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

[DesuVult]

1 hour ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

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.

If CSM signals how future codices are why would it have rules invalidated by rules updates months before release?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I pretty much agree with everything Penitent One said. A soft 9.5 release could easily address everything.

[Slave to Darkness]

12 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

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

Id love it if we returned to the 1st ed system, Id settle for 2nd ed as well. I have had more fun with those than I have 8th or 9th edition. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Just want to point out there are missions for games of lesser points (e.g., Incursion).

[Cpt_Reaper]

7 hours ago, Scribe said:

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.

 

How would you fix this issue then? And I say issue in that I acknowledge you feel there is an issue, however I do not. I will not, under any circumstances, accept the answer "remove super heavies". They are in 40k, and I intend to use them. The alternative is to shove them into a ruleset nobody uses and GW itself threw in the trash before it even had time to cool on the proverbial bench, which is basically saying "yeah...your super-heavies are going to gather dust on the shelf".

 

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

How would you fix this issue then? And I say issue in that I acknowledge you feel there is an issue, however I do not. I will not, under any circumstances, accept the answer "remove super heavies". They are in 40k, and I intend to use them. The alternative is to shove them into a ruleset nobody uses and GW itself threw in the trash before it even had time to cool on the proverbial bench, which is basically saying "yeah...your super-heavies are going to gather dust on the shelf".

 

 

Factually a system which tries to accommodate Reaver Titans, has no place in a game based around Infantry.

 

If you are prepared to have weapon systems required to deal with such units, then Infantry will be so devalued, or additional layers of rules will be required to make them anything beyond a speed bump, or scorch mark on the ground.

 

Remove Super Heavies.

 

And I say this as one who loves Knights, had 6 of them, and ended up selling them because they are a poor fit for 40K.

 

Apocalypse was a system that, humorously enough, had formations, and essentially proto-stratagems, and WAS played, so I'm not sure why thats an unacceptable solution. Its particularly funny to me, because as the 'deadliness' factor increased from 5th, to 6th, to 7th, to 8th, my group all complained about us just playing Apoc, when what we really wanted was 40K and now you are telling me that 40K essentially MUST be Apocalypse.

 

If we can have an "rpg-lite" format in Crusade, for smaller games, why is it not appropriate to have a "2K+" format for Super-Heavy units?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

A lot of people have asked for chip damage to be removed.

well the dorn rumors indicate they may be working to reduce chip damage even more.

supposedly the dorn will have an upgrade that offers +1 to Sv against D1 weapons.

 

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

A lot of people have asked for chip damage to be removed.

well the dorn rumors indicate they may be working to reduce chip damage even more.

supposedly the dorn will have an upgrade that offers +1 to Sv against D1 weapons.

 

 

So, if I understand you, devaluing 'normal' troops and weapons even more?

[Noserenda]

Orrr, if your group doesnt like playing with Super heavies, just dont play with them? I dont think the solution to any problems at this point are just blanket banning people using their minis and typically they arent even causing noticeable problems for most people, the ridiculous guns of 9th are all mounted on tanks and are aimed at fighting those targets primarily.

Theyve certainly been a problem previously, but dumping the AV system fixed that pretty handily at least as far as our group found, though admittedly noone has been rocking out full Knight armies in 9th i think thats more because we got sick of the game in general than superheavy issues.

[DesuVult]

For the entirety of 8th and 9th it feels like flyers, lords of war, and heavy artillery have been in a bad place.  Mostly useless with some very overpowered standouts.

[Cpt_Reaper]

9 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Factually a system which tries to accommodate Reaver Titans, has no place in a game based around Infantry.

If you are prepared to have weapon systems required to deal with such units, then Infantry will be so devalued, or additional layers of rules will be required to make them anything beyond a speed bump, or scorch mark on the ground.

Remove Super Heavies.

Who says the game is based around infantry? You? Me? GW? Infantry are but one type of unit on 40k. Tanks, walkers, cavalry and monsters have all existed since the birth of the game. The fact I can run an army with no infantry is a good thing. It is good, because it doesn't invalidate infantry. One can easily run a purely infantry based army just as well.

 

13 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Remove Super Heavies.

And I say this as one who loves Knights, had 6 of them, and ended up selling them because they are a poor fit for 40K.

Nope. Not happening. You cannot tell me I cannot bring my super-heavies to a game. I have 3 Chaos Knights, a Baneblade and a Cerberus...every single one of them fit 40k. You know what you can do...ask to play a game below 2000 points where a super-heavy or any other LoW choice is such a massive handicap that taking one is going to cost you the game.

 

17 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Apocalypse was a system that, humorously enough, had formations, and essentially proto-stratagems, and WAS played, so I'm not sure why thats an unacceptable solution. Its particularly funny to me, because as the 'deadliness' factor increased from 5th, to 6th, to 7th, to 8th, my group all complained about us just playing Apoc, when what we really wanted was 40K and now you are telling me that 40K essentially MUST be Apocalypse.

 

If we can have an "rpg-lite" format in Crusade, for smaller games, why is it not appropriate to have a "2K+" format for Super-Heavy units?

Apocalypse is dead. There was the expansion from 4th edition that was semi-supported up until the end of 7th edition, then there was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it thing in 2019 that was dead on arrival. The old expansion was played...by some people in some groups, including my old group from back in the day, but the current version of Apocalypse isn't even available. If a gaming product isn't available then how can anyone play it?

I have not once said that 40k MUST be Apocalypse. I have said that 40k supports games of all size, which it factually does. There is literally nothing stopping you from playing under 2k points except yourself.

 

Don't change the game to fit your comfort zone at the expense of mine. Recognise your comfort zone is already in the game and lets roll dice together.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

34 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Who says the game is based around infantry? You? Me? GW? Infantry are but one type of unit on 40k. Tanks, walkers, cavalry and monsters have all existed since the birth of the game. The fact I can run an army with no infantry is a good thing. It is good, because it doesn't invalidate infantry. One can easily run a purely infantry based army just as well.

 

Nope. Not happening. You cannot tell me I cannot bring my super-heavies to a game. I have 3 Chaos Knights, a Baneblade and a Cerberus...every single one of them fit 40k. You know what you can do...ask to play a game below 2000 points where a super-heavy or any other LoW choice is such a massive handicap that taking one is going to cost you the game.

 

Apocalypse is dead. There was the expansion from 4th edition that was semi-supported up until the end of 7th edition, then there was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it thing in 2019 that was dead on arrival. The old expansion was played...by some people in some groups, including my old group from back in the day, but the current version of Apocalypse isn't even available. If a gaming product isn't available then how can anyone play it?

I have not once said that 40k MUST be Apocalypse. I have said that 40k supports games of all size, which it factually does. There is literally nothing stopping you from playing under 2k points except yourself.

 

Don't change the game to fit your comfort zone at the expense of mine. Recognise your comfort zone is already in the game and lets roll dice together.

History indicates the game is based around infantry. The majority of this game it was nearly impossible if not impossible to build a game legal army without infantry.

 

idk why you’re so triggered at the idea of super heavies being relegated to a specific rule set designed around them.

[Scribe]

32 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Who says the game is based around infantry?

 

20 some years of the games history, over 10 of those in which those Super Heavies were in their own game system.

 

33 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

You know what you can do...ask to play a game below 2000 points where a super-heavy or any other LoW choice is such a massive handicap that taking one is going to cost you the game.

 

So, essentially one of my points from yesterday, in terms of the game being at 1500-1750, with SH units being priced out of that game size.

 

34 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I have said that 40k supports games of all size, which it factually does.

 

To the detriment of the game's balance and performance as damage profiles are way out of line with unit/model profiles as evidenced by nerf after nerf, and additional rules layer after rule layer to try and bandage a game which is currently bleeding out with nerfs hitting before a Codex is even released.

 

As to Apoc not being available, thats a simple rule supplement to release, easily solved. Instead however, they baked it into the core game, in a naked play to get more people to buy the kits, game balance be damned.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

Orrr, if your group doesnt like playing with Super heavies, just dont play with them? I dont think the solution to any problems at this point are just blanket banning people using their minis and typically they arent even causing noticeable problems for most people, the ridiculous guns of 9th are all mounted on tanks and are aimed at fighting those targets primarily.

Theyve certainly been a problem previously, but dumping the AV system fixed that pretty handily at least as far as our group found, though admittedly noone has been rocking out full Knight armies in 9th i think thats more because we got sick of the game in general than superheavy issues.

This assumption that everyone has ‘a gaming group’ is an argumentative fallacy.

 

yes we can fix all the issues we have with the game by agreeing to house rules with your gaming group, but guess what! Not everyone has a gaming group they’ve been playing with for the last 20 years, and not every gaming group is always on the same page with all of the other members. That’s where this whole argument falls apart.

 

if your argument against a change is “your gaming group can add/remove X” or anything like that, you don’t have a good argument 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Cpt_Reaper]

30 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

History indicates the game is based around infantry. The majority of this game it was nearly impossible if not impossible to build a game legal army without infantry.

Before 8th edition, maybe, but those days are gone. With a Spearhead detachment I can legally build a full army of Tanks or Monsters. With a Vanguard Detachment I can run pure Dreadnoughts. With Outrider I could run a full Cavalry list. No infantry needed.

32 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

idk why you’re so triggered at the idea of super heavies being relegated to a specific rule set designed around them.

Because YOU insist that the only way for me to use my units is to force a tacked on ruleset as the only way to allow them (creating the rules bloat so many argue against) when I can easily use them, right now.

 

33 minutes ago, Scribe said:

20 some years of the games history, over 10 of those in which those Super Heavies were in their own game system.

Yeah cool. That happened. Now they're part of the base game.

34 minutes ago, Scribe said:

So, essentially one of my points from yesterday, in terms of the game being at 1500-1750, with SH units being priced out of that game size.

Not at all. You want the game to be made smaller by default, therefore removing super-heavies from the game. I want 40k to remain as it is - a ruleset that covers every game size and not be forced to play a niche rule set just to use my models.

35 minutes ago, Scribe said:

To the detriment of the game's balance and performance as damage profiles are way out of line with unit/model profiles as evidenced by nerf after nerf, and additional rules layer after rule layer to try and bandage a game which is currently bleeding out with nerfs hitting before a Codex is even released.

To the detriment of YOUR comfort zone you mean? This basically comes down to you wanting to take away my options because they make you uncomfortable and using the state of the Votan codex as justification, as if that codex wasn't an outlier of such magnitude rather than "the rule". Yes, Tyranids were powerful and got nerfed...that's how it's always been and how it will always be. One or two codexes a cycle don't match the overall power of the edition and have to be reigned in...unlike older editions where you just suffered for the edition because GW didn't release updates. I personally hate that the Guard are able to wound everything on 6's. A lasgun shouldn't be able to wound a tank at all. One of the very few things I miss was the hard cap on being able to harm something.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Before 8th edition, maybe, but those days are gone. With a Spearhead detachment I can legally build a full army of Tanks or Monsters. With a Vanguard Detachment I can run pure Dreadnoughts. With Outrider I could run a full Cavalry list. No infantry needed.

Because YOU insist that the only way for me to use my units is to force a tacked on ruleset as the only way to allow them (creating the rules bloat so many argue against) when I can easily use them, right now.

 

Yeah cool. That happened. Now they're part of the base game.

Not at all. You want the game to be made smaller by default, therefore removing super-heavies from the game. I want 40k to remain as it is - a ruleset that covers every game size and not be forced to play a niche rule set just to use my models.

To the detriment of YOUR comfort zone you mean? This basically comes down to you wanting to take away my options because they make you uncomfortable and using the state of the Votan codex as justification, as if that codex wasn't an outlier of such magnitude rather than "the rule". Yes, Tyranids were powerful and got nerfed...that's how it's always been and how it will always be. One or two codexes a cycle don't match the overall power of the edition and have to be reigned in...unlike older editions where you just suffered for the edition because GW didn't release updates. I personally hate that the Guard are able to wound everything on 6's. A lasgun shouldn't be able to wound a tank at all. One of the very few things I miss was the hard cap on being able to harm something.

You don’t like guard wounding your LoW on 6s? That’s just part of the game now.

who cares if 90% of the game’s history didn’t allow that to happen?

[Scribe]

14 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Yeah cool. That happened. Now they're part of the base game.

 

That wasnt the question, are you arguing that the game is not infantry based?

 

15 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Not at all. You want the game to be made smaller by default, therefore removing super-heavies from the game. I want 40k to remain as it is - a ruleset that covers every game size and not be forced to play a niche rule set just to use my models.

 

It was literally your statement. "Play smaller game sizes where Super Heavies dont work/make sense.". Yes, just as Crusade has a points range, Matched Play would have a points range, and it would be lower than Super Heavy which would also have a points range.

 

16 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

To the detriment of YOUR comfort zone you mean? This basically comes down to you wanting to take away my options because they make you uncomfortable and using the state of the Votan codex as justification, as if that codex wasn't an outlier of such magnitude rather than "the rule". Yes, Tyranids were powerful and got nerfed...that's how it's always been and how it will always be. One or two codexes a cycle don't match the overall power of the edition and have to be reigned in...unlike older editions where you just suffered for the edition because GW didn't release updates. I personally hate that the Guard are able to wound everything on 6's. A lasgun shouldn't be able to wound a tank at all. One of the very few things I miss was the hard cap on being able to harm something.

 

No, its to the games detriment. You only have to look at the history of this edition to see it. Votann? Before it was Nids, before it was Eldar, before it was DE, before it was... now how many rules layers are there just to account for the fact models would die too fast?

 

One or two codex? Its the whole edition. Its unit after unit preview. Its Weapon profile after Weapon profile. Its not an isolated issue. Its the whole history of the edition.

 

Lasgun's wounding on 6's? Absolutely stupid, no doubt, but in your world of 'I want to play my Super Heavy, balance be damned' if the Lasgun CANNOT wound it? How useless are the Guardsmen now?

 

You dont seem to want to accept that there was a game like Apocalypse for a reason, and it was to allow for the widest range of units to be workable, and the game to be better balanced, when playing 40K as it was at its best.

 

Guardsmen vs Reaver Titan...ok 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I agree certain weapons should have limits on what they can damage and kill, but that invalidates large swathes of codexes.

sure I can take 9 vanquisher to counter a reaver titan, but now the way I spend my hobby money and time is 100% dictated by you and your super heavy.

 

a lasgun shouldn’t wound a land raider, and an autocannon shouldn’t wound a Warhound titan or a baneblade.

 

when you do that, you there’s no possible way to balance armies and the only valid builds will include LoWs that are prohibitively expensive to buy for many, and for many others they may just not want use those units and still be able to build a viable list.

 

ergo as long as LoWs are in the game you cannot realistically have weapons that are unable to damage certain units.

you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[Valkyrion]

Yes, the inclusion of titanic and super heavy vehicles necessitates that everything can be wounded on 6+, but don't forget the plethora of +1 to wound which then means a lasgun has as much chance to wound a titan as it does a space marine unbuffed. 

This just shows how flawed the whole system is. 

 

Objectively speaking, Apocalypse is the place for super heavies, but @Cpt_Reaper is also correct - they are here to stay, people have invested time and money in them, and they should have a place in the standard rule set. GW threw the baby out with the bathwater by making Imperial Knights 10 years ago.

 

I don't have the answer. Maybe Chaos and Imperial Knights should be made to only win by annihilation, rather than objectives? Maybe one off super heavies should start at over 500 points and the game has a 25% LoW rule like AoD? Maybe a victory points bonus for outnumbering your opponent at the end of the battle, which should be easier to do against an army with 500 points of super heavies in a 2000 point game?

 

 

[Cpt_Reaper]

A lasgun shouldn't wound a tank, let alone a super-heavy. Infantry small arms should only be effective against other infantry. A squad of guardsmen have one value - obsec. If they bring a heavy or special weapon, they gain a new value.

 

What I accept is this. Apocalypse is dead, and was absorbed into the core rules. It should stay dead, alongside Cities of Death and Planetstrike, because if it isn't part of the core rules it's just a tacked on variant that nobody uses.

 

You will continue to move the goal posts for every argument I make, because you take something I want to keep in the game and say "go play over there. We don't want you here." I am very much glad you have no say in what GW does, because you'd only take things away that don't align with your vision. I state that 40k has room for us both, but you clearly disagree.

[D3L]

Easy, roll back to 2e with some more advanced psychological tables like in 1e

 

All problems solved 

and make named characters opponent's permission, again

Edited October 19, 2022 by D3L

[Noserenda]

Its worth pointing out Super heavies are in the Rogue trader rulebook, so really they are just as valid a part of the game as anything else ;) 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Sorry but superheavies have no place in normal 40k

 

they break the game.

 

if people invested in LoW that’s fine, they can play them in a game style specifically catered to heavily armored combat.

it’s not 2001 any more it doesn’t seem particularly hard to find people with super heavies now, so such a game mode should be much more popular and common now than it was in the past.

 

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

it’s not 2001 any more it doesn’t seem particularly hard to find people with super heavies now, so such a game mode should be much more popular and common now than it was in the past.

 

Assuming people enjoy playing against them. Which was certainly not my experience when I had a Knight army. I absolutely ADORE the Castigator, had all 3 of the Cerastus. People didnt want to play against the Army, and I couldnt blame them, because they are a poor fit for what has historically been an Infantry centric game.

 

1 HQ and 2 Troops, worked for a very very very long time.

 

1 Apoc game a year was more than enough for my crew, let us shake out the SH units, have some laughs, and then get back to a more manageable, better balanced game of 40K without them.

[tychobi]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Sorry but superheavies have no place in normal 40k

 

they break the game.

 

if people invested in LoW that’s fine, they can play them in a game style specifically catered to heavily armored combat.

it’s not 2001 any more it doesn’t seem particularly hard to find people with super heavies now, so such a game mode should be much more popular and common now than it was in the past.

 

False! You might have 40k and Killteam muddled up there?