A few changes I’d like to see in 10th

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

#1 the way D3 works currently is really stupid to me.

1-1

2-2

3-3

4-1

5-2

6-3
current method is super counter intuitive and i can never remember it while playing.

this just makes more sense to me.

 

objectives and VP

no more weird numbers of VP for having primaries. 1 primary=1VP holding more primaries gives 1 bonus VP. No actions.
 

people talk about how 8th and 9th were supposed to be streamlined, this seems like a much more streamlined way to do things as it cuts down on the active cognitive activity you have to use while figuring out the score.

 

i could also do without secondaries but I doubt that will happen nor would I likely get much support for it.

[Beef]

I want a return to Initiative.  having come back to the hobby after last playing in 5th edition i cant fathom how a lowly guard unit strikes first against my Space wolves,  Even if the wolves were drunk this would not happen

[Rogue]

You can buy d3 dice, if that makes life easier.

 

It's a standard six-sided cube, but with the numbers 1, 2 and 3 printed on it twice each. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, Rogue said:

You can buy d3 dice, if that makes life easier.

 

It's a standard six-sided cube, but with the numbers 1, 2 and 3 printed on it twice each. 

That would be nicer, but spending more money on such an expensive hobby when there’s a free more intuitive fox available is a hard pill to swallow

[Galron]

I would like to see all the universal strats removed and regular strats reduced in number to effectively one page. I would love to see rerolls removed altogether. I play other games where there are no rerolls and they are much less complicated and faster. At a minimum, things like psychic test rerolls need to be removed. Perils are meaningless when you can just reroll them.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Galron

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

44 minutes ago, Galron said:

I would like to see all the universal strats removed and regular strats reduced in number to effectively one page. I would love to see rerolls removed altogether. I play other games where there are no rerolls and they are much less complicated and faster. At a minimum, things like psychic test rerolls need to be removed. Perils are meaningless when you can just reroll them.

I think the occasional reroll as part of a special buffing ability is fine, but I agree rerolls are too prevalent.

 

1 BA WLT allows your WL to reroll 1 hit, 1sv, and 1wound roll per turn. 3 potential rerolls for one character, who most likely allows friendly models to reroll 1s.

 

what really chuffs me with rerolls is when you manage to roll a 5 or 6 to wound, and your opponent fails their 2+Sv and rerolls, or when a monster of a model fails their 2+ hit on a weapon that wounds what it’s attacking on a 2+ and also has like AP-3 or 4 and 2 or 3 damage.

[Evil Eye]

A return to a minimum strength being needed to wound tougher units would certainly help, I still find the idea of a Land Raider or a Knight being vulnerable to lasguns and shootas absurd. As an aside to that, adding some more limits to the amount of "super units" that can be taken would help; either 0-1 restrictions, making them more expensive, making them Apocalypse only or adding a "can only be taken in games of 2500 points or more" caveat to them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

A return to a minimum strength being needed to wound tougher units would certainly help, I still find the idea of a Land Raider or a Knight being vulnerable to lasguns and shootas absurd. As an aside to that, adding some more limits to the amount of "super units" that can be taken would help; either 0-1 restrictions, making them more expensive, making them Apocalypse only or adding a "can only be taken in games of 2500 points or more" caveat to them.

I 100% agree but I know that’s probably a lost cause at this point.

[Subtleknife]

That D3 suggestion is horrible, I don't know why, but reading it gave me the feeling of when someone runs their nails down a chalk board. 

[Orange Knight]

I would like to see all stratagems removed from the game and the rules/abilities they unlock to be returned to the various units as special rules.

 

I would like a simplification of missions and scoring. I don't want to have to use a notepad to keep track anymore. Some great missions were printed by GW in 8th edition before they adopted the ITC/Nova inspired design.

 

I would like to see a greater range of stats on unit profiles. Toughness 1 (brimstone horrors) to toughness 10 or more (Knight Castellan) as an example. Perhaps they could introduce a cut off for wounding. Anything with a toughness value more than double the weapon strength can't be wounded by that weapons - T7 would be beyond a Las gun. T9 beyond a bolter.

 

I would like to see massive streamlining of all the books. Consolidate datasheets, trim redundancy, etc. The game needs to be elegant and clean if it is to be balanced going forward.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

49 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

That D3 suggestion is horrible, I don't know why, but reading it gave me the feeling of when someone runs their nails down a chalk board. 

Definitely better than rolling a 2 and having the result be 1, or rolling 3 and have the result be 2

[Arikel]

1 hour ago, Subtleknife said:

That D3 suggestion is horrible, I don't know why, but reading it gave me the feeling of when someone runs their nails down a chalk board. 

I was having trouble putting it into words, but yes. This is exactly it.

[Cpt_Reaper]

My wishes for 10th

• Remove some strats i.e. the ones that are wargear related. Smoke Launchers for example. Make them rules on the datasheet again.
• Add in a Casualty Step into the Morale Phase.
• Keep custom traits in codexes. Those without them get them if thematically appropriate.
• Zero CP tax for taking a unit. You pay points or power level. That's it.
• A return of Battalion/Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider/Superheavy detachments rather than the single Arks of Omen detachment. Make taking anything other than a Battalion worth it with something nice for the unit type in it. e.g. Grant ObSec lite to the unit which is overruled by ObSec from Troops.
• Weapons less than half of a target's toughness cannot harm target. This also applies to Mortal Wounds. Psychic Power Mortals treat the psychic test as the strength of the power.
• Greater Toughness variety. 10 is no longer the cap, so go wild! Grot at T2, Guard at T3, Marine at T4, Obliterator at T5, Land Speeder at T6, Rhino at T7, Leman Russ at T8, Baneblade at T9, Reaver at T10 etc.
• Have Imperial Armour be split into books for each race again. Clearly the "team" that wrote the Compendium failed because they didn't understand the base codex at the start of 8th. Titans were and still are about 500-100 points too expensive.

[Cactus]

9 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Definitely better than rolling a 2 and having the result be 1, or rolling 3 and have the result be 2

But under the proposed system you could roll a 4 and it would only be 1. How is that better?

 

In 30 years of gaming I have never heard the complaint that rolling a d6 and dividing by 2 was unintuitive, confusing, or too complicated. I look at it like this:

Rolled low (1 or 2) = 1

Rolled middling (3 or 4) = 2

Rolled high (5 or 6) =3

[Xenith]

18 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

#1 the way D3 works currently is really stupid to me.

1-1

2-2

3-3

4-1

5-2

6-3
current method is super counter intuitive and i can never remember it while playing.

this just makes more sense to me.

 

I get that we all learn and think in different ways, but remembering that the roll is half the number on the dice, that's one of the easier rules to remember in game?

 

You could always say that if you're rolling a D3, then a 1/2/3 is the corresponding number, then reroll results of a 4-6. 

[Halandaar]

19 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

#1 the way D3 works currently is really stupid to me.

1-1

2-2

3-3

4-1

5-2

6-3
current method is super counter intuitive and i can never remember it while playing.

this just makes more sense to me.

 

The current method is about is simple as it gets without just using D3s; low roll = low result, middle roll = middle result, high roll= high result. But you want to replace it with a system where two of the three highest possible rolls result in the two lowest possible outcomes? And that's supposed to be more intuitive?! Baffling.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Custom traits combinations is one of the most difficult things to balance in 9E. There are very few people that do more than pick what happens to be the best or really good. If they keep custom traits, both traits should be packaged together, say a couple of extras on top of the named Craftworlds for example.

[Kallas]

21 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

objectives and VP

no more weird numbers of VP for having primaries. 1 primary=1VP holding more primaries gives 1 bonus VP. No actions.

Main argument I have against this is that there are different ways to score points and not all are equivalently difficult.

Some of this comes from Secondaries which you don't like, and that's fine, but in principle having every single VP-scoring activity score 1VP is much harder to balance than having easier things score 2VP and harder things score 4VP.

 

Granularity is the goal with that and, generally speaking, I think the current GT pack VP system is one of the better ones. There's certainly room to trim the fat and make things less complex, but at the same time there is value in having more room to play with things. It's why the design decision to go back to all upgrades being multiples of 5pts is one of the more stupid ones - granularity helps definition (eg, the Toughness scale being locked at T8 was bad because too much was squashed against the ceiling).

 

1 hour ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Custom traits combinations is one of the most difficult things to balance in 9E. There are very few people that do more than pick what happens to be the best or really good. If they keep custom traits, both traits should be packaged together, say a couple of extras on top of the named Craftworlds for example.

I personally feel that the Chaos Space Marine traits are the best way. All of the Legion traits are pretty well done and players can just use whichever one they want for their custom Legion/Renegades. No mix-and-match, which I get is fun, which is hard to balance/leads to certain combinations becoming much more common since they're just better (eg, Born Heroes/Whirlwind of Rage Space Wolves).

 

Edit: Also the Guard system is good too. Not quite fully customisable, but also more flexible than a pick one system.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Kallas
Guard.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

The current method is about is simple as it gets without just using D3s; low roll = low result, middle roll = middle result, high roll= high result. But you want to replace it with a system where two of the three highest possible rolls result in the two lowest possible outcomes? And that's supposed to be more intuitive?! Baffling.

Yes 1=1 2=2 3=3 is much easier, you then just start over counting.

 

i have no clue anyone thinks 2=1 3=2 and 5=3 is a better system.

2 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Custom traits combinations is one of the most difficult things to balance in 9E. There are very few people that do more than pick what happens to be the best or really good. If they keep custom traits, both traits should be packaged together, say a couple of extras on top of the named Craftworlds for example.

Then it’s not custom traits, just more preset traits.

[Kallas]

15 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

i have no clue anyone thinks 2=1 3=2 and 5=3 is a better system.

Because it's "dice roll divided by 2 (round up)". It's very simple, and is kind of the standard in pretty much every game that uses a d6 for a d3.

 

I've never seen 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=3 used in any system ever. If there is a system that uses it, I would be interested to know, because I'm sure it would have some fascinating other rules.

[Arikel]

In response to the custom traits/factions in 10th I think  that narrative play and tourney play should be further separated. Narrow down the factions for tourney play so it can be balanced and open it up as advanced/narrative rules for casual and campaign play.

 

As an example, SM in tourney play would choose a formation with a fixed set of special rules that can’t be further modified, say tactical, terminator, biker, and assault formations. Each formation would give different bonuses and obsec to it’s units based on it’s theme. Potentially 2 additional specific formations for Space Wolves and Black Templars(Pack and crusade?)This would cut out some of the nonsense of trying to balance special rules for 10 different chapters with custom traits, and would be applicable to tourney play only.

 
Fairly certain this could be applied to most other armies as well, essentially you would have a few presets available for tourney play for everyone.

 

Advanced Rules for specific and custom chapter/army traits would be provided for narrative and campaign play, and would not necessarily be as concerned with balance as the standard rules, but allowing more flavour and customization for play with friends.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Because it's "dice roll divided by 2 (round up)". It's very simple, and is kind of the standard in pretty much every game that uses a d6 for a d3.

 

I've never seen 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=3 used in any system ever. If there is a system that uses it, I would be interested to know, because I'm sure it would have some fascinating other rules.

Just because ‘everyone’ does it this way doesn’t make it better.

that reasoning is close to one of the most dangerous phrases from my time in the navy “this is how we’ve always done it”

that doesn’t mean the way it’s always been done is the best way.

 

my way is just 1,2,3 and then restart.

 

like I said maybe it’s just me, but seeing a 1-3 on a die should be a result of a 1-3.

[WrathOfTheLion]

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Then it’s not custom traits, just more preset traits.

Correct. Consider if you pick two though and there are ten options. That becomes 45 different combinations that further interact with the army rules and all. As options are added, it further compounds.

[Kallas]

12 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Just because ‘everyone’ does it this way doesn’t make it better.

that reasoning is close to one of the most dangerous phrases from my time in the navy “this is how we’ve always done it”

This isn't mechanical engineering that deals with high impact machinery or life-or-death tools. It's about a freaking dice roll. 

d6/2 is very simple and easy to manage. It's the standard because it's simple; yours isn't complex, but it's kind of a pointless change that doesn't make it simpler or better either, just different.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Correct. Consider if you pick two though and there are ten options. That becomes 45 different combinations that further interact with the army rules and all. As options are added, it further compounds.

That’s fine, I’m not concerned with this being a competitive tournament game.

 

in fact imho nothing about this game lends itself to an organized competitive play style, and never has.

 

while winning is nice, I enjoy creating lore for my army and then building my army to reflect that as much as possible.

if that turns out to be super strong that’s just icing on the cake. If it turns out not to be that strong oh well I like the models I have, and just an extra challenge, maybe next edition they’ll be stronger.

 

i have absolutely 0 care about perfect or even good balance. Why? Because the game has never had that in any of the years and editions I’ve been involved in the hobby.

fewer unique/special rules in fewer factions is how you get a well balanced game.

in 1998 the codex compliant chapters were all much more well balanced than they are today.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven