd. The concepts behind those two editions were completely different from one another. The leap from 7th to 8th was big but not that big.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Eib.Almera

[Eib.Almera]

There's another aspect to "this mess" for me.

 

For years I've played GW games (mainly 40k) as a way to stay in touch with old friends and acquaintances. Increasing bloat made the game less and less enjoyable for me but I enjoyed the company of the people I played with. No gaming during Covid lockdowns made me evaluate this trade-off.

 

So instead of waiting for GW to fix this mess I'd rather show some agency myself and try some alternatives to 40k. A crappy game system can't get in the way of human relations.

 

A broader piece of advice then would be for people to ask if there is a problem with 40k in their gaming group and if so, what that problem is. If you're not tied to a greater community you can fix it with a houserule, by going back to a previous edition, or by playing a different game.

[Scribe]

 

2. Where 40k sits on a scale from Combat Patrol to Apocalypse. Different game sizes ask for different levels of abstraction. Constant point reductions pulls 40k towards Apocalypse size without appropriate rule changes.

 

 

This has been my perception of 40K for years now. They continued to pull us towards Apocalypse as a default, to the point where 40K today, likely is more deadly than Apoc when it first released...

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

2. Where 40k sits on a scale from Combat Patrol to Apocalypse. Different game sizes ask for different levels of abstraction. Constant point reductions pulls 40k towards Apocalypse size without appropriate rule changes.

 

This has been my perception of 40K for years now. They continued to pull us towards Apocalypse as a default, to the point where 40K today, likely is more deadly than Apoc when it first released...

yeah when I came back and saw super heavies in the regular guard codex I was surprised. I never played apocalypse but I’m pressure back in the day SHs weren’t intended for regular play.

[Scribe]

 

 

 

2. Where 40k sits on a scale from Combat Patrol to Apocalypse. Different game sizes ask for different levels of abstraction. Constant point reductions pulls 40k towards Apocalypse size without appropriate rule changes.

This has been my perception of 40K for years now. They continued to pull us towards Apocalypse as a default, to the point where 40K today, likely is more deadly than Apoc when it first released...

yeah when I came back and saw super heavies in the regular guard codex I was surprised. I never played apocalypse but I’m pressure back in the day SHs weren’t intended for regular play.

 

 

Yeah thats when we took those toys out, for games that took longer to set up, turns that took hours per 'side' and troops were picked up by the handful.

 

Outside of the fact that games were not 2k vs 2k but 20K vs 20K, I dont see a lot of difference between what Apoc was, and 40K is. Not great to me.

[LameBeard]

I do feel sorry for you guys that play 40K, I didn't think 8th was a bad game with just the indexes but the rules bloat with all the additional books, rules, codex's etc. sucks - it takes all the fun out of it. I think I'll stick to playing Space Hulk.

Mmmm, Space Hulk.

 

Seriously though, I’ve played a fair bit of (1st edition) Space Hulk and it’s a great reminder that all the layers of today’s 40k are not necessary for a great game. Like you, I do not currently play 40k, but I play other GW games. My son wants to expand his orks and play 40k with me - and you know what I’m thinking - the game might be better if we don’t buy a codex each and instead just use the data sheets in the box.

 

What GW seemed to have forgotten is that the best source of complexity in a war game is not the rule book, it’s your opponent across the table. A simple system can spawn infinite complexity - just allow the human mind some good choices.

[BrainFireBob]

Make unused command points count as points at the end of round 5.

 

Have a shooting and CC AP system. Use the current system with ASM for CC for walkers and infantry, for shooting and vehicles use the old AP system.

[Dark Shepherd]

 

Go back to playing third...

 

I do feel sorry for you guys that play 40K, I didn't think 8th was a bad game with just the indexes but the rules bloat with all the additional books, rules, codex's etc. sucks - it takes all the fun out of it. I think I'll stick to playing Space Hulk.

 

As a non-player I also don't really understand why matched play is the norm these days, wouldn't open play just be more fun? That's pretty much what we used to do back in the olden days of yore (e.g. the 80's).

Open Play has the same problems. Strategems, broken units, etc. Just does not have skewed secondary objectives.

 

Tempest of War is actually the best version of 9th right now. Changing mission parameters keep people on their toes and do not reward skew lists quite as much.

Getting my Tempest cards this weekend (with Helwinter Gate)

From what Ive read Warcry is the fairest GW system/shunned by competitive players as the mission setup is too random to indulge in powergaming or have a crush all comers list

[Redcomet]

 

 

Go back to playing third...

 

I do feel sorry for you guys that play 40K, I didn't think 8th was a bad game with just the indexes but the rules bloat with all the additional books, rules, codex's etc. sucks - it takes all the fun out of it. I think I'll stick to playing Space Hulk.

 

As a non-player I also don't really understand why matched play is the norm these days, wouldn't open play just be more fun? That's pretty much what we used to do back in the olden days of yore (e.g. the 80's).

Open Play has the same problems. Strategems, broken units, etc. Just does not have skewed secondary objectives.

 

Tempest of War is actually the best version of 9th right now. Changing mission parameters keep people on their toes and do not reward skew lists quite as much.

Getting my Tempest cards this weekend (with Helwinter Gate)

From what Ive read Warcry is the fairest GW system/shunned by competitive players as the mission setup is too random to indulge in powergaming or have a crush all comers list

Warcry is excellent. But even there, there are warbands that are way more powerful than others. But I think that has more to do with the sheer number of them, making it tough to balance.

 

But the game is solid and fun

[Dark Shepherd]

Interesting.

Key is randomising setup (Tempest)

 

I have a slight back related issue/bias against playing anything other than directly across the long side of the board but maybe too many maps starting in corners linking to a possible over abundance or availability of reserves are possibly an issue too

[ThePenitentOne]

 

I do feel sorry for you guys that play 40K, I didn't think 8th was a bad game with just the indexes but the rules bloat with all the additional books, rules, codex's etc. sucks - it takes all the fun out of it. I think I'll stick to playing Space Hulk.

Mmmm, Space Hulk.

 

Seriously though, I’ve played a fair bit of (1st edition) Space Hulk and it’s a great reminder that all the layers of today’s 40k are not necessary for a great game. Like you, I do not currently play 40k, but I play other GW games. My son wants to expand his orks and play 40k with me - and you know what I’m thinking - the game might be better if we don’t buy a codex each and instead just use the data sheets in the box.

 

What GW seemed to have forgotten is that the best source of complexity in a war game is not the rule book, it’s your opponent across the table. A simple system can spawn infinite complexity - just allow the human mind some good choices.

 

 

If you have an opportunity to play with your son, and you are each growing small forces a unit at a time, honestly I cannot recommend Crusade enough.

 

What stops most people from playing is that they can't get a pick-up game in at a store because everyone insists on playing 2k Matched at stores. When you're dealing with 25 PL forces, even with all the complex layers of rules, the game still feels simple. At that size, it works best to focus on infantry, though often you can include a single vehicle if you want. You can play Crusade at any size if you prefer larger games. You're dealing with a roster system too, so you could grow your armies to 75 PL and still play 25-50 PL games.

 

I like the small games because I like my models to grow as the earn battle honours- so if a unit levels because they got XP for defeating a unit of orks, I might glue an ork skull to some of the bases. By the time you've been Crusading long enough to get to heroic level, your forces will have a lot of personality. And if you advance as a 25 PL force before expanding your roster, you get a 25PL core of grizzled vets- not just characters, but full units. Then you grow your supply limit and you get this cool dynamic where you pair green units with support from the veteran Patrol.

 

Crusade IS more fun if you have access to the bespoke Crusade content in dexes- I don't have the Ork dex, but I've heard Ork players say that there are some problems with their Crusade rules- I think there's a particular unit that can't be warboss or something. In any case, I think the thing to keep in mind about dexes is that they are tools- if you use the tool to create the most hard-core, curb-stomping exploit army and you hang on every update to make your army be that beast, then yes, perhaps it's best to avoid dexes. But if you want to use these tools to tell stories, there is A LOT of stuff to work with.

 

Just as an example, every subfaction will have a special Relic, and a special Warlord trait. You can just pay the XP / RP costs for these upgrades and just take them, treating them like they were a bolter upgrade on a datacard. But if you want an immersive experience, you won't. Instead you'll read the flavour text for that artifact and think about the battle where that artifact might be discovered. Maybe you'll play a couple games where the objectives represent lore about the location of that relic. And then maybe you have to fight your way to that location. And then, once your on the cusp of a battle honour for the unit that will carry this relic, you fight a battle at that location, declare one of the objectives to be the relic- you claim it with that unit, and their post battle reward IS that relic.

 

And now it's not equipment, it's a story.

 

The best thing about keeping crusades small is the ease with which you can talk other people into playing the game. When I grow armies, I tend to think of them in 25PL detachments, So for example, if I'm going to have 100 PL of Sisters, that's actually going to be a 25PL Penitent Legion, a 25 PL Faith Battery, a 25 PL Angelic Host and a 25 PL Chorus of Holy Thunder. It's a roster system anyway, so units from any of the detachments can be combined to create a purpose built strike force, but often those Standing detachments will be operating independently. They may even be Missions within a particular Commandery.

 

This allows me to invite up to three friends who have never played before and don't have armies of their own to join us for a game.

 

Gw's new pattern is 1 40k vs. box and 1 KT vs. box per season. These won't ALWAYS line up with your small Crusade armies you are interested in building, but when they do, it's a great way to grow small thematic forces on the cheap. Having many small forces that can work together is better than having one big force which operates like a well tuned machine, purpose built for nothing but victory.

[Scribe]

 

 

Crusade.

 

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I doubt they will stray from d6 but alternate activation sounds plausible. Would be nice if they roll back strats and just give units back their basic abilities.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I doubt they will stray from d6 but alternate activation sounds plausible. Would be nice if they roll back strats and just give units back their basic abilities.

I want to see how reactions work in 30k. I think it's going to work really well, but there's the caveat that this is with the Specialist Games/30k design team, probably with some coordination with the Age of Sigmar team, not the 40k team. It will wholly depend on whether they can restrain themselves on the faction-specific reactions.

[LameBeard]

 

Crusade.

 

Thanks. I’ll think about it, but I don’t think it gets rid of the “layers” problem, it adds more? Let’s just say that my son and I played a Kill Team 2018 campaign fine, but it just hasn’t felt enough fun to get up the learning curve for Kill Team Octarius campaign yet, I can’t really hold all the core rules in my head yet.

 

I like alternative activation games like Kill Team and Titanicus, but I am happy with I-go-you-go too. I think I-go-you-go is faster, better for the bigger game. Alternative activation does add a lot of that “other human brain brings the complexity” though.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Reject Modernity

Embrace Tradition

 

 

[jarms48]

Reject Modernity

Embrace Tradition

 

 

 

Personally, I'd love a return of an improved 5th edition. Was the simplest and most streamlined of the old style. Just need to fix things like multi-wound models, balance GK and SW. Then release codexes for the factions that missed out. 

[phandaal]

 

Crusade.

Thanks. I’ll think about it, but I don’t think it gets rid of the “layers” problem, it adds more?

 

 

Yeah, Crusade increases the complexity of the game and is even less balanced because it uses power level rather than points.

[Portman]

Apologies for sounding like an old fart (I mean, I am on old fart, I'm 45 this month) but...

 

In reality what does this matter?

 

Unless you're actually playing competitively or just playing pick up games (Both of which you obviously need to know the proper GW rules), why not just house-rule out anything you don't like about the game and play that? If you think somethings broken, just fix it - as long as both players agree on the changes/house rules then go for it. Hell, back in the olden days of yore, that kind of thing used to be encouraged by GW! 

 

It would be interesting to see what fixes people could come up with for their own versions of 10th! 

 

Likewise actually, I don't really understand the whole playing the latest version mentality, other than as mentioned above. If you'd like to play 5th with some tweaks - I'd say do it. I regularly play 3rd (and a bit of 8th) as those are the books I have, and don't see the reason to change. 

 

Anyway - apologies, old fart rant over, I'll go away and put my carpet slippers on, and drink my Bovril.  

Edited May 12, 2022 by Portman

[phandaal]

In reality what does this matter?

 

Unless you're actually playing competitively or just playing pick up games (Both of which you obviously need to know the proper GW rules), why not just house-rule out anything you don't like about the game and play that? If you think somethings broken, just fix it - as long as both players agree on the changes/house rules then go for it. Hell, back in the olden days of yore, that kind of thing used to be encouraged by GW! 

 

The answer to your question is in your post. There is no confusion regarding the fact that people can house rule anything they want for any version they want. The trouble comes about in light of the fact that very few people have the option to do so.

 

In my experience, most people are playing competitively or through pickup games. More on the pickup game side than the competitive tournament side, although plenty of people do competitive pickup games.

 

What this means is people need a common ruleset that both players can use. The common ruleset ends up being whatever is the most current version of the rules. On the tournament side this is a requirement, and on the pickup game side any deviation from whatever the accepted standard is decreases your likelihood of finding someone to play with. For someone who gets the time for maybe one or two games per month, they are going to go with the method that maximizes their chance of actually playing a game.

[Portman]

 

In reality what does this matter?

 

Unless you're actually playing competitively or just playing pick up games (Both of which you obviously need to know the proper GW rules), why not just house-rule out anything you don't like about the game and play that? If you think somethings broken, just fix it - as long as both players agree on the changes/house rules then go for it. Hell, back in the olden days of yore, that kind of thing used to be encouraged by GW! 

 

The answer to your question is in your post. There is no confusion regarding the fact that people can house rule anything they want for any version they want. The trouble comes about in light of the fact that very few people have the option to do so.

 

In my experience, most people are playing competitively or through pickup games. More on the pickup game side than the competitive tournament side, although plenty of people do competitive pickup games.

 

What this means is people need a common ruleset that both players can use. The common ruleset ends up being whatever is the most current version of the rules. On the tournament side this is a requirement, and on the pickup game side any deviation from whatever the accepted standard is decreases your likelihood of finding someone to play with. For someone who gets the time for maybe one or two games per month, they are going to go with the method that maximizes their chance of actually playing a game.

 

 

Yeah that makes sense, it's a shame really that people are stuck in that position. I was lucky enough to belong to a small gaming group back in the 90's and changing stuff was a lot easier. 

 

As I sad, old Fart rant.   

Edited May 12, 2022 by Portman

[phandaal]

 

 

Yeah that makes sense, it's a shame really that people are stuck in that position. I was lucky enough to belong to a small gaming group back in the 90's and changing stuff was a lot easier. 

 

As I sad, old Fart rant.   

 

 

As a fart who is nearly as old as you, agreed. It impacts things like pen and paper RPGs too. People just do not link up and make groups the same way they used to.

[Evil Eye]

If it makes you feel any better, Portman, I'm only going to be 26 next month, but I heartily agree. I feel the onset of the "pickup game" as the norm for wargaming has had a massively negative effect on the quality of the experience overall, and gaming groups are a much better way of enjoying the game. Not to say that pickup games have no place, but I don't think they (or tournaments) should be treated as the "main" way of playing around which the game is built.

A large part of the problem, that plagues literally every wargame irrespective of how well balanced, is that a lot of people refuse to not list-build like complete tools. But short of some kind of wargaming secret police, I don't really know what can be done about that!

[Portman]

 

 

 

Yeah that makes sense, it's a shame really that people are stuck in that position. I was lucky enough to belong to a small gaming group back in the 90's and changing stuff was a lot easier. 

 

As I sad, old Fart rant.   

 

 

As a fart who is nearly as old as you, agreed. It impacts things like pen and paper RPGs too. People just do not link up and make groups the same way they used to.

 

 

Glad to hear I'm not the only one. 

 

That is a sad state of affairs indeed, but what can you do. It's probably related to why a lot of skirmish games (I'm thinking Stargrave, Spaces weirdos etc.) have rules for playing solo - now that's something i wouldn't be surprised to see in 10th, although solo 40K would be sad.