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

[Portman]

If it makes you feel any better, Portman, I'm only going to be 26 next month, but I heartily agree. I feel the onset of the "pickup game" as the norm for wargaming has had a massively negative effect on the quality of the experience overall, and gaming groups are a much better way of enjoying the game. Not to say that pickup games have no place, but I don't think they (or tournaments) should be treated as the "main" way of playing around which the game is built.

A large part of the problem, that plagues literally every wargame irrespective of how well balanced, is that a lot of people refuse to not list-build like complete tools. But short of some kind of wargaming secret police, I don't really know what can be done about that!

 

lol! Blooming young uns! I remember being 26 lol! Happy birthday for next month. 

 

That is a sad state of affairs but you're right, hard to see what can be done if that's the case. It's probably a reason why forums like these are so popular. 

[Scribe]

On the flip side, I cannot remember being 26....

 

I think its interesting that RPGs get brought up. D&D has many versions, people house rule all the time, and those other editions of the game are still played. Going even further, people create whole rule systems, that see play, and Wizards of the Coast is aware of this, and supports it.

 

Why do we continue to bow to the company to provide us rules, when they write those rules in a way to push as much plastic as they possibly can?

 

10th isnt going to save 40K for those of us who are unhappy with its direction for the last 10 years. We need to take what we like, and build our own rule set.

[phandaal]

On the flip side, I cannot remember being 26....

 

I think its interesting that RPGs get brought up. D&D has many versions, people house rule all the time, and those other editions of the game are still played. Going even further, people create whole rule systems, that see play, and Wizards of the Coast is aware of this, and supports it.

 

Why do we continue to bow to the company to provide us rules, when they write those rules in a way to push as much plastic as they possibly can?

 

10th isnt going to save 40K for those of us who are unhappy with its direction for the last 10 years. We need to take what we like, and build our own rule set.

 

I did not want to take this off topic by including that. Just an example of how I have seen a similar shift in other "garage games" in recent years.

 

As for why it happened, no doubt there are a host of reasons. Having access to group-finding tools like Meetup and Facebook probably contributed in a big way.

 

Not really on topic for this discussion though.

[Scribe]

 

On the flip side, I cannot remember being 26....

 

I think its interesting that RPGs get brought up. D&D has many versions, people house rule all the time, and those other editions of the game are still played. Going even further, people create whole rule systems, that see play, and Wizards of the Coast is aware of this, and supports it.

 

Why do we continue to bow to the company to provide us rules, when they write those rules in a way to push as much plastic as they possibly can?

 

10th isnt going to save 40K for those of us who are unhappy with its direction for the last 10 years. We need to take what we like, and build our own rule set.

 

I did not want to take this off topic by including that. Just an example of how I have seen a similar shift in other "garage games" in recent years.

 

As for why it happened, no doubt there are a host of reasons. Having access to group-finding tools like Meetup and Facebook probably contributed in a big way.

 

Not really on topic for this discussion though.

 

 

No, just something I've thought about. Kill Team was done by someone else, it wasnt GW before. There is no way a "5th Edition Lite" system would be too much for people to grasp.

 

Something I'll think about more I think. ;)

[LameBeard]

I’d just like to self-identify as an old fart (as if that wasn’t obvious from my posts!) and I appreciate the camaraderie from old farts and young ‘uns alike in this thread.

 

Having a gaming group is great because it’s the way to play campaigns, and that’s often the most satisfying way to war game. I’m interested to see that Crusade is a new twist on this - a kind of campaign which can work with pick-up games. That may be a response to this shift you mention.

 

Finally, yes it’s possible to use other companies’ rules with your Games Workshop models. Wargames Vault has a few I’ve been thinking about, but “Grimdark Future” feels a bit of a rip-off. Maybe Ganesh Games ‘Flying Lead’ would work (for a skirmish-level game)

 

I know this sounds off topic, but what I’m trying to say is, I think we know the Codex cycle, the books upon books, and the need to start again, is going to continue. Once 10th happens it won’t be long before there’s a thread asking for 11th. The solution might need to be more radical than 10th.

[Lexington]

I think one of the problems with house rules is that they stop being effective at a particular level of linked complexity, and “linked complexity” is the name of 9th’s game. Rules are meant to work with each other, and the whole balance of Codexes is very easy to throw off in one direction or another. It was much, much easier to house rule things back when 40K was a simpler game.

[Scribe]

I think one of the problems with house rules is that they stop being effective at a particular level of linked complexity, and “linked complexity” is the name of 9th’s game. Rules are meant to work with each other, and the whole balance of Codexes is very easy to throw off in one direction or another. It was much, much easier to house rule things back when 40K was a simpler game.

 

100%

 

Thats my whole issue with what 40K has turned into. Its not just complex, its needlessly so, to the point where I would argue its obfuscation to remove accountability.

 

I wouldnt call my proposal just house rules. I think a whole 'not 5th edition' rule set is what is required.

 

And its a shame because from a model, and release perspective, I'm absolutely loving the things GW has been doing, but I'm so turned off by the rules.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I rarely, if ever, see anyone that, like myself, loves 9th edition enough to defend it.

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

Would you prefer I leave the game if it means you get your "fix"? Would you prefer to leave the game while I enjoy the game you see as broken/dying/dead?

 

I ask this not to cause upset, but to understand the other side of this argument. Right now I cannot understand why anyone would want another reset or return to older rule sets, not how the other side of the debate views why I don't want such an outcome.

[Scribe]

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

Would you prefer I leave the game if it means you get your "fix"? Would you prefer to leave the game while I enjoy the game you see as broken/dying/dead?

 

I ask this not to cause upset, but to understand the other side of this argument. Right now I cannot understand why anyone would want another reset or return to older rule sets, not how the other side of the debate views why I don't want such an outcome.

 

1. I would ask why do you even like it?

2. I wouldnt expect you to stay, if you actually think 9th is better than 5th, just as I did not stay. I'm not 'in the game". I have left for all intents and purposes, and I took several thousand a year in hobby money with me. Add in my group who also bailed on the game? It adds up.

 

I've spent the last week or so going through my pile of shame. I have probably 6 or so projects I could pick up and run with at minimal investment, but I have no reason to spend a dollar, because the game is simply not worth my time as it is too complex, takes to long, and I have better things I can do.

[phandaal]

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

 

I would say not to get defensive, because plenty of folks agree with you even when they think 9th is in a bad state.

 

9th edition core rules are good. A few tweaks and they would be even better. The problems come from bonkers codexes and unbalanced Matched Play objectives.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I rarely, if ever, see anyone that, like myself, loves 9th edition enough to defend it.

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

Would you prefer I leave the game if it means you get your "fix"? Would you prefer to leave the game while I enjoy the game you see as broken/dying/dead?

 

I ask this not to cause upset, but to understand the other side of this argument. Right now I cannot understand why anyone would want another reset or return to older rule sets, not how the other side of the debate views why I don't want such an outcome.

9th is just not very fun.

Only reason I’m in the hobby still is because I came back and dropped a few hundred dollars mostly in 8th and now might as well make the investment worth it by playing with my new toys.

I can ignore things like strats but that leaves me at a serious disadvantage.

The game has way too much going on, and as many have said the starts often make the game feel like a yu gi oh match “fool! You just activated my trap card!”

 

They revamped the game with 8th to streamline things and make things faster in the core rules, but strats and a hundred rerolls makes the games take forever, much longer than they used to.

[Blurf]

If it makes you feel any better, Portman, I'm only going to be 26 next month, but I heartily agree. I feel the onset of the "pickup game" as the norm for wargaming has had a massively negative effect on the quality of the experience overall, and gaming groups are a much better way of enjoying the game. Not to say that pickup games have no place, but I don't think they (or tournaments) should be treated as the "main" way of playing around which the game is built.

A large part of the problem, that plagues literally every wargame irrespective of how well balanced, is that a lot of people refuse to not list-build like complete tools. But short of some kind of wargaming secret police, I don't really know what can be done about that!

I hate this whole ideology. You're required to deliberately handicap yourself because GW doesn't design the game all that well?

 

It's so odd to me. Like...does your opponent also just not shoot half of his units if he's winning turn one? Is he not allowed to charge if he's up in VP? How much do you expect your opponent to play down to you?

 

I rarely, if ever, see anyone that, like myself, loves 9th edition enough to defend it.

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

Would you prefer I leave the game if it means you get your "fix"? Would you prefer to leave the game while I enjoy the game you see as broken/dying/dead?

 

I ask this not to cause upset, but to understand the other side of this argument. Right now I cannot understand why anyone would want another reset or return to older rule sets, not how the other side of the debate views why I don't want such an outcome.

9th is just not very fun.

Only reason I’m in the hobby still is because I came back and dropped a few hundred dollars mostly in 8th and now might as well make the investment worth it by playing with my new toys.

I can ignore things like strats but that leaves me at a serious disadvantage.

The game has way too much going on, and as many have said the starts often make the game feel like a yu gi oh match “fool! You just activated my trap card!”

 

They revamped the game with 8th to streamline things and make things faster in the core rules, but strats and a hundred rerolls makes the games take forever, much longer than they used to.

 

There's far less rerolls now than there were in 8th.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

If it makes you feel any better, Portman, I'm only going to be 26 next month, but I heartily agree. I feel the onset of the "pickup game" as the norm for wargaming has had a massively negative effect on the quality of the experience overall, and gaming groups are a much better way of enjoying the game. Not to say that pickup games have no place, but I don't think they (or tournaments) should be treated as the "main" way of playing around which the game is built.

A large part of the problem, that plagues literally every wargame irrespective of how well balanced, is that a lot of people refuse to not list-build like complete tools. But short of some kind of wargaming secret police, I don't really know what can be done about that!

I hate this whole ideology. You're required to deliberately handicap yourself because GW doesn't design the game all that well?

 

It's so odd to me. Like...does your opponent also just not shoot half of his units if he's winning turn one? Is he not allowed to charge if he's up in VP? How much do you expect your opponent to play down to you?

 

I rarely, if ever, see anyone that, like myself, loves 9th edition enough to defend it.

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

Would you prefer I leave the game if it means you get your "fix"? Would you prefer to leave the game while I enjoy the game you see as broken/dying/dead?

 

I ask this not to cause upset, but to understand the other side of this argument. Right now I cannot understand why anyone would want another reset or return to older rule sets, not how the other side of the debate views why I don't want such an outcome.

9th is just not very fun.

Only reason I’m in the hobby still is because I came back and dropped a few hundred dollars mostly in 8th and now might as well make the investment worth it by playing with my new toys.

I can ignore things like strats but that leaves me at a serious disadvantage.

The game has way too much going on, and as many have said the starts often make the game feel like a yu gi oh match “fool! You just activated my trap card!”

 

They revamped the game with 8th to streamline things and make things faster in the core rules, but strats and a hundred rerolls makes the games take forever, much longer than they used to.

There's far less rerolls now than there were in 8th.

great, no one argued otherwise. Still too many, game still takes longer than it did before it was ‘streamlined’

[Lexington]

I rarely, if ever, see anyone that, like myself, loves 9th edition enough to defend it.

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

I would say that you are eminently likely to get your wish?

[Evil Eye]

 

If it makes you feel any better, Portman, I'm only going to be 26 next month, but I heartily agree. I feel the onset of the "pickup game" as the norm for wargaming has had a massively negative effect on the quality of the experience overall, and gaming groups are a much better way of enjoying the game. Not to say that pickup games have no place, but I don't think they (or tournaments) should be treated as the "main" way of playing around which the game is built.

A large part of the problem, that plagues literally every wargame irrespective of how well balanced, is that a lot of people refuse to not list-build like complete tools. But short of some kind of wargaming secret police, I don't really know what can be done about that!

I hate this whole ideology. You're required to deliberately handicap yourself because GW doesn't design the game all that well?

 

It's so odd to me. Like...does your opponent also just not shoot half of his units if he's winning turn one? Is he not allowed to charge if he's up in VP? How much do you expect your opponent to play down to you?

 

I rarely, if ever, see anyone that, like myself, loves 9th edition enough to defend it.

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

Would you prefer I leave the game if it means you get your "fix"? Would you prefer to leave the game while I enjoy the game you see as broken/dying/dead?

 

I ask this not to cause upset, but to understand the other side of this argument. Right now I cannot understand why anyone would want another reset or return to older rule sets, not how the other side of the debate views why I don't want such an outcome.

9th is just not very fun.

Only reason I’m in the hobby still is because I came back and dropped a few hundred dollars mostly in 8th and now might as well make the investment worth it by playing with my new toys.

I can ignore things like strats but that leaves me at a serious disadvantage.

The game has way too much going on, and as many have said the starts often make the game feel like a yu gi oh match “fool! You just activated my trap card!”

 

They revamped the game with 8th to streamline things and make things faster in the core rules, but strats and a hundred rerolls makes the games take forever, much longer than they used to.

 

There's far less rerolls now than there were in 8th.

 

I really don't think "not playing a minmaxed netlist from hell in every single game" counts as "handicapping yourself". Heck, I'd argue that wargames are about more than just winning and losing. One of my fondest wargaming memories was a historical game (I forget which one, sadly) revolving around an actual event where an Italian tank column was ambushed in a particularly embarrassing tactical blunder, and the scenario was more a Ziggurat of Doom style "How long can you hold out before the inevitable happens?". Heck, we both played as the Italian side because A: we wanted to see if it was possible for the Italians to win and B: it was damn good fun. Likewise, another game (Chain of Command I think) where a Tiger turned up on the battlefield and immediately broke down, leading to much laughter as we joked about the whole thing falling apart like a clown car, with cries of "Nein, Bobo!" from the Germans.

 

I mean, sure, if you only get enjoyment from playing the most powerful lists against each other in straight deathmatches to determine who is the Warhammeriest, then I guess I understand your point, but given that was never really the point of the game to begin with (and there's other wargames out there more suited to such a mindset), I can't agree. I do agree that GW needs to do a better job balancing and designing their game, but "perfect balance" is an unobtainable fantasy that shouldn't be chased over "good enough balance with a fun narrative driven system".

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

If it makes you feel any better, Portman, I'm only going to be 26 next month, but I heartily agree. I feel the onset of the "pickup game" as the norm for wargaming has had a massively negative effect on the quality of the experience overall, and gaming groups are a much better way of enjoying the game. Not to say that pickup games have no place, but I don't think they (or tournaments) should be treated as the "main" way of playing around which the game is built.

A large part of the problem, that plagues literally every wargame irrespective of how well balanced, is that a lot of people refuse to not list-build like complete tools. But short of some kind of wargaming secret police, I don't really know what can be done about that!

I hate this whole ideology. You're required to deliberately handicap yourself because GW doesn't design the game all that well?

 

It's so odd to me. Like...does your opponent also just not shoot half of his units if he's winning turn one? Is he not allowed to charge if he's up in VP? How much do you expect your opponent to play down to you?

 

I rarely, if ever, see anyone that, like myself, loves 9th edition enough to defend it.

 

What would you say to those players like me? Those that do not want to go back to an old edition, nor see 9th scrapped for a 8th style full rebuild? Those of us that want 10th to be a refinement of 9th as 9th was a refinement of 8th?

 

Would you prefer I leave the game if it means you get your "fix"? Would you prefer to leave the game while I enjoy the game you see as broken/dying/dead?

 

I ask this not to cause upset, but to understand the other side of this argument. Right now I cannot understand why anyone would want another reset or return to older rule sets, not how the other side of the debate views why I don't want such an outcome.

9th is just not very fun.

Only reason I’m in the hobby still is because I came back and dropped a few hundred dollars mostly in 8th and now might as well make the investment worth it by playing with my new toys.

I can ignore things like strats but that leaves me at a serious disadvantage.

The game has way too much going on, and as many have said the starts often make the game feel like a yu gi oh match “fool! You just activated my trap card!”

 

They revamped the game with 8th to streamline things and make things faster in the core rules, but strats and a hundred rerolls makes the games take forever, much longer than they used to.

There's far less rerolls now than there were in 8th.

I really don't think "not playing a minmaxed netlist from hell in every single game" counts as "handicapping yourself". Heck, I'd argue that wargames are about more than just winning and losing. One of my fondest wargaming memories was a historical game (I forget which one, sadly) revolving around an actual event where an Italian tank column was ambushed in a particularly embarrassing tactical blunder, and the scenario was more a Ziggurat of Doom style "How long can you hold out before the inevitable happens?". Heck, we both played as the Italian side because A: we wanted to see if it was possible for the Italians to win and B: it was damn good fun. Likewise, another game (Chain of Command I think) where a Tiger turned up on the battlefield and immediately broke down, leading to much laughter as we joked about the whole thing falling apart like a clown car, with cries of "Nein, Bobo!" from the Germans.

 

I mean, sure, if you only get enjoyment from playing the most powerful lists against each other in straight deathmatches to determine who is the Warhammeriest, then I guess I understand your point, but given that was never really the point of the game to begin with (and there's other wargames out there more suited to such a mindset), I can't agree. I do agree that GW needs to do a better job balancing and designing their game, but "perfect balance" is an unobtainable fantasy that shouldn't be chased over "good enough balance with a fun narrative driven system".

if my opponent is using stratagems you are at a very large disadvantage if you are not. It’s not about min/maxing. It’s about one person using special rules while someone else isn’t.

 

Especially considering I already use subpar units rather than going for the most meta units.

 

Combining those two and I am at a huge disadvantage against most people.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Scribe]

Huge disadvantage is an understatement. You aren't even playing the same league at that point.

[Slave to Darkness]

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th.

Delay the release of 10th a year and make sure all codex books are out on release day. Not gonna be a major long wait as we had 4 year editions previously. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th.

Delay the release of 10th a year and make sure all codex books are out on release day. Not gonna be a major long wait as we had 4 year editions previously.

but then they can’t scam power gamers into buying units for5 different armies over 3-4 years through intentional power creep if they do that.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Oh yeah, I also want twinlinked rules back if not exactly as they were, then at the very least something like 1 extra attack per weapon, so exterminators would get 6 attacks, hydras 12, Baal preds 14, etc.

[Valkyrion]

Oh yeah, I also want twinlinked rules back if not exactly as they were, then at the very least something like 1 extra attack per weapon, so exterminators would get 6 attacks, hydras 12, Baal preds 14, etc.

 

They are? Twin Heavy Bolters have 6 shots over a regular 3, for example. 

 

It's actually another sign of the dice creep. Twin linked used to mean reroll misses, now it's double shots, so when you get easy access to rerolls you are now rerolling up to 6 dice rather than 3 for a heavy bolter. 

In terms of performance, I'm not sure the efficacy of one is much better than the other - heavy 3 with full rerolls gives you reliable damage output, but heavy 6 gives you potentially higher damage output. 

 

There's too many dice being rerolled throughout the game, and exploding sixes only compound that issue.

That, and there are too many abilities in play at any one time which can be game changing if forgotten. Forgetting to fire a unit is poor generalship, forgetting that that unit has a reroll this aura, a reroll that ability, ignores -1 to hit, gets exploding 6's, is AP-2 this turn but wasn't last turn, has a psychic power on it that does this, a litany that does that whilst the enemy unit has also debuffed it is, frankly, poor games design. 

[Slave to Darkness]

 

 

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th.

Delay the release of 10th a year and make sure all codex books are out on release day. Not gonna be a major long wait as we had 4 year editions previously.

but then they can’t scam power gamers into buying units for5 different armies over 3-4 years through intentional power creep if they do that.

 

Yeah true, more chance of them actually writing a good set of rules :lol: 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Oh yeah, I also want twinlinked rules back if not exactly as they were, then at the very least something like 1 extra attack per weapon, so exterminators would get 6 attacks, hydras 12, Baal preds 14, etc.

They are? Twin Heavy Bolters have 6 shots over a regular 3, for example.

 

It's actually another sign of the dice creep. Twin linked used to mean reroll misses, now it's double shots, so when you get easy access to rerolls you are now rerolling up to 6 dice rather than 3 for a heavy bolter.

In terms of performance, I'm not sure the efficacy of one is much better than the other - heavy 3 with full rerolls gives you reliable damage output, but heavy 6 gives you potentially higher damage output.

 

There's too many dice being rerolled throughout the game, and exploding sixes only compound that issue.

That, and there are too many abilities in play at any one time which can be game changing if forgotten. Forgetting to fire a unit is poor generalship, forgetting that that unit has a reroll this aura, a reroll that ability, ignores -1 to hit, gets exploding 6's, is AP-2 this turn but wasn't last turn, has a psychic power on it that does this, a litany that does that whilst the enemy unit has also debuffed it is, frankly, poor games design.

that’s two heavy bolters for 6 shots, aka 3 a per weapon. I propose a twin HB should be 8 shots

[Dark Shepherd]

8 shots would sure as sure justify the price of twin heavy bolters v single

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Idk if it fixed the mess but dual wielding melee weapons should provide a bonus attack again.