A few changes I’d like to see in 10th

[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. What? 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.

[Halandaar]

1 hour 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”

 

I won't dispute that "it's always been this way" is not a particularly good defense of anything, but changing something that works perfectly fine for 99.999% of players on the whim of literally the only person I've ever seen complain about it is arguably even worse logic. 

 

18 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

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 sympathise with this viewpoint a lot, I'd rather armies felt cool and thematic and I'm inclined even to make "in-character" decisions in battles that aren't necessarily the best tactical choices and as such I'm actually okay with factions not being always perfectly balanced against each other. But this opinion doesn't seem to be the one GW is trying to chase (presumably because people who hold this opinion won't be in a rush to buy new kits when the meta changes)

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

 

I won't dispute that "it's always been this way" is not a particularly good defense of anything, but changing something that works perfectly fine for 99.999% of players on the whim of literally the only person I've ever seen complain about it is arguably even worse logic. 

 

 

I sympathise with this viewpoint a lot, I'd rather armies felt cool and thematic and I'm inclined even to make "in-character" decisions in battles that aren't necessarily the best tactical choices and as such I'm actually okay with factions not being always perfectly balanced against each other. But this opinion doesn't seem to be the one GW is trying to chase (presumably because people who hold this opinion won't be in a rush to buy new kits when the meta changes)

 

 

 

I’m not saying to change it for 1 person, but maybe other people see my preference or agree or always agreed just never thought of it enough of an issue when compared to others.

 

for me the current method breaks my in game flow every time I have to deal with D3  anything, might just be a couple of seconds but when things in the game are flowing smoothly hitting this point is just like someone slamming on the brakes and pulling the e-brake for me while i remember how to figure it out.

 

and imho the more streamlined and more tournament focused the game/hobby has gotten has made it much less interesting to me.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Arikel]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 

 

and imho the more streamlined and more tournament focused the game/hobby has gotten has made it much less interesting to me.

I can understand that. Personally I like variety myself, but I think maybe some of it should be reserved for narrative play, advanced rules and customization you wouldn’t be able to properly balance for the tourney scene.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 minutes ago, Arikel said:

I can understand that. Personally I like variety myself, but I think maybe some of it should be reserved for narrative play, advanced rules and customization you wouldn’t be able to properly balance for the tourney scene.

I guess but at the same time I feel having 2 separate rule sets will make it more difficult to find pick up games.

but it might not even matter because technically they already have that and everyone I talk to only plays with the current  tournament rules any way 

[Arikel]

18 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I guess but at the same time I feel having 2 separate rule sets will make it more difficult to find pick up games.

but it might not even matter because technically they already have that and everyone I talk to only plays with the current  tournament rules any way 

They pretty much already do, with crusade. I’m not and will likely never be a pick up gamer, play just with friends. I guess the idea I am trying to promote is that they should make a functional set of rules that work well with a slightly narrowed group of factions and then add on to that. 
 

D&D did this in 3rd edition, essentially reworking the jumbled mess of previous rules into one coherent rules system that was then super easy to expand on for additional content, which wasn’t necessarily perfectly balanced, and none if which was required to actually play.
 

GW on the other hand has never fixed the base part of the game to actually work well stand alone to begin with, let alone the fact that they keep piling on additional rules, faqs and even stuff in white dwarf which, if not required, is so heavily encouraged to be used that it’s almost impossible to keep up with, while leaving some factions languishing for years(SoB and Dark Eldar in particular went for long periods with no new models or rules). I love the setting, the models, and much of the themes and lore but it’s like getting a sweet looking race car and finding out it’s powered by a 4 cylinder engine that barely gets it up to the legal speed limit.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Arikel said:

They pretty much already do, with crusade. I’m not and will likely never be a pick up gamer, play just with friends. I guess the idea I am trying to promote is that they should make a functional set of rules that work well with a slightly narrowed group of factions and then add on to that. 
 

D&D did this in 3rd edition, essentially reworking the jumbled mess of previous rules into one coherent rules system that was then super easy to expand on for additional content, which wasn’t necessarily perfectly balanced, and none if which was required to actually play.
 

GW on the other hand has never fixed the base part of the game to actually work well stand alone to begin with, let alone the fact that they keep piling on additional rules, faqs and even stuff in white dwarf which, if not required, is so heavily encouraged to be used that it’s almost impossible to keep up with, while leaving some factions languishing for years(SoB and Dark Eldar in particular went for long periods with no new models or rules). I love the setting, the models, and much of the themes and lore but it’s like getting a sweet looking race car and finding out it’s powered by a 4 cylinder engine that barely gets it up to the legal speed limit.

They’ll never create a ruleset with trimmed down factions for 40k it makes no sense for them, why would they exclude entire factions from events? Maybe it sells more kits as some people transition to tournament supported factions, but it will probably result in a net loss of sales as angry players leave the game. 30k already fills that niche anyway

 

just curious how did you build your group? People you already knew who also got into the game or people you met doing pick up games with years ago?

the pick up game is likely still the bread and butter of how most players have games.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Arikel]

My buddy and I picked up a starter set around 5th (black reach i think, orks and sm) and convinced a few others in our d&d group to also get armies, so I was lucky that way. 
 

not saying to exclude entire factions, but narrow the sub factions down for each group for tourneys. So you know, 2-4 types of space marines instead of the what, 10-12 they have now and such

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Arikel said:

My buddy and I picked up a starter set around 5th (black reach i think, orks and sm) and convinced a few others in our d&d group to also get armies, so I was lucky that way. 
 

not saying to exclude entire factions, but narrow the sub factions down for each group for tourneys. So you know, 2-4 types of space marines instead of the what, 10-12 they have now and such

Yeah that’s lucky, none of my friends have been wargamers.

the closest thing I’ve come to a group is a dude I’ve played 2 whole games with, and I’m moving half way across the country in a few months and will have to start all over.

 

i feel it’s a fairly safe bet to say that most people don’t have dedicated 40k groups.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I'll be that guy.

 

You can take custom traits from my cold dead hands. I don't care if some of the traits are bad, and I care even less about the broken combos. It means I can accurately represent my faction on the tabletop. I never want to see rules tied to named characters again like in 5th edition, that was just a terrible and lazy way to do it.

Is it harder to balance, well yes. But more customisation options are always better than less. Look at the models...how many of us lament the "only what's in the box" style? i cannot give my Chapter Master a Neo-volkite pistol from the Bladeguard box...don't take away my custom traits too.

 

[Scribe]

22 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

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.

All this.

 

Keep Traits.

 

Done. 

[Arikel]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I never want to see rules tied to named characters again like in 5th edition, that was just a terrible and lazy way to do it.
 

But more customisation options are always better than less.

 

I do agree with both of these things. I loathe named characters and their special rules unlocked only by them with a passion, and didn’t wish to use any of them, with the odd exception (Tellion is a badass).

 

The issue for the next one is the game itself needs a good hard revision. Make the game clear, concise and fun to play, than start layering complexity on it in a fun way.
 

I’ve always thought that locking equipment/special rules to specific chapters/characters is less adding options than creating artificial division. A good array of options to begin with should allow you to diversify and personalize your chapter just fine.