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

[Toxichobbit]

I'm sad to say, but I don't think 10th will fix any problems, and even worse, I don't think I care anymore. Kind of like BlackBlowFly said, no matter how much they fix 10th compared to 9th, they'll mess it up again. It's always the same merry-go-round with them. Probably within a year, it'll be a complete  show, just like every other edition in recent memory. They just can't help themselves. In the desire to shift product they continually push rules creep (which then requires a spider web of errata & FAQs to fix), embrace FOMO, create artificial scarcity, treat their customers like walking wallets, do stuff like not update Codexes until almost the end of the edition (but spam a plethora of supplements at the start instead). Between all of that and issues with other GW games that I liked, I'm just exhausted with them. My hobby interaction is at the lowest point it's been in three decades and I just can't see anything but a purge of the company and hiring a load of new blood who care about more than just making money fixing that. Certainly, another edition isn't going to fix things.

It's truly impressive how they've managed to change my mood from the most excited I've ever been about 40k (and their products in general) at the start of 9th to seriously considering flogging all my GW collection and taking out a lifetime membership with the  GW crowd.

Sorry this post is so negative. I'm struggling to have a single positive thought about GW or anything they touch at the moment.  

[Stealth_Hobo]

18 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

I'm sad to say, but I don't think 10th will fix any problems, and even worse, I don't think I care anymore. Kind of like BlackBlowFly said, no matter how much they fix 10th compared to 9th, they'll mess it up again. It's always the same merry-go-round with them. Probably within a year, it'll be a complete  show, just like every other edition in recent memory. They just can't help themselves. In the desire to shift product they continually push rules creep (which then requires a spider web of errata & FAQs to fix), embrace FOMO, create artificial scarcity, treat their customers like walking wallets, do stuff like not update Codexes until almost the end of the edition (but spam a plethora of supplements at the start instead). Between all of that and issues with other GW games that I liked, I'm just exhausted with them. My hobby interaction is at the lowest point it's been in three decades and I just can't see anything but a purge of the company and hiring a load of new blood who care about more than just making money fixing that. Certainly, another edition isn't going to fix things.

It's truly impressive how they've managed to change my mood from the most excited I've ever been about 40k (and their products in general) at the start of 9th to seriously considering flogging all my GW collection and taking out a lifetime membership with the  GW crowd.

Sorry this post is so negative. I'm struggling to have a single positive thought about GW or anything they touch at the moment.  

To me it's getting pretty clear that there are different people responsible for different games systems at GW. My main game currently is Warcry and I'm pretty happy to play that game. I'm also starting to dip my toes into Adeptus Titanicus which is a game that gets a lot of high praise.

When I think about 40k. Well... I'm starting to get depressed.  As far as I know, the game is still made by the same people that made 7th edition, so there's a big chance that they can't help themselves and 10th edition will have something like invisible knights shooting railguns out of every orifice, but I'm still interested to see how it will pan out.

[Noserenda]

While i suspect they are working under broadly the same conditions, afaik the team making 9th is very different to the team that made 7th. Certainly different bosses, a much bigger team (At the end of 8th definitely, not sure if they maintained it?) and generally people drift around the company a bit at GW, at least on the creative side.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 10/6/2022 at 9:08 PM, Scribe said:

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...

I don't think there will be consensus, and if even there is where does that leave the people who like 9th? They just need to concentrate on making the best game they can, if it's not for me so be it.  

That said I completely agree on polling and survey's, I feel that SoB should have been a roadmap for them. For all intents and purposes SoB was a new army because before the relaunch the old models were so expensive. The Beta codex really made that release stronger because the community had a say in the release, if they had done something similar for Votann  they probably wouldn't have needed to do a FAQ before the wider release. 

Asking the community for more feedback can only help them. I honestly wouldn't care if they made 10th something I hated if the majority of the player base wanted it.  

On 10/7/2022 at 4:03 AM, Toxichobbit said:

I'm sad to say, but I don't think 10th will fix any problems, and even worse, I don't think I care anymore. Kind of like BlackBlowFly said, no matter how much they fix 10th compared to 9th, they'll mess it up again. It's always the same merry-go-round with them. Probably within a year, it'll be a complete  show, just like every other edition in recent memory. They just can't help themselves. In the desire to shift product they continually push rules creep (which then requires a spider web of errata & FAQs to fix), embrace FOMO, create artificial scarcity, treat their customers like walking wallets, do stuff like not update Codexes until almost the end of the edition (but spam a plethora of supplements at the start instead). Between all of that and issues with other GW games that I liked, I'm just exhausted with them. My hobby interaction is at the lowest point it's been in three decades and I just can't see anything but a purge of the company and hiring a load of new blood who care about more than just making money fixing that. Certainly, another edition isn't going to fix things.

It's truly impressive how they've managed to change my mood from the most excited I've ever been about 40k (and their products in general) at the start of 9th to seriously considering flogging all my GW collection and taking out a lifetime membership with the  GW crowd.

Sorry this post is so negative. I'm struggling to have a single positive thought about GW or anything they touch at the moment.  

It's good to take break when you start to feel like this. Venting only helps so much. I haven't bought anything from them in a while and I don't think I'll get anything till 10th if I like the changes. Been concentrating on other hobbies that deserve it more in my opinion.  

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

Nothing like wading into a 30+ page thread, so my take is: bring back game masters as mandatory, remove all competitive scenarios and embrace 40k as a cooperative narrative game.  

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Yeah let’s put balance in the hands of a third party… we know how that works out.

[Scribe]

3 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Yeah let’s put balance in the hands of a third party… we know how that works out.

Thats a clear strawman, but moving on.

Putting the 'competitive game' genie back in the box isnt going to work I think. The game simply needs to, well be simpler. GW has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they cannot manage the rule set they have on their hands, and frankly the 'core rules are fine' doesnt work, when the codex is part of the core rules, and the stratagems are part of the core rules, and the escalating game of exceptions is also part of the 'core rules'. If all this extraneous crap was optional rules, then perhaps folks would have an argument to stand on...

So the answer again, is simple.

Go back to USRs, delete the extra layers that add nothing but 'gotcha' and book keeping, and bring the game back to a more streamlined ACTUAL core rule set.

If GW wants to provide options like Crusade? Go nuts.

Models will still be shifted. Profit margins will still be massive. Novels of dubious quality will still be written, and every few years ADB will drop a gem on us. As God intended. ;)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Keywords are superior to USRs. 7th edition had just as much bloat If not more and USRs was a big part of the problem.

Someone recommended going back to having the equivalent of a DM to run and arbitrate games and advocated making the game not competitive. I can just imagine the problems with having a third party run games… it’s just not realistic. The game moved on many editions ago. So no it’s not a strawman - maybe you didn’t understand my comment.

[Scribe]

Considering he didn't mention balance?

Yes, your response is a strawman.

[DesuVult]

I feel like we have seen GW return to USRs in some respects.  They restandardized the wording for some rules and are giving the same rules out more broadly.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I made an assumption. Seriously balance is something that a lot people have discussed here, mainly the lack of external balance.

[Blindhamster]

USRs and keywords are not mutually exclusive. Getting rid of stratagems or at least heavily stripping them back and returning USRs would be better for the game. USRs would reference keywords much like many stratagems do currently.

maybe the reaction system like HH is the way to go, it’s basically stratagems, there just are only a limited number per army plus a limited number of generics. 

[Doghouse]

On 10/7/2022 at 9:03 AM, Toxichobbit said:

*snip*

I feel exactly the same way mate. :(

I'd like a return to the start of 8th with the indexes. I was a bit miffed when they did that but actually really enjoyed playing it. I think the game is designed to self destruct by nature that it is first and foremost a product. So early eighth with alternating squad turns is what I would like to see with less focus on the living ruleset based on tournament performance.

Just go digital and make one complete set of rules for competitive tournament play and the other for casual gamers.

[phandaal]

On 10/7/2022 at 3:51 AM, Stealth_Hobo said:

As far as I know, the game is still made by the same people that made 7th edition, so there's a big chance that they can't help themselves and 10th edition will have something like invisible knights shooting railguns out of every orifice, but I'm still interested to see how it will pan out.

The recent fiasco with Votann may offer some hope. 10th core rules are probably done already. As long as the codex teams are kept from putting every bonkers thing they brainstorm into each new codex, though, the worst of 9th creep can be avoided.

[Valkyrion]

There isn't enough time in a three year cycle to properly balance things or even plan too far ahead.

By the time 10th rolls around we'll have half a dozen codexes that have had less than a year playing the edition which is pretty crappy, and worse than crappy in the event of a hard reset. 

A four year cycle, with all codexes released by the end of year 2 would give everyone two years of gaming with codexes that have at least had an attempt at being balanced against each other. Use the 3rd year to finish off the balancing with points updates and rules tweaks and have year 4 as the final, finished article - the pinnacle of what that edition was meant to be.
GW can still release things in years 3 and 4 - war zones, terrain, a planetstrike/cities of death/apocalypse supplement, etc - but at least everyone would know where they stand. This is it, this is how your army is going to play for at least two years. 

 

[Doghouse]

That's the main reason I can't justify buying a codex anymore which ultimately leads to me not buying these late edition campaign expansions either. 

[Noserenda]

USRs are fine as long as they are still on the datasheet, Aod 2 has reminded me why i hated them in earlier editions, though to be fair to them it has also proven to be spectacularly badly laid out and confusing with them :D 

[Triszin]

I still believe gradations to usr's would help clean up, and consolidate a bunch of rules.

 

And adding some new usr's to account for similar yet undefined rules.

 

Currently it seems like everyone wants there own special save, and or weapon to ignore x.

 

[Valkyrion]

USR's are fine and exist anyway albeit in an overly wordy, convoluted way.

Deep Strike, Outflank, Infiltrate are in every codex but called Teleport Assault, Death from Below, From frigging Golden Light They Come - just call it it what it is - Deep Strike.

Why does the reroll 1's to hit aura need a different name in every codex? Why can't add 1 to wound roll rules just be 'this guy has Furious Charge' or whatever. Every codex has something that gives a unit a reroll or +1 to hit or wound, so the the special rule already is universal. Once you know it you know it. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The problem with USRs and strats etc isn’t that they exist, it’s that there’s too many,  creating too many interactions that have unexpected results.

[Grim Crafter]

My main concern with 9th is how it had competitive becoming the rising play style of the setting, this has me very concerned specially that on one hand I dont see it being GWs foing, but more of a sign of the times where the competitive content had and has more traction from the algo specially on youtube as it feeds on negative opinion and non stop complaining which is predominant in the competitive community (yeah yeah balance is good for everyone iata iata iata) and its also a result of the fact that innevitably, newcomers are very likely to come from a digital gaming background and that with the rise of e-sports has a far more competitive mindset than out silly satire of a setting has, so usually most people see that since there is an opponent, it must be a competitive game, even though it really isnt nor has really ever been.

 

With that said, I find that it is inevitable that competitive becomes the major if not the only way to play the game unless you have a real tight group of friends with a strong narrrative background. But those of us that dont have that will be forced to play a more competitive mode. I personally find that some competitive games and analisys are ok as it does help a player to deeppens their knowledge of their faction of choice and to have the general rules of the game in such way as you can play more and worry less abut the rules bloat that this game has (even though its is much better, its still pretty dense specially for those not used to it). But if competitive is o become the dominant playstyle, it needs more flavour, it needs to be more friendy to non competitive players, with less homework and without having the game being decided more at home than at the tablle, a today the game is very monotonous for those that dont care about competitive and facin a competitive player whom as they become majority have  aharder time turning down a notch when facing a non competitive player even if previously agreed upon, which can be almost like being harrased at the table.

 

What does that mean? More balance? Yes more balance is part of the equation but not all balance has to be competitive in faction balance, stuff like theather of war and elements that bring randomness(like the good old scatter die) into the mission are a crutial way to balance a game outside the list building. Specially 40k to be viable for all when competitive becomes the norm it needs to have more exciting missions and list building needs to be less of a meta chasing exercise game defining part of the game, open play needs a tone more support and the clear line between what it for GTs and what is for narratives needs to be made, no armies of renown for competitive for example and crusade is super fun but it needs more stream lining. The truth of competitive 40k for a non competitive player is that the game are all pretty much the same even with frequent updates and seasons, the homework load is just too heavy and it rewards not only pay to win but also stimulates FOMO, this will happen regardless if the win rate of all faction are within a 5% margen instead of the 10% current goal. Competitive can kill 40k for casuals it already has for me as I had to move to a country where competitive is the only way people play even it being a tiny community where a GT cant get more than 30ish people in considering those willing to travel cross country for it. and maybe im living in an anecdotal context but the talk online has been competitive dominant for a while and even though competitive is a nish today it will eventually overtake the game.

[Scribe]

Thing is, it doesnt need to be one or the other. It really doesnt.

[DesuVult]

I think part of the problem is GW writing rules for competitive oriented players because GW doesn't know how to write competitive rules.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I don’t believe that to be true however it’s not fun for casuals to have to play by competitive rules now.

[Triszin]

I think out right rerolls should be rarer.