Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With 10th edition likely in the works by now (if not in playtesting) the thought about what I want to see from the game has been percolating in my brain for a while so I thought I'd share what's in my mind and see what others are wishlisting for. This is less a wishlist of how 40k as a whole should be designed and more one based on the framework of 9th that the game should operate on.

For starters I want to see a vast reduction in strats. We've seen GW invalidate parts of AoS books with the edition change (taking away the battalions in the old books) so it's not like this is impossible for them to do. Ideally I'd prefer if they adopted AoS 2.0's approach and limit stratagems to being on character sheets and the core rulebook. This would let characters work as force multipliers in ways beyond "re-roll dice" as well as create interesting avenues for design.

I also want a drastic reduction in the use of tgehe Core keyword. Preferably I would like to see.it be limited to only troops with different HQ characters giving it to different units if they're the army's warlord. This would encourage builds around army archetypes involving that warlord.

Named characters should count as the warlord for the purpose of having their warlord trait, even if they're not the warlord. This is to pair with the above core change to allow people to build armies that lean into specific builds while still letting them bring named characters like Ghaz, Abbadon or Guilliman who may not strictly fit that build but can bemefit the army in other ways.

Lastly bring back retinue upgrades for characters instead of the current bodyguard rule. Let the character lose the character rule and gain ablative wounds (while keeping any auras limited to their model alone) as an alternatice to the rather janky way bodyguard functions.

So those are the big changes to the game I want to see next edition, and I'm sure people won't agree with everything here, but I'm interested in what's been percolating in other people's brains for how they want the game to shape up next edition.

I want to see 10th not arrive for a good long while!

 dreadblade wrote:
I want to see 10th not arrive for a good long while!

That would be nice, especially if they took more time on it than they spent on 9th.

I don't want to see 10th. After they get the codices out, they should do a balance pass on everything and make 9.5, see how that works.

Remove secondaries, no Chapter Doctrine or "purity" style rules, cut way back on strats, rework aura abilities to only effect models in range not units, rework [Core] to be more thematic, more thematic rules than +1 to this or reroll that. Probably rework mortal wounds to be psychic phase because they just feel like they're being thrown onto any old thing to make it extra super awesome, instead of representative of anything.

Mostly just strip out the bloat and bring back thematic special rules instead of generic tourney player pleasing rules that should be easy to balance but are beyond GWs ability to do so. I would rather have a fun unbalanced game than a bland unbalanced game.

Less focus on tournaments and more focus on narrative play. Build on the Crusade system and maybe even do specific battles/scenarios, even ones with asymmetrical balance. Even bring back legacy conflicts like Badab, Vraks, Cadia, Baal, and the like. Give us new stuff too.

More focus in articles on building narratively themed armies.

If GW isn't going to balance armies fairly anyways, may as well make the game itself fun enough to override the balance issues.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
With 10th edition likely in the works by now (if not in playtesting) the thought about what I want to see from the game has been percolating in my brain for a while so I thought I'd share what's in my mind and see what others are wishlisting for. This is less a wishlist of how 40k as a whole should be designed and more one based on the framework of 9th that the game should operate on.

For starters I want to see a vast reduction in strats. We've seen GW invalidate parts of AoS books with the edition change (taking away the battalions in the old books) so it's not like this is impossible for them to do. Ideally I'd prefer if they adopted AoS 2.0's approach and limit stratagems to being on character sheets and the core rulebook. This would let characters work as force multipliers in ways beyond "re-roll dice" as well as create interesting avenues for design.

I also want a drastic reduction in the use of tgehe Core keyword. Preferably I would like to see.it be limited to only troops with different HQ characters giving it to different units if they're the army's warlord. This would encourage builds around army archetypes involving that warlord.

Named characters should count as the warlord for the purpose of having their warlord trait, even if they're not the warlord. This is to pair with the above core change to allow people to build armies that lean into specific builds while still letting them bring named characters like Ghaz, Abbadon or Guilliman who may not strictly fit that build but can bemefit the army in other ways.

Lastly bring back retinue upgrades for characters instead of the current bodyguard rule. Let the character lose the character rule and gain ablative wounds (while keeping any auras limited to their model alone) as an alternatice to the rather janky way bodyguard functions.

So those are the big changes to the game I want to see next edition, and I'm sure people won't agree with everything here, but I'm interested in what's been percolating in other people's brains for how they want the game to shape up next edition.

Specifically commenting on the bodyguard changes: The problem with that as far as bodyguard goes is that it makes it largely pointless for any character that already benefits from Look out Sir!. You'll very rarely be in a situation where you aren't benefiting from LoS but ARE benefiting from the bodyguard Ablatives. Especially since there really aren't any meaningful sniper units around anymore.

This is fine if that's what you're going for, but leaves some units that currently rely on the bodyguard rule to be worth their points (SoB Sacresancts probably being the seminal example) in the lurch. A sacresanct is 16pts with the bodyguard rule allowing Celestine to make her full movement and still be untargetable. Without the bodyguard rule as-is the model probably isn't worth the 14 it was before.

Then you have units like the regular Celestians that are terrible even WITH the OP bodyguard rule. Without it, they might as well not even exist in the codex.

For 10th edition: If they're aggressive about their next balance pass, I'd like to see it wait 2 years from the last codex to release (supplement books and boxset models should be fine). If they pull another CA2022+February Balance pass, there's no reason to wait on it.

I'd like them to cull all of the unused stratagems. Every book has probably 10+ strats that never get used. Just cut them. Any stratagems that only work on a specific unit should become once per game abilities.

Remove CORE. It's a failed mechanic that offers nothing but an arbitrary nerf to some (but not all) vehicles.

Everything else I want out of the game is mostly army specific. Specifically nerfs to Tau.

Alternative activations or a reaction mechanic like rumored in HH would be needed for me to buy into a new edition, my group otherwize decided to stick to 9th or grimdark future.

They should just refine 9th though. True narrative scenario support instead of the overly generic mission style, Updated digital datasheets to the worst excesses of no models no rules (Plague Marines etc), toning down lethality (change cap on modifiers for example).

A new head of rules writing from outside the company.

Otherwise you just keep going round and round in circles. "Oh look they introduced some new sensible mechanics for 10th! Boy, it sure would be a shame if the same lazy hacks ruin it half way through the edition as usual. Gee whiz, guess what happened?"

Hmm. Specifics aside (though I'd be happy if they walked away from 8e/9e), they absolutely definitely need a design document for the entire edition and the ability to stick to it for the duration.

What are the goals? Expected outputs? Damage, durability, all of that. It must be set in stone before any writing gets done (codex or core rules), and it has to be drilled into the heads of anyone writing a book for the edition, whether its day 1 or the last day.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Less focus on tournaments and more focus on narrative play. Build on the Crusade system and maybe even do specific battles/scenarios, even ones with asymmetrical balance. Even bring back legacy conflicts like Badab, Vraks, Cadia, Baal, and the like. Give us new stuff too.

More focus in articles on building narratively themed armies.

If GW isn't going to balance armies fairly anyways, may as well make the game itself fun enough to override the balance issues.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mostly just strip out the bloat and bring back thematic special rules instead of generic tourney player pleasing rules that should be easy to balance but are beyond GWs ability to do so. I would rather have a fun unbalanced game than a bland unbalanced game.

I wish I lived in whatever magical wonderland you guys are from where GW does things that are good for tournament play. As a tournament player, I absolutely don't see anything GW have done (except MAYBE the missions) that is significantly favorable for tournament play.

Voss wrote:
Hmm. Specifics aside (though I'd be happy if they walked away from 8e/9e), they absolutely definitely need a design document for the entire edition and the ability to stick to it for the duration.

What are the goals? Expected outputs? Damage, durability, all of that. It must be set in stone before any writing gets done (codex or core rules), and it has to be drilled into the heads of anyone writing a book for the edition, whether its day 1 or the last day.

This. Codex creep is a plague. Make a plan, stick with it.

I might come back and do a more specific list later, just this point I think needed to be reinforced.

Generally I think we needs less bloat and less lethality. Fewer exceptions to exceptions.

EightFoldPath wrote:
A new head of rules writing from outside the company.

Otherwise you just keep going round and round in circles. "Oh look they introduced some new sensible mechanics for 10th! Boy, it sure would be a shame if the same lazy hacks ruin it half way through the edition as usual. Gee whiz, guess what happened?"

this!
they need a professional balance team

Voss wrote:
Hmm. Specifics aside (though I'd be happy if they walked away from 8e/9e), they absolutely definitely need a design document for the entire edition and the ability to stick to it for the duration.

What are the goals? Expected outputs? Damage, durability, all of that. It must be set in stone before any writing gets done (codex or core rules), and it has to be drilled into the heads of anyone writing a book for the edition, whether its day 1 or the last day.

^^^^This.

Also, instead of "cutting back" or "curtailing" strategems, just get rid of them. Zilch, zero, nada. None. Interesting idea, but it didn't work. Put the wargear and unit abilities back on the units themselves, and if anything is "too powerful to be there all of the time", then it's too powerful to be there any of the time. Just don't do those.

A wargame and not a war-themed game.

ERJAK wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Less focus on tournaments and more focus on narrative play. Build on the Crusade system and maybe even do specific battles/scenarios, even ones with asymmetrical balance. Even bring back legacy conflicts like Badab, Vraks, Cadia, Baal, and the like. Give us new stuff too.

More focus in articles on building narratively themed armies.

If GW isn't going to balance armies fairly anyways, may as well make the game itself fun enough to override the balance issues.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mostly just strip out the bloat and bring back thematic special rules instead of generic tourney player pleasing rules that should be easy to balance but are beyond GWs ability to do so. I would rather have a fun unbalanced game than a bland unbalanced game.

I wish I lived in whatever magical wonderland you guys are from where GW does things that are good for tournament play. As a tournament player, I absolutely don't see anything GW have done (except MAYBE the missions) that is significantly favorable for tournament play.

Focus on a thing does not automatically mean the things betterment. I never said tournament play was good, just that it was the focus.

I'd like to see a cutting-back on the amount of layered rules you need to remember- subfaction traits, purity bonus, relics, WLTs, faction-specific army-wide effects, and stratagems.

Tying in with that, I'd like to see more design effort put into gameplay aids. The codices are crap for quick-reference, so I'd like to see some quick reference sheets, cards to represent army-wide abilities and selected WLTs and relics, stuff like that.

Everything just reset and rules release all at once so we don't have codex after codex bloat and power creep.

Also I'd be happy with KT or Apocalypse unit by unit activation vs having to wait a whole hour to do anything. I don't know what genius decided watching someone play for 30min to an hour at a time would be entertaining but I'd like to have a word with him.

.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
A new head of rules writing from outside the company.

Otherwise you just keep going round and round in circles. "Oh look they introduced some new sensible mechanics for 10th! Boy, it sure would be a shame if the same lazy hacks ruin it half way through the edition as usual. Gee whiz, guess what happened?"

this!
they need a professional balance team

That costs money. Good designers don't come cheap, and there's a massive brain drain of English-speaking ones to the US.

Hecaton wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
A new head of rules writing from outside the company.

Otherwise you just keep going round and round in circles. "Oh look they introduced some new sensible mechanics for 10th! Boy, it sure would be a shame if the same lazy hacks ruin it half way through the edition as usual. Gee whiz, guess what happened?"

this!
they need a professional balance team

That costs money. Good designers don't come cheap, and there's a massive brain drain of English-speaking ones to the US.

Ah, if only GW weren't a non-profit and could make enough to afford hiring more designers!

@OP:

We need to have new developments in the lore of 40K. Some ideas:

- Chaos lays siege to Mars.

- Da revolution! erupts among the greenskins and grot rebel forces emerge from hiding to wage a war against their orkish oppressors.

They dont need to invest in good designers and good balance. Nine editions have shown us that people will backdrop truckloads of cash to their door regardless of bad balance. Why change the equation and spend money on better balance when its obviously not needed / wanted?

At this point i REALLY want 5 things to happen (realistic things), personally A 6th that will never happen

Better stratagem system
Better terrain rules
Better Moral system
USR system again
Unit types

Stratagems - are way to over powered, too many or too easily have gotcha moments, and too much to remember for every army, they need to be limited somehow.

Terrain - is just hard to work with right now and many times feels like only Dense and Obscuring even matters, make things like Barricades or Industrial give you a unmodified armor save (that way ignore invul don't work ad ignore cover still works)

Moral - needs to matter almost every turn and not just a sometimes Kill more mechanic. I want checks to make units scared to go do stuff and always needing to make those checks, examples, cold lose ObSec, could not be able to Action, or Advance, must shoot/charge the closest unit, etc... Make the Checks easier to fail as well, maybe 2D6, and -2 if you are under 1/2 strength or something. I want to see a a check fail almost every turn and make it actually scary to fail the check. Make the opponents want to go for failing checks and not just killing only.

USR - is heavily needed, we already have to know all the rules anyways, this will just help balance, example Bodyguard rule can be faqed, Fight first, Fight Last, etc... . We don't need Melta as a USR for example. Just the core 15-20 rules that every army has and could be a problem. aka Fly, Fight First, last, +1atks on charge/charged/HI, Aura rr's, Core, FnP, Ignore Cover, etc... it doesn't need to be much but enough.

Unit Type - rules needs to be larger, we already have them (Infantry, beast, Bike, Vehicle, Monstrous Creature, Walker, Titan, Aircraft) Just add a couple rules to them in this section. This way we can have units like some more balance if we need it.

6th not likely - Damage at the end of the Battle round like APOC.

ERJAK wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Less focus on tournaments and more focus on narrative play. Build on the Crusade system and maybe even do specific battles/scenarios, even ones with asymmetrical balance. Even bring back legacy conflicts like Badab, Vraks, Cadia, Baal, and the like. Give us new stuff too.

More focus in articles on building narratively themed armies.

If GW isn't going to balance armies fairly anyways, may as well make the game itself fun enough to override the balance issues.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Mostly just strip out the bloat and bring back thematic special rules instead of generic tourney player pleasing rules that should be easy to balance but are beyond GWs ability to do so. I would rather have a fun unbalanced game than a bland unbalanced game.

I wish I lived in whatever magical wonderland you guys are from where GW does things that are good for tournament play.

If the focus on tournament play was good I wouldn't want it changed.

My dream for GW since '93 was a persistent edition, so I don't want a 10th at all. I've always thought that edition churn was the worst thing for any and every game I've played. Whatever I gain from the coolness of a new ruleset (which is by no means a guarantee) never quite makes up for the rage at having to buy everything AGAIN so that nothing new ever actually gets made.

 auticus wrote:
They dont need to invest in good designers and good balance. Nine editions have shown us that people will backdrop truckloads of cash to their door regardless of bad balance. Why change the equation and spend money on better balance when its obviously not needed / wanted?

Given that GW has been in dire straits in the past- to the point of rebooting 40K's rules- I think the evidence is against the notion that nothing GW does will impact their bottom line. They may be a lot more cushioned against bad decisions than a smaller company with less inertia, but continuing negative trends will undoubtedly have the same effect it did back in 7th.

For one thing, with how frequently I've seen people using Wahapedia or Battlescribe for rules reference, I have to wonder just how well the constant churn of codices and paid rules patches is actually selling.

 catbarf wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They dont need to invest in good designers and good balance. Nine editions have shown us that people will backdrop truckloads of cash to their door regardless of bad balance. Why change the equation and spend money on better balance when its obviously not needed / wanted?

Given that GW has been in dire straits in the past- to the point of rebooting 40K's rules- I think the evidence is against the notion that nothing GW does will impact their bottom line. They may be a lot more cushioned against bad decisions than a smaller company with less inertia, but continuing negative trends will undoubtedly have the same effect it did back in 7th.

For one thing, with how frequently I've seen people using Wahapedia or Battlescribe for rules reference, I have to wonder just how well the constant churn of codices and paid rules patches is actually selling.

Not that well I'd imagine. Hell, 8th ed's book churn broke my book collecting tendency.

 catbarf wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They dont need to invest in good designers and good balance. Nine editions have shown us that people will backdrop truckloads of cash to their door regardless of bad balance. Why change the equation and spend money on better balance when its obviously not needed / wanted?

Given that GW has been in dire straits in the past- to the point of rebooting 40K's rules- I think the evidence is against the notion that nothing GW does will impact their bottom line. They may be a lot more cushioned against bad decisions than a smaller company with less inertia, but continuing negative trends will undoubtedly have the same effect it did back in 7th.

For one thing, with how frequently I've seen people using Wahapedia or Battlescribe for rules reference, I have to wonder just how well the constant churn of codices and paid rules patches is actually selling.

Tons of people were using Army Builder back in the early 2000s. Pirated pdfs and Army Builder were more common than army books and codices all throughout the 2000s where I was. It got so bad in the mid to late 2000s that the indy GT circuit had to start putting a no pdf or photocopied rules rule in effect for many of the big regionals. This was about the time that GW was going to die any day for their greed according to sites like this one and portent / warseer.

I have had several GW managers cite that selling books is just frosting on the cake. I have seen the slides from sales meetings in Dallas that they do every year where they talk about that subject as well.

GW could literally take a giant crap and put it into special effects paint pots, and sell it for $20 an ounce, and dudes would be buying it and selling stores out of it and ebay would have scalpers selling it for $50 an ounce.

They could literally take 40k and distil it down to 4 pages of ridiculousness and sell that pamphlet for $100 and it would be scooped up and sell out. The special edition could come with gilt plastic edges for $225 and be limited edition tourney official and it would be gone in the day.

Take a human turd, slap googly eyes on it and give it a bolter and removable space marine chapter badges, put it in a blister, amp its rules up to 11 and sell it for $40 as a special edition character Sergeant Hanky the Awesome Marine and it would be on ebay that weekend scalped because it sold out.

The ONLY thing gw cannot do... is to make a system with no points. That is the one thing that the community has demonstrated they will stop at. Send rules out with no points and people can't handle that. Anything else, they'll sell their liver and kidney for.

Here's my three.

No 10th for a while, let 9e live for a bit instead of starting the codex cycle all over again.

Expand Strength & Toughness so we're not limited to values of 1-8. Titans and Ironclad Dreads having the same toughness is weird.

Cut down on the rules layers. If it's not on the sheet there should be at most two rules layers on top of that.

An end to trying to tie Command Points to Army Building. If you make a battleforged army, you get X, if you don't you get Zip. I get they're trying to enforce fluffy, but they suck at it an end up more often punishing fluffy.

An end to veteran infantry who began their (per the fluff) lives as basic Troops Infantry yet who have forgotten how to secure an objective.

Terminators is to Tacticals, Veteran Intercessors is to Intercessors, Aspect Warriors is to Guardians, Just about any regurgitated and reassimilated Tyranid organism is to Hive Mind -