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

[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.

[Noserenda]

We have had 3 index reset editions so far its worth pointing out, 2nd, 3rd and 8th. Honestly its a good idea every so often, 6th and 7th really got messy and there were periods all along with tragically out dated lists.

Normally id say its too soon but the codexes in 9th are a bloaty mess! 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

39 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

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.

When there are 20 strats in the main dex that apply, and a dozen more in a supplement that apply, plus orders/litanies/psychic powers, plus datasheet special rules, yeah there’s a lot of rules bloat, especially when there’s rules updates every3 months.

maybe it’s not so bad if you only play 1 army but trying to remember all that stuff for 2 or more armies then you have to know double that.

 

maybe the amount of rules isn’t a problem for you personally, but look at how many people here are complaining about. It takes a special kind of arrogance to see a bunch of people saying “X is a problem that we’re having” and then seriously tell yourself or others “X isn’t an issue for me, so either it’s not a problem, or I’m just superior to everyone else”

Edited August 2, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Helias_Tancred]

16 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Normally id say its too soon but the codexes in 9th are a bloaty mess! 

Not the Blood Angel one! lol we were "first out of the gate!"

 

[Cpt_Reaper]

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

When there are 20 strats in the main dex that apply, and a dozen more in a supplement that apply, plus orders/litanies/psychic powers, plus datasheet special rules, yeah there’s a lot of rules bloat, especially when there’s rules updates every3 months.

maybe it’s not so bad if you only play 1 army but trying to remember all that stuff for 2 or more armies then you have to know double that.

 

maybe the amount of rules isn’t a problem for you personally, but look at how many people here are complaining about. It takes a special kind of arrogance to see a bunch of people saying “X is a problem that we’re having” and then seriously tell yourself or others “X isn’t an issue for me, so either it’s not a problem, or I’m just superior to everyone else”

I never said I'm superior to anyone. What I said is there is no rules bloat. The number of people claiming that there is doesn't make them right, it means there is an echo chamber.

Yes, there could be 20 strats in the main dex. Yes, subfaction rules exist. Yes, litanies and/or psychic powers exist. You do not need to know every single one for ever single army you play.

When you build an army, do you always take a psyker or a priest? If you didn't take one, you don't need to take any litanies or psychic powers. Plus now the stratagems relevant to those units are now irrelevant.

Rules existing do not mean they bloat anything. Should some strats be datasheet rules? Yes they should. But then they'd still exist. Should GW remove sub faction rules, litanies, psychic powers and datasheet special rules? No, they should not.

[Helias_Tancred]

I'd like to see less Strats overall, and move some of the appropriate ones back to their appropriate model(s) datasheet. I want my unit choices to be less about stratagems they synergize with and more about their stats and any special abilities they have.

 

 

 

 

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

What I said is there is no rules bloat. The number of people claiming that there is doesn't make them right, it means there is an echo chamber.

It is a lot of people independently coming to the same conclusion through experience.

Would wager that there are plenty of very clever people around here who have no trouble putting layer upon layer of rules together, or choosing to use the simplest list possible.

That is irrelevant to whether the game itself has too many rules though.

[Cpt_Reaper]

3 minutes ago, phandaal said:

It is a lot of people independently coming to the same conclusion through experience.

Would wager that there are plenty of very clever people around here who have no trouble putting layer upon layer of rules together, or choosing to use the simplest list possible.

That is irrelevant to whether the game itself has too many rules though.

Is it though? What even is "too many rules"? At what point is too far, and what point is not far enough? It really feels like a buzz word, like "rules bloat", that is used to shut down anyone who disagrees.

There are mechanically poor and mechanically superfluous rules. Smoke Launchers being a stratagem is but one stratagem that could be added to datasheets like it used to be. But What is another? What doesn't need to exist as a stratagem, datasheet rule or detachment ability?

Before you answer that, ask yourself if that rule is critical to someone else's ability to play? Because I certainly wouldn't let you choose to deny my ability to play a custom Successor Chapter just because you think it "bloats" the game. I would expect anyone playing a particular sub faction wouldn't want their ability to mechanically represent their chosen force taken away.

[XeonDragon]

I'd love to see a move to a d10/12/20 system to allow a finer degree of differentiation between units. Likewise adjusting the S/T scale from (effectively) 3 to 8 (6 point scale) to maybe 1-10. So, for example, primaris units could be 1 point stronger than OG marines, but it would have less of an impact than a 1-point difference currently has.

Reduce re-rolls. Stratagems moved to unit datasheets where possible, or reduce stratagems and give units free reactions/powers (e.g smokescreen).  

Edited August 2, 2022 by XeonDragon

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I never said I'm superior to anyone. What I said is there is no rules bloat. The number of people claiming that there is doesn't make them right, it means there is an echo chamber.

Yes, there could be 20 strats in the main dex. Yes, subfaction rules exist. Yes, litanies and/or psychic powers exist. You do not need to know every single one for ever single army you play.

When you build an army, do you always take a psyker or a priest? If you didn't take one, you don't need to take any litanies or psychic powers. Plus now the stratagems relevant to those units are now irrelevant.

Rules existing do not mean they bloat anything. Should some strats be datasheet rules? Yes they should. But then they'd still exist. Should GW remove sub faction rules, litanies, psychic powers and datasheet special rules? No, they should not.

“I never said I was superior”

proceeds to proclaim superiority…

yes if most people taken from a sample of a population says there’s a problem with rules bloat, there’s a high likelihood of there being rules bloat.

i love how you contradicted yourself immediately 

“there’s no rules bloat”

”there are rules that are mechanically superfluous.” That means the rules are bloated.

if you’re fine with the bloat that’s ok that you have that opinion, but that doesn’t mean the bloat doesn’t exist.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Cpt_Reaper]

27 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

“I never said I was superior”

proceeds to proclaim superiority…

yes if most people taken from a sample of a population says there’s a problem with rules bloat, there’s a high likelihood of there being rules bloat.

i love how you contradicted yourself immediately 

“there’s no rules bloat”

”there are rules that are mechanically superfluous.” That means the rules are bloated.

if you’re fine with the bloat that’s ok that you have that opinion, but that doesn’t mean the bloat doesn’t exist.

Please stop claiming I am stating superiority. I am not. You rob my argument of value by doing that.

You are right that I made an error, however that error was not contradicting myself. I fell for the buzz word trap. I cannot think of a single mechanically superfluous rule. At all. Even the smoke launchers stratagem is not superfluous, as it doesn't do what another rule does to a lesser degree. So I retract my previous statement as there are no superfluous rules.

The claim was made that rules bloat exists. I disputed that claim. The burden of proof is on those that claim that it exists, and beside just saying "rules bloat" that hasn't been done. I have to question if half of the people or more are just parroting it and don't themselves believe it. I nearly fell for it when a large selection of my local group claimed that 40k was dead and there was nothing good about it and it should be scrapped...yet no evidence was provided to back up this claim.

Please prove that rules bloat exists. And a rule is not "bloaty" if removing it negatively affects another player that doesn't play to your preferred play style.

[excelite]

Not sure how you want to have that proven, but personally I go with: if some special rules seemingly can’t be fixed without adding other rules that specifically counter the first special rule, I consider it unnecessary bloat.

 

an example would be the max wounds lost per phase and it’s counter that removes this limitation.

 

however, I don’t think the rules should be stripped down until all factions play the same, basically reducing them to reskins (to introduce an analogy).

this might work well for HH (I’m not sound enough with that rule set, so I might be wrong on that) as it’s basically Space marines all over the place.

 

tbh, calling each other names because some like it more complex than others will not resolve anything 

 

[Cpt_Reaper]

That doesn't seem like an example of rules bloat? One rule is a defence for a special unit to ensure it loves longer, one rule is a counter that is only available to a few. Every unit has a counter. Special characters of exceptional quality should be hard to kill by anything that is not a dedicated assassin/character hunting unit. What would you change to remove "bloat"? If you take away the counter, then Ghaz/Abaddon become god tier power houses with no counter. If you remove their max wounds limitation they get wiped off the board no easier than Captain McNo-Name.

If you remove BOTH rules, you need to add something back. GW lifted the stat cap of 10, yet didn't change the stats when they did. A Space Marine is still +1 S/T over a Guardsman, and a Primaris isn't any better than a Guardsman than a Firstborn. Unless the base stats change, strats/traits/detachment abilities etc have to pick up the slack.

Bloat implies too many. Right now there cannot be bloat because the rules are doing their job, a job that requires buffs and counters.

[excelite]

18 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

… Unless the base stats change, strats/traits/detachment abilities etc have to pick up the slack.

You provided a fix yourself. I think there are numerous rules that can be made obsolete by stat changes and are thus unnecessary.

is it easy to do? Debatable…

[Cpt_Reaper]

I would think that we missed the chance to do it the moment the Indexes came out in 8th. That said that GW has no intention of changing the base stats, and thus rules are required to provide defence and/or offence and the counters thereof.

I don't see 40k as being inherently broken, so it doesn't need fixing. I see 9th as a great system with flaws that can be improved. How would I improve the flaws? I'd need to sit down and actually plan that out, but I do believe it can be done easily.

[Karhedron]

One change I would love that I am almost sure will never happen is a switch from alternating turns to a system of alternating unit activation.

[Triszin]

20 hours ago, Xenith said:

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. 

That's fair.

10 universal, 3 faction specific.

 

While rolling all the strats that should be unit rules back into said units.

[Cpt_Reaper]

13 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

One change I would love that I am almost sure will never happen is a switch from alternating turns to a system of alternating unit activation.

I tried Star Wars Legion. It really doesn't feel right at all, and the size of Legion's battles is much smaller. It works for Armada because the army size is like 5 models on average. Alternative activation just doesn't work at 40ks size.

[Captain Idaho]

There's plenty of examples of rules bloat, provided we use the term in good faith. Rules bloat means lots of extra rules to keep track of on top of the core rules to play the game, which contradict or make exception to other existing rules. We all know what is meant 

Examples of it? Easy. Let's just take being a Space Marines player as an example. Off the top of my head, here are a bunxh of things to keep track of that are messy:

• Primaris get 6 different types of bolters that all have slightly different rules, stats and frankly the same results (bar the sniper variant) and don't actually add anything to the game. There's another bunch of bolter variants found on characters, with the Mastercrafted moniker, then ordinary Bolters and finally Special Issue Bolters.

If you absolutely have to have Primaris Bolters different to Marine Bolters (I'd argue they shouldn't be in game), we could easily have Bolters, Bolt Rifles, Stalker Bolters and Mastercrafted Bolters and spread those about the army as needed. I'd still say that's too much but there's always wiggle room.

• Every datasheet having unique weapons that do about the same thing. Lastalons and Lascannons, for example.

• Every datasheet having special rules through abilities, weapons and or Strategums, which have ni bearing on any other units or just 1 or 2.

• Keeping track of the missions, Secondaries as well as core rules.

• Armywide special rules, Chapter (faction) special rules and the FAQs.

• Victory Points being generated in non-standardisd ways even ina faction let alone between Codex books,.

• Oh and who took actions with what units, some abilities triggering in the Command Phase whilst others don't (Apothecary...)

And Marines aren't even the worst culprits!

Ultimately it will always be a little subjective but more and more people dislike having such a labour intensive game for very little flavourful benefits. 

Most importantly, having a casual game with new players is becoming so difficult. There's too much to remember that is counter intuitive and having to learn their Codex as well as own, plus the missions and FAQs, is a barrier to entry to the game.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[Noserenda]

Variety isnt rules bloat, well, not intrinsically, as almost all of that variety is dealt with at army selection. Its stuff adding to the decision space in game that gets bad, mostly stratagems but also secondaries and a significant number of army special rules like Doctrines or kata.

I actually really like lots of subfactions for example, as its encouraging different paint schemes and twists on the typical armies, but i could certainly see how they could be considered bloat to someone who felt they had to understand all the armies in the game for whatever reason.

I do think it was a bad idea especially to start piling on extra things to remember at the same time as they rightfully looked to expand weapon/model statistics to make better use of the range and differentiate better. A lot of veterans are already struggling to remember those changes after decades!  

So yeah, bloat (aka Mental load) is a very real thing right now and it feels pretty disingenuous to claim otherwise. 

[Stealth_Hobo]

It would be pretty cool if there were more modularity in the game. More special rules and complexity for those who want them. I'm thinking things like the original Cities of Death. Keep the 'vanilla' game simple (core rules + codexes) but offer additional rules through seasonal tournament books like Nephilim and Crusade books. And those rulebooks shouldn't be just piled on top of each other, but each should offer some interesting twist or way of playing the game.

Right now the only choice is pretty much what missions you're going to play (ITC-style, Tempest of War etc.) but there's no alternative if you want to keep the game simple. I have played without using stratagems, but just like every special rule, they are so integrated within the game that I had this nagging feeling that I was playing an incomplete game.

Just a random thought that popped in my head.

[Evil Eye]

32 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

• Primaris get 6 different types of bolters that all have slightly different rules, stats and frankly the same results (bar the sniper variant) and don't actually add anything to the game. There's another bunch of bolter variants found on characters, with the Mastercrafted moniker, then ordinary Bolters and finally Special Issue Bolters.

 

The bolter problem is a classic case of 40K "scale creep" as it applies to things other than literal model size. Specifically how some elements of the model equipment rules are kind of leaning on the era of skirmish level/miniature RPG/wargame hybrid system that early 40K was, and in the case of smaller games still is (or would be if the "no model no rules" nonsense wasn't so aggressively in play).

In a smaller game, like a Kill Team level game, having the right kind of bolter for the job is a potentially relevant feature of list building. Having a Marine armed with the full-auto bolt rifle might be great if you need to clear a room of cultists fast, not so much if you need to save your battle brother at long range from an assassin or other singular nasty, in which case the sniper option is better. Likewise, the various types of plague weapon are much more important to distinguish for such a setting, where having a bubotic axe might come in handy against a power armoured foe more than a mace of contagion (kind of a strange thought really considering half the point of maces in actual warfare was that they could crumple armour or deliver enough of a shock that they'd severely injure the foe without having to pierce, but then again getting into the whole rabbit hole of melee weapons and their respective uses, especially in the context of 40K, is a fruitless endeavour).

In a full-scale wargame, however, having to distinguish between most of the bolt rifle types (and indeed plague weapon types) just complicates everything for not much appreciable difference. At that level, you don't need to differentiate between "plague marine with sword" and "plague marine with axe"- just "plague weapon" will do! Indeed, with most melee weapons I feel any special rules they have should be determined by more outlandish properties like power fields, daemon possession etc, as in the grim darkness of the far future most "normal" melee weapons will be relatively similar. If an Ork and a Krieger agreed to swap their choppa and entrenching spade and fight to the death, the outcome wouldn't likely be different than if they used their own weapons.

There are exceptions to the above generalization- I feel Tyranids benefit from having different melee weapon profiles, but then Tyranids are a heavily melee based army whose entire schtick since day 1 was having all sorts of horrible things they could do up close. They basically invented the Rending USR after all! Likewise, there are cases where I feel some "weapon shapes" deserve their own rules, specifically the force weapons of GK fame. Halberds should be slower but harder hitting (and maybe give some kind of reach advantage), swords should be a balance between speed, reach and strength, whilst falchions should give extra attacks but deal less damage. However, they're kind of a special case in that A: all three weapon options are very different beyond being differently shaped melee weapons, B: GKs are a very elite, bespoke army where every Knight matters, and C: the GK kits allow any Knight to use any weapon.

On the whole though I find it annoying that we can (and in the cases of poor Plague Marines, must) make decisions between what variety of bolter/crusty beating stick we're giving our troops, but can't give units actually meaningful wargear options. Obvious bug bias here but the fact that devourers are no longer legal on Hive Tyrants despite the monstrous creature arms being literally designed from the get-go to be universal and FW even making Tyrant devourer arms until very recently, whilst Space Marines get 3 choices of very subtly different bolter to choose from, is very, very silly.

[Captain Idaho]

There definitely needs to be some flavour, balanced against each other. The problem I think GW suffered from was where to draw the line - take the rules as a baseline, then add just the Chapter Faction rules and that's a flavour of course. Wanted more? So we add Warlord Traits. And Relics. Ooh what about Strategums!

Each is only a logical step beyond what is already there but added together breaks the poor old donkey's back.