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.

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

Unfortunately odds are we are about 1 year and 4 months or so from 10th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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

Problem with that is: It hurts profit.

GW makes too much money from imbalance that changes to not keep doing it. You think GW hates money? They will keep pushing "I print money" button.

No 10th edition. 9th is a good one, I would like to keep it.

If a 10th has to happen, then make it a 9.5 like 6th to 7th.

Rework morale and put a limit of one stratagem per phase on a unit.

Done.

I think that GW needs to stop this long slow ongoing release schedule that they seem to use in the future, I get they make a ton of money from it but they can make some changes.

#1 (big point)
The should release all of the codex for all of the armies at the same time, or in large batches at the start of a new edition. (9th edition was released July 2020 …. 2 years later and we are still waiting for codices with some not even announced for release yet).
And why were the digital releases stopped? When covid hit, they should have used digital releases to skip the codex supply chain issues.

#2 (small point)
…. I guess that brings me to FIRE THE MANGER IN CHARGE OF CODEX RELEASES

#3 (small point)
Since fourth edition GW seem to release a new edition every 2-4 years (gap between 6-7 was 2 years). Baring in mind that most editions are typically around for 3-4 years and we are currently still waiting for all of the codex to be released 2 years into 9th that would give us little time to actually play with all armies in 9th edition.
If they are planning to release 10th 3 years after 9th, they may as well skip some armies altogether in this edition and release them all in 10th.

#4 (big point)
Set up a set timetable to release the editions, it might help the company if people can predict and know when the editions are released, I don’t care if its every 5 years, or synced with the Olympics or synced with the moon. Just come up with a large scale time line and try to stick to it.

#5 (small point)
I don’t mind them releasing the models or campaigns later at different dates afterwards to keep the releases going or the new models coming. Would be more interested in warhammer+ if the entertainment videos matched the releases of campaigns also, with choose an ending to match your games.

#6 (big point)
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD we have enough SM captains and lieutenants and special characters, if they want to release more unique models or characters then please expand into the other armies, they could get really creative that way. Perhaps linking the releases and theme of them with the campaigns (so that way we do get non SM models too).

#7 (small point)
On the subject of special models, the models for a limited time only available in store should also be available online (don’t care if they decide to bump the cost up 10%) not everybody has access to a shop and should be offered a chance to buy them.

#8 (small point)
Don’t be stingy with the dice / accessories for sale, it seems that they sell dice in packs of 20 (maybe ok for kill team) while encouraging you to get into situations where you may need more dice in 40K, so provide more, or a discount offer buy one get next one half price, bump it to 30 or 40 and while they are at it throw in a faction specific wound counter dice or whipping stick (measure stick) to match your faction specific dice.

#9 (big point)
I know this is a big thing for a lot of people, offer all of the parts in the kit to build all variants of that kit that you can field in the rules (affects tau crisis suits for example).

More streamlined terrain rules.

Limitations on strats (and a reduction in strats in new books).

No more reroll auras.

More variation in the missions, preferably with less player control over the missions. Secondaries should not get you as many points as the primary, I feel a 2:1 ratio would be a lot better.

Allow stacking modifiers again, as long as they come from different sources. Moving with a heavy weapon AND firing into terrain should get you a -2.

Morale to be a thing again. Just bring back the rules from 3-5: leadership checks, pinning tests, etc.

Change hit modifiers in the core rules to WS/BS modifiers.

Remove the Smite spam prevention effect on units that do not benefit from Look out, Sir!

Remove the Command phase.

The remaining changes I want for the game I'd like to see in codexes and Chapter Approved.

Spoletta wrote:
No 10th edition. 9th is a good one, I would like to keep it.

If a 10th has to happen, then make it a 9.5 like 6th to 7th.

I wasn't playing in 6th and 7th. Does this mean a new BRB but keep the 9th edition codexes?

 dreadblade wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
No 10th edition. 9th is a good one, I would like to keep it.

If a 10th has to happen, then make it a 9.5 like 6th to 7th.

I wasn't playing in 6th and 7th. Does this mean a new BRB but keep the 9th edition codexes?

Well that's most of edition changes in GW history. Old books invalidated with new edition:

FB 5->6, 8th->AOS(so basically new game)
40k: 2-3, 7->8

That's it.

Basically 10th will be virtually quaranteed to work with 9th ed books.

Oh boi, where to begin.

first: no 10th, fix 9th. Basically stop edition churn and burn.

Secondly: USR, bespoke rules are fine if they are the exception. USR should be in the rulebook AND in the codex if they are found on units in the codex.

Thirdly: Talking about rules? Free up to date PDF for the rulebook and codices. Make dexes actual collectors items worth their current price tag or let it be.

Fourth: 40k was a wargame once, bring back fundamental mechanics, like armour values, etc. Heavy rework of the wounding and to hit charge, nvm terrain. Right now its heavy infantry that wants to hog cover whilest light infantry anyways with or without cover gets shafted.

Fifth: the smaller boards are not working, T1 charges etc are not a mechanic that should in its current form exist. The room to manouvre is laughably restrictive.

Sixth: Faction love / balanced approach. See SM are the thing of 40k, but when you have an HQ section larger than some armies roster it is time to stop (yes you can apply filthy frank meme here)

Seventh: 40k was also always about your dudes in the grim darkness, not about data sheets with specific loadouts. Bring back actual customizability to the forces, instead of datasheet soup. Sanitising the gaming ecosystem with no model no rules is only hurting your own bottomline GW, because it also makes it easier to make competent 3rd party miniatures whilest missing out on conversion model sales. cue warbika warbosses being built out of multiple kits f.e.. it also severly diminishes the spectacle that was 40k on the table. Also the recent indications about the CSM dex are just the icing of the cake, there are armies that should be determined by charachters crippling their customizability severly diminishes the reason why people play said army. Same with archons, same will happen with exalted champions.

Eigth: Start actually propper communication with the community, not just sales pitches. Its nice that GW has now a FB page, but when the behaviour exhibited on there amounts to sales pitches and the deleting of uncomforftable questions like why legends needs to exist then yeah.

Ninth: the complete ban on fanwork / animations needs to fall down.

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

This. I'm ok with the current game and another un-needed edition would give me headache. Just slow down the codex release cycle instead.

This won't happen - but I'd just nerf the damage on basically everything.

There were major - major - fundamental problems with Index 8th. But the majority of Datasheets (beyond those we all learned to hate) did about 25% of their damage in points to each other.

We are now at the point where there are datasheets that expect to do 45% of their points values in damage - and then gain army special rules, chapter tactics, stratagems and characters buffs etc (so the reality is they can be well over 70% or something) - but are considered "too weak" or "not relevant" for the tournament scene. Which I think says a lot about how ludicrously lethal the game has become. We could just ditch the models and play checkers for all the interactivity - and narrative forging - this entails.

This can admittedly be reached by various ways. You could nerf the damage output on datasheets. You could strip out the 9th purity bonuses, chapter tactics, character buffs and stratagems. I actually kind of like the second aesthetically though so would prefer the former - but I don't really mind.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Better Moral system

If you're relying on 40k - let alone GW - to provide a better moral system, you have larger issues than a new edition of 40k.

Though, if we're lucky, they may manage an improved morale system.

bedivere wrote:
#2 (small point)
…. I guess that brings me to FIRE THE MANGER IN CHARGE OF CODEX RELEASES

"Away with the manger, no crib(sheet) for a bed..."

+ + +

There are quite a few ideas in here I'd agree with, and some I'd disagree with, but here's one that's been a personal bugbear since 8th dropped - expand the keyword system to cover weapons. Things like BOLT, PLASMA, MELTA, FLAMER, etc, could be used, so that even when the name doesn't make it clear what something is, we have that information. It could also allow for the return of interactions that depend on weapon type - such as the Avatar being resilient against FLAMER, PLASMA and MELTA weapons - and allow certain rules to be future-proofed by using the type rather than a list of weapons (looking at you, original version of Bolter Discipline).

These don't necessarily have to be USR hooks for a standard effect - though I can see the appeal of something like MELTA(D6+2) as a shorthand - but I feel it is something that strengthens the framework of the game.

Focusing on more minor changes that I can actually see being possible...

I would like strategems to be dramatically reduced in scope.
Only about half a dozen per faction, perhaps focusing around characters to give some sense of them actually leading.

More intuitive and impactful terrain rules. +1 save clearly doesn't cut it.
In principle I like the more abstract approach of Obscuring, but they need to go all in and not be quite so weird about it.

Unit can be targeted by stratagem once per phase.

One roll triggers max 1 effect on 1 result. Ie no 6 to hit=mw+extra hit.

I want GW to actually hire a few competitive Ork players to help write rules and specifically the Ork codex. I am tired of having to "HOPE" that GW accidentally gives us a good unit or two as opposed to having a vision for the codex and moving everything in that direction in order to make it competitive in the general sense against everyone else.

Look at the Stompa, the Morkanaut/Gorkanaut, Burna's, lootas, Mekz, Big Mek with SAG, Big mek with KFF, Flashgitz, Boyz, Grots, Nobz, Painboss, Painboy, wurrboy, Nob with WAAAGH banner, Tankbustas, the entirety of the snakebites and badmoonz kultures. Look at how often GW wrote rules for orkz that were literally illegal or which violated their own purpose (Trukk boyz not being allowed in trukkz) and then tell me with complete sincerity that someone who knows and understand the ork faction wrote that codex.

Keeping in mind, I openly and wholeheartedly admit this is the best codex they've come out with since 3rd/4th edition. But that isn't exactly a hard bar to clear since we only got 1 in 7th which was the worst ever, one in 8th and none in 5th or 6th.

I would also want those rules writers on the team that helps write CA and Errata's so they answer real questions we have and so they don't nerf barely competitive units or even non-competitive units while giving out minor buffs that don't really change the power level of things that were in need of a hefty bump.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Focusing on more minor changes that I can actually see being possible...

I would like strategems to be dramatically reduced in scope.
Only about half a dozen per faction, perhaps focusing around characters to give some sense of them actually leading.

Problem is you can't do that unless either invalidating all the codexes and releasing an index for everyone or letting some players use their 30+ stratagems from their older but still legal codex while players with the new codex can only use their half dozen. It would be bad in both cases.

Best option would be putting a hard cap (like 1 or 2) on the number of stratagems that a player can use per turn.

Univeral special rules across all armies to end the mess of similar special rules with different wording.
End of codex creep is wishful thinking.

10th Edition should fully embrace the digital age.

I'm fairly certain all of the things I'd want GW to do for 10th, they wouldn't want to do.

Top of the list would be a hard reset of the whole system at this point, from the ground up. I simply don't like the core mechanics in 8th and 9th edition, and changing many of those (e.g. no vehicle-specific rules, the whole morale system, the command point system, the terrain/cover system, huge leeway in shooting whatever you want, etc.) into something better would likely not be compatible with current codexes. Then again, maybe a hard reset IS financially sound so they can sell everything to everyone a 10th time

That said, I don't see them striping back on the layering of rules (e.g. reducing strats, faction traits, doctrines, etc.) without doing a hard reset. Once you've given someone something, it's hard to take it back.

I'd like to see a much more diverse mission set focused on shared objectives. More asynchronous missions, varied objectives, more narrative-flair. If they have a "competitive" mission set that's all symmetrical, leave it as a sub-type of missions or a separate mission pack. It shouldn't be the driving mission type for normal play.

 Eldarsif wrote:
10th Edition should fully embrace the digital age.

Hard pass. They'd opt for sub-only, day 1 DLC and loot boxes for special rule variants.

If they want to toss pdfs online, that'd be fine. But 'fully embrace' has far more negatives than positives.

There's a pretty high bar to clear (waha) if they want to go full digital and succeed at it.
Imho it should be the direction to go, but who knows when they'll realize it?

For 10th I'd settle for a .5 version of the current edition, with all the current general FAQs/Erratas condensed in the core rules.

The wet dream would be the reintroduction of USRs, at least for the most common effects:
- deep strike
- forward deploy
- pre-game move
- autoadvance X"
- reroll 1s or all hit or wound rolls
- sniper shots
- bodyguard rules (if they still exist)
- transhuman to hit, to wound, ...
- hard to hit
- extra save in cover
- etc

Have these USRs be defined in the core book and then copy them in full in each datasheet as well. But at least it would make them consistent across different books.

tneva82 wrote:
Unit can be targeted by stratagem once per phase.

One roll triggers max 1 effect on 1 result. Ie no 6 to hit=mw+extra hit.

So you can re-roll failed hits and get exploding 6s but getting exploding 6s and auto-wound on 6s to hit is wrong why?

It would be nice if they figured out how to make the game a tad less tedious.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Oh boi, where to begin.

first: no 10th, fix 9th. Basically stop edition churn and burn.

Secondly: USR, bespoke rules are fine if they are the exception. USR should be in the rulebook AND in the codex if they are found on units in the codex.

Thirdly: Talking about rules? Free up to date PDF for the rulebook and codices. Make dexes actual collectors items worth their current price tag or let it be.

Fourth: 40k was a wargame once, bring back fundamental mechanics, like armour values, etc. Heavy rework of the wounding and to hit charge, nvm terrain. Right now its heavy infantry that wants to hog cover whilest light infantry anyways with or without cover gets shafted.

Fifth: the smaller boards are not working, T1 charges etc are not a mechanic that should in its current form exist. The room to manouvre is laughably restrictive.

Sixth: Faction love / balanced approach. See SM are the thing of 40k, but when you have an HQ section larger than some armies roster it is time to stop (yes you can apply filthy frank meme here)

Seventh: 40k was also always about your dudes in the grim darkness, not about data sheets with specific loadouts. Bring back actual customizability to the forces, instead of datasheet soup. Sanitising the gaming ecosystem with no model no rules is only hurting your own bottomline GW, because it also makes it easier to make competent 3rd party miniatures whilest missing out on conversion model sales. cue warbika warbosses being built out of multiple kits f.e.. it also severly diminishes the spectacle that was 40k on the table. Also the recent indications about the CSM dex are just the icing of the cake, there are armies that should be determined by charachters crippling their customizability severly diminishes the reason why people play said army. Same with archons, same will happen with exalted champions.

Eigth: Start actually propper communication with the community, not just sales pitches. Its nice that GW has now a FB page, but when the behaviour exhibited on there amounts to sales pitches and the deleting of uncomforftable questions like why legends needs to exist then yeah.

Ninth: the complete ban on fanwork / animations needs to fall down.

Armor values were just toughness values that didn't matter. They weren't fundamental to anything. People try to claim that it made it more tictactic-y because vehicles were slightly stronger from the front sometimes, but in reality no one bothered with positioning because it only took 1 melta shot to kill a tank anyway. Also, the majority of vehicles that had high AV were high AV all around anyway so it was functionally exactly the same as it is now.

Smaller boards don't actually impact T1 charges much. The No Man's Land in Dawn of war and Hammer and Anvil is exactly the same size as it's always been. It's these goofy deployment maps that actually allow easy turn 1 charges. If it wasn't for GW being cute with deployment, the only effects the smaller board would have would be on corner camping and deepstrike. Room to maneuver is only really restricted by the missions funneling everyone onto objectives. Most games end up with huge empty tracks of land at the corners still.

If it doesn't come in the box, it shouldn't have rules. Forcing an ADDITIONAL arts and crafts project on your players because the best gun in the unit has to be made out of greenstuff and disappointment is asinine. The correct way to go about it would be to ADD those options to the kits, obviously. But barring that, I do not miss needing to cobble together a LasPlas AT ALL.

Throw the entirety of 9th into the bin and instead use the 3rd edition or 5th edition rules as the basis for 10th.

ERJAK wrote:
If it doesn't come in the box, it shouldn't have rules. Forcing an ADDITIONAL arts and crafts project on your players because the best gun in the unit has to be made out of greenstuff and disappointment is asinine. The correct way to go about it would be to ADD those options to the kits, obviously. But barring that, I do not miss needing to cobble together a LasPlas AT ALL.

I broadly agree with you on all three points - even if I feel its all the usual divides of dakka. Its perhaps the above that's so often not said.
We are meant to sympathize (and I do, kinda) with someone who has bought a dozen boxes, or scrounged up the bitz, or dabbled in Greenstuff and Disappointment only for GW to turn up and says "eh, not in the kit, not in the rules."
But really, I think that arguably makes for a better experience for players in general than "what's actually in the box is second best".

Even if other people find things like the Plague Marine datasheet a thing of Cthuluesque horror. (To be fair, that kit seems... uniquely weird.)

While I'd largely agree with Voss's first post I'm also leaning more into the "rip it up and start again" camp.

9th just has a lot of fundamental problems that are enshrined in the Codices and core rules and I think we'll only be able to fix them properly with a complete reboot. If that's not possible the absolute minimum would be:

1. Most important of all: create a design document for the entire edition and stick to it. Any designer who strays from the framework laid out in the document gets fired, no exceptions. I'm sick and tired of seeing mid-edition changes to the entire design paradigm.

2. Reduce stratagem use dramatically. Either make it part of army building to select strats, or tie them to HQs/characters as AoS does, or restrict them all to one use only. Anything to tone them down.

3. Reduce lethality. This ties into #1 above. GW need to decide what an acceptable damage output is for a given points investment and carry that through to all units. That output should never approach 100%. I'd really like it if some of my units could do more than one thing in a game before being removed. It's telling that most competitive players value the ability to "trade up" with units because it's now universally accepted that anything that exposes itself will be dead next turn. This also encompasses changes to morale so it's not just another kill-more mechanic.

4. Go digital. At least let us buy Codices digitally like we used to and push updates through for free. As part of this, stop charging for balance and mission updates via Chapter Approved.

There's a lot more but those are the main ones. I'm under no illusions that GW will be able to do any of this though.

 Blackie wrote:

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

This. I'm ok with the current game and another un-needed edition would give me headache. Just slow down the codex release cycle instead.

Edit: I've see the "leaked" balance document.

I do wishlist something: 0-1 and 0-2 limitations. 0-3 only to troops and dedicated transports. 0-2 for uncommon stuff (basically the cheapest FA, HS and Elite units) and 0-1 to the most rare units (aka all the expensive stuff and all the characters). Such limitations should of course be arbitrary since some armies have tons of datasheets and others don't, and points costs and efficiency might be completely different between the units' "counterparts" across the codexes.

I really don't want those sorts of limitations.

It's such a back handed cludge to fix broken units.
Unless you're pinning 0-1 on rare units like Cataphractii Terminators or something.

They should release the Guard codex as the first one, alongside a mass of new models. It can rule supreme for about 6 months, then be nerfed and eclipsed by every other new codex, resulting in a glut of said new models onto secondary market.

To repeat what I stated in another thread;

I think 40k has an identity crisis in a way, and there needs to be a serious assessment of how they want certain units to weigh against others, how selections are supposed to perform in game, and how much those things should line up with the narrative. Obviously it was never perfect and never will be, as some degree of compromise must be made for the sake of gameplay, but this is the worst I have seen things since I started playing in 5th.