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

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

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?

 

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I don't want what I want 10th to be to make anyone leave the game.

 

Well....

 

If it remains this layered systems approach, with 100 different 'rules' that do the same thing, where you cant even pop smoke without consulting some other layer of the rules and there remains one true 'matched' play set of assumptions? The one GW factually cannot even develop Codex's for, let alone balance?

 

10th will continue the pattern of 9th and people will continue to get fed up with it.

 

A game which allows for the type of nonsense posted in the Tyranid example, is beyond redemption and doesnt need refinement, it needs to be deconstructed and put back together.

[ThePenitentOne]

The 40k we have right now is the most diversified, customizable version of the game I've ever played, and the only editions I skipped were 6 and 7.

 

People in this thread have said "We should return to smaller games" -  And yet, as printed, this edition has more built in BRB support for games as small as 500 pts than any edition in the game's history. GW doesn't need to "make the game smaller in 10th"- people who want smaller games just have to use ALL the rules GW gives them options to use, rather than saying "But my store only plays 2k matched, so I only play 2k matched" and then blaming GW for that.

 

People debating about whether 9th is RPGesque or competitive are completely missing the point that it is currently both based on whether you choose Crusade escalation campaigns or Matched pick-up games.

 

People complaining about the frequency of updates never talk about how Crusade updates are rare, and Open updates are wicked rare. Yet they won't play Crusade or Open- I get that you have to be able to find a group to play and that for some that is a struggle- the issue is blaming GW for that, because they really, really do not have control over whether the local FLGS will allow anything other than 2k Matched to be played.

 

People complain about ITC objectives, but ignore the fact that they don't exist in Open, or Tempest of War Matched, and that they don't contribute to victory in Crusade.

 

All Codex strats disappear if you don't battleforge, with the added benefit that NOT battleforging absolutely allows you and your opponents to choose to conform to previous iterations of the FOC. Now don't get me wrong- strats are so heavily integrated into the game that removing them all may leave the game feeling too simple and flat for some- but you do still have the choice, so it's a matter of picking what you hate least and playing that... Which is harsh, but still more flexible than "Don't like USR's? Tough, absolutely no way to remove them from the game, so shut up and like it."

 

And the danger, is that ANY suggestions about simplifying the game are likely to result in less choice, not more... And if you don't like what's created despite it's simplicity, you'll have far fewer tools than you currently do to deal with it.

 

And no, I'm not saying that 9th is perfect or that it can't be improved- it absolutely can be. But there's so much customization in this edition that people are just ignoring, I feel like 9.5 is a WAY better option that a hard reset. Index Hammer is often put on a pedestal by people who hate the complexity of 9th, but if you didn't like Index Hammer, that was just too bad, because there weren't options to play the game any other way. and that's probably where we're going if 10th is a streamlined hard reset. If it doesn't meet with your expectations, you may learn to regret the lack of choice that you never took advantage of in 9th.

 

A further complication in these discussions is which faction(s) you play. I say this because since 2nd, Space Marines have always had more access and options than any other faction- you've had 4 subfactions with bespoke units and distinctive rules that actually differentiate how the army behaves on the table, as well as a generic option if you didn't like the more themed options. And yes, in some editions, a few other factions may have had support for sub-faction style customization- so super flexible Chaos in 3.5, or super slick regiments for the guard... But a part of the complexity that people complain about in 9th comes from the fact that it's only the second edition GW has ever printed in which ALL factions have detailed sub-faction customization options. If you play one of the factions that has ALWAYS had this (Space Marines), or even a faction that has had good subfaction options in SOME editions (Chaos, Guard, Nids, Eldar, Orks), your attitude on the current edition is going to differ drastically from those who have NEVER had meaningful subfaction customization options (Sisters, Custodes, GSC, Votann). And I'm sorry, I'm not going back to "A Bloody Rose Sister is red and an Argent Shroud Sister is silver" to reduce the "mental load" of people who have always and will always be able to make meaningful decisions about whether they are Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Ultras.

 

Where was your concern for my mental load when you had all that and my option was "A Sister is a Sister, so shut up and like it?"

 

I'm sorry if the game is more complex now that everyone has the options you've always enjoyed.

 

 

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

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.

Look I'm not trying to needlessly derail the thread about RPG vs wargame, but RPGs grew out of wargaming originally.  The two are totally related in so many ways, mechanically and also just from a historical perspective, so there's no reason to double down on 40k not having an element of RPG in it.  It does.  If it didn't it wouldn't have originally had a GM in the first edition.  And there are examples of GW using a GM in white dwarf articles long after 1st edition too. 

 

As for finding someone to play with, I'd actually like there to be more solo wargaming options too, for people who can't find a single partner.  I'll do you a favor and not take your analogy there, though. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Scribe]

@ThePenitentOne I understand you like Crusade, but for the (I would argue vast) majority, most of what you are talking about, is as realistic as saying "Just play Oldhammer."

 

For many if not most of us, its 'what is the assumed rule set for matched play' and that is what you play if you are looking for a varied set of opponents, or Khorne forbid, you have to go into local shops for pick up games.

 

It was like that in 3rd, 4th, 5th (man did we play the hell out of 5th), 6th (probably the peak participation around here), 7th, and 8th with the dwindling supply of local players. 9th is no different in this regard, but it is needlessly complex, and so far removed from standardization that I am sure there are 20 different ways to say "Feels No Pain", instead of 1 simple USR.

 

Crusade isnt the solution for us.

 

You are conflating a lot of different issues in your post, and I dont know if you want me to go item by item but like...sub factions? Thats not a problem. Custom factions that some of the books have (but not Chaos?! Seriously GW :cuss: off) are not an issue. Crusade isnt an issue even, and I specifically called that out a few posts back because I knew you would be showing up. :D

 

The issue is the layered systems of 9th, the lack of standardized rules (USR) and the stupidity of the absolute "we are playing apoc now" damage profiles.

 

Pull all that in, gut some of it, and you dont even have to TOUCH Crusade.

[Cpt_Reaper]

7 minutes ago, Scribe said:

@ThePenitentOne I understand you like Crusade, but for the (I would argue vast) majority, most of what you are talking about, is as realistic as saying "Just play Oldhammer."

 

But if "Just play Oldhammer" isn't an acceptable response, why is "change 10th into Oldhammer" any better?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Nobody really want oldhammer imo. The codices just needed to be dialed down.

[tychobi]

Confusing complexity with choice comes easy in 40k. You have the choice of 3 different bolters on space marine intersessors.  Except that your choice barely matters. It's vastly more complex, you have 3x the stats and you get to peer at the mag set up hoping to remember what they all mean. But in the end you probably would still kill a very similar amount of stuff with each gun. The "choice" is an illusion wrought by needless complexity. Poor game design relies on these illusions. Real choices are being washed out of 40k in favor of complexity overload.  Every new release has a new gun that has a tiny tweak that make it technically different but leave it functionally the same. Except multimeltas. Rules that change turn by turn are another example of complexity for complexities sake. The book keeping alone is onerous. Don't get me started on actions and phases full of sub phases or rules that invalidate rules or stratagems with multiple caveats. There is no such thing as a perfectly played game of 40k but it feels like that is a design goal now rather than an unfortunate side effect. I want more choice and less complexity. Let me put a jump pack on my chaos lord :cuss:

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Slave to Darkness said:

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. 

Like what would a GM even do in 40K?

[Cpt_Reaper]

1 minute ago, tychobi said:

Confusing complexity with choice comes easy in 40k. You have the choice of 3 different bolters on space marine intersessors.  Except that your choice barely matters. It's vastly more complex, you have 3x the stats and you get to peer at the mag set up hoping to remember what they all mean. But in the end you probably would still kill a very similar amount of stuff with each gun. The "choice" is an illusion wrought by needless complexity.

 

That's a scenario I would say is a case of refinement needed. The standard bolt rifle was your safe bet, the "take all comers" option. But I remember when they were first brought out, they were the best option too. The stalker didn't hit nearly hard enough and the assault didn't shoot nearly as many rounds as they should have. I feel this was because they were all being treated as different ways to kill another space marine and not anti-horde, generalist and anti-elite respectively.

 

I would like to see is something that affects every interaction in the game. I want to see "good enough" removed from weapons, or rather have scenarios where "good enough" is a bad choice. 10 lasguns shouldn't be "good enough" to take on a tank, even with a 6+. A squad of bolt rifles may be "good enough" to deal with most foes but you should only use them when "the right tool" isn't available.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

38 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Look I'm not trying to needlessly derail the thread about RPG vs wargame, but RPGs grew out of wargaming originally.  The two are totally related in so many ways, mechanically and also just from a historical perspective, so there's no reason to double down on 40k not having an element of RPG in it.  It does.  If it didn't it wouldn't have originally had a GM in the first edition.  And there are examples of GW using a GM in white dwarf articles long after 1st edition too. 

 

As for finding someone to play with, I'd actually like there to be more solo wargaming options too, for people who can't find a single partner.  I'll do you a favor and not take your analogy there, though. 

There’s already a solo option.

get a second army and play yourself.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, tychobi said:

Confusing complexity with choice comes easy in 40k. You have the choice of 3 different bolters on space marine intersessors.  Except that your choice barely matters. It's vastly more complex, you have 3x the stats and you get to peer at the mag set up hoping to remember what they all mean. But in the end you probably would still kill a very similar amount of stuff with each gun. The "choice" is an illusion wrought by needless complexity. Poor game design relies on these illusions. Real choices are being washed out of 40k in favor of complexity overload.  Every new release has a new gun that has a tiny tweak that make it technically different but leave it functionally the same. Except multimeltas. Rules that change turn by turn are another example of complexity for complexities sake. The book keeping alone is onerous. Don't get me started on actions and phases full of sub phases or rules that invalidate rules or stratagems with multiple caveats. There is no such thing as a perfectly played game of 40k but it feels like that is a design goal now rather than an unfortunate side effect. I want more choice and less complexity. Let me put a jump pack on my chaos lord

I mean people mathammer these choices and for your example the 3 shot variants are unquestionably more likely to wound more standard MEQs and GEQs than the other options.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

29 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Like what would a GM even do in 40K?

Sounds like you have a new dangerous subject to put to the question, Inquisitor!  In all seriousness, let me see if I can pull up some articles on the subject since you're curious. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

But if "Just play Oldhammer" isn't an acceptable response, why is "change 10th into Oldhammer" any better?

 

The gulf between 5th and 9th, is massive.

 

Or is your view that 9th is stratagems,  bespoke rules bloat, and utterly excessive damage profiles Alone?

[Cpt_Reaper]

17 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

The gulf between 5th and 9th, is massive.

 

Or is your view that 9th is stratagems,  bespoke rules bloat, and utterly excessive damage profiles Alone?

 

I remember 5th edition very well. You didn't play Chapters, you played a Character. Your own characters could never be as good as GWs characters. Less was meant to be more...except when GW immediately realised that more is always more and left several codexes behind while others got the new hotness. Remember Grey Knights breaking the game? Power creep has always existed, but they were orders of magnitude more potent than any other codex at the time. Much like Tyranids and Votann were on release.

 

9th is stratagems and keywords, variant force orgs, custom sub-factions, Imperial Armour being a waste of paper, Crusade and Matched Play. Super-heavies are welcome in 2000+ points games, as are the weapons strong enough to take them down.

[Scribe]

15 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

I remember 5th edition very well. You didn't play Chapters, you played a Character. Your own characters could never be as good as GWs characters. Less was meant to be more...except when GW immediately realised that more is always more and left several codexes behind while others got the new hotness. Remember Grey Knights breaking the game? Power creep has always existed, but they were orders of magnitude more potent than any other codex at the time. Much like Tyranids and Votann were on release.

 

9th is stratagems and keywords, variant force orgs, custom sub-factions, Imperial Armour being a waste of paper, Crusade and Matched Play. Super-heavies are welcome in 2000+ points games, as are the weapons strong enough to take them down.

 

GK didnt break the game though. Great book, but I dont think it was broken like the Tyranid mess a few posts back. Thats actually broken.

 

Keywords? Fine, as an organizational tool. Like USRs.

Variant FOC? No problem.

Custom Sub-Factions? Love it, oh wait, its CSM's turn for a book? Guess those need to be removed.

IA being a waste? Well, sadly thats pretty much on par for every edition lol.

Crusade? Great.

Match Play? Great.

 

Stratagems, Super-Heavies, and the Weapons to bring them down? Thats Apocalypse.

 

So really, am I REALLY talking about taking away '9th Edition' or am I talking about getting us back to 40K, and away from Apocalypse?

[Cpt_Reaper]

4 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

GK didnt break the game though. Great book, but I dont think it was broken like the Tyranid mess a few posts back. Thats actually broken.

 

That's just not true. GK were so stupidly overpowered they are remembered as being on the same level as 6th/7th TauDar...if you played that army nobody played with you.

 

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Stratagems, Super-Heavies, and the Weapons to bring them down? Thats Apocalypse.

 

So really, am I REALLY talking about taking away '9th Edition' or am I talking about getting us back to 40K, and away from Apocalypse?

 

But they're not. They're 40k. Knights are 40k. A Baneblade is 40k. Riptides , Wraith Knights, C'Tan...all 40k. So yes, removing them is taking away from 40k.

 

9th edition covers everything from a 500 point skirmish to a 10'000 point-per-player rumble and everything in between. Apocalypse is no longer its own separate thing. There is only game size.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

That's just not true. GK were so stupidly overpowered they are remembered as being on the same level as 6th/7th TauDar...if you played that army nobody played with you.

 

 

But they're not. They're 40k. Knights are 40k. A Baneblade is 40k. Riptides , Wraith Knights, C'Tan...all 40k. So yes, removing them is taking away from 40k.

 

9th edition covers everything from a 500 point skirmish to a 10'000 point-per-player rumble and everything in between. Apocalypse is no longer its own separate thing. There is only game size.

Remember Grey Knights/Necron ally lists???  Grey Knight and Necron ALLIES.  

 

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Pacific81]

5 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Nobody really want oldhammer imo. The codices just needed to be dialed down.

I want oldhammer

 

Perfectly happy playing old versions with my gaming buddies, and I will be honest these threads are just rubber-necking at car crashes. I feel for anyone that can only play PuGs and everything standard/RAW and is completely at the mercy of someone in GW design team (who is wearing one of those caps with a tiny propeller on top) saying "this week we're doing THIS wooooo!" and depth-charging someone's hobby.

[phandaal]

7 hours ago, Scribe said:

Custom Sub-Factions? Love it, oh wait, its CSM's turn for a book? Guess those need to be removed.

 

Feels like removing customization is someone's pet project and with Chaos they got to indulge themselves more than usual.

 

Custom warbands? Nope. Weapon options? They are all "accursed" now, enjoy. Lord with a jump pack? Oh no no no!

 

Not like it even signaled a shift in design, because the new Votann book has custom Leagues.

[Special Officer Doofy]

9 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Nobody really want oldhammer imo. The codices just needed to be dialed down.

 

This 100% for me. Codexes just started to get bonkers (with some exceptions). Rules bloat for me isn't necessarily a bad thing, but since GW sucks at balancing, every extra thing ontop of a datasheet is more chances for them to botch the balance. Extra rules usually means less balance. Aggressors with flamers aren't too strong, but when taken with salamanders they are cool. A unit might be worth the points (or too good / broken) with a certain subfaction trait, mono bonus, warlord trait, relic, strat or character, but not worth the points at all with a different subfaction. I think more rules should be on datasheets and less in strats / subfaction bonuses. I know people think space marine chapter A is soooo different from chapter B, but in a chaos daemons view, or necron, or orks, it's just a space marine with a different paint job that they want to kill.

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

Feels like removing customization is someone's pet project and with Chaos they got to indulge themselves more than usual.

 

Custom warbands? Nope. Weapon options? They are all "accursed" now, enjoy. Lord with a jump pack? Oh no no no!

 

Not like it even signaled a shift in design, because the new Votann book has custom Leagues.

We may need to see how future codices are, as given their statements, the Votann book may really be more from the Tyranids/Aeldari/etc. era, and the Chaos books may have actually been designed afterwards. Could be a false ordering there, so it could very well signal a shift in design, but we'd need to see Guard and World Eaters first.

[Scribe]

8 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

9th edition covers everything from a 500 point skirmish to a 10'000 point-per-player rumble and everything in between. Apocalypse is no longer its own separate thing. There is only game size.

 

And there it is. That's simply not workable.

[ThePenitentOne]

@Scribe

 

Thanks for the response. And I know that this:

 

"For many if not most of us, its 'what is the assumed rule set for matched play' and that is what you play if you are looking for a varied set of opponents, or Khorne forbid, you have to go into local shops for pick up games."

 

Is absolutely true, and it's kinda what my whole post was about (though the subfaction thing was, admittedly somewhat tangental... More on that in a bit). My point is that this is not GW's fault, and we shouldn't be advocating for GW to fix it, because the only way they can is to say "Okay, once again, there is only one way to play the game" - which is a loss for everyone, because whether you're in a position to use them or not, the varieties of game experience offered are good for the hobby, because it now caters to a greater number of player types.

 

Instead, every single person that hates 9th ed 2k matched should go to their store and say "Hey, can we have a Tempest of War night, and a Crusade night? Can you set up a Discord server so that people can play games of various sizes? Oh, what's that? Your answer is no? Okay, well I'll just inquire at another store. Oh, what's that? Changed your mind? Cool."

 

THAT'S how to solve the "I don't get to play the game type that best fits my needs" problem, not "Hey, make a new edition where the only option that exists is the game type that best fits my needs."

 

Other arguments, about rules layering for example, continue to be valid, as I said in my post, but they don't NEED a hard reset to fix. A 9.5 solution would solve those kinds of problems just as well if not better than a hard boot. Think about it- shift the most common strats into the BRB with standard names, eliminating the need for them in dexes. Eliminate a handful of the nigh-on-never used strats from each dex; shift equipment strats back to datacards. Strat bloat is now mitigated, more strats fit the USR advocate's needs, and equipment feels more like... Well.... Equipment. You could publish it all in a PDF called "The big book of Strategy"- it would list strats by BRB, then each of the factions/ subfactions. Then there would be a note: Yes, we've made these changes to level the playing field for all Codexes in the new edition until your army's dex arrives.

 

Tweak the terrain rules for less complexity, but more effectiveness. Keep the decks (Open and Tempest) as is. Create new and more varied missions for Matched.

 

Reprint all existing bespoke Crusade Content in a single PDF, so that when the new dexes come, they can include new bespoke Crusade Content without losing access to what has already been developed.

 

WAY better option than "Blow it all up, and now all that exists is matched, but at least it feels more like what the pick-up people told us they wanted. Oh, and since we blew it up, here's some Indexes that will allow you to play generic, flavourless versions of your favourite factions until each of your dexes come out, at which point the weakest dex will curbstomp the strongest Index list- but that's okay, because only some of you unlucky players will have to wait more than a year. We can't say who the lucky ones that get fast dexes will be, but here's a hint- it rhymes with Race Machines."

 

As for the subfaction tangent, it was merely included to point out the differing perspectives of players whose factions have been well served in all editions, vs. the perspectives of those whose factions have not historically been well served by the game, because your underlying perspective, based upon your faction choice will affect how you debate on the issue of whether or not a hard reboot is necessary. I freely admit that, in addition to my love of Crusade, the fact that my favourite factions really only ever got the attention they deserved from late 8th to the present is another source of my bias. 

 

Knowing that no matter how radically different a hard reboot might be, Marines will still have meaningful differences between at least a handful of the subfactions absolutely IS a part of the bias in a Marine player's attitude toward a new edition, whether the player is conscious of it or not, and whether or not they are willing to admit it. In much the same way people who have lived their entire lives without ever experiencing real hunger cannot viscerally understand poverty, a player who only plays Space Marines can't viscerally understand the fear of a Sisters or GSC player, or a player who is ecstatic that SoS can finally be fielded without boys- because WE know we could lose everything we finally have after a 30 year wait, while Space Marine players know for a fact that they never will.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[Scribe]

Do you remember the meme about the Imperial Fists 3rd company having more distinct rules than Word Bearers @ThePenitentOne ?

 

I hear your concerns, and I don't think anything you are worried about is the actual issue with the edition.

 

Inadvertently perhaps @Cpt_Reaper has expressed the issue most clearly.

 

A single set of rules, is not appropriate for 500 to 10000 point games. Pushing Apocalypse as normal 40K, is why units feel terrible, why rules are so out of control, why damage is so high.

 

That can be fixed, without taking away the majority of what makes 9th, 9th.

[Noserenda]

I dont think they are looking at removing customisation exactly but they are experimenting with fitting the rules to the box better, just like some units have the more asinine "no weapon can be taken twice" restrictions or overly specific upgrades. 

I can see why its a good thing for newer players but i absolutely hate it.