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

[Brother Borgia]

So, here are my advises to GW for 10th :

 

- Go back to something simple like 8th with 9th terrain rules.

- Ditch stratagem and replace them with “this rule can only be used x per turn/battle by any units of your army” inside dataslates

- Keep Crusade rules 

- Bring back Maelstrom missions 

- Every codex must be released within 18 months of 10th launch. I won’t buy any new codex or supplements pass that point unless it introduces multiples new units.

- Don’t bloat codex rules and don’t listen to “lack of flavor” complaints

- I would advise for something different than generic primaris marines in starterset. SoB, Custodes or Greyknights would be a better alternative. Otherwise, it will be just like AOS 3rd, just more marines with a different weapon.

 

[phandaal]

38 minutes ago, Borgias said:

So, here are my advises to GW for 10th :

 

- Go back to something simple like 8th with 9th terrain rules.

- Ditch stratagem and replace them with “this rule can only be used x per turn/battle by any units of your army” inside dataslates

- Keep Crusade rules 

- Bring back Maelstrom missions 

- Every codex must be released within 18 months of 10th launch. I won’t buy any new codex or supplements pass that point unless it introduces multiples new units.

- Don’t bloat codex rules and don’t listen to “lack of flavor” complaints

- I would advise for something different than generic primaris marines in starterset. SoB, Custodes or Greyknights would be a better alternative. Otherwise, it will be just like AOS 3rd, just more marines with a different weapon.

 

Agreed to all, but you can actually play Maelstrom in 9th edition - Tempest of War.

Not sure how a gem like Tempest snuck past the insane-o-meter at GW Rules HQ, but it is great.

[Remain_Indoors]

18 hours ago, Borgias said:

So, here are my advises to GW for 10th :

- Ditch stratagem and replace them with “this rule can only be used x per turn/battle by any units of your army” inside dataslates

100% agree with this and its my biggest hope for the next edition. Strategems have become the new Formations of 40k. What started as an interesting, cool idea, has gotten completely out of hand.

[Redcomet]

Honestly I hope they put 40k in the shredder and start over. Completely new system. Learn from AoS, Warcry and what the competition is doing and build a modern game out of it.

[Guest Triszin]

Strategems:

Core book: has 20 universal strategems

Faction specific: 15 faction specific strategems.

 

2000 point game

- you can only select 5 strategems from the faction specific to use.

- you can only select 10 strategems from the core rule book

- these selections must be done prior to the game starting

 

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, Triszin said:

Strategems:
Core book: has 20 universal strategems
Faction specific: 15 faction specific strategems.

2000 point game
- you can only select 5 strategems from the faction specific to use.
- you can only select 10 strategems from the core rule book
- these selections must be done prior to the game starting

This is still waaay to much thinking for me. Now in addition to the unit and wepaon choices, I have to whittle down the strats I need to pick? 

I think 10 universal strats and maybe 3 for the book? If they want, then add additional strats for a specific warzone/season. 

[Noserenda]

Yep, 10 stratagems per codex plus the core 4-5.

poooooossibly add a couple of abilities to datasheets that are fuelled by CP but honestly thats pushing it.

[phandaal]

It would be better if there were not so many Strategems in the first place. The amount of choices on the player end is just part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is when there are so many different overlapping Strategems and buffs etc and they end up creating broken combos.

Those broken combos would still be present if someone could only take a certain number of Strategems. Reducing what could be taken would just ensure the weaker options were never chosen.

Better to tackle the problem at the root.

[The Yncarne]

Boffo ideas I haven’t thought through:

• remove rules and stats from codexes - they become lore and pretty picture sources
• online army generator similar to One Page Rules or Kings of War (ease of use, no need to buy physical books) that provides abilities, stats, and points cost
• use keywords mechanism to provide “special rules” and have the “special rules” be consistent across factions, even if it is named differently (e. g. +1 to hit could be “mark of khorne” or “focused aim” etc)
• offer 1-3 levels of power for keywords when possible - example “mark of khorne (2)” might give +2 to hit or +1 to hit and +1 damage
• remove different profiles for power weapons
• Pregame table set up similar to warcry
• tempest of war mechanism for objectives/scoring

I’m sure people will tear these to shreds, but I’m willing to discuss or have my mind changed. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by The Blood Raven

[Karhedron]

Too many things are stratagems that should be rules for the unit (SMOKE etc).

Too many stratagems are keyed to a narrow subset of units meaning those units cannot be fairly balanced for points. If you have the CPs to power the stratagem, they are too strong, if you don't, they are underpowered.

Cut down the number of stratagems and make most of them generic. Factions should get most of their flavour from their rules, not their stratagems. Stratagems that provide interesting capabilities or "get out of jail free" are good. Ones that are crucial to the operation of a unit are bad. Combat Revival is a perfect example of something that should not be a stratagem, it should just be a once-per-turn ability for an Apothecary.

[hardcore1six]

56 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Yep, 10 stratagems per codex plus the core 4-5.

poooooossibly add a couple of abilities to datasheets that are fuelled by CP but honestly thats pushing it.

If there was one 'stratagem' on each datasheet for that specific unit that cost CP to use it would simplify stratagems. It wouldn't remove special rules.

For example; scout sentinels have "go recon" - for 1CP move 2D6" instead of shooting, armoured sentinels have "Strike first, strike hard" - for 1CP +2 to hit.

Instantly gives every unit a little power up and limits the quagmire of strats (go recon, for example is one of the hundreds of IG strats but it only ever can be used on scout sentinels, so why isn't it on it's datasheet?)

You'd still maintain core of 10 or so strats that are fitting and army wide (using guard again, "take cover" still applies to all infantry and "load fire reload" applies to all tanks..

Standardising what they actually do is important though, and ensuring the rule text is the same for each. A boy can dream that they have someone proof reading it.

[Captain Idaho]

I come from the perspective that GW could create a greater range of stats and almost eliminate the need for special rules for every. Single. Unit.

Then add some flavourful Faction rules and I wouldn't even want Strategums in.

However, with reduction of unit special rules, having large amounts of Strategums isn't the drain it is on the minds of those keeping track of things.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

…can we stop advocating for gutting the  codexes?

I like my codex having rules.

dump all factions’ codexes within 3 months of a new edition, don’t write broken rules and you don’t need to update rules.

[Captain Idaho]

There'd be plenty of rules with the datasheets and weapons in there. Don't need massive rules bloat for that, as shown in previous editions.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[Emperor Ming]

Moving to online codexs for 40k and gutting codexs just will never ever happen

There's not many company's that can get most of their customer base to buy a certain product at a certain time and codexs are guaranteed profits at a certain time

You cant guarantee that most marine players will buy a new model, but most of them will buy a new codex (marines just an example)

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

There'd be plenty of rules with the datasheets and weapons in there. Don't need massive rules bloat for that, as shown in previous editions.

I’m talking to the people who have said to remove rules and relegate codexes to the role of lore and pretty pictures 

[The Yncarne]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

…can we stop advocating for gutting the  codexes?

I like my codex having rules.

dump all factions’ codexes within 3 months of a new edition, don’t write broken rules and you don’t need to update rules.

 

Codex rules are useless if the codex is invalid before it hits the shelf. Then we end up where we are now carrying a ton of supplements.

Your proposal sounds great, but I think that approach goes against GW's business model to drip feed updates throughout the edition lifecycle.  Not "writing broken rules" can be subjective and requires more coordination than I've seen GW willing to spend, especially with the dozens of factions and lack of studio champions for many of them.

[Evil Eye]

I personally abhor the drip-feed model for rules, in fact I'd rather 'dexes took longer to come out and received extra dev time, but outside of genuine mistakes, were considered FINAL upon publication. Any further rules published for them would be additional content, not rewriting what already exists. I was pretty annoyed that within a few weeks of acquiring my Tyranid Codex, the points values had been revised, and I'd rather be able to have my Codex be finalized and not worry about my army being suddenly no longer legal than the game be microscopically better (if at all) balanced every month. Like 40K is NEVER going to be well balanced- even at its absolute best the game has had broken lists and "tricks" (3rd and 4th with Fish of Fury, 5th with Guard Leafblower lists etc), and these attempts at balancing it are not doing a great job anyway and are making the game borderline painful to play.

Codexes from previous editions are still valuable, because aside from their cool art, nice fluff and in 4th and before cases, awesome modelling advice, the rules still work. If you have the books you need, then you can still play old editions with no problem. This current model has such an erratic release pattern of rules and patches and .pdf addons that if for some bizarre reason anyone wants to try 8th or 9th again, they're gonna have a hell of a time getting the rules together!

I dunno. However the new rules are written I really want them to reconsider the release model for the rules. Just write them up, finalize them and release them as is. Any supplements should be for adding NEW content.

[Evil Eye]

On 7/31/2022 at 6:27 PM, Borgias said:

- Don’t bloat codex rules and don’t listen to “lack of flavor” complaints

 

Everything else I'd agree with, this not so much. 40K more or less lives and dies by its flavour/fluffiness. If all I cared about was basic mechanics, I'd play something else. I play 40K because I love 40K- the universe, the stories, characters etc. If the rules do less to represent that, IMO they've failed in their job.

(Sorry for posting twice in a row, feel free to merge posts!)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

Everything else I'd agree with, this not so much. 40K more or less lives and dies by its flavour/fluffiness. If all I cared about was basic mechanics, I'd play something else. I play 40K because I love 40K- the universe, the stories, characters etc. If the rules do less to represent that, IMO they've failed in their job.

(Sorry for posting twice in a row, feel free to merge posts!)

I agree, but we don’t need 50 faction strats, and 12 subfaction strats.

chapter traits/doctrines and the custom list combined with chapter specific special characters and units is enough to create that fluffiness.

I think 3rd Ed BA was very fluffy for example, and the supplement dex was like 5 pages of actual rules and datasheets…

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I agree, but we don’t need 50 faction strats, and 12 subfaction strats.

chapter traits/doctrines and the custom list combined with chapter specific special characters and units is enough to create that fluffiness.

I think 3rd Ed BA was very fluffy for example, and the supplement dex was like 5 pages of actual rules and datasheets…

This. Flavor should come from the units and core rules of the faction.

Dark Angels' strategems feel like they add basically nothing in terms of flavor. A couple of them are useful from a mechanical standpoint, but none of them really feel like they add anything to make the army more "Dark Angels."

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3rd Ed BA might have been the most fluffy yet.

random DC? Fluffy

extra jumpy? Fluffy

DC could only be focused by chaplains? Fluffy

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Evil Eye]

On that we can agree, but then IMO stratagems as a whole need MAJOR trimming and reworking, mainly so they can feel and play more like actual strategic assets and less like video game cooldown abilities.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

38 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

On that we can agree, but then IMO stratagems as a whole need MAJOR trimming and reworking, mainly so they can feel and play more like actual strategic assets and less like video game cooldown abilities.

Or they can just be trashed and the dev team can just focus on creating good interesting rules for the units that go on the datasheets.

 

[Cpt_Reaper]

I disagree there is anything remotely comparable to "rules bloat". If I am playing my Iron Warriors, I only need to know the applicable rules in the codex. If I am playing my Angels of Shadow, I only need those rules that are applicable to a Dark Angels Successor. If I am playing my Guard, Grey Knights, Chaos Knights or Dark Eldar...the exact same.

The issue is that there are rules that are objectively, unequivocally bad. There will always be rules that are good and set the meta. That will never change. But when the majority of rules can't even be considered middling then that is an issue. And there are a lot of those rules and/or units.

I also push back against the concept or going back to indexes or the more extreme scrap the entire edition. That happened once after 7 editions of the game. It should not happen again after two. 10th should improve on 9th, and by that I mean keeping what works and refining what nearly does. Not a hard reset, not resetting, but moving forward. And definitely not emulating any older editions.