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

[WrathOfTheLion]

The assertion that rules bloat doesn't exist is a similar positive assertion and would also require burden of proof. If none is provided for either argument, the only conclusion would be that it's inconclusive, not that there is none.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

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.

Yes that’s an example of rules bloat.

just like the conflicting fight first/last rules. 
stacking rules on rules to counter each other to the point no one really knows which rule has precedence, that’s rules bloat

[Son of Carnelian]

Alternating activations. Maelstrom of War cards become standard for casual and Matched play. Removal of strategems either entirely or outside of Matched Play. Continue crusade rules. Merge codex units (especially for the Space Marine range). 

 

A lot of this just sounds like Star Wars Legion, and that's by design. I've fallen in love with that game and only played 40k four times this year. 

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

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 

So, in your explanation here, rules bloat is...just rules? Rules past an arbitrary limit? How do we even measure it? Number of rules per minute ?

I contend that 9th edition doesn't have a so-called "rules bloat" problem. It has a Codex release problem. It's still the most engaged competitive scene I've ever seen in 40k by light years. It's healthy and growing. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

So, in your explanation here, rules bloat is...just rules? Rules past an arbitrary limit? How do we even measure it? Number of rules per minute ?

I contend that 9th edition doesn't have a so-called "rules bloat" problem. It has a Codex release problem. It's still the most engaged competitive scene I've ever seen in 40k by light years. It's healthy and growing. 

40k growing in popularity doesn’t in anyway reflect on if there is or isn’t rules bloat.

[ThePenitentOne]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Forgive me but no, that is not what I assumed it to mean. I assumed that "rules bloat" means anything beyond the absolute flavourless bare essentials. Basically if it offered more than the 8th Indexes it was bloat. You may not mean that, but whenever the conversation comes up and I bother to take part, that is the impression I am given.

If I may get a little personal for a moment, I understand you have issues with the game. I honestly do. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have issues with it too. It's just that it really feels like too many people are trying to find issues. Maybe they fell out of love with it, maybe they never liked it to begin with and that caught up. I do see the "all these people think it's trash so they must be right" argument a lot. It's all I see. Rules bloat. Hard reset. Broken beyond repair.

I don't want to appear like I'm dancing around having fun and judging those who aren't. I want to show people that 40k is still fun. I'm not a good player in any sense, when I go to events it's to play the bottom tables and have a laugh with other wargamers. I'd be crushed if my opponent wasn't having fun.

I don't see rules bloat. I see the huge swathe of options I tasted in 4th only for it to be torn away under the guise of "streamlining". I see a huge box of lego pieces and no instruction booklet. 9th edition right now offers so many ways to play, so much choice. That it is seen as a negative confuses me. More so, hearing that I can have fun and everyone else can't really stings. I don't want to tell you how to have fun, I want to show you that you can have fun.

I loved this post. You said it better than I could, and I feel the exact same way.

[Captain Idaho]

It's subjective really so we have to recognise that there are those of us who don't agree whether it is filled with bloat or skinny as a rake, or everything in-between. We don't have to agree with their positions of course, but let's definitely not dismiss them.

For me the clearest indication of bloat is the fact so many people are saying it across multiple social media platforms - Facebook, forums, YouTube comments. It's not an isolated sentiment.

This adds to my own experience and thus my problems with it are validated and likely something I believe GW should address, since it is shared by so many people.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I know how to fix a major issue people have with the game, and it has nothing to do with rules bloat.

add a new phase after both players have had their turn, at the end of the turn.

the casualty phase.

theoretically everything in a turn is happening more or less at the same time, so theoretically the player who goes second should be able to have a chance to fire before removing models.

 

the casualty phase would allow the game to keep its current play style, but would largely eliminate the alpha strike, and give everyone an opportunity to at least play one turn with all of their models.

after all the shootings and combats and psychic attacks have resolved for both sides, and after morale tests taken, then the single casualty phase begins and both players add wounds and remove models as appropriate.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Helias_Tancred]

Alpha Strikes are always going to be present given the amount of shooting and maneuver involved in the game. Rules can curb it, but it will always be there in some form. It's always been there, and honestly it is as central to 40k as bolters and heresy. The question is what the cost of it should be? If you go with an alpha strike strategy how much risk  v. reward are you playing with? If you succeed it nearly guarantees a win, and if it fails it nearly guarantees you lose, or should it be somewhere more in the middle? still present in the game but less of a major factor? I side with the latter. I play Blood Angels, I want some valid alpha strike options. Overwhelming or OP? No. That's not good for the quality of the game. Some factions will have better AS opportunities, and others will not. It's something that sets armies apart and how they can be played. It would make sense that those armies with less AS opportunities would probably be better at defending against them, or surviving them?

 

Going forward if I had a magic wand I could wave for the next edition it would be this:

1. Smaller number of stratagems, take some stratagems and bake them into appropriate  units. So emphasis between stratagem use and unit choice is balanced, and the game doesn't feel like a relic/trait/stratagem power combos fest. 

2. Better balance and power level consistency between army codexes. The biggest factor lately on what sinks a rules edition, and the most difficult to get a grasp of it seems?

3. Clean up the secondary objective system, more consistency between them vs. having one or two that are always auto-takes. 

 

edit: I like the ability to choose a relic and a warlord trait for your warlord or a select HQ, but I do not like the expanded ability to use more than that in the game. Its led to a power combo vibe for 40k, which has not been good for the game.  1 relic, 1 trait. Done.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Helias Tancred

[Captain Idaho]

That's gonna take even more brain power though. Note keeping at the least.

It's not a terrible idea undiluted in a game with less models, but then in 40K the shooting phase killing a unit then it can move and melee? I just don't see it working without severe amendment unfortunately. 

But I think the core idea could very well be what we need if we change the turn set up completely. Both players move, both players then shoot, casualties are removed, then the melee phase occurs, starting with player one etc.

Could work.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The definition of an alpha strike is a first strike intended to cripple or remove an enemy’s ability to retaliate.

in this case, that would be 100% mitigated because both sides would get the opportunity to shoot or fight at full strength.

now if one side or the other gets lucky or unlucky and one side is worse for the wear that’s not an alpha strike.

 

With this we don’t need to change up all of the turn sequences for this to work.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[The Yncarne]

Five page cheat sheet just to determine when 1k Sons cabalistic rituals or stratagems get used by phase. kinda needed if you have any rubrics, scarab occult or characters. 
 

9th added the Infernal Master. To use this model, you need to generate cabal points at the start of the psychic phase. But it isn’t as simple as counting units or characters. You consult a chart and depending on the model generate 1-4 cabal points for each type. You can use each cabalistic ritual once and each unit can only benefit from one ritual. So each turn I have to pause to add some numbers up based on the type of psykers on the field this turn, consult the ritual cost, then determine which ritual to use and when (because some take place after a psychic power is manifested, some anytime during the psychic phase, some after a psychic test is passed, and some when casting a psychic power). That requires me to pause and spend a great deal of time figuring out the sequence of the psychic phase because of how these interact with the traditional psychic powers. I cannot imagine how to do this without cheat sheets and purchased or home made cards so I can identify which rituals or powers are used or are affecting a unit. 
 

that strikes me as rules bloat. I have to think making the infernal master a traditional psyker with his own school would be so much easier to manage. That’s the kind of flavor I can do without.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

In terms of flavor, I still think BA 3rd Ed was the most fluffy and flavorful version of the army, regardless of how much flavor random death company adds, it was a mechanic many found problematic, so it was done away with.

 

[Captain Idaho]

I did enjoy it and it was the most flavourful representation of the Blood Angel's flaw I felt.

You don't need loads of additional rules to add flavour. Just carefully and smartly placed additional rules variants. 

3.5 Codex Chaos Marines, whilst unbalanced, had less rules than we have now but just as much flavour. In fact, with the ability to give daemonic gifts and veteran skills, each Aspiring Champion felt like he had a story and each unit felt like it was a thing.

Play it clever, GW. Less is more.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[phandaal]

Here is a minor example: Orks got a new weapon type invented for their 9th edition rulebook. "Dakka" weapons. Was an entirely new weapon type really necessary to convey "Orks shoot more bullets when they are close to you?"

Or Even More Invulnerable Saves from the Demon codex, which are Invulnerable saves that cannot be bypassed by Bypasses Invulnerable weapons.

There is a clear move towards more rules overall, not less.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

Here is a minor example: Orks got a new weapon type invented for their 9th edition rulebook. "Dakka" weapons. Was an entirely new weapon type really necessary to convey "Orks shoot more bullets when they are close to you?"

Or Even More Invulnerable Saves from the Demon codex, which are Invulnerable saves that cannot be bypassed by Bypasses Invulnerable weapons.

There is a clear move towards more rules overall, not less.

Right? Like what’s the point of invulnerable saves, if there are ways to bypass them, and what’s the point of mortal wounds if there are ways to ignore/save them?

i don’t mind the dakka type being created tbh. It’s not nearly as hard to remember or unnecessary as many other rules

[Slave to Darkness]

7 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

But I think the core idea could very well be what we need if we change the turn set up completely. Both players move, both players then shoot, casualties are removed, then the melee phase occurs, starting with player one etc.

Could work.

Roll to see who goes first each turn. Do you go all in on your turn hoping you go first next turn, or play it safe in case your opponent wins the turn. Hard to make plans when you dont know who is gonna get priority that turn.

[phandaal]

4 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

i don’t mind the dakka type being created tbh. It’s not nearly as hard to remember or unnecessary as many other rules

Dakka weapons are just a minor thing, but they are indicative of the prevailing design philosophy. Each weapon now has its own individual number of normal shots and Dakka shots. Rapid Fire is just too far. Exploding 6s simply will not do. Assault is out of the question!

[MegaVolt87]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

Dakka weapons are just a minor thing, but they are indicative of the prevailing design philosophy. Each weapon now has its own individual number of normal shots and Dakka shots. Rapid Fire is just too far. Exploding 6s simply will not do. Assault is out of the question!

I mean, would have been easier to represent dakka by just giving every ork gun an alt fire assault X profile with a shorter shooting distance to do the same thing. eg- Rapid fire 1/ Assault 4, 20/9 range etc you get the idea. 

[UnkyHamHam]

1 hour ago, MegaVolt87 said:

I mean, would have been easier to represent dakka by just giving every ork gun an alt fire assault X profile with a shorter shooting distance to do the same thing. eg- Rapid fire 1/ Assault 4, 20/9 range etc you get the idea. 

One thing they also accomplished was bucketing all the ork conventional weapons into the "dakka" category and keyword. This allows them to design strats and other rules/abilities to only affect these weapons, but without the need to call them out every time. 

 

It also adds flavor and faction identity to the orks, and gives them an associated and recognizable faction weapon. Much like bolt, shuriken, pulse, and gauss weapons. 

[MegaVolt87]

17 minutes ago, UnkyHamHam said:

One thing they also accomplished was bucketing all the ork conventional weapons into the "dakka" category and keyword. This allows them to design strats and other rules/abilities to only affect these weapons, but without the need to call them out every time. 

 

It also adds flavor and faction identity to the orks, and gives them an associated and recognizable faction weapon. Much like bolt, shuriken, pulse, and gauss weapons. 

 

"Assault type ranged weapons shooting profiles carried by X,Y,Z units may use this strat XX" etc. Dakka didn't need to really exist as a rule if the statline can do it, when we have more established ways of doing things. Its just word salad we don't need in its implementation. 

[Redcomet]

Warmachine uses command cards. You build a deck of 5 cards, each which can be used once. 

Do something similar for 10th.

Have 10 common cards and then 10-15 for each army. 

2 hours ago, UnkyHamHam said:

One thing they also accomplished was bucketing all the ork conventional weapons into the "dakka" category and keyword. This allows them to design strats and other rules/abilities to only affect these weapons, but without the need to call them out every time. 

 

It also adds flavor and faction identity to the orks, and gives them an associated and recognizable faction weapon. Much like bolt, shuriken, pulse, and gauss weapons. 

Yeah I though the Dakka weapons was a neat concept. 

[Slave to Darkness]

3 hours ago, UnkyHamHam said:

 

It also adds flavor and faction identity to the orks, and gives them an associated and recognizable faction weapon.

They had those already, Shootas and Sluggas.

[phandaal]

28 minutes ago, Slave to Darkness said:

They had those already, Shootas and Sluggas.

Yes. The name is what matters, not the weapon type. Space Marines have special rules for Bolt weapons. Sisters of Battle have special rules for using Melta, Flamer, and Bolt weapons together. Eldar have special rules for Shuriken weapons. Etc.

There was no need to invent an entirely new weapon type, but that is what the designers did. Extrapolate that design across the last 2 years and we get 9th in the state it is in now. A mostly solid core framework covered in layers of bolt-on exceptions and escalations.

[Valkyrion]

Me and my regular opponent both played with new armies last weekend, he Chaos Knights and me Custodes. He went first, and by the end of turn 2 he had no models left. 
I've no doubt that Alpha Strike is a thing, but it's not been an issue once all edition for any of our games regardless of faction. 

But there could be mitigation if it is a much bigger deal than I realise. Determine who is going first before determining deployment zones and deploying; whoever goes second picks the deployment zone and deploys all of their models last, whoever goes first deploys all of their models first, for example.

 

Regarding rules bloat - it's not the number of rules that are available to any given factions, it's all the possible interactions.
Just a very simple shooting example;
Crimson Fists Intercessors have exploding 6's on bolt weapons. 
They are in range of their Captain (reroll hit aura)
They are in range of their Lieutenant (reroll wounds aura)
A Master of Sanctity uses the Command Oratory stratagem.
He gives them Catechism of Fire.
It is the tactical doctrine.

That is 6 rules interactions that need to be accounted for for a basic infantry unit to fire its weapons before any dice are rolled, and it's not that unlikely a combo either.
If you then factor in rules for cover, the enemy units defences, more stratagems, what turn it is, psychic powers and so on then you could have dozens of effects in play that affects the shooting of just one unit. That is the bloat.