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

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Idk if this is how things are supposedly done, but I think for the design, they should use the intercessor as a base, and design things around that.

1. SM are the face of the game

2. most players play marines

3. they’re the most basic of modern marine units

so if a unit is supposed to be weak or strong that should be determined by comparing to an intercessor.

the SM line should be built around that, and every new codex should be play tested primarily against marines, rather than making SM a baseline, then testing army A’s new rules against SM, and then testing army B against A, and C against B, so on and so forth, which is how it seems we got votann releasing super OP.

[Emperor Ming]

I'm wondering if they will announce 10th for the anniversary. 

[Aarik]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

I have played against some of 9th's stronger (or just plain OP) armies in "casual" games and can confirm it affects more than just the tournament scene. Pre-nerf Tyranids, for example... It was so busted I just had to roll my eyes. The other guy was not even really trying to be super meta or play like a pro, it was just obviously not designed well.

I think this is a point that is lost in the discussion a bit.  Balanced/toned down armies don't just benefit the tournament scene, they benefit everyone.  Possibly even casual gamers moreso than tournament gamers.  Tournament gamers are more likely to have a more tuned up army and/or play the game at a level to make up for some of the disparity in army power than a casual gamer showing up at a store with whatever mishmash of units they have painted.  

 

And that sort of leads me to the main point about I'd like to see changed for 10th edition.  I'd like there to be less of a focus on what happens before the game, rather than actually on the tabletop.  With how many interacting faction rules, subfaction rules, relics, warlord traits, secondaries etc. there are, it seems easier than ever to have lost the game before you even put any models on the tabletop, and I think that becomes a barrier that dissuades people from playing.  (And is a reason why I would prefer that GW tone down obviously overpowered armies/units/rules as quickly as possible.)  Secondary to that, I also would like GW to cut down on the level of bookkeeping that playing requires.  It seems to me that there are just too many things that a player has to keep track of throughout the game, which again takes the focus away from what the models are actually doing on the tabletop.

 

So, as others have said, I'd like GW to tone down the complexity/layers of rules that come along with codexes.  The core rules seem largely okay, but everything grafted on top has become a little too bloated and complex.  To GW's credit, they do seem to have done a good job of making factions more unique and play how the army is supposed to "feel" as a result of all the unique rules.  But I would like to see them try to trim back the complexity while still retaining the feel.  Take the core flavorful mechanics that they've built, but really take some time to try to distill them down to something simpler while still retaining their essence and flavor.

[Bouargh]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Idk if this is how things are supposedly done, but I think for the design, they should use the intercessor as a base, and design things around that.

1. SM are the face of the game

[....]

so if a unit is supposed to be weak or strong that should be determined by comparing to an intercessor.

This used to be more or less the method for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ed. Back to the roots basicaly.

Yet even like this, a math-hammer is not necesary enough to get a real good vibe IMHO. So I would add needs to rate vs. a given standard for yield (aka the Marine standard you proposed) and vs. the crapiest stuff for cost standard (welcome back you Grot. This is your time!). Then, to rephrase GW some Eds ago,  the same weapon can have distinct yields if is it is in hands of a trained genetically modified barabrity or if it is in hands of a corrupted guardman... So weapon profiles should disappear and be part of the Characteristics of the miniature instead.e

Damn, I hate how it goes, looking like Age of Sigmar... .

Ultimatly a game making the best place to factors such as the army comp, deployment and movment + a little bit of luck as  main metrics for gamers´ successes and crashes would be a good thing for my taste.

33 minutes ago, Aarik said:

 Possibly even casual gamers moreso than tournament gamers. 

I guess you pointed out exactly the right thing - focus and purpose on casual players. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

This used to be more or less the method for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ed. Back to the roots basicaly.

Yet even like this, a math-hammer is not necesary enough to get a real good vibe IMHO. So I would add needs to rate vs. a given standard for yield (aka the Marine standard you proposed) and vs. the crapiest stuff for cost standard (welcome back you Grot. This is your time!). Then, to rephrase GW some Eds ago,  the same weapon can have distinct yields if is it is in hands of a trained genetically modified barabrity or if it is in hands of a corrupted guardman... So weapon profiles should disappear and be part of the Characteristics of the miniature instead.e

Damn, I hate how it goes, looking like Age of Sigmar... .

Ultimatly a game making the best place to factors such as the army comp, deployment and movment + a little bit of luck as  main metrics for gamers´ successes and crashes would be a good thing for my taste.

I guess you pointed out exactly the right thing - focus and purpose on casual players. 

I think weapon profiles are still important because there definitely needs to be a difference between a bolter and a plasma. Or a lasgun and a lascannon regardless of who is using it.

it does seem like the game has outgrown the D6 system imho. D10 or D12 would allow an ork to have a BS 8+while a guardsman can have a 6+ and a marine a 4+
resulting in hitting 20%, 40%, and 60% of the time respectively as the base stat, and still having plenty of room for significant improvements on accuracy for HQs and elites in each faction, which would imo achieve the same thing you described, making a bolter feel significantly more useful in the hands of a marine vs in the hands of a guardsman.

[MegaVolt87]

On 10/4/2022 at 2:54 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Idk if this is how things are supposedly done, but I think for the design, they should use the intercessor as a base, and design things around that.

1. SM are the face of the game

2. most players play marines

3. they’re the most basic of modern marine units

so if a unit is supposed to be weak or strong that should be determined by comparing to an intercessor.

the SM line should be built around that, and every new codex should be play tested primarily against marines, rather than making SM a baseline, then testing army A’s new rules against SM, and then testing army B against A, and C against B, so on and so forth, which is how it seems we got votann releasing super OP.

The real way to properly balance the game would be using the Imperial Guardsman profile as a baseline. The game is already balanced around a MEQ statline and look where we are today. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

The real way to properly balance the game would be using the Imperial Guardsman profile as a baseline. The game is already balanced around a MEQ statline and look where we are today. 

It clearly isn’t based around a MEQ stat line.

it’s based around codexes being stronger than their predecessors, until the game is broken.

[Lemondish]

56 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

It clearly isn’t based around a MEQ stat line.

it’s based around codexes being stronger than their predecessors, until the game is broken.

I think it's more accurate to say it's based on groups of Codexes being stronger than their predecessors because they often include lessons learned from early failures and are tested against each other. Look at how many terrible units and data sheets exist in the first batches of books compared to the latest crop. Pre-nerf Leagues probably weren't going to be that scary against pre-nerf Tau, Tyranids, Asuryani, etc. It's like they were all designed together (they even said as much) but each of these book's dominance out of the gate was clearly because a Codex with no bad choices is going to appear pretty broken against ones filled with nothing but mediocre units. 

I don't really want to see what we like to describe as power creep be artificially curtailed as they improve unit design and efficacy. Just look at how Core as a keyword has shifted all edition. It was used way too sparingly for Necrons, so they dialed in on where it made sense. If they never sought to improve Codex rules writing over time, we'd still see these types of mistakes.

[Subtleknife]

They need to decompress the stat line imo. Unchain S and T so its over a greater scale. Personally I would like a D10 or D12 but I dont think it is likely. I would also like a stat to counter Ballistic Skill. Call it formation (representing a units ability to move tactically and their reflexes). The same chart for S v T could be used for BS v F. Lastly they need to set boundaries for what each race can do. Ie a human will have a T between 3 and 5. A marine will have a T between 6 and 9 etc. It always seems silly that a catachan has the same T as a marine. If they have these distinct boundaries it also creates character imo. 

Finally, they need to get rid of special rules or strats that change base stats (ie +1 to wound etc) it creates to many little rules that is much harder to balance. Your to wound should be set by your S v the opponents T. Its much easier to balance then as you arent trying to balance a game that has a ton of exceptions to the rules you are trying to create. 

[Khornestar]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

It clearly isn’t based around a MEQ stat line.

it’s based around codexes being stronger than their predecessors, until the game is broken.

So we would see every codex after Tyranids being stronger than Tyranids, yes? As well as stronger as their predecessors. A trend not supported by reality, IMO.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

14 minutes ago, Khornestar said:

So we would see every codex after Tyranids being stronger than Tyranids, yes? As well as stronger as their predecessors. A trend not supported by reality, IMO.

They miss on some, but in general the codexes released in the last year have released stronger than those from the first year of the edition. That’s why things like AoC were necessary.

[Slave to Darkness]

13 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

The real way to properly balance the game would be using the Imperial Guardsman profile as a baseline. 

That was the baseline back in 1st edition. So they started with good intentions, all those years ago. 

[Scribe]

16 hours ago, MegaVolt87 said:

The real way to properly balance the game would be using the Imperial Guardsman profile as a baseline. The game is already balanced around a MEQ statline and look where we are today. 

But is it? I think with the amount of MEQ out there, the game simply has to be balanced around that expectation as the baseline.

[The Unseen]

And that's how we end up with Marines being mediocre generalists, rather than a faction of super soldiers.

The S/T lock needs to go if nothing else. We've seen it already, with Orks moving to T5, along with Custodes, Nids, and DG. T5 is the new T4. 

Hence AoC, because everything in the game turns the MeQ profile into cardboard while marines still pay through the nose for it. Everything is now Str5+ with gobs of AP and multidamage, to deal with factions that are *actually* tough

More characteristic spread is one solution, but the new wound chart and D6 dice are heavy limits in what can be changed

[MegaVolt87]

If the game was balanced around the Imperial Guardsman statline, the super soldiers could be actual super soldiers agreed. So the model count to power starting with highest combat power and lower model count should really be- 

Custodes, GK, CSM, Primaris, Firstborn. 

The game just doesn't look right in 40k with infantry spam for pretty much any MEQ player besides Custodes who can deviate away from infantry because of their FW options can supplant their infantry just fine. Custodes are fine walk back some of the nerfs mabye some points bumps up, CSM just need a better toolbox for their points and wind back things like no dupe weapon choices (ex- dual plasma) GK should get a power bump at the cost of model count, same for primaris. Now firstborn loyalists are more difficult. With the current pace of primaris, they should have slightly more overall model count over primaris and that would be it dur to GW rapidly filing gaps in the primaris line and either 1:1 replacements of units or side grades that get the job done anyway despite the differences. This wpull have a knock on effect of taking some of the bloat from a horde army because there are less MEQ dishing out dmg etc so less need for so many model count for GEQ types. 

[Scribe]

A Primaris still IS a super soldier, compared to a Guardsman...

[Emperor Ming]

19 minutes ago, Scribe said:

A Primaris still IS a super soldier, compared to a Guardsman...

Questionable super soldiers with marines current winrate

They shall be my most average of warriors

With constant need of bolt on rules to make them even slightly viable to face the horrors of the galaxy

and they shall know much fear

The Emperor

[Scribe]

If the power level of the game renders marines as subpar, then that is an issue of the creep of the rules, which we have all been talking about.

Put another way. If the game is so out of control that the statline of a Primaris with basic gun/gear, in comparison to a Guardsman with basic gun/gear, is a wash, is irrelevant, then the bound's of the rules have been broken, and a D6 is utterly useless as the means of providing variable results.

Put ANOTHER way.

If the Primaris are not super soldiers in comparison because the game is too deadly? WIPE IT OUT AND GO BACK.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, The Unseen said:

And that's how we end up with Marines being mediocre generalists, rather than a faction of super soldiers.

The S/T lock needs to go if nothing else. We've seen it already, with Orks moving to T5, along with Custodes, Nids, and DG. T5 is the new T4. 

Hence AoC, because everything in the game turns the MeQ profile into cardboard while marines still pay through the nose for it. Everything is now Str5+ with gobs of AP and multidamage, to deal with factions that are *actually* tough

More characteristic spread is one solution, but the new wound chart and D6 dice are heavy limits in what can be changed

No that’s not how you end up with them being mediocre generalists.

if marines are supposed to be tough, elite super solid era, then balancing around that will result in them filling that niche.

if orks are tough and aggressive but not particularly well trained, their stats would be reflect such using the intercessor as the base. The boy could be equally tough, with worse BS, Sv, and Ld for example. Maybe Better M or a rule that buffs ork advancing abilities.

guard infantry would obviously be balanced against marines by much cheaper points cost while every stat will be significantly worse.

MEQ armies would literally have very similar states for their base infantry as intercessors because they’re marine equivalents.

custodes would be more expensive points wise, but their supremacy over marines would be similar to the marine’s supremacy over guard.

 

etc. Using them as a baseline doesn’t mean making everything better from what they are.

[Arbedark]

7 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

No that’s not how you end up with them being mediocre generalists.

if marines are supposed to be tough, elite super solid era, then balancing around that will result in them filling that niche.

if orks are tough and aggressive but not particularly well trained, their stats would be reflect such using the intercessor as the base. The boy could be equally tough, with worse BS, Sv, and Ld for example. Maybe Better M or a rule that buffs ork advancing abilities.

guard infantry would obviously be balanced against marines by much cheaper points cost while every stat will be significantly worse.

MEQ armies would literally have very similar states for their base infantry as intercessors because they’re marine equivalents.

custodes would be more expensive points wise, but their supremacy over marines would be similar to the marine’s supremacy over guard.

 

etc. Using them as a baseline doesn’t mean making everything better from what they are.

100% agree with this. 

Using a regular human as a baseline / balancing around them is more limiting in how you move 'up', and how things at that step are balanced. 

Starting off and balancing the more extreme elements from the get go gives a more robust base to work from. 

[Emperor Ming]

Warhammer Day – 35 Years of Only War - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

More possible hinting in today's article

 

[Scribe]

So its probably (maybe?) a distinct discussion, and probably a fool's hope, but I wonder if some kind of consensus could be achieved at least for the people who are dissatisfied with 9th and what framework they would want 10th to take.

I wish GW was as open to polling and survey's as say, Wizards have been for D&D for example, or that this site supported polls...

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The reset of the game in the form of a new edition seems to have become a mythical unicorn now. Why would a new edition solve everything when in fact each edition has had its share of problems. The company is more corporate than ever so truly I don’t see through rose colored glasses a return to an "older better" edition.

[Slave to Darkness]

Past few editions have borrowed bits from 2nd edition, and if Valraks rumor is true about them leaning into hero hammer again then it looks like were going full circle (they even admitted 2nd edition turned into 'hang near your characters for the buffs' game). GW clearly cant write a good set of rules or think of something new (alternate activation and dice other than a D6 is clearly too much for them it seems) so all they have is older systems to dip into. 

[Valkyrion]

3 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

The reset of the game in the form of a new edition seems to have become a mythical unicorn now. Why would a new edition solve everything when in fact each edition has had its share of problems. The company is more corporate than ever so truly I don’t see through rose colored glasses a return to an "older better" edition.

A new edition doesn't need to solve anything, but new codexes do. As generally agreed, the core rules are fine, it's the codexes that are a rules hellscape, so a hard reset is required so that we don't end up in the same cycle as now. 
Once you've burnt your onions you don't carry on making the rest of the curry, you throw those onions out and start cooking again from scratch, and every new codex is just adding more and more bad ingredients to an otherwise workable dish.