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

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

22 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Just because a different mechanic works for another game doesn't mean it will work in 40k. I do not play other games because they have different mechanics that I find utterly unenjoyable. If the alternative activations came to 40k it would absolutely not work. How do you do that for a game where Custodes or Knights are fighting Guard? 40k is so much larger than nearly every other wargame out there.

Stratagems are here to stay. Could some of them be cleaned up, absolutely. The fights first/fights last could just all be updated to be fights first, with 1CP for one of your units to fight first and instead of "make target fight last" just have a 3CP strat make all your units in a single combat fight first.

If you absolutely must demand stratagems and re-rolls be removed, what would you replace them with? Because if you just take them away you're taking a large chunk of the mechanics 9th is built around and you're trying to remake an older edition. And I've said it before, I'll say it again and I'll say it every time it is suggested.

The old editions are gone. 10th should move forward, not try to remake anything before 8th. A hard reset this soon after 8th will be catastrophic for the game.

I’d replace them with regular datasheet rules for units.

if it’s too powerful to be in a datasheet then it gets tossed. Some of those special rules can be limited to one use per game if it happens to be very powerful.

im not asking to recreate older editions, but the idea that armies can’t have flavor without strats is just not true, and older editions prove it.

[Cpt_Reaper]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’d replace them with regular datasheet rules for units.

if it’s too powerful to be in a datasheet then it gets tossed. Some of those special rules can be limited to one use per game if it happens to be very powerful.

im not asking to recreate older editions, but the idea that armies can’t have flavor without strats is just not true, and older editions prove it.

What worked or didn't work in older editions is irrelevant. We're not playing them, we're in 9th. Stop comparing 9th to editions that came before 8th as they were so mechanically different that they may as well be another game.

If you put every stratagem in datasheets, you have successfully remade Universal Special Rules. Remember how everyone complained there were too many of those? Because I sure do. The removal of USRs was praised. Except now, instead of being in the Core Rulebook, you have them printed over and again on individual datasheets.

How about, instead of throwing out a mechanic that works well with a few outliers, we refine stratagems into being an improvement. I would start with making some of the common stratagems into universal strats. Advance and shoot, shoot while performing actions, fall back and shoot...they could be universal strats. As I previously mentioned, the fights first/fights last interaction can be refined.

Maybe, and I say this as I don't see it working well, you could choose a number of strats depending on your game size. In a standard 2000 point game you have 12 Command Points, so you can choose to bring 12 points worth of stratagems. Of course every strat would need to be revalued, with one use only strats being cheaper despite their inherent power.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

20 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

What worked or didn't work in older editions is irrelevant. We're not playing them, we're in 9th. Stop comparing 9th to editions that came before 8th as they were so mechanically different that they may as well be another game.

If you put every stratagem in datasheets, you have successfully remade Universal Special Rules. Remember how everyone complained there were too many of those? Because I sure do. The removal of USRs was praised. Except now, instead of being in the Core Rulebook, you have them printed over and again on individual datasheets.

How about, instead of throwing out a mechanic that works well with a few outliers, we refine stratagems into being an improvement. I would start with making some of the common stratagems into universal strats. Advance and shoot, shoot while performing actions, fall back and shoot...they could be universal strats. As I previously mentioned, the fights first/fights last interaction can be refined.

Maybe, and I say this as I don't see it working well, you could choose a number of strats depending on your game size. In a standard 2000 point game you have 12 Command Points, so you can choose to bring 12 points worth of stratagems. Of course every strat would need to be revalued, with one use only strats being cheaper despite their inherent power.

Put every strat into datasheets? No.

butnmost strats could either be an army wide rule, or a rule specifically in a unit’s data sheet.

you keep harping on not looking back, and that’s really stupid. Previous editions got some things right, and it is absolutely valid to hold those things up as examples 

[Cpt_Reaper]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Put every strat into datasheets? No.

butnmost strats could either be an army wide rule, or a rule specifically in a unit’s data sheet.

you keep harping on not looking back, and that’s really stupid. Previous editions got some things right, and it is absolutely valid to hold those things up as examples 

If it was gotten right, and it fits with the design philosophy of the current editions mechanics, it was brought forward. If it worked before but wasn't going to work now, it was left behind.

If a stratagem could be an army wide rule, or a rule on a datasheet, why can't they remain a single use ability with a cost of a finite resource? You'd raise unit costs for an ability you might use rather than a stratagem that you pay a cost for when you need it.

Stratagems have their place in 9th. They will have their place in 10th. They don't have their place when you compare the current edition to anything before 8th, because those ditions weren't written with Stratagems in mind as a core mechanic.

[Slave to Darkness]

But even GW are looking at older editions, they have reintroduced the movement stat, instead of deathstar units they now have characters give off aura bubbles just like in 2nd edition, theres only so much GW can do with a ruleset over many editions without dipping back into their own rules or something similar to other companies. If they do a fresh reset again for the love of god GW raise some stats to above ten, and break away from a D6 system then at least we can have accurate representation of something without having to layer on bandaid rulesand buffs/nerfs to make it a bit better than a guardsman but not quite as good as an assassin, if it isnt working on the next balance update pop up the stat in question by a point or two. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

I've been pondering that myself. GW have made D10's in the form of wound markers, and the apocalypse dice set has, in addition to a boatload of D6, D12s. Perhaps a combination of all 3 would work better than just have every system tied to D6?

Characteristic Tests would all use D10. To Wound could require one of either D6, 10 or 12, with maybe the idea that top end toughness simply can't be harmed with a D6? Say a Lasgun is a straight D6, a Bolter is D6+1. Wounding a Guardsman might need a result of 4+, Wounding a Space Marine might need a 6+, Wounding a Carnifex might need a 8?

Re-Rolls are tied to Character Aura's only. Stratagems cannot grant a re-roll under any circumstances, but might give +1 to a wound roll for a certain weapon? Taking a little inspiration from previous editions in that some small arms just can't harm tougher targets, and improving stratagems by giving a small arm a chance to harm the next tier but still unable to harm the tier above that.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

On 8/1/2022 at 7:33 PM, Remain_Indoors said:

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.

I don’t disagree with the concept having Strategems in some form, but current system does seem borked. I say get rid of command points and have them work as they did in some of the earlier iterations of the game like Cities of Death did in fourth Ed. Have a list of generic strats, some faction specific and some for sub factions that you can choose from at list creation and limit the number of strats each army can use dependant on the size of the game, plus one to start with.  Some strats you’d keep a secret until you use it, others like ‘Tunnel Rats’, Otflank and Mine Field or Booby Traps you’d declare before the game. You could trim the fat by making things like Hellfire Shells or Lucifer Pattern Engines something you buy at list creation.

 

Edit: things like Relics and Warlord Traits could be bought at army list creation too. I do hope they keep Crusade a thing, even if it is different to what it is now, I just like the concept of personalised campaign progression.

 

Edit 2: I’d like flamer type weapons to get a torrent type rule. Torrent 1 would mean a weapon would hit every model within x inches, once and only once, Torrent 2, which would reflect things like a twin linked heavy flamer, would hit each model twice. Would make flamers and the like devastating to hordes, if there are twelve enemy models in range twelve get hit, if you fire you flamer at a single model you hit it once. I mean seriously the way things work ATM don’t make sense thematically, how do you set fire to something more than once? Also Blast weapons should work in reverse to the way they do now. Thematically speaking you should roll to hit, then roll to see the number of models that get caught by the blast. Would speed things up too because you’d roll two dice instead of potentially seven.

 

Edit 3: I do find the use of d10 and d12 intriguing.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Captain Smashy Pants

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah I dislike the roll dice mechanism for how many shots. Clumsy and swingy, slows the game down too.

If we absolutely don't want any blast markers again, there are many ways to add the weapon systems in without such rules.

[The Yncarne]

While I would welcome a change from D6 I think there are some core concepts 40k will never move from and these include D6 and IGO/UGO. I think those of us that prefer to move on need to look at alternatives.

[Medjugorje]

I hope that Marines are not rely on their characters. Their characters should be melee monsters instead of buff characters... like drukhari ones. 

[Noserenda]

6 minutes ago, Medjugorje said:

I hope that Marines are not rely on their characters. Their characters should be melee monsters instead of buff characters... like drukhari ones. 

Eh, i occasionally like to pretend my marine officers are competent leaders too

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

I hope that Marines are not rely on their characters. Their characters should be melee monsters instead of buff characters... like drukhari ones. 

I mean gravis captain isn’t bad. 7 fist attacks hitting on 3+ is pretty nice, or 9 attacks between chainsword and fist is pretty nice as well.

personally good in melee, with rules showing them as good leaders is fluffy and something I think they can do rules wise without it being OP. Even if that leadership representation is just a massive leadership aura.

a smash captain that has no ability to buff is not what I want marine characters to turn into outside of a few exceptions (Seth…)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, The Blood Raven said:

While I would welcome a change from D6 I think there are some core concepts 40k will never move from and these include D6 and IGO/UGO. I think those of us that prefer to move on need to look at alternatives.

Yep that’s why I suggested just adding a casualty phase at the end of the turn, it maintains GW’s standard turn layout, but without the negative side effects we’re experiencing now. 

[The Yncarne]

I haven’t tried apocalypse in it’s current incarnation but my understanding is that it does something similar Lensoven. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by The Blood Raven

[Medjugorje]

the main problem is that GW makes the balance on buffed marines. And I think they are an elite army and should not need a buffing character. 

Like Drukhari - they can buff but mainly work independent. Thats how Marines should work. But at the moment normal units are worthless without any buff.

[Cpt_Reaper]

Astartes characters aren't just beatsticks though. They make their warriors better, whether by command, oratory or psychic might. In the past units could use the Captain's Leadership as their own, but now leadership on it's own doesn't do anything. To reduce them to just killers is to be less than half of what they should be.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't think it's too much bloat for some limited numbers of models to have benefits to their underlings. Doesn't have to be rerolls, like +1 to hit, +1AP to represent more accurate fire hitting weakpoints etc.

Then we don't need mountains of rerolls.

Chaplains are good too, as they lead and inspire.

None of those things are inherently bad I believe. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

6 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I don't think it's too much bloat for some limited numbers of models to have benefits to their underlings. Doesn't have to be rerolls, like +1 to hit, +1AP to represent more accurate fire hitting weakpoints etc.

Then we don't need mountains of rerolls.

Chaplains are good too, as they lead and inspire.

None of those things are inherently bad I believe. 

If Captains granted +1 To Hit, and LTs gave +1 to wound, how much difference would that make to potential outcomes? I'm bad at math-hammer so I couldn't work out how that swings things. Would exchanging every re-roll, outside of select units like Abaddon or Guilliman, with a flat +1 be as good as a re-roll or significantly better? Then in other armies is a re-roll or a +1 modifier better?

16 hours ago, The Blood Raven said:

I haven’t tried apocalypse in it’s current incarnation but my understanding is that it does something similar Lensoven. 

I own the current Apocalypse and I can tell you nobody has tried it*...It's been on my shelf since I got it, and now you can't buy it at all.

*outside of one person I saw review it on youtube just after it came out

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

If Captains granted +1 To Hit, and LTs gave +1 to wound, how much difference would that make to potential outcomes? I'm bad at math-hammer so I couldn't work out how that swings things. Would exchanging every re-roll, outside of select units like Abaddon or Guilliman, with a flat +1 be as good as a re-roll or significantly better? Then in other armies is a re-roll or a +1 modifier better?

I own the current Apocalypse and I can tell you nobody has tried it*...It's been on my shelf since I got it, and now you can't buy it at all.

*outside of one person I saw review it on youtube just after it came out

I know +1 means an extra 16% to hit or wound.

so BS3+ would normally be like 68% chance to hit, +1 makes that like 84% chance to hit.

but anything that’s BS2+ it would be wasted on.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Captain Idaho]

Oh you're catching me out with maths now. I have no idea really but points can reflect the changes I guess.

[Evil Eye]

As has been mentioned- stratagems for strategic assets like, say, artillery strikes, laying minefields pre-game etc, that makes perfect sense and I'd be interested in seeing more of. Making melta bombs on a Tactical Squad or the Lictor's feeder tendrils a stratagem is absolutely stupid.

[Schlitzaf]

39 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

As has been mentioned- stratagems for strategic assets like, say, artillery strikes, laying minefields pre-game etc, that makes perfect sense and I'd be interested in seeing more of. Making melta bombs on a Tactical Squad or the Lictor's feeder tendrils a stratagem is absolutely stupid.

Think about it this way:

Its a STRATEGIC asset to deploy a melta bomb for tactical squad accesibility. Also otherwise stuff like melta bombs are never taken/used.

[phandaal]

11 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

Think about it this way:

Its a STRATEGIC asset to deploy a melta bomb for tactical squad accesibility. Also otherwise stuff like melta bombs are never taken/used.

This is a Mr. Fantastic level of stretch.

[WrathOfTheLion]

It's also then a strategic asset to buy a heavy bolter in your heavy intercessor squad.

A loadout option is not a strategic decision...

This is one of my biggest problems with 9E codex design as far consistent themes since the very beginning of the edition, moving what are obviously wargear options to be strategems is ridiculous. For space marines, meltabombs and smoke launchers are the most obvious examples. The little incursor mine is also pretty funny on that, given they even put a model for it in the kit back for when it was a deployable thing.

Edited August 6, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[Schlitzaf]

Wrath I was mostly making a joke. I don’t meltabombs being a strat mostly cause they’ll never be used otherwise but I was also joking because “look strategry!”