Switch Theme:

Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which would you prefer?
10th is more of the same
10th is a larger reset
No opinion - want to see results

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Having played Apoc and having to switch between d12s and d6s, you have to stick with all 1 type of dice.

Having multiple types of dice slows the game down immensely.

d6s are common, easy to balance, easy to find and buy, and the game has been based off of it for a long time.

As much as I'd love to see a move to a different kind of dice, there ARE ways to make the d6 system work, but it involves flattening the game stats.

The end result would be not a lot of difference between a Skitarii, a Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian, and a Sister of Battle except for one or two stats between each. But honestly, that's fine. Those types of models are the lowest rank of model, with the highest being things like Knights and Baneblades.

Frankly, lasguns and bolters shouldn't do anything to Knights and Baneblades. On the flip side, Knights and Baneblades should be able to delete squads of the smallest soldiers, but often times 1 shot weapons that do 6 damage kill only 1 guy. It's just a bit bonkers no matter how you slice it.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Full reset, as 9th edition felt more like "40K: 8.5 tournament edition". The Crusade rules were welcome but, speaking personally, there wasn't much else to get excited about save for multiple Eldar factions bundled into a single bumper codex. While there is always more tinkering to be done with any system, 9th edition has refined 8th edition as far as it can for the benefit of competitive players.

I'm all for D12s. The only reason to keep D6s is because its a bit like the other British-80s success story Fighting Fantasy, where D6s are very easy to come by and squares are easier to manufacture. But if GW is focusing so much on the competitive crowd then they might as well go that extra mile anyway.

One other thing is that the game is friggin huge in terms of factions, units, weapons and equipment. Its a huge undertaking to maintain a balance in difficulty and ensuring that a game remains playable. As it is, not every faction in 40K is best served by trying to keep up with the meta; Imperial Knights are best for going large(Apocalypse), or ideal opponents for solo-play( you're not playing them for long, and can get back to your side of the table sooner ). Harlequins are a fantastic choice for skirmish games such as Kill Team, while Gene-cults are a good budget option if wanting to play multiple systems( 40K, KT, Necro, Space Hulk ). Either we embrace what factions do best while still having a foot in 40K, or consider separating 40K into two separate games; one for military-might competitive factions( Marines, Guard, Tyranids, Craftworlds/Ynnari etc ) and another for more "background" narrative factions( Corsairs, Harlequins, Votaan, Imperial agents, Kroots etc ).

As a very casual, open player for Harlequins I was happy to stick with 8th edition rules, so if 9th is compatible with 10th due to "more of the same" then there is the possibility I could carry on using those 8th/PA rules for the next three years. I think GW will address that issue and make significant changes to the next edition, forcing me to finally keep up with the jones'.

Casual gaming, mostly solo-coop these days.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





SamusDrake wrote:
Full reset, as 9th edition felt more like "40K: 8.5 tournament edition". The Crusade rules were welcome but, speaking personally, there wasn't much else to get excited about save for multiple Eldar factions bundled into a single bumper codex. While there is always more tinkering to be done with any system, 9th edition has refined 8th edition as far as it can for the benefit of competitive players.

I'm all for D12s. The only reason to keep D6s is because its a bit like the other British-80s success story Fighting Fantasy, where D6s are very easy to come by and squares are easier to manufacture. But if GW is focusing so much on the competitive crowd then they might as well go that extra mile anyway.

One other thing is that the game is friggin huge in terms of factions, units, weapons and equipment. Its a huge undertaking to maintain a balance in difficulty and ensuring that a game remains playable. As it is, not every faction in 40K is best served by trying to keep up with the meta; Imperial Knights are best for going large(Apocalypse), or ideal opponents for solo-play( you're not playing them for long, and can get back to your side of the table sooner ). Harlequins are a fantastic choice for skirmish games such as Kill Team, while Gene-cults are a good budget option if wanting to play multiple systems( 40K, KT, Necro, Space Hulk ). Either we embrace what factions do best while still having a foot in 40K, or consider separating 40K into two separate games; one for military-might competitive factions( Marines, Guard, Tyranids, Craftworlds/Ynnari etc ) and another for more "background" narrative factions( Corsairs, Harlequins, Votaan, Imperial agents, Kroots etc ).

As a very casual, open player for Harlequins I was happy to stick with 8th edition rules, so if 9th is compatible with 10th due to "more of the same" then there is the possibility I could carry on using those 8th/PA rules for the next three years. I think GW will address that issue and make significant changes to the next edition, forcing me to finally keep up with the jones'.


That's part of the reason I don't think they'll go to d12's, but also: if you think the game has an issue of too much variety, then going to a larger dice only exacerbates that problem. Keeping to a d6, base toughness 4 system is how you balance a lot of that out.

Funny enough, it's often not an individual weapon or gear choice that unbalances a unit (except for a handful of particularly egregious circumstances) it's usually the Superfaction or Subfaction bonuses that an army get that makes it ridiculously strong. Votann Judgement, Harlequin Light/Dark, Admech Mars, etc. It's the EXTRA stuff they add on that bloats the game that also breaks it.
   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

Eh, I've long given up on keeping up with 40K now, but I'd rather they go back to 8th Index and work from there. Take the path not chosen and instead of going for creep, kept to the path of actually balancing & tightening the rules.

Though the double toughness could be dropped in a pit of acid for the old STR vs. Toughness table.

Maybe bring back facings, and keep templates.

In the meantime, I guess onepagerules is sufficient for me.

It never ends well 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO USRs should still be written on the datasheet. Last thing I want is being forced to cross-reference between codex and BRB.
USRs should be printed in every Codex to avoid the need for cross-referencing.

If they're truly universal, this would be easy.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
IMHO USRs should still be written on the datasheet. Last thing I want is being forced to cross-reference between codex and BRB.
USRs should be printed in every Codex to avoid the need for cross-referencing.

If they're truly universal, this would be easy.


USRs needed by a codex is better space used than most strats, and a print of sheet for all USRs as a standard I think is good habit.

I don’t think you do need every USR a unit uses on every sheet, as the point of USRs is they are used enough you shouldn’t need to reference them often and are simple.
Or at least have print outs without for players that won’t need them so often.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Honestly I'd just be happy if codexes had proper INDEXES in the back, so you can quickly refer to certain special rules and figure out where they are.

They really need a format editor on their team that can organize codexes in a logical way and have rules reference and indexes in the back that aren't just weapon profiles.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Apple fox wrote:
I don’t think you do need every USR a unit uses on every sheet, as the point of USRs is they are used enough you shouldn’t need to reference them often and are simple. Or at least have print outs without for players that won’t need them so often.
Printing out the USRs in full on every unit card somewhat defeats the purpose of a USR, as if you are printing it over and over again you're creating more and more opportunities to make a mistake.

You put 'em at the back of the book, along with all the army universal special rules that pertain to that book alone, and then the unit cards reference those rules rather than containing the rules.

Rules should be as centralised, as standardised, and as scalable as possible.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in fr
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot




Apple fox wrote:
as the point of USRs is they are used enough you shouldn’t need to reference them often and are simple.


Exactly. If you're avoiding rules bloat then having USRs only printed in the core rules isn't an issue. You'll quickly memorize them and you won't have any further need to look them up when you see them on a datasheet.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Aecus Decimus wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
as the point of USRs is they are used enough you shouldn’t need to reference them often and are simple.


Exactly. If you're avoiding rules bloat then having USRs only printed in the core rules isn't an issue. You'll quickly memorize them and you won't have any further need to look them up when you see them on a datasheet.


Having a rule appear by name in a book which doesn't tell you what the rule is sucks. It just feels like an incomplete product.

If every codex includes an appendix that contains every USR the army can use, fine. But if I read a the name of a rule in a dex that I then have to look up in a different book? Nope. I far prefer the 8th/9th bespoke system to that- even if it means that there are ten different names for deepstrike, at least my dexes feel complete. Again, just a preference; I see the other point of view, and it's valid- I just happen to disagree.
   
Made in fr
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot




PenitentJake wrote:
Having a rule appear by name in a book which doesn't tell you what the rule is sucks. It just feels like an incomplete product.

If every codex includes an appendix that contains every USR the army can use, fine. But if I read a the name of a rule in a dex that I then have to look up in a different book? Nope. I far prefer the 8th/9th bespoke system to that- even if it means that there are ten different names for deepstrike, at least my dexes feel complete. Again, just a preference; I see the other point of view, and it's valid- I just happen to disagree.


Have you played 5th edition and earlier? Codices never felt incomplete back then because the USR list was short and most people had them all memorized within a game or two. Seeing "deep strike" on a unit was no different from seeing "strength" on a unit, in either case you knew exactly what the rule was and never had to look it up.
   
Made in us
Repentia Mistress





Id like a good reset. Return the game to a wargame where things like facing and positioning are genuinely impactful and tactical.
Completely cut warlord traits, relics, sub faction rules and stratagems from the competitive side of gaming as they're all sources of imbalance. Keep all that customisation to the crusade/narrative side of things.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




California

The game is a convoluted mess for a new player, and the codex system is trash. Hard reset.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Rough Rider with Boomstick





Leicester, UK

Hard reset with better, more wargame-like rules please. Pay Rick Preistly £1million to write them. Don't mind keeping the codex system though, as long as it's planned better.

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in eu
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




Southampton, UK

I'd go hard reset, with a significant move to online / digital (maybe start with just army rules online and keep a physical core rulebook for the moment).

I'd want an online army builder tool that could generate a printable list for gaming with full rules attached.

I'd want it to be dynamic, with regular rules updates coming as and when, rather than saved up for a new codex.

I'd suggest actually that GW could potentially publish multiple versions - you could have the official current-release army rules, and then also a beta set with changes they are trying out. The userbase could then assist with playtesting, provide feedback and make suggestions. Beta rules could, once tested and approved, be moved in to the current release.

This would allow GW to update army rules, points costs etc without the expense and lead times of having to print and distribute physical books. The rules would also be all in one place, rather than needing codex plus errata plus chapter approved plus whatever other add-on books...

I'd also want the army rules to be free. GW have said repeatedly that they are first and foremost a model company. They should start removing the paywalls preventing people from buying more models. If I for example want to try fielding a chaos knight along with my CSMs, I'm more likely to do so if GW don't force me to buy a £30 book before I can buy the £100 model.

It'll never happen though...
   
Made in us
Servoarm Flailing Magos






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
I don’t think you do need every USR a unit uses on every sheet, as the point of USRs is they are used enough you shouldn’t need to reference them often and are simple. Or at least have print outs without for players that won’t need them so often.
Printing out the USRs in full on every unit card somewhat defeats the purpose of a USR, as if you are printing it over and over again you're creating more and more opportunities to make a mistake.

You put 'em at the back of the book, along with all the army universal special rules that pertain to that book alone, and then the unit cards reference those rules rather than containing the rules.

Rules should be as centralised, as standardised, and as scalable as possible.


nah, printing reminder text on the datasheet is fine and the way to go (MTG does this with their keywords and you end up knowing them pretty quick because of that). The thing is GW needs to make sure theyre copypasting the same text for every faction, like don't change a rule mid edition for only some codexes.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Aecus Decimus wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Having a rule appear by name in a book which doesn't tell you what the rule is sucks. It just feels like an incomplete product.

If every codex includes an appendix that contains every USR the army can use, fine. But if I read a the name of a rule in a dex that I then have to look up in a different book? Nope. I far prefer the 8th/9th bespoke system to that- even if it means that there are ten different names for deepstrike, at least my dexes feel complete. Again, just a preference; I see the other point of view, and it's valid- I just happen to disagree.


Have you played 5th edition and earlier? Codices never felt incomplete back then because the USR list was short and most people had them all memorized within a game or two. Seeing "deep strike" on a unit was no different from seeing "strength" on a unit, in either case you knew exactly what the rule was and never had to look it up.


I've played since Rogue Trader, though I skipped 6th and 7th.

Like I said, I may be an oddity (and it's okay- I'm not trying to change your mind about USRs), but for me, if a rule is named in book, I want the rule explained in that book. Cross referencing in one book? Not a problem. Cross referencing in two or more? Nope.

Now having said that, these days I make my own strat cards pre-game, and just draw the ones from the deck I'm most likely to use- usually 8-12. If I'm willing to do it for strats, I could just as easily do it for USRS. Not really a big deal. But the book still would feel incomplete to me if it mentioned a rule that it didn't define.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

PenitentJake wrote:
Like I said, I may be an oddity (and it's okay- I'm not trying to change your mind about USRs), but for me, if a rule is named in book, I want the rule explained in that book.


Is it a problem that the codex just says 'Ld' or 'Infantry' or 'Blast' without also printing out the full text of how leadership checks work, how Infantry interact with cover, and how Blast affects the firing sequence? Just saying, this seems kind of cherry-picked. The game already has a bunch of USRs, or at least mechanics that the codices implicitly reference.

I don't miss having 30+ USRs, some just referencing other USRs and many unintuitively named. But USRs as a concept never really went away, and I don't see players complaining about having to remember what the different weapon types do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/08 17:33:20


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






It all comes down to moderation and execution (and then sticking with it!), I think.

Although to be really pedantic, is Assault truly a USR (Universal Special Rule)? Seems more like a UR to me .

Anyway I think having reference for a number of things in the codex is the way to go. I like the idea of a separate reference card as well, but that might be antiquated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually . . .

Given that the core rules of 8th were only a few pages, and the existence of OPR . . . Why NOT print the core rules in a codex. Imagine telling new players all they needed for a game was the codex for the army of their choice, game rules included.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/08 18:23:05


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Servoarm Flailing Magos






 Insectum7 wrote:
It all comes down to moderation and execution (and then sticking with it!), I think.

Although to be really pedantic, is Assault truly a USR (Universal Special Rule)? Seems more like a UR to me .

Anyway I think having reference for a number of things in the codex is the way to go. I like the idea of a separate reference card as well, but that might be antiquated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually . . .

Given that the core rules of 8th were only a few pages, and the existence of OPR . . . Why NOT print the core rules in a codex. Imagine telling new players all they needed for a game was the codex for the army of their choice, game rules included.


or you know... make the rules a free PDF online

especially with the whole "we're a miniatures company, not a game company" meme
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^For sure, I think that's a good move too (perhaps ideally a default move, these days). But many of us will print them out anyways. However if your core rules are sufficiently minimal, I'd consider just sticking them in the army book too.

Clarification: Your $25-30 paperback army book.


Also "Not a game company" riiiiiight . . . . When they're trying to sell you multiple campaign books and charging what they do for rules, codexes etc.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/08 18:41:40


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Honestly, for a purely customer-friendly approach, GW should distribute its books like that :

Core rules : Free PDF that is kept up to date and is a few pages long at most.
Army rules : Free PDF + App
Fluff : expanded Hardback codex with all the cool art/stories and filler content
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Ehhh, I think that the "few pages of Core Rules" is a contributing factor to the current rules bloat mess, as the rules writers try to make up for the lack of substantial Core Rules by adding stuff into the codexes.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ehhh, I think that the "few pages of Core Rules" is a contributing factor to the current rules bloat mess, as the rules writers try to make up for the lack of substantial Core Rules by adding stuff into the codexes.
I think that's more an issue with GWs coorperate tendencies, rather than an inherent issue with a small core rules set.

Though tbf, I don't know how "tight" my ideal rule set would be either. 3-7 seemed to require a lot of pages. As did 2nd.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







I'd be interested in seeing how a 9th-style rewrite of 5th would end up looking - tighten up the way the rules are written, have keyword usage as required, clear summaries at the end of sections, etc.

Note - I'm not talking about including strats or anything like that, but more the style/layout of the 9th core book applied to 5th's engine.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^I think you're right. I bet you could condense the hell out of it. I feel like pre 7th rules had a lot more flourish to how they were written and included more of the associated imagery and implied reasoning behind the rules. The presentation of 9th feels a lot more dry, I think, but straightforward.


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Yeah, that could work. Just the 5th edition Core Rules though. Not the codexes.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, that could work. Just the 5th edition Core Rules though. Not the codexes.
Minus Hull Points. Or change it so Glancing Hits don't cause Hull Point degradation and literally double the HP on everything that has them.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






5th ed didn't have Hull Points Those came on in 6th.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
5th ed didn't have Hull Points Those came on in 6th.
Wow... really? Man... tells you how much attention I paid in 5th.

*checks rulebook*

Ok, up Defensive Weapons to S5. The idea that sponson Heavy Bolters aren't a "defensive" weapon is silly. Either that or all "pintle" and "sponson" weapons count as defensive regardless of what the weapon is.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: