Rumors Some new 10th edition insight, take with a grain of salt.

[Noserenda]

56 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I heard (2nd hand, so take that as you will) that GW have indeed become aware of the issues with 40k as it currently stands, and that they are aware of the sentiments of many players.

 

Unfortunately the gears and mechanisms turn slowly, and any significant changes they come up with are probably years away. What gets released is typically 2 years behind what they are working on at any given time. It's why I have become more cynical about 10th edition - I believe that the real change needed probably won't arrive until 11th.

 

It's why I believe what I was told about the edition being an evolution of 9th. Now, as others have pointed out, the changes could still be significant and just because the core rules aren't changed completely the various codex books could still be invalidated.

Id heard similar a while back from someone inside, they know the 9th ed codexes got out of hand but couldnt fix it just yet, i expected to see it in the later codexes (Ive not been paying much attention to rules recently though) but an edition reset also makes sense.

[Captain Idaho]

36 minutes ago, Progenitor said:

I know a lot of people wouldn't be for it, but perhaps a more AoS style datasheet where all the rolls are baked into the unit itself. Means you don't have to worry about wargear so much, things would mostly be cosmetic. Devastators having a 3+/3+/3/-2 for instance would give them a different role from bolters 3+/3+/1/-1. Bake abilities into the datasheet but I guess they don't want the games to be too similar. 

 

Please GW, he doesn't mean it! He's just playing!

[Special Officer Doofy]

9 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

Please GW, he doesn't mean it! He's just playing!

 

Says the guy that wants T6 bolter porn marines hahaha

[apologist]

A lot of the more 'general grumblings' about 9th could be ameliorated (if not solved) by relatively abstract top-level stuff that leaves the rules in the Codices virtually intact – or at least requiring a relatively short universal update document, as done during the change between previous different editions. 

 

As some examples; off the top of my head:

1. As rumoured, swapping army-specific strategems for a smaller group of universal ones.
2. A game-wide consolidation of weapon stats – rebalancing all the weapons against one another. 
3. Revised terrain/line-of-sight rules.

On point 2, @Evil Eye notes S5 fleshborers as an example of a weird outlier – and I couldn't agree more. Now that all the armies are (temporarily!) done, getting an overview of how a lasgun, for example, compares to a shoota or a shuriken catapult is possible. That resets the continual one-upmanship of Codex creep, and returns all small arms to having Damage 1 and AP of -1 at best (or whatever values are decided). Once those are drawn back into line as a starting point, there's more design space for special/heavy weapons/

 

In concert with points 1 and 3, things will be a lot less deadly. Consider the difference in killing power a squad of 'X infantry' would have without 'shoot twice' or reroll strategems; and with (for example) line of sight working model to model (rather than unit to unit) being totally obscured by friendly models (or whatever).

 

Anyway, the specifics above are just an illustration – the broader point is that 'top level' stuff can go a long way to resetting things without requiring huge updates to all Codices.

[Nephaston]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I wonder if GW will do something with the stats though? Perhaps give them wider ranges? I doubt it, but I'd like it if Marines were T6, Orks T5, Humans T3, Lasguns S4, Bolters S5 ...

Had a similar thought to that, but more along the lines of Strength/Toughness  for Infantry covering the 1-10 range, Monsters/Vehicles covering the 11-20 range, and Titanic stuff covering the 21-30 Range.

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Says the guy that wants T6 bolter porn marines hahaha

 

I'm fairly sure you didn't read the whole context of what I wrote, as I said about everything. In that scenario I gave some examples, but another would be say a Hive Tyrant with T10, lascannons S12... things like that.

 

[de Selby]

Recently I've been thinking it would be cool if bolters and chainswords were made damage 2.

 

Take away AP from all basic guns and have something like

lasguns S3

shuriken, living ammunition and shooters S4

bolters S4 D2 because of their awesome bespoke exploding mass-reactive ammo

pulse weapons S5

gauss weapons S6

 

It bugs me how marines run around with these crappy guns, when they're supposed to be these iconic weapons (see forum name). It would make marines feel more special without really unbalancing them against W1 infantry, it would make marine vs marine battle special and bloody but also easy to keep track of, and it would make those mostly-infantry marine lists that most new players start with a bit more take-all-comers. Probably have to put most tanks up to T8+ though.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Moving Strategums special rules into unit abilities is just renaming the problem rather than solving anything.

 

Units that have separate stats and weapons shouldn't need many or any special rules to differentiate them to other units.

 

I wonder if GW will do something with the stats though? Perhaps give them wider ranges? I doubt it, but I'd like it if Marines were T6, Orks T5, Humans T3, Lasguns S4, Bolters S5 etc...

 

Interesting what GW does but really I think it'll be quite the soft touch. 

Not really.

For example with my guard there are strats that only my Kasrkin can use (if I’m not using a specific army trait) it’s easy to over look that one strat in the sea of strats in the 3-4 pages of strats.

if I know my Kasrkin have a rule they can use, and it’s on their data sheet it’s easier to find and see.

 

it’s much easier to flip between datasheets to confirm or check for special rules that may apply to a unit than it is to flip between different sections and scan through a massive list  of special rules.

[Captain Idaho]

26 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Not really.

For example with my guard there are strats that only my Kasrkin can use (if I’m not using a specific army trait) it’s easy to over look that one strat in the sea of strats in the 3-4 pages of strats.

if I know my Kasrkin have a rule they can use, and it’s on their data sheet it’s easier to find and see.

 

it’s much easier to flip between datasheets to confirm or check for special rules that may apply to a unit than it is to flip between different sections and scan through a massive list  of special rules.

 

The game is bloated with additional rules and that wouldn't help the situation I'm afraid. It just changes the location of the special rule and stops calling it a "Strategum".

[brother_b]

I love Space Marines even though they're not my main army right now. I'd love bolters to get a buff, either a reset of all basic weapons to 0 AP as stated above, and then a buff to bolters such as extra STR or extra AP to set them apart.

 

I'm not sure it would work though. I feel like I'm finally getting some reps in 9th and it's going away. So goes the hobby.

 

As far as editions go, I believe they'll pull out all the stops seeing as this is the 10th edition. I expect cool models and hopefully some more innovative ways to play the game a la boarding actions and crusade.

 

Hope...

[Sword Brother Adelard]

6 hours ago, apologist said:

 

Speaking anecdotally, while the pandemic undoubtedly had a big effect on my 40k gaming, it was the cloying layers of additional rules and exceptions that make it feeling daunting to approach – and at worst, a chore to play – for our gaming group. I hope 10th will see things made less complicated. Complexity in 40k should come from actions on the table, not from an unnecessarily complex game engine.

 

The most fun I had playing 9th was in the brief window late 2020 between the first and second lockdowns where you could play games. 9th had just been released and we had a Crusade campaign where every army was using it's 8th codex and psychic awakening update and it was really fun.

 

By the time we could play again after lockdown 2/3, Crusade had become a bloated morass of traits and wargear thanks to the codexes, white dwarf and crusade books, all moving far faster than anyone could actually keep up with. Similarly, the codexes that had come out were just so difficult to keep up with I basically stopped playing altogether.

 

last week I played my first game of 40k since the BT supplement came out, it was a boarding action game, which is a breath of fresh air in comparison to regular 40k.

 

However, 40k is still way less fun than other games GW make and barely support like AI and AT. The "I go, you go" turn system is just boring after games with alternating activations.

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

The game is bloated with additional rules and that wouldn't help the situation I'm afraid. It just changes the location of the special rule and stops calling it a "Strategum".

 

It does improve things to some extent. For example, getting rid of the "Combat Revival" stratagem and baking it into the Apothecary rules as a once-per-turn ability simplifies the CP and stratagem management load. More relevantly, it prevents stacking multiple unrelated stratagems on the same unit to create killer combos. An elite combat unit hitting the enemy might get 2 or 3 stratagems stacked on it. This makes it hard to fairly cost stratagems when they can be applied to wildly divergent units. If you give a unit like Aggessors the ability to double-fire, it is easier to cost that if it is only applies to aggressors and you don't have to worry about it being applied to Devastators.

 

 

Preventing combos like rerolls to hit with exploding 6s will go a long way to managing the power creep.

 

[Captain Idaho]

Sure yeah it helps slightly. But still a mountain of rules to learn...

 

The Apothecary kinda doesn't bother me as it is a character so makes sense to be special, but every unit seems to have its own rules and it's... draining.

[Prot]

Personally I think we know one fact right now: GW is aware, and (hopefully) reacts to the big survey a while back that overwhelmingly asked for a condensed/less complicated rule set.

 

For those of you, like me, that have played for decades... when is the last time you tried to bring someone into this game from scratch? It's a brutal, multi night session layering in a variety of mechanical issues, and details that have to be carefully laid out in baby steps so you don't completely turn your prospective player off. 

 

And that hurts GW in the wallet.  It's time to get rid of all the junky bloat just to sell expansions, and cards, etc. We need to go back to when T4 mattered, bolters matter, etc. Because it's like the matrix. We hit the reset button, and within 3 months T4 and bolters suck, and we are chasing the next codex. 

 

We've been in what I call a 'rules expansion model' since the great reset of 8th. For about 10 minutes the game was as even as I've seen it for a very long time. (Remember your first Strat use? (Probably a save re-roll and how crazy that felt?)) Let's get back to this... even if for 10 minutes.

[jimbo1701]

One option for basic guns would be to have each one be completely distinct but have no way of improving the basic gun. At one point they were all very similar and they have diverged since then. 
 

for example, all s4 unless stated. 

bolters +1 to wound rapid fire 

gauss -1 ap rapid fire

lasguns  the baseline s3

votann ignore move penalties 

tau rifles longer ranged rapid fire 

eldar shuriken assault and 6s have -2 ap

ork shootas higher rate of fire assault

 

im sure these are all flawed but I think the current model of so much auto wounding basic weaponry and ap bonuses everywhere is getting too much. Ap above -1 and damage above 1 should be much rarer than it is to make armour / cover mean something again. 

[chapter master 454]

"Ahem, yes I would like to board this ride. I have my pass here, life-time. This is a recurring ride I do like"

Here, we, go!

 

Jokes about how in the distant far flung future, there is only griping about rules aside I shall add my thoughts. They occasionally have good ideas.

Stratagems are a good idea poorly executed. Fight me. Instead of being an interesting addition to armies they have become a focal point of ANY army building and have become more of a crutch to aid failing legs that don't hold up because they didn't use them right. However as it stands now, the system is just so riddled with failed design that it itself needs a soft reset.

If we were to address to 2 commonly pointed issues (wargear stats being blown out of proportion and stratagems) I would like to take stratagems in a route of adding layers to them. I know some are screaming but entertain me.

Why can only one tank use its smoke launchers? Why can only one unit of sternguard display expert shooting? makes little sense. I feel there needs to be a sort of element of stratagems that can actually last as well beyond just a phase or turn proper, you know...like a stratagem. I point to how stratagems now have keywords...as if these would mean something which they barely do...you BARELY have to pay attention to these keywords and not much. What is the difference between an Epic Deed and Battle Tactic and Wargear? Very little because all have restrictions that don't really relate to much bar maybe being related certain units or wargear...they are all still ONCE per turn deals no matter how many viable options you have for it.

If I were the God-Emperor of Warhammer, make each type distinct and have their quirks. Wargear Stratagems can be used multiple times in a turn by multiple units (but only once per unit per turn) with maybe some being once per battle on top of that, Battle Tactics get changed into being something that when activated are actually persisting effects until you activate another one or their end condition occurs (like say a "not one step back" one where until you activate another one OR have a unit fall-back from combat or move closer to their deployment zone) and Epic Deeds are locked to Character units only and are indeed a powerful effect.

Then after the great work on the stratagems I would begin the great crusade on the weapon stat-lines and bring them back into the imperial fold of normalcy and sanity, sending my forces across the vast swathes of datasheets to retrieve the Corner stone weapons that are the basis for all weapons, Primary Marksmen weapons...I suppose Pri-Marks could be a short hand for that.

 

Then I don't know...get betrayed or something because I ignore a weapon firing particularly too hard and devolve the entire game back into chaos...who knows...

[Doghouse]

5 hours ago, Matrindur said:

Valrak just uploaded a video talking about 10th edition, mainly about SM (apparently Firstborn/Primaris keywords will be gone so both can use the same vehicles) 

 

I would genuinely love that and be all over Primaris if I could use tracked transports. Firstborn using grav tanks might be an interesting twist as well.

 

7 hours ago, apologist said:

Speaking anecdotally, while the pandemic undoubtedly had a big effect on my 40k gaming, it was the cloying layers of additional rules and exceptions that make it feeling daunting to approach – and at worst, a chore to play – for our gaming group. I hope 10th will see things made less complicated. Complexity in 40k should come from actions on the table, not from an unnecessarily complex game engine.

 

I feel exactly the same, it's like I took my eye off the ball for a moment and now I am lost.

[Burni]

If I can use my HH rhinos and land raiders (which I like much more than the 40K designs) with my Primaris, that’s going to seriously effect my HH painting plans…

 

I’ll even consider buying a Storm Raven (unless a plastic HH Storm Eagle turns up, in which case all bets are off…)

[Orange Knight]

@Prot

 

I agree with what you said. Not only is it basically impossible to bring a new player into the game as things stand, but I'm finding it daunting to even start up new armies myself - and I've been invested in the hobby for 24 years.

[FarvegNugan]

The upgrades to weapons bring them back in line with 2nd edition. In second Ed if you saw a multi laser or assault cannon pointed at you, you took cover, you just did. Lots of people died when a single heavy bolter or multilayer fired. A multimelta could Paste a greater demon or a whole squad of terminators. I for one am happy to see people scared of vehicle weapons again. They should be scary 

 

 

   The more powerful weapons is fine. The biggest problems are loss of randomness to deep strike, and the silly small boards and charging 2d6. It should be 2d6 take highest, the. Bring back charging from assault vehicles. Stratagems are fine though you get too many. They existed in 2e but you only got a few, Same with mission objectives. Arks of Omen fixes some issues but hopefully feel strike, charging...oh and vehicle facings are fixed. 

[phandaal]

44 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

@Prot

 

I agree with what you said. Not only is it basically impossible to bring a new player into the game as things stand, but I'm finding it daunting to even start up new armies myself - and I've been invested in the hobby for 24 years.

 

One reason I played so much Deathwing over the last couple of years. When your brain is round and smooth like a fine river pebble, having a simple army goes a long way.

[Noserenda]

3 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

One reason I played so much Deathwing over the last couple of years. When your brain is round and smooth like a fine river pebble, having a simple army goes a long way.

Cant lie, its not a small part of why Anathema are my go to army for 40k these days, marines are a mess.

[Petitioner's City]

7 hours ago, Matrindur said:

Valrak just uploaded a video talking about 10th edition, mainly about SM (apparently Firstborn/Primaris keywords will be gone so both can use the same vehicles) but he again said he heard 10th will be a reset like 8th edition so will be interesting which one will be true. Thought personally I hope the reset rumour will be true since SM not being split between firstborn/primaris would be great.

 

Very exciting but I'd be even more radical. It would honestly be awesome if there was also a third edition style flattening of the complexity - do we really need tactical squads and intercessors with so many different varieties of bolters? Can't they just be the same, modelled a wee bit differently? Just tactical marines... 

 

The same with assault marines and assault intercessors, the same with scouts/eliminators/Phobos marines. Just let them be scouts/recon marines with different equipment options. 

 

I know it's too radical, and probably won't happen, but the sheer number of samey units in the marine range (which once would have been options for the same unit) is annoying/astounding, when they could be squished into more singular units with options.

[Blindhamster]

4 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

 

Very exciting but I'd be even more radical. It would honestly be awesome if there was also a third edition style flattening of the complexity - do we really need tactical squads and intercessors with so many different varieties of bolters? Can't they just be the same, modelled a wee bit differently? Just tactical marines... 

 

The same with assault marines and assault intercessors, the same with scouts/eliminators/Phobos marines. Just let them be scouts/recon marines with different equipment options. 

 

I know it's too radical, and probably won't happen, but the sheer number of samey units in the marine range (which once would have been options for the same unit) is annoying/astounding, when they could be squished into more singular units with options.

Cool, lets have intercessor squads with heavy weapon and special weapons and get rid of tactical squads, we can finally get rid of scouts and assault squads too. Just use the existing firstborn models as their primaris unit equivalents

 

To be clear, I'm being silly, but what you say is essentially exactly that, but from the reverse.

 

p.s. i for one would be sad to see bolt rifle variants go. Much like I was sad when sternguard lost their ammo options.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Blindhamster

[apologist]

There’s a middle ground between Killteam-like granularity and Apocalypse-style abstractness. At the moment, I reckon 40k leans too much to the former – but opinions will of course vary; as will which bits should be kept in, and which bits should be abstracted.

 

In older editions, you usually had the ‘Basic Game’ and ‘Advanced Rules’. It’d be nice to see that return – perhaps the much-derided ‘third way to play’ (Open Play) could be a way for GW to have their cake and eat it, with a little care and attention.
 

With Open Play as the core, Narrative would layer one set of advanced rules, and Matched another.