How We Roll (Codex Design Interview)

[Dark Shepherd]

Found this pretty interesting. Some highlights

 

Codex writing team twice as big as it was at the start of 10th (seems like a change up in personnel too). They also get longer too and are trying hard to avoid codex creep. Repeated mention of developing tools to yardstick units/new units.

 

Most interesting bit was them saying the attack sequence is too long. My own takeaway is random shots will go or be massively scaled back (please let Orks keep them) and FNPs MIGHT be also scaled back

Edited December 20 by Dark Shepherd

[Gaz Taylor]

6 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Most interesting bit was them saying the attack sequence is too late. My own takeaway is random shots will go or be massively scaled back (please let Orks keep them) and FNPs MIGHT be also scaled back

I've not see the show but I've heard this being mentioned from different people. My thoughts will be how they think the Amazon deal will work with bringing new people into playing the game. Do they make it more easily accessible for new players? Do they enhance Combat Patrol and have that as the main game and a competitive version for people who like to play like that? I have no idea but this sort of thing applies the context around the interview, while we the view just see them as working on the game and the next edition being roughly what we have now.

 

 

[Dark Shepherd]

3 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I've not see the show but I've heard this being mentioned from different people. My thoughts will be how they think the Amazon deal will work with bringing new people into playing the game. Do they make it more easily accessible for new players? Do they enhance Combat Patrol and have that as the main game and a competitive version for people who like to play like that? I have no idea but this sort of thing applies the context around the interview, while we the view just see them as working on the game and the next edition being roughly what we have now.

 

 

I think its a combination of game speed and interactivity. Both of which could fall under new player friendly.

 

 

[AutumnEffect]

Could we get a link to this?

I'm intrigued but have no idea what show or podcast this is and searches just bring up some TV show about bowling...

[darkhorse0607]

8 minutes ago, AutumnEffect said:

Could we get a link to this?

I'm intrigued but have no idea what show or podcast this is and searches just bring up some TV show about bowling...

 

It's a Warhammer+ show I believe

[jaxom]

5 hours ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Most interesting bit was them saying the attack sequence is too late

What does it mean, “too late”?

[Dark Shepherd]

35 minutes ago, jaxom said:

My phone is acting weird; it means I stupidly typed too late instead of too long

Edited December 20 by Dark Shepherd

[jaxom]

Yeah, it would help if they finally based the attack rules on Fast Rolling in principle instead of just in practice.

[Rhavien]

They think the attack sequence is to long? Why do I feel, that GW will swing to hard in the other direction making it just two rolls... One attack from the acting player and one defensive roll from the reacting one. Now take away models...

Edited Monday at 09:22 AM by Rhavien

[Dark Shepherd]

35 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

They think the attack sequence is to long? Why do I feel, that GW will swing to hard in the other direction making it just two rolls... One attack from the acting player and one defensive roll from the reacting one. Now take away models...

I dont think theyll go down to skirmish rules but remove random rolls for non auto hit weapons at least

 

Maybe add plus one to save v psychic attacks instead of FNP v psychic attacks

 

Potentially as is you have an attack sequence of

 

Roll for shots

Roll to hit

Reroll some hits

Roll to wound

Reroll to wound

Save

FNP

 

Could also potentially add in any or all of of vehicles/daemons exploding, disembarking infantry dying. Theres rolls for damage too.

 

Man they need to bin Oath of Moment for 11th :)

Edited Monday at 09:59 AM by Dark Shepherd

[Rhavien]

Potentially every roll can be also rerolled, but I think this mechanic is  tied to D6 limitations in granularity. 

I already see the "dumbed down" folk raging if you take away rolling for shots, which in the past involved complex mechanics. And maybe I'll grab me a pitchfork myself if they take this too far. Space Marines alone have a plethora of units who already step on their own toes role wise (aggressors, terminators, etc). You need some rules to represent  granularity. Otherwise every third unit will feel exactly the same. 

[Evil Eye]

God, if they simplify the core rules any further the game is gonna just completely devolve into Calvinball.

[Chapter Master Valrak]

I watched it hoping they would mention on the lore part of the codex which I feel has really gone down the pan, sadly nothing.

[Xenith]

5 hours ago, Dark Shepherd said:

 

 

Potentially as is you have an attack sequence of

 

-> pick target unit

-> see if opponent wants to use a strat

Roll for shots

-> count number of models in target unit for BLAST

Roll to hit

-> Check for modifiers

Reroll some hits

-> pull out critical hits

-> add additional dice for bonus hits from sustained etc

Roll to wound
-> Check for modifiers

Reroll to wound

-> pull out critical wounds [Devastating]

-> Determine modifiers to save through strats and cover

Save

-> some rerolls to save

-> roll for damage

FNP

->apply mortal wounds

-> FNP against mortal wounds. 

 

I added in the other steps (->) 

[jaxom]

I know how I’d do it. Maybe I’ll type it up when I’m not on my phone.

[HeadlessCross]

10 hours ago, Rhavien said:

Potentially every roll can be also rerolled, but I think this mechanic is  tied to D6 limitations in granularity. 

 

I always said that doubling everything into D12 would be the best thing that can happen for the game, because you can really help remove tons of rerolls that way. 

[ZeroWolf]

38 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

I always said that doubling everything into D12 would be the best thing that can happen for the game, because you can really help remove tons of rerolls that way. 

I don't think GW will get rid of the D6 anytime soon. If I recall they like it because so many people know it already from children's board games (pretty sure this was their reasoning instead of adopting something more akin to a d20 or the dice the roleplaying games they carried used)

[MARK0SIAN]

The reason the attack sequence is too long is the same root cause of a lot of the problems GW has had with their games over several years. 
 

They take a simple system or principle then they add in too many exemptions or mechanics that mess with that simple system. As Xenith highlighted, this edition they added mechanics like sustained hits, critical hits & critical wounds which all mess with the basic system and result in more steps. This is one top of existing mechanics like rolling for the number of shots (and more prevalently in previous editions, rolling for the damage of shots).
 

From 8th onward, but in particular in 9th edition, they had the simple system that chargers fight first in combat. However they then threw in so many ‘fights first’ or ‘fights last’ abilities or stratagems that it got really silly and could be hard work to figure out exactly who was fighting at which point. 
 

They streamlined vehicle and infantry profiles to simplify things but that meant it was impossible to make certain weapons good against some targets without making them good against everything which resulted in melta spam. They then introduced the ‘Anti’ rule to try and prevent this.
 

Then there’s mortal wounds, supposedly so devastating that they couldn’t be saved, except they then introduced FNPs that work on mortal wounds and so on. 
 

They’re basically trying to have their cake and eat it. They want a really simple system that’s friendly to new players but they also want to have all the depth that a more complex system would allow so they add in all those exemptions and special effects. 
 

Unless they’re willing to make more drastic changes (some people already mentioned moving away from a D6 system for example) then I think we are just going to see the same pattern repeated every edition. 

[HeadlessCross]

Moving away from the D6 doesn't have to be drastic itself. Arguably "double the stat minus 1" is pretty easy conversion as a whole, and you can mess around with granularity a lot. 

 

Really the hard part would be making a new Wounding chart and converting damage, but I think a dedicated mind can do it without significant problem. 

[crimsondave]

I know I’m in the minority here but I feel GW’s obsession with shortening the game has been a driving factor in losing a lot of the details that are missing in 10th.  Just playing 1000 point games would shorten them plenty but wouldn’t sell as many models.

[Emperor Ming]

Attack sequence is too long?  hit wound saves.....my god its just too complicated!

 

What's clogging it up is all these extra layers, i wouldn't mind the datasheet abilities going, its even refreshing playing old world, no 60 page faq, no strats.

 

Go back to what many consider the golden age of 40k...no strats, no army rules, no datasheet extras, limited character spam

[Evil Eye]

4 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

They take a simple system or principle then they add in too many exemptions or mechanics that mess with that simple system.

This, a million times this. I think it's telling that we've reached the same level of bloat on top of the base mechanics as 7th compared to its base (3rd) in a SINGLE EDITION with 10th. Clearly, the core system just doesn't work if it keeps having to have extra stuff piled on top of it to make it even somewhat playable. 

 

I think if as and when GW wipes the slate clean and redoes the rules AGAIN, they need to not shy away from making the core rules at least somewhat complex/involved such that the system can handle the events/interactions likely to occur in a game without needing a tonne of "bolt on" mechanics and exceptions to how the system works at its core. I know I've beaten this drum before but I feel 3.5 to early 4th edition got the complexity level right, and even if the actual system was very different from that framework, it needs to have that level of functionality to be able to work.

 

A comparison I'd make is trying to make a Mini Cooper do the job of a Range Rover by slapping on a tonne of add-on parts. The Mini is capable of doing a lot of things, and you can make it do other things with modification, but eventually you're going to need a different car. 10th's core system might be good for some form of game (what that is I'm not sure) but for a game like 40K it just doesn't work. There's too much asymmetry and unit variety inherent to 40K (a core part of its appeal I might add!) for 10th to really support. If GW want to keep the rules extremely simple, they need to cull like, 75% of the units they produce and basically make the vast majority of armies "palette swaps" with a few unique units and mechanics. And NOBODY wants that. If GW wants to sell countless different kits of tanks, monsters and infantry- which they do, and I want them to as well- then they need to have rules that can reliably support the gamut of different units that can appear on the battlefield without having to add a thousand exceptions to how the rules normally operate. See: Vehicles having to get an after-the-fact patch to explain how they move because GW in their infinite wisdom decided to get rid of dedicated vehicle rules.

 

TLDR: 40K is at its core too complex to have an overly simple core ruleset, and trying to force it to have one actually makes the game less intuitive to learn and play.

[Xenith]

6 hours ago, crimsondave said:

I know I’m in the minority here but I feel GW’s obsession with shortening the game has been a driving factor in losing a lot of the details that are missing in 10th.  Just playing 1000 point games would shorten them plenty but wouldn’t sell as many models.

 

Agree - the current system of 40k is decent for 1000-1500pt games, which is probably what the designers play, and was the common/standard point level in the UK for decades. The 2k point level has really come out of the US tournament system, which we can very clearly see that the designers do not optimise for. This pervades the design space too, like giving big monsters strike and sweep attacks to deal with all comers as you lack resources at 1000 or 1500, while at 2k you can have your cake and eat it, and then big monsters that can deal with everything are no brainer icing on the cake. 

[crimsondave]

On 12/24/2024 at 4:05 AM, Xenith said:

 

Agree - the current system of 40k is decent for 1000-1500pt games, which is probably what the designers play, and was the common/standard point level in the UK for decades. The 2k point level has really come out of the US tournament system, which we can very clearly see that the designers do not optimise for. This pervades the design space too, like giving big monsters strike and sweep attacks to deal with all comers as you lack resources at 1000 or 1500, while at 2k you can have your cake and eat it, and then big monsters that can deal with everything are no brainer icing on the cake. 

It just seems counterproductive to me to do away with things like Weapon Skill and Initiative for the sake of simplicity but add in all these army rules, strategems, and a complicated scoring system.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, crimsondave said:

It just seems counterproductive to me to do away with things like Weapon Skill and Initiative for the sake of simplicity but add in all these army rules, strategems, and a complicated scoring system.

Initiative was always a dumb stat, but GW's current system ain't good either. Unless you have a special rule or charged, the combats should be simultaneous. 

 

The old WS chart was bad too and just making it the same as the BS chart was a good change. The problem is there's a lot more modifiers against shooting vs melee, which is fairly boring.