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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Also to the people who don't want to pay a "tax" for a special rule then you really aren't looking for a special rule just special treatment. Every benefit should have a cost (IMHO).

Putting that cost to a single character isn't an approach that scales well, though. The amount of benefit you get from those Deathwing rules is going to be pretty different between Capt + one unit compared to Capt + 3000pts of just Terminators.

Is it really necessary to tie 'special' armies to a single character choice? If you want to play Deathwing, why not just let the player say 'this is a Deathwing army' and pay 5ppm or whatever for the Deathwing special rules?

According to the main 40k rumor thread, these are just rumor-reverb from some discord from months ago.

drbored wrote:
According to the main 40k rumor thread, these are just rumor-reverb from some discord from months ago.

Not months, more like a couple of days, but Spikeybits literally only removed the identifying information from the same screenshot we had in the main rumour thread on monday - afaik we don't know how old that screenshot is or where it originated, the user that brought it to our attention had it from some Drukhari discord channel, but iirc that is also not the original source.

I’m calling it now. The same neckbeards that demanded a reboot will hate 10th edition because reasons and because they hate everything.

Moorecox wrote:
I’m calling it now. The same neckbeards that demanded a reboot will hate 10th edition because reasons and because they hate everything.

Of course - like with every new edition, everybody will hate it until the first rumours of 11th edition turn up, then 10th will always have been the best edition and every change will be a sacrilege

Moorecox wrote:
I’m calling it now. The same neckbeards that demanded a reboot will hate 10th edition because reasons and because they hate everything.

It's perfectly reasonable to want a reboot, and be disappointed with the end product of said reboot.

Going from 7th to 8th and being disappointed in the terrain rules, say, or stacking modifiers.

The question is whether the things you're disappointed by should be a big enough deal to put you off the edition.

Pre-emptively attacking a class of people before we have enough information... that's not a good look.

 tauist wrote:
This thing regarding "lore-accurate Blood Angels" is fascinating. The 90s GW I grew up with strongly encouraged everyone to "make the army yours", and fluff etc was deliberately left vague enough that indeed, you could have bionics-obsessed Blood Angels if you wanted to, and NOBODY was going to tell you you were going "against Canon". Heck, the early editions even encouraged you to make up rules by yourself, if it added to your enjoyment of the game..

30 years later, Blood Angels have been flanderized and stereotyped to "Vampiric Anime bois" who spam Sanguinary Guard units left and right.

Some of that is on GW, but most of it is on "lazy" players. I'm starting to like where Assault Squads are right now - There's also DC and VV beyond SangGuard - BA also have Terminators, speeders, and Dreadnaughts in their fluffy wheelhouse. Many of those units are good enough to use right now, but its "easier" to be "lazy". GW could easily encourage more variety in the BRB, but they're not encouraging monobuilds that's on the players.

On their spare time, they all wash their long, blonde hairs, write emo poetry and craft artisanal decorations to their weapons. And when the Chaplain tucks them to sleep at night. they need a bedtime story or they'll get nightmares about the Black Rage. WTF

Sure enough, there is much more lore now to go around.. but with the huge scope of time/space in the game, there is still millions of ways to make it ALL fit into the setting - GW's lore, your headcanon, your neighbor's. The lore is supposed to flesh out things, and to inspire your imagination, not to make things more stereotypical and one dimensional..

An ideal army building system IMHO is one which errs on the side of being "too open-ended" rather than "too restrictive". If this is the direction where things are headed, I'm all for it.

Food for thought - People love to talk about units feeling "flavourful", and many like to think you need special rules for making something feel a certain way. Well, what if you altered your playstyle instead?

I'm mostly curious about what the core rule changes will be in 10th.

Horus Heresy 2.0 seemed to be a really nice evolution of the 40k ruleset. It's closer to 7th ed than 8th/9th, but takes some queues from the newer editions while also adding in some new long-wished for stuff like a proper reaction system.

Seems like there would be interest in bridging the gap between 9th and HH2.0 with a 10th edition, rather than just iterating on the 8th/9th approach from scratch. If its just going to iterate on 8th/9th, why the hard reset for codexes? (unless of course the answer is requiring the most book re-purchasing with the least amount of developer cost)

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm mostly curious about what the core rule changes will be in 10th.

Horus Heresy 2.0 seemed to be a really nice evolution of the 40k ruleset. It's closer to 7th ed than 8th/9th, but takes some queues from the newer editions while also adding in some new long-wished for stuff like a proper reaction system.

Seems like there would be interest in bridging the gap between 9th and HH2.0 with a 10th edition, rather than just iterating on the 8th/9th approach from scratch. If its just going to iterate on 8th/9th, why the hard reset for codexes? (unless of course the answer is requiring the most book re-purchasing with the least amount of developer cost)

There is always the “Sell more books” aspect. Mostly to flog indexes off on people as well as the eventual 10th codex.

I think the bones of 9th are not bad. Most of the edition’s issues are in the codex imbalance/creep/bloat. So if you left them, and just did a quick FAQ to bring them up to the mechanics of 10th, most of the problems with 40k remain. And if you just release new 10th ed codexes one at a time, but toned down, they are going to suck from a competitive/power POV compared to the legacy 9th books.

Incremental rules update, hard codex reset is what is needed IMHO.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm mostly curious about what the core rule changes will be in 10th.

Horus Heresy 2.0 seemed to be a really nice evolution of the 40k ruleset. It's closer to 7th ed than 8th/9th, but takes some queues from the newer editions while also adding in some new long-wished for stuff like a proper reaction system.

Seems like there would be interest in bridging the gap between 9th and HH2.0 with a 10th edition, rather than just iterating on the 8th/9th approach from scratch. If its just going to iterate on 8th/9th, why the hard reset for codexes? (unless of course the answer is requiring the most book re-purchasing with the least amount of developer cost)

10th can be based on 8/9th and still need indexes if they nerf the lethality. I’d say cutting strats significantly, and then cutting weapons profile stats by a lot, those two things alone would require indexes.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm mostly curious about what the core rule changes will be in 10th.

I hope they get terrain perfect. It would be the biggest improvement we could get. I won't even go into what perfect is, because it might end up being something I couldn't predict, but I think one of the things people need from the new edition is a terrain system that works well.

Strat reduction is likely too. I don't think they're going away, but there will certainly be fewer of them.

 Nevelon wrote:
I think the bones of 9th are not bad. Most of the edition’s issues are in the codex imbalance/creep/bloat.

Except that the main reason for codex creep and bloat is the fact that the core rules are clingfilm-thin. There's nothing to build on. No USRs or core mechanics to adapt to different books.

You've got move, psychic [maybe], shoot, fight, morale (i.e. the lose harder phase).

Those are your core rules with which to differentiate 30+ armies, going by the GW store.

Is it really such a shock that so many codices end up horrendously bloated and stuffed full of bespoke rules when there are no USRs and the core rules give them nothing to work with?

It doesn't help that the 40K team often seems to go about the most cumbersome way possible to implement desired features.

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Or the Custodes flowchart system.

Or the Tyranid adaptation system. But at least that one doesn't matter because, seeing that they had inadvertently created something interesting (a faction that can adapt to each opponent, rather than being locked into a fixed list), GW patched it out of matched play ASAP.

I don't really have high hopes for 10th unless we see signs of a radical course-correction in fundamental writing style. Beyond core rules vs codices, matched play vs narrative, there's a basic need for more elegant design.

 catbarf wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Also to the people who don't want to pay a "tax" for a special rule then you really aren't looking for a special rule just special treatment. Every benefit should have a cost (IMHO).

Putting that cost to a single character isn't an approach that scales well, though. The amount of benefit you get from those Deathwing rules is going to be pretty different between Capt + one unit compared to Capt + 3000pts of just Terminators.

Is it really necessary to tie 'special' armies to a single character choice? If you want to play Deathwing, why not just let the player say 'this is a Deathwing army' and pay 5ppm or whatever for the Deathwing special rules?

I tend to agree. I don't like using characters. I want my own army to be my own. I'd be happy to pay extra for the special rules.

 catbarf wrote:

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Just on that point, there's something I find almost soul-crushing about GW's rule wording.

I get that they want to avoid misinterpretation, but maybe this is why it would help to have USRs, keywords and core rules that are actually worth a damn.

I mean, other games can work just fine with effects as simple as 'push the target 6"', yet GW apparently needs:

"Thou may, if thou choses, push [that is move] the target ["the target" being a model [defined as a tabletop miniature for use in the game of Warhammer 40k (TM)] currently in play on the table in the current game and not a person, animal, or object not being a model or a model not being on the table, in play at the present time, or presently in use in the current game] a number of inches being no more than 6" (it may be less but not so few as to pull the model instead) measured horizontally (being defined as level with and parallel to the table, excepting in the case of terrain, the rules for which are defined in volumes 14 through 19 of the Core Rules) . . ."

PenitentJake wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm mostly curious about what the core rule changes will be in 10th.

I hope they get terrain perfect. It would be the biggest improvement we could get. I won't even go into what perfect is, because it might end up being something I couldn't predict, but I think one of the things people need from the new edition is a terrain system that works well.

Strat reduction is likely too. I don't think they're going away, but there will certainly be fewer of them.

I counted them and there's 40-80 strategems per faction. It's just such an enormous amount of bloat. If they have to have strategems they could cut that down to probably 6 universal strategems and one-two faction specific strategems. Personally I'd just do away with them period. If I want a special weapon for my warlord let me pay points for it.

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am always a bit surprised how few people know the AoS system.

AoS 3.0 cut down the subfaction trait down heavily. Nowadays it is more about buffing a certain playstyle(like a shark build for Idoneth or a turtle build) instead of a generic armywide subfaction rule.

Personally I like it as it feels less heavy handed than the regular 40k way of locking you into only one subfaction trait until the heat death of the universe. Something like Bloody Rose becomes "Zephyrim get +1 to attack on charge/etc" instead of everything and their mother suddenly going melee crazy.

Yeah, the way AOS handles it is a lot better IMHO.

A system where "your army bonus is one unit is better" is absolutely worse LMAO

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Just on that point, there's something I find almost soul-crushing about GW's rule wording.

I get that they want to avoid misinterpretation, but maybe this is why it would help to have USRs, keywords and core rules that are actually worth a damn.

I mean, other games can work just fine with effects as simple as 'push the target 6"', yet GW apparently needs:

"Thou may, if thou choses, push [that is move] the target ["the target" being a model [defined as a tabletop miniature for use in the game of Warhammer 40k (TM)] currently in play on the table in the current game and not a person, animal, or object not being a model or a model not being on the table, in play at the present time, or presently in use in the current game] a number of inches being no more than 6" (it may be less but not so few as to pull the model instead) measured horizontally (being defined as level with and parallel to the table, excepting in the case of terrain, the rules for which are defined in volumes 14 through 19 of these Core Rules) . . ."

the fact they STILL can't comprehend how to properly write what is basically an instruction manual and instead insist on writing in this cumbersome, convoluted textbook style boggles the mind.

Warmachine/Hordes had an excellent rulebook with obvious rules that made sense with just a simple reading most of the time. GW refuses to do that.

Probably the most egregious example is where they're talking about terrain I think, and it's something about drawing an imaginary line to see if the target gets the benefit. The 40k book takes like a paragraph filled with superfluous language like "if, were you to draw a line, 1mm in thickness, from the firing models base to the target models base... " And it's like why write in such a pedantic style? They could say it much more concisely and still have it clear enough. And if they really needed to clarify that part it could be done in an appendix or something

Wayniac wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Just on that point, there's something I find almost soul-crushing about GW's rule wording.

I get that they want to avoid misinterpretation, but maybe this is why it would help to have USRs, keywords and core rules that are actually worth a damn.

I mean, other games can work just fine with effects as simple as 'push the target 6"', yet GW apparently needs:

"Thou may, if thou choses, push [that is move] the target ["the target" being a model [defined as a tabletop miniature for use in the game of Warhammer 40k (TM)] currently in play on the table in the current game and not a person, animal, or object not being a model or a model not being on the table, in play at the present time, or presently in use in the current game] a number of inches being no more than 6" (it may be less but not so few as to pull the model instead) measured horizontally (being defined as level with and parallel to the table, excepting in the case of terrain, the rules for which are defined in volumes 14 through 19 of these Core Rules) . . ."

the fact they STILL can't comprehend how to properly write what is basically an instruction manual and instead insist on writing in this cumbersome, convoluted textbook style boggles the mind.

Warmachine/Hordes had an excellent rulebook with obvious rules that made sense with just a simple reading most of the time. GW refuses to do that.

Probably the most egregious example is where they're talking about terrain I think, and it's something about drawing an imaginary line to see if the target gets the benefit. The 40k book takes like a paragraph filled with superfluous language like "if, were you to draw a line, 1mm in thickness, from the firing models base to the target models base... " And it's like why write in such a pedantic style? They could say it much more concisely and still have it clear enough. And if they really needed to clarify that part it could be done in an appendix or something

Apparently it's because of rules lawyers?

I'd agree though. They could simplify terrain to a couple obvious types, have a picture, then a 1-2 line rule.

 vipoid wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I think the bones of 9th are not bad. Most of the edition’s issues are in the codex imbalance/creep/bloat.

Except that the main reason for codex creep and bloat is the fact that the core rules are clingfilm-thin. There's nothing to build on. No USRs or core mechanics to adapt to different books.

You've got move, psychic [maybe], shoot, fight, morale (i.e. the lose harder phase).

Those are your core rules with which to differentiate 30+ armies, going by the GW store.

Is it really such a shock that so many codices end up horrendously bloated and stuffed full of bespoke rules when there are no USRs and the core rules give them nothing to work with?

Can't. Exalt this post. Enough. Seriously, totally agreed Vipoid. Well said

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Just on that point, there's something I find almost soul-crushing about GW's rule wording.

I get that they want to avoid misinterpretation, but maybe this is why it would help to have USRs, keywords and core rules that are actually worth a damn.

I mean, other games can work just fine with effects as simple as 'push the target 6"', yet GW apparently needs:

"Thou may, if thou choses, push [that is move] the target ["the target" being a model [defined as a tabletop miniature for use in the game of Warhammer 40k (TM)] currently in play on the table in the current game and not a person, animal, or object not being a model or a model not being on the table, in play at the present time, or presently in use in the current game] a number of inches being no more than 6" (it may be less but not so few as to pull the model instead) measured horizontally (being defined as level with and parallel to the table, excepting in the case of terrain, the rules for which are defined in volumes 14 through 19 of these Core Rules) . . ."

the fact they STILL can't comprehend how to properly write what is basically an instruction manual and instead insist on writing in this cumbersome, convoluted textbook style boggles the mind.

Warmachine/Hordes had an excellent rulebook with obvious rules that made sense with just a simple reading most of the time. GW refuses to do that.

Probably the most egregious example is where they're talking about terrain I think, and it's something about drawing an imaginary line to see if the target gets the benefit. The 40k book takes like a paragraph filled with superfluous language like "if, were you to draw a line, 1mm in thickness, from the firing models base to the target models base... " And it's like why write in such a pedantic style? They could say it much more concisely and still have it clear enough. And if they really needed to clarify that part it could be done in an appendix or something

Apparently it's because of rules lawyers?

I'd agree though. They could simplify terrain to a couple obvious types, have a picture, then a 1-2 line rule.

Again, that's a place where they could take a page out of Magic: the Gatherings book: because by design all the rules for a specific card have to be printed on the space of a physical card, most keywordable things are keyworded, and unique things use standard language that makes them fit in and work with the common things - all that bloaty stuff still exists in the comprehensive rulebook, but for the most part you only need to read that once, if ever, and can rely on short explanation text on the cards itself for the most part.

Its because players complained about their previous rules writing style, which was generally informal and fine because there were some cases where they were unclear (and many more where people decided to be pedantic as hell despite the obvious intention). A case of be careful what you wish for I feel especially when asking GW to do it


It does feel like they are taking the Mick with it though, if it is one big troll I am almost impressed.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I think the bones of 9th are not bad. Most of the edition’s issues are in the codex imbalance/creep/bloat.

Except that the main reason for codex creep and bloat is the fact that the core rules are clingfilm-thin. There's nothing to build on. No USRs or core mechanics to adapt to different books.

You've got move, psychic [maybe], shoot, fight, morale (i.e. the lose harder phase).

Those are your core rules with which to differentiate 30+ armies, going by the GW store.

Is it really such a shock that so many codices end up horrendously bloated and stuffed full of bespoke rules when there are no USRs and the core rules give them nothing to work with?

Can't. Exalt this post. Enough. Seriously, totally agreed Vipoid. Well said

Never claimed that 9th was perfect, just that we don’t need the 2nd to 3rd or 7th to 8th level reboot of the core rules.

You could clean up the whole terrain section, add back USRs, and change psychology and I’d be happy with that. I don’t want to drag this off into a wishlist thread though.

I also don’t think we need the level of differentiation. I was fine and happy back in the day when a bolter was a bolter, and the difference between marine chapters was the color of their armor (any maybe a character or special unit).

Dai wrote:
Its because players complained about their previous rules writing style, which was generally informal and fine because there were some cases where they were unclear.

But the problem with the old rules wasn't that they weren't written in legalese - it was that GW was incredibly inconsistent in language. e.g. you had terms like 'unit' and 'model', which were supposed to be defined terms/keywords with very specific meanings, yet writers used them interchangeably.

Same with using 'removed from play', in place of 'instant death', when only one of those is a defined term.

All they needed to do was be consistent with words/language used.

I don't think USRs would have made any difference. Nor do I think the issue is the thinness of the basic rules - which are frankly a strength.

The problem is the rule stack. You have:

Unit special rules.
Weapon special rules
Faction special Rules.
Faction purity bonus rules - which became increasingly complicated/powerful.
Subfaction Special Rules - which went from say 1 active buff to 2 or 4.
Character Buffs/abilities.
WLT/Relic Buffs.
Psychic Powers.
Stratagems.

This unsurprisingly has been bloated and complicated to just process without playing regularly. Every new codex has brought a whole swathe of stuff you notionally want to learn if you want a quasi universal encyclopaedia style knowledge of the game. Which I'd argue was certainly possible up to at least 5th, and has grown steadily more difficult. I'd be amazed if someone off the top of their head could name every thing in 9th. Which means if two non-regulars play, they can end up nose deep in books all game.

The core issue is that GW want everything to be unique. Yes, in principle a game system where you say "there are only 10, maybe 20 at a push, USRs and every single unit from now on must be defined by those rules and that's it the end" will be cleaner. But GW have never ever accepted such constraints on their rules writing before, and I suspect they never will. 7th ended up with about 100 USRs - and still had unique special rules all over the place.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think USRs would have made any difference. Nor do I think the issue is the thinness of the basic rules - which are frankly a strength.

The problem is the rule stack. You have:

Unit special rules.
Weapon special rules
Faction special Rules.
Faction purity bonus rules - which became increasingly complicated/powerful.
Subfaction Special Rules - which went from say 1 active buff to 2 or 4.
Character Buffs/abilities.
WLT/Relic Buffs.
Psychic Powers.
Stratagems.

This unsurprisingly has been bloated and complicated to just process without playing regularly. Every new codex has brought a whole swathe of stuff you notionally want to learn if you want a quasi universal encyclopaedia style knowledge of the game. Which I'd argue was certainly possible up to at least 5th, and has grown steadily more difficult. I'd be amazed if someone off the top of their head could name every thing in 9th. Which means if two non-regulars play, they can end up nose deep in books all game.

The core issue is that GW want everything to be unique. Yes, in principle a game system where you say "there are only 10, maybe 20 at a push, USRs and every single unit from now on must be defined by those rules and that's it the end" will be cleaner. But GW have never ever accepted such constraints on their rules writing before, and I suspect they never will. 7th ended up with about 100 USRs - and still had unique special rules all over the place.

I don’t think many games restrict themselves to only USRs, some may but I do not think it’s what people think about.
Instead you use USRs and other common rules so you can later build on them.
Just GW sucks so much they cannot even understand there own rules as a company.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I think the bones of 9th are not bad. Most of the edition’s issues are in the codex imbalance/creep/bloat.

Except that the main reason for codex creep and bloat is the fact that the core rules are clingfilm-thin. There's nothing to build on. No USRs or core mechanics to adapt to different books.

You've got move, psychic [maybe], shoot, fight, morale (i.e. the lose harder phase).

Those are your core rules with which to differentiate 30+ armies, going by the GW store.

Is it really such a shock that so many codices end up horrendously bloated and stuffed full of bespoke rules when there are no USRs and the core rules give them nothing to work with?

Can't. Exalt this post. Enough. Seriously, totally agreed Vipoid. Well said

Never claimed that 9th was perfect, just that we don’t need the 2nd to 3rd or 7th to 8th level reboot of the core rules.

You could clean up the whole terrain section, add back USRs, and change psychology and I’d be happy with that. I don’t want to drag this off into a wishlist thread though.

Outside AA and a reworked wounding table, I overall agree with these points. Some of the core just works better than prior editions, but the "rules writers" are too lazy to put more effort in.

Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

Normally I would agree, but their track record is so abysmal that it's either laziness or incompetence, or both.