Jump to content

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


Evil Eye

Recommended Posts

 

 

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by The Blood Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving to online codexs for 40k and gutting codexs just will never ever happen:no:

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:yes:

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.