What should 11th look like?

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

They most certainly did not. Game was hugely imbalanced in prior editions, and some armies could go entire editions without a new codex. 

The game is hugely imbalanced now. It will always be imbalanced to some degree, by the very nature of 40K as a multi-faction asymmetric game. I'd rather have long-term stability and knowledge that the book I pay for isn't going to be invalidated before it even comes out even if it comes at the cost of a fraction of an iota of "balance".

 

I'd agree that going editions without a new book isn't great (though most of the problems arose with the transition to 5th, the edition where the rot began to set in; 4th Chaos was a horrible book but 4th 40K with 3.5 Chaos works just fine, whereas 5th's excesses exacerbated problems with pre-5th books) but that's not an argument against keeping books and just spending the time to get them right the first time. Quite to the contrary, I'd argue if GW spent the time and effort to get the core rules and various Codices as close to perfect as possible, declared that the edition was "permanent" and then only released new content that supplemented the existing rules rather than replacing them, that'd be ideal. You'd have confidence that the rules you paid for weren't suddenly going to become obsolete and you'd be able to make long-term plans for an army (which could then be expanded upon in the event of a supplement dropping something new and cool).

 

Of course, GW won't do that because edition churn and FOMO are part of their sales model. If people have the time to actually look at the product and enjoy it, they might not immediately rush out to buy the Next Thing.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

The game is hugely imbalanced now.

Not vs how it was in prior editions. It's pure denial to think otherwise. 

 

Should GW be closer to getting it right the first time? Absolutely, they shouldn't lose that accountability. Did they actually do that for prior editions? Absolutely not. 

 

That's why they need to shift to online rules that can be modified as necessary instead of charging $60 for a codex. 

[Cenobite Terminator]

3 hours ago, SvenIronhand said:

You should have to list how many games of the current edition you've played in your profile.

I agree. It really makes a difference when you are familiar with how the current edition plays.

[phandaal]

4 minutes ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

I agree. It really makes a difference when you are familiar with how the current edition plays.

 

Just like it makes a difference that you are Black Blow Fly/Steve Turner evading his multiple bans to the website with yet another sock puppet account. Maybe go creep on youtube comments instead of stirring up nastiness here.

 

Aw, heck. Who am I kidding. The moderators and administrators know who you are too, and they've decided to keep you around. Why even bother at this point? Clearly the rules are all made up and the points don't matter.

 

Still planning to sue everyone for reasons?

[Scribe]

57 minutes ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

I agree. It really makes a difference when you are familiar with how the current edition plays.

 

Is that why people accurately identified the broken (too strong and too weak) factions almost immediately before a game had been played? Is that why the game is released busted, because GW staff are not even 'familiar' with the rules they write?

[DemonGSides]

52 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Why even bother at this point?

 

I get y'all hate this guy but the constant talking about him is literally just feeding the troll.

Easier to just ignore and move on, no?

Edited July 17 by DemonGSides

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Not vs how it was in prior editions. It's pure denial to think otherwise. 

 

Should GW be closer to getting it right the first time? Absolutely, they shouldn't lose that accountability. Did they actually do that for prior editions? Absolutely not. 

 

That's why they need to shift to online rules that can be modified as necessary instead of charging $60 for a codex. 

You can already access the rules through the app without needing to buy a codex tho…

[Scribe]

21 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Easier to just ignore and move on, no?

 

If rules are more 'guidelines' then whats the point? Let us roll free.

 

Considering the site has been heavily moderated my whole time here, I dont think its beyond the pale to ask why a pass is given.

[DemonGSides]

12 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

If rules are more 'guidelines' then whats the point? Let us roll free.

 

Considering the site has been heavily moderated my whole time here, I dont think its beyond the pale to ask why a pass is given.

 

Trust me, questioning moderation is a quick way to get deleted. Just easier to ignore and move on; as in, Ignore Button the poster, that way you don't have to worry about their alts.

Meanwhile, everyone that has that person on Ignore now has to see their posts because so many people draw attention to them constantly.  It's just a lose lose.  Ignore, Report, move on.  This has been reiterated to me (And the entire board, with Tyler's posting about the BBF situation last time this came up) by the administration plenty of times.

Edited July 17 by DemonGSides

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Trust me, questioning moderation is a quick way to get deleted.

 

I've had many posts deleted. I'll get by. :D

 

That said you are right in the end, but its all a laugh anyway.

[DuskRaider]

1 hour ago, Cenobite Terminator said:

I agree. It really makes a difference when you are familiar with how the current edition plays.

No. 

[crimsondave]

11 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Trust me, questioning moderation is a quick way to get deleted. Just easier to ignore and move on; as in, Ignore Button the poster, that way you don't have to worry about their alts.

Meanwhile, everyone that has that person on Ignore now has to see their posts because so many people draw attention to them constantly.  It's just a lose lose.  Ignore, Report, move on.  This has been reiterated to me (And the entire board, with Tyler's posting about the BBF situation last time this came up) by the administration plenty of times.

 

You're absolutely right.  I just find this humorous.

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

That's why they need to shift to online rules that can be modified as necessary instead of charging $60 for a codex. 

And I repeat: Wargames are an analogue medium. One of the big bonuses is they don't require digital elements. As someone who reluctantly has a smartphone out of necessity and cannot rely on it as a rules repository, I vastly prefer physical books. Moving to a doubtless glitchy app acting as a form of DRM for rules rather than treeware would completely kill any interest I might have in GW's rules output (what little remains).

[phandaal]

52 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I get y'all hate this guy but the constant talking about him is literally just feeding the troll.

Easier to just ignore and move on, no?

 

Hate is a strong term. It's not that serious. Believe me, he has been more than nasty enough to many people on this site - up to and including public libel on other websites based on disagreements here - to deserve being given a hard time.

 

I too have been advised to just report and move on, but if the rules aren't enforced, then the rules don't actually exist. So, I'll have a little bit of fun. Plus, have you noticed that publicly identifying him is actually a reliable way to get him to stop participating for like 24 hrs? Try it and you'll be shocked by this one weird trick. 

[SvenIronhand]

Him agreeing with my point is irrelevant.

[Scribe]

21 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Him agreeing with my point is irrelevant.

 

Your point being that somehow after for some of us decades in the 40K/30K space, when people could point out immediately how broken the rules were once the Index lists were released, like '0 day exploits' type broken, and how nonsensical it was to remove points and have Power Levels instead, your point is that somehow...it matters how many games one has played in a given edition?

[DuskRaider]

I’ve played exactly 0 and I can safely say I hate this bland Soylent Green version of my beloved game. 

[phandaal]

8 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Your point being that somehow after for some of us decades in the 40K/30K space, when people could point out immediately how broken the rules were once the Index lists were released, like '0 day exploits' type broken, and how nonsensical it was to remove points and have Power Levels instead, your point is that somehow...it matters how many games one has played in a given edition?

 

Yeah, when I saw the shameful incomplete nonsense that was the Votann index, it was obvious that the rules were bad (because they were barely even a first draft). This stuff is not rocket surgery.

 

How far off are we from 11th edition now? 18 months? Wonder if they will be able to stop updating 10th edition for long enough to figure out what did and did not work before the rules for next edition get locked in.

 

Also, this is a thread for saying what people want 11th to look like, yeah? So people can comment on that however they please. If someone plays a game of 10th edition 40k and loves it, it is perfectly fine to say they want 11th to look like 10th. On the flip side, it is also perfectly fine to say that nothing in 10th makes someone want to play it, and so they would like to see something different for the next edition.

Edited July 17 by phandaal

[LostTemplar]

I would like, for 11th edition:

 

1. Damage resolution at end of phase. None of this alternating units should matter.

2. Charges being 2d6 pick highest, but limited by Mov of unit. Same goes for advance, limit the result to the unit's mov.

3. Shooting phase being like close combat phase but with attacker's damage being solved first. So both sides shoot. Maybe with a -1 or -2 mod for the defender to represent reactive firing.

4. Simplify weapons or go the 9th ed way with granularity.

5. Less datasheets and unit abilities. 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, LostTemplar said:

I would like, for 11th edition:

 

1. Damage resolution at end of phase. None of this alternating units should matter.

2. Charges being 2d6 pick highest, but limited by Mov of unit. Same goes for advance, limit the result to the unit's mov.

3. Shooting phase being like close combat phase but with attacker's damage being solved first. So both sides shoot. Maybe with a -1 or -2 mod for the defender to represent reactive firing.

4. Simplify weapons or go the 9th ed way with granularity.

5. Less datasheets and unit abilities. 

I feel like for 1 and 3, Apocalypse handled this fantastically. At the end of the battle round you remove casualties. Solves tons of issues, even if GW introduced another ultra lethal unit due to their incompetence. 

 

As for 2, I think 1/2 the movement value, rounding up, +D6 is a good compromise for charges. 

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

And I repeat: Wargames are an analogue medium. One of the big bonuses is they don't require digital elements. As someone who reluctantly has a smartphone out of necessity and cannot rely on it as a rules repository, I vastly prefer physical books. Moving to a doubtless glitchy app acting as a form of DRM for rules rather than treeware would completely kill any interest I might have in GW's rules output (what little remains).

......then print out whatever relevant rules you need for the game? Your preference for physical books doesn't trump the ease of updating digital rules. 

[Cenobite Terminator]

The dataslates are very helpful. I like having access to the rules digitally for reasons given but a hard copy is nice too.

[Evil Eye]

10 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

......then print out whatever relevant rules you need for the game? Your preference for physical books doesn't trump the ease of updating digital rules. 

Which would be fine if GW just made the rules available via regular PDF releases, but this is GW. We've seen the disasters that are the 40K and AOS apps- they'll lock the rules behind glitchy, poorly-designed shovelware such that you CAN'T just print them. And they'll expect you to pay a subscription fee for the privilege of using this thinly-veiled DRM.

 

Books don't need internet connection or batteries. They can't be arbitrarily altered or removed outright if the company decides they don't want you having access to them anymore. They don't crash or fail to load. Sure they can't be patched as easily as an online document, but if GW weren't putting out such unbelievably garbage rules that they needed to patch them every five seconds this wouldn't be an issue.

 

And lastly, if a company the size of GAMES [expletive] WORKSHOP is putting out rules that aren't good enough to justify being sold as books, those rules are not worth playing, regardless of format. This isn't some garage enterprise whose only method of distributing rules at all is via online PDFs, this is the biggest wargames company on the planet. There is no excuse for them to be putting out unsellable rules.

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

And lastly, if a company the size of GAMES [expletive] WORKSHOP is putting out rules that aren't good enough to justify being sold as books, those rules are not worth playing, regardless of format. This isn't some garage enterprise whose only method of distributing rules at all is via online PDFs, this is the biggest wargames company on the planet. There is no excuse for them to be putting out unsellable rules.

 

This is a good point. I can pick up a physical copy of The Doomed, Lion Rampant, Gaslands etc and be confident that I can take it to games and have a good time with a functional set of rules. Not so much with 40k rulebooks. Hell, people nowadays say they hope their army doesn't even get a codex if the index is fun.

 

Guess the difference is, those smaller companies live and die based on whether people want to buy and use their rules. Games Workshop does not - they are a miniatures company. So their incentive is much lower to come out with rules that are correct the first time around, and their high profit margins from minis mean they can drag a lot of dead weight around for a while before it becomes a problem.

 

Partly why this speculation about 11th is mostly just for kicks. The urgency to change things is mostly one-sided.

[HeadlessCross]

4 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

Which would be fine if GW just made the rules available via regular PDF releases, but this is GW. We've seen the disasters that are the 40K and AOS apps- they'll lock the rules behind glitchy, poorly-designed shovelware such that you CAN'T just print them. And they'll expect you to pay a subscription fee for the privilege of using this thinly-veiled DRM.

 

Books don't need internet connection or batteries. They can't be arbitrarily altered or removed outright if the company decides they don't want you having access to them anymore. They don't crash or fail to load. Sure they can't be patched as easily as an online document, but if GW weren't putting out such unbelievably garbage rules that they needed to patch them every five seconds this wouldn't be an issue.

 

And lastly, if a company the size of GAMES [expletive] WORKSHOP is putting out rules that aren't good enough to justify being sold as books, those rules are not worth playing, regardless of format. This isn't some garage enterprise whose only method of distributing rules at all is via online PDFs, this is the biggest wargames company on the planet. There is no excuse for them to be putting out unsellable rules.

All rules need patching at some point though, even if minimal. Even if GW got it correct 98% of the time, the last 2% alone warrants the need for quick fixes. 

 

Also, in the modern age, complaints like batteries and needing internet connection is silly. I can't name the last hobby shop that didn't have wifi available, let alone a coffee shop right nearby. That's also why I said you can print whatever relevant rules you need instead of carrying the whole book. I was ALREADY doing that instead of bringing a whole codex. This isn't some gargantuan task you're making it out to be. 

 

That we know what GW will do doesn't negate what GW SHOULD do.