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

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

Yes, I think maybe there was a misunderstanding—I’m not saying most players don’t have a game group; I don’t really know statistics on that.  And the RPG industry is larger than wargaming I believe, with a product that does not offer much to players with no gaming group, does it not?  And for players who have no group, I’m surprised GW hasn’t made a robust solo 40k rule set yet, which would be a better solution for players with no group.  I would of course support GW encouraging gaming groups and leagues and they do invest in and have have spaces where one might find such a group.  

[Scribe]

I mean really we are talking hypotheticals that while they could happen (Crusade is leaning into RPG territory, there are 40K RPGs, and other versions of the game have had heavier RPG elements) the solution is honestly much much easier and less divisive.

 

Simplify the game again. That is all that needs to happen. Balance is easier to achieve when there are less moving parts, and there is more standardization in the rules across the Codex books.

 

There can be factions with a lot of random (Hello Orks, Daemons) or there can be factions which are consistent (AdMech? Votann? Tau?) and how competitive you wish to play, can inform your faction choices and unit choices.

 

Remove stratagems, remove rules bloat by bringing back and using USRs, cut out about 95% of the re-rolling potential, dial back the numbers on Weapon systems via system wide FAQ when 10th drops, and go back to 1500-1750 as the 'match play' game size. Done.

 

Crusade doesnt even have to go, keep it around its harmless.

 

Yes, the 9th Edition Codex books are nice. I really like them, for everything except for the game itself, and as such my hobby spending is at this point negligible. 

 

Like the Marshal I was lamenting the other day. Its whole purpose is a stupid re-roll aura. :cuss: with all the re-rolls, stop wasting time with a bucket of dice, and just get back to a manageable beer and pretzels game.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

@Scribe I'm going to make you an AOS 1st ed. convert yet, this is now my purpose. 

 

I've been messing around with the OPR grimdark future rules and I think that is pretty close to what you're proposing here, and I'm on board.  Simplify, simplify simplify, let me have my army rules on a few printed pages. 

[phandaal]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Yes, I think maybe there was a misunderstanding—I’m not saying most players don’t have a game group; I don’t really know statistics on that.  And the RPG industry is larger than wargaming I believe, with a product that does not offer much to players with no gaming group, does it not?  And for players who have no group, I’m surprised GW hasn’t made a robust solo 40k rule set yet, which would be a better solution for players with no group.  I would of course support GW encouraging gaming groups and leagues and they do invest in and have have spaces where one might find such a group.  

 

RPGs are more structured than not. Yes, a GM can narratively describe just about anything they like (as they could with 40k), but the game is still bound by things like experience, levels, skills, talents, etc. Truly unstructured RPGs tend to find a niche within a niche, if they find an audience at all.

 

The RPG industry probably bigger than wargaming, but I disagree that they do not offer much to players with no regular group. Those players can find a temporary group or pick-up game online, and RPG companies are certainly targeting those people with their nationwide leagues and online gaming tools.

 

As for the size difference, if it exists then it probably has more to do with the fact that it is easier to get into a game that only requires a couple of books and some paper than a game that requires purchasing, assembling, and painting an army and then playing that army on specially designed tables.

 

Back to the topic at hand, I agree completely that having a group of like-minded friends will solve many gaming problems. That said, GW does not need to design 40k specifically for that kind of player... Because those players can already do whatever they want with their friends and can continue doing so if GW designs their next rulesets to be more balanced.

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

@Scribe I'm going to make you an AOS 1st ed. convert yet, this is now my purpose. 

 

I've been messing around with the OPR grimdark future rules and I think that is pretty close to what you're proposing here, and I'm on board.  Simplify, simplify simplify, let me have my army rules on a few printed pages. 

 

I honestly believe it could be done.

 

There is so little of value added after 5th when it comes to rules systems that if I had my books still (downsized, moved twice, yadda yadda) I'd probably knock something together.

 

Go back to the logical FOC.

Go back to USRs.

Go back to a smaller game (1500-1750).

Go back to unit options, and rules are just part of the unit not a 'stratagem'.

Keep Warlord Traits, its a nice RPG-ish nod.

Keep Movement stat.

 

Its not some insurmountable task, but for as long as the players give up the power to GW to set the terms, they will continue to work the system in a way to make as much money as possible.

 

EDIT: I was looking through my Necron book (9th) the other day thinking "that should be a USR, thats FnP, thats rending" or whatever, and I know most of the books can be found online, so maybe I'll mess around with that this week.

 

EDITx2: Found, and man is it a shock to see some of the pictures of guys who have been at GW for a long time and go 'wait...I too have aged....' :D

Edited October 17, 2022 by Scribe

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

I've been playing 40k on and off for over 20 years, and I think I've played in that time, exactly two "competitive" games, and that was in 3rd edition.  That's all the time and energy my fairly normal life has allowed me to manage, and I don't think I've missed out on anything, at all. 

 

My perspective about issues of balance and competition have changed quite a lot since I was younger.  I no longer care about balance, and my opinion is that while people are free to play 40k and tabletop miniature games in general in a "competitive" framework, I just don't think that the hobby as a whole supports that framework.  People spend lots of time building and painting armies, and then within a year or so those armies are no longer "meta"?  You're not re-constituting a deck and shuffling cards here, you're spending countless hours re-making your army by hand.  Competitive play is not a solution for people who don't have a gaming group either, because you can't be a good competitive player without a gaming group!  Literally not a single good competitive player walks into tournaments having played no games with friends first and does well. 

 

No one complains about balance in an RPG, and 40k is an RPG.  You put your trust in the hands of a GM, and you experience a story with mechanics to influence the outcome.  While I maybe a big joking the way I said it before, I really think that's what GW should do.  Get rid of the points.  Get rid of army composition rules. 

 

GW should get out of the competitive scene entirely.  Let that scene do it's own thing, figure out the "balance" thing for themeselves and stop wasting the time and energy of GW's company resources chasing this "balance".  GW should be giving us interesting scenarios to play, and interesting profiles to try, and they should make it far far easier to get access to the basic unit stats. 

 

Honestly AOS 1st edition was exactly what the hobby should be--no points and they should have doubled down on that and just made more and more campaigns and scenarios to try with interesting bespoke rules.  They are actually doing a bit of that with Kill Team; points don't even really enter into it since each faction just has lists you pick from and tweak out, and it's easy enough to do custom scenarios because of it. 

 

I'm putting my foot down hard on the "GW can do competitive 40k AND narrative 40k."  No, they can't, and they shouldn't.  GW should let competitive 40k be done by the competitive community and get out of the business of catering to them entirely. 

 

I'm not saying this to throw down a gauntlet on competitive players, I'm just posting my opinion. 

40K is not an RPG.

what you describe sounds like a nightmare.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

@phandaal Totally agree with all of the differences you outline--the bar to get in to RPGs is much much lower than wargames, but the way the industry handles people without groups is offering different settings for them to find temporary groups, which is a bit different than writing the games to make sure two strangers will always be on the same page, and I don't think that anyone would prefer to play with strangers at the end of the day, except maybe M:TG people.  And I am all for structure in 40k rules in the way that RPGs have structure, I just don't think that's the same thing as "balance", but if we go down that road we start splitting hairs about what these words even mean, so I'll just say that I hear what you're saying. But even for people with a gaming group, the rules are way over-complicated could be simplified and suit people with even the ideal gaming environment. 

 

@Scribe Yes trying to railroad players into needing XYZ books and constantly shifting the rules to play a proper game just to pump up sales is at the root of why the game--whatever the goal is supposed to be--is so hard to keep up with.  You would think that GW would have enough confidence in the quality of their IP, lore, and models that they wouldn't need to resort to these sort of business tactics to keep up sales.  I know I buy their games them in spite of these tactics, not because of them, and in the case of 40k, it's driven me away from using their rules entirely, but not their models or lore. 

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

19 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

40K is not an RPG.

what you describe sounds like a nightmare.

@Inquisitor_Lensoven I know that you, being a fervent monodominant out to prosecute other Inquisitors who have become more pragmatic in their approach to gaming might see my radical views as heresy, but when you have seen the horrors of the galaxy of rules that I have you may soften in your outlook. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Valkyrion]

Up until this edition (probably. I didn't play 8th), 40k was a game you could play with a stranger in a pick up game at a (F)LGS even if you knew next to nothing about the opponents codex, but knew the rules of the game.

As I said earlier in the thread (or somewhere else on here!), say it's 5th edition and you've not yet played Necrons, there was an A4 sheet at the back of the necron codex with all of the unit and weapon profiles, and a page before the unit entries telling you how Resurrection Protocols, Living Metal and so on work.  I'm not saying that there weren't other special rules, but apart from a few oddities, where there were special rules explicitly called out it was because there were caveats (e.g, necron wraiths had a superior version of move through cover)

 

Of course there was Necron only wargear that you'd have no idea about, but if a rule sounded too good to be true then it probably was, either through misunderstanding or deliberate skulduggery.  Now you don't have that certainty of a rule being too good to be true because of the level of rule stacking that can legally be done means you totally have the potential to do first turn charging with rerolling everything with +1 to wound and exploding sixes and reducing incoming damage by 1 and then having a 'ignore the saves you can't normally ignore' save.... back then it was like 'you have 3 attacks, furious charge and rending? are you sure?! let me check.'

 

 

 

 

[Scribe]

6 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

Now you don't have that certainty of a rule being too good to be true because of the level of rule stacking that can legally be done means you totally have the potential to do first turn charging with rerolling everything with +1 to wound and exploding sixes and reducing incoming damage by 1 and then having a 'ignore the saves you can't normally ignore' save.... back then it was like 'you have 3 attacks, furious charge and rending? are you sure?! let me check.'

 

The fact this is likely hyperbole, but not TOO much so to the point it could be real...is a pretty great example of the issue at hand.

[Valkyrion]

2 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

The fact this is likely hyperbole, but not TOO much so to the point it could be real...is a pretty great example of the issue at hand.

 

you know, I actually wrote and then deleted a final paragraph stating that it was hyperbole but what I described actually happened to me with a tyranid Screamer Killer buffed up to the gills by (literally) unstoppable psychic powers, hive fleet traits, stratagems and whatever else - some of the details might be slightly off, but it happened in the game where both my opponent and I decided to pack 40k in and give 30k a go.

 

[phandaal]

18 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

But even for people with a gaming group, the rules are way over-complicated could be simplified and suit people with even the ideal gaming environment. 

 

Agreed.

 

There are way too many exceptions and layers to the rules right now.

 

"Invulnerable, Ignore Invulnerable, Super Invulnerable Demon Invulnerable" or "Wound, Feel No Pain, Bypass Feel No Pain" come to mind.

 

Making a set of rules and sticking to those rules would go a long way.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Even though games are played at 2k now since there was a points increase going from 9th to 10th it feels more like 1750-1850 to me.

[DesuVult]

There are also pretty unintuitive rules interactions.  There are rules that bypass wound negation so you cannot roll for each point of damage and negate on like a 5+.  That does not affect damage reduction though so a flat -1 to damage still applies but if you have to roll for damage to be decreased that is bypassed.

Edited October 17, 2022 by DesuVult

[Scribe]

16 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

 

you know, I actually wrote and then deleted a final paragraph stating that it was hyperbole but what I described actually happened to me with a tyranid Screamer Killer buffed up to the gills by (literally) unstoppable psychic powers, hive fleet traits, stratagems and whatever else - some of the details might be slightly off, but it happened in the game where both my opponent and I decided to pack 40k in and give 30k a go.

 

 

Thats pretty indefensible then.

[phandaal]

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Thats pretty indefensible then.

 

Pre-nerf Tyranids were ridiculous. They still are, but they were even worse around the launch of their new codex.

 

GW must see the churn this is causing though, or they would not have hammered Squats as quickly as they did.

[DesuVult]

40k is currently pretty ridiculous.  In the past month space marines have a a 70% losing rate into 3 different codices.  There are codices with 80% win rates into other codices.

[Valkyrion]

I've got the 5th ed rulebook close to hand and there were a grand total of 22 USR's. That's already not a lot, but when you consider that the only models that were Swarms and Vulnerable to Blasts were probably only Nurglings (snotlings in 5th? I can't recall), and Infiltrate and Scout were deployment abilities (so fire and forget), and that in several cases you only needed one if you had the other (turbo boost and skilled rider often went hand in hand) there was probably a maximal USR list of a dozen that applied to every single faction and unit in the whole entire game.  Even now... Tank Hunters, Stealth, Relentless, Slow and Purposeful, Eternal Warrior, Counter Attack....I can remember what they all do (did). I'd probably have to look up Swarm or Night Vision due to being rarer, but that was it and that was enough.  

 

Recreate some USR's and stick them in the rule book to allow +1 to hit, rending, fearless and whatever, and make use of them. In future balance updates GW could then just say 'this unit no longer has FEARLESS' or 'this unit now has TANK HUNTERS' instead of 'delete (or add) this paragraph that says in eight lines what a USR would have said in eight words'.

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

@Inquisitor_Lensoven I know that you, being a fervent monodominant out to prosecute other Inquisitors who have become more pragmatic in their approach to gaming might see my radical views as heresy, but when you have seen the horrors of the galaxy of rules that I have you may soften in your outlook. 

Again 40K is not remotely an RPG. That’s like claiming star craft is an RPG, and having a GM? Hell no.

 

some people have a hard enough time finding a single person to game with when they want to, now you want to require a 3rd person be involved? Nope.

 Gaming should be like sex. Between 2 consenting partners who may choose to include more if they wish.

[Scribe]

I uh...will see myself out.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I remember all the useless USRs in sixth and seventh edition. If geedub went back it’d only be a matter of time people will wax on the virtues of keywords.

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I remember all the useless USRs in sixth and seventh edition. If geedub went back it’d only be a matter of time people will wax on the virtues of keywords.

 

Keyword's dont need to go either. Its fine to have both.

[Slave to Darkness]

51 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 

 Gaming should be like sex. Between 2 consenting partners who may choose to include more if they wish.

So whos up for a game of Apocalypse then?? 

[Slave to Darkness]

57 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 

 

some people have a hard enough time finding a single person to game with when they want to, now you want to require a 3rd person be involved? Nope.

 

In the designers blurb in WD magazine when they dropped 2ndedition on us they actually mentioned that as the reason why they dropped the GM from 1st edition, more balanced rules so you dont need the third guy in the corner bored. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

What happens if GW doesn't bring back USRs and leaves them in previous editions? What happens if they keep stratagems, keep codexes as they are and don't over-simplify the game and they do just refine what they have currently? The default game size remains 2000 points with the same number of models, yet they also make smaller games just as viable? The variant FOCs remain?

 

I don't want what I want 10th to be to make anyone leave the game. I also don't want the game to be changed so much that I no longer wish to play the game. There has to be a middle ground, something that fixes the faults without destroying the strengths.