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





One or the other, which will you be happier about?

1. 10th Edition of Warhammer 40,000 continues the trend we currently have, keeping the core rules and Codexes valid (until they are replaced with 10th ed codexes).
-May include the retention of command points and stratagems, even if they do change the mechanics of how they're used of generated.

or

2. 10th Edition of Warhammer 40,000 scraps ALL current books in favor of returning to Indexes, meaning even books that have come out shortly or that will come out soon will be invalidated (Votann, Militarum, World Eaters)
-Gives a greater change in rules, could see a complete removal of stratagems and command points in favor of some other system. All factions flattened and rebalanced.

There's pros and cons to either side, but which would you actually prefer to happen? Some rumors suggest that 10th ed may be a reset, but it might not be!

Let me know if there are any other pros/cons to either side below.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

A shift to everyone back to index and work from there with a more reasonable stat spread/interaction.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






I hope they continue as they have been. I hope that the first release is a Chapter Approved book that bans all faction Stratagems, Secondaries and WL traits and replaces them with generic ones. I also want this chapter approved to ban all Chapter Tactics, Armies of Renown, Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines and ban all old Relics and make a new suite of relics. No relics should be +1 swords.

Any other relics, WL traits and special rules GW releases should only be available in special missions, which would limit bloat.

As factions are updated Combat Doctrines that were not baked into the updated Relics, get added as army rules or used to spice up abilities. New codexes don't have re-roll 1 auras or multiplicative buffs. For example World Eaters should not both have Strength buffs and Attacks buffs since the extra Attacks would benefit from the extra Strength and you'd be getting more than what you payed for. Instead they'd get additional Attacks and additional Attacks, which would be additive instead of multiplicative.

Strength and +1 to wound are not multiplicative, BS and +1 to hit are not multiplicative, pretty much everything else is multiplicative. Getting +1 to wound with shooting and +1 to Attacks in melee is fine, since those would not multiply off each other. Getting +1 to wound against Monsters and +1 to hit against Infantry is okay, since those are mutually exclusive keywords.

After every codex has been released and points have been thoroughly balanced certain list concepts will turn out to be impossible to balance, unit A is balanced and unit B is balanced but only when in included in the same list and it'd be fluffy to make lists without B. Armies of Renown return, but only where strictly necessary for balance reasons or to add cool new rules.

I don't actually think factions should be updated via codexes, but rather via indexes. Codexes should not have datasheets or relics, but should have more lore and evergreen special missions and campaign stuff or other GW games.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I'm always of the opinion that you can salvage what's there if you just try to make things better, and don't do broard idiotic patches like AoC and HotE. But I don't trust GW to get that right.

I also don't trust them to reset everything.

I think they're just going to continue writing rules in line with whatever paradigm is in vogue this quarter before they heave the might pendulum to something else, all with the added bonus of making constant blanket changes based on a few tournament players.

I'm curious as to how they're going to shoe horn HH's reaction mechanics into an 8th/9th style rulebase, 'cause that seems like the obvious thing they'll fail at implementing next. Plus every sub-faction will get their own reaction, leaving some races without their own for months if not years (especially as they killed Chapter Approved and made it so tournament focused).

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

 
   
Made in eg
[MOD]
Otiose in a Niche






Cairo, Egypt

It'll be the same people writing the game with the same incentives.

Future sales are more important than backwards compatibility, complex rules are better than streamlined, pay to win will be a thing. There will be new codexes and new campaign supplements to sell.

So 10th will have all the issues of 8-9 and 3-7, and 2, and Rogue Trader just slightly different y'know.

 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It'll be the same people writing the game with the same incentives.

Future sales are more important than backwards compatibility, complex rules are better than streamlined, pay to win will be a thing. There will be new codexes and new campaign supplements to sell.

So 10th will have all the issues of 8-9 and 3-7, and 2, and Rogue Trader just slightly different y'know.


GW screwing it all up and repeating mistakes is inevitable, but the topic was full reset or more of 9th.

I'd rather a full reset because current rules are just super bland and boring. When I played WHFB a few months ago I'd forgotten how swingy the game is because you don't have a dearth of rerolls available that make everything super reliable and it was great fun. 9th has very little in the way of surprises during a game and it makes things very rote which is absolutely not what 40k should be.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It'll be the same people writing the game with the same incentives.

Future sales are more important than backwards compatibility, complex rules are better than streamlined, pay to win will be a thing. There will be new codexes and new campaign supplements to sell.

So 10th will have all the issues of 8-9 and 3-7, and 2, and Rogue Trader just slightly different y'know.


GW screwing it all up and repeating mistakes is inevitable, but the topic was full reset or more of 9th.

I'd rather a full reset because current rules are just super bland and boring. When I played WHFB a few months ago I'd forgotten how swingy the game is because you don't have a dearth of rerolls available that make everything super reliable and it was great fun. 9th has very little in the way of surprises during a game and it makes things very rote which is absolutely not what 40k should be.


I actually find that reliability kind of dreadful. There's no suspense if something succeeds or fails. Either you get the average roll that you're expecting, or you get slightly lower or slightly higher, and RARELY do you whiff completely.
But this also makes certain things, like overtuned Knight weapons and such, very oppressive, because you know whatever they shoot at they are going to destroy, and it just kinda feels bad as a defender.

But then, that's kind of another issue - being the defender and packing away the toys you want to play with is kind of lame. Part of it is inevitable, but there's definitely a threshold where losing models starts to overwhelm the feeling of fun you might get in a game... Which is part of why I'm in the camp of flattening AP and strength and all of that a lot more than we have so far. Closer to AoS where the highest armor is 2 with MAYBE a ward save of 6 and then the highest rend is like -2, with MAYBE a -3 on some super huge monster.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rubbish going in, get rubbish out.

Unless effort is taken to clean up some of the issues.
It really doesn’t matter what good ideas they have, thinks going to break.

It’s also why even discussion can be so difficult, since even small issues tend to swing out into other issues.

A rewrite trying to stick to the intent of 40k would be great, with some thought to where they even want the game to go.

Also, some design documents for the teams working on minis :9 since they need it.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




They should just put the writers of the Horus Heresy or Lord of the rings in charge and give them time.
HH writers were even able to make a proper game out of the aweful 7th edition rules, I wonder what they could do with 9th as a base. And lotr as been awesome all along and just gets refined every year, 40K needs that as well instead of unnecessary broad changes every 3 years.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It'll be the same people writing the game with the same incentives.

Future sales are more important than backwards compatibility, complex rules are better than streamlined, pay to win will be a thing. There will be new codexes and new campaign supplements to sell.

So 10th will have all the issues of 8-9 and 3-7, and 2, and Rogue Trader just slightly different y'know.


Actually I get the feeling that GW has realised that whilst "no models no rules" means they don't want to put models into codex before they've models ready to go; expansion campaign books with 2-3 or even 1 new model profile inside them I think have stopped selling as they once did. I think GW has seen a slowdown in sales of expansion campaign books and I think we might see them keep them going as optional extras for campaigns, but we might see the annual/biannual generals handbook see more use as a means for model rule releases. Or something else. I think GW is looking to experiment again in this area because I think the magic of campaign books has blown itself out.

Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







Full reset back to 3rd/HH/LotR rules style that's an actual wargame and not a simulation of a mobile game where the most important bit is double tapping your screen at just the right time to fire off a "gotcha" ability.

Posters on ignore list: 35

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Considering how well rules changes treat my dudes, I should probably be for it to stay the same. For a lot of people 9th has be as fun as 8th was for me, so I think it would not be right to leave them hanging for another edition.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'd be very concerned about a drift back to 3-7th/HH style rules.

But equally, I think the amount of power creep and content bloat in 9th edition books has become out of control, and so similar core rules but an index-wipe and start again would be my preference.

This could be done via a standard codex roll out - but I just can't see that being popular. No one wants to get a new book just to discover they are a lot weaker than they were last week. Someone somewhere will have a collection modelled to a very specific army of renown which is now no longer legal etc.

Arguably indexes do this - but if everyone is on the same page the games tend to be more fun.
   
Made in eg
[MOD]
Otiose in a Niche






Cairo, Egypt

I've not played 8/9 but from what I see the good points are:

Return of Movement Stat
Replacing templates and model counting with a die roll
Minuses to saves replacing all or nothing AP

However there are many many other problems like

Multiple wounds on common infantry models
The loss of cover saves
Power creep
Endless stragams and warlord traits and wotnot

I'd like to see an end of multiwound infantry, return of cover saves, and all the various stragams and combo moves consolidated somehow.

 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Restart with indices and restart with rules simplifying and streamlining the game.
Condensing stratagems and restarting with USR.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in in
Longtime Dakkanaut





Index era managed to be both bland and horribly unbalanced at the same time, so anything but that.

The current edition has the best balance ever found in the game, but that came at the cost of limiting effects with truly narrative feelings. I would for sure like to see a vast reduction of reroll effects, replacing them with something more fun. 9th edition is a very good basis for the game though. I have played since 5th and these core rules are likely the best yet, so no reset, just work on what is there.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

8-9th Base with some improvements along with a updated codexes under the maxim, Less Is More. We don't need 4 layers of rules to make Codex A different from Codex B and sub-faction X different from sub-faction Y. We don't need 45 Stratagems, 12 Warlord Traits, and 20 Relics to allow us to make our guys, our guys. We just need solid rules with a few levers we can pull to move the base list in a few different directions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm curious as to how they're going to shoe horn HH's reaction mechanics into an 8th/9th style rulebase, 'cause that seems like the obvious thing they'll fail at implementing next. Plus every sub-faction will get their own reaction, leaving some races without their own for months if not years (especially as they killed Chapter Approved and made it so tournament focused).
Well, we do have these Command Points and Stratagems...
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Full reset. Get rid of stratagems, vastly reduce rerolls, numbers of attacks and shots and lethality in general. Give us meaningful morale rules, terrain and cover rules, and vehicle rules. Make things less "reliable", as others have stated. It doesn't have to be a return to the 3rd-7th rules, but something that's more of a WARgame, and less of the buff stacking boardgame that 8th/9th has been.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






I would be fine with going back to indexes, but only if it stays that way. I’m done wasting money on stopgaps and bolt-ons. I’m fed up with rapidly evolving game rules. Publish and feth off.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Can do whatever but not buying into their $55 codexes anymore. Just too many too soon. You want to keep churning? Go full digital.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Rough Rider with Boomstick





Leicester, UK

I'd prefer a full re-set but only if it chucks out the 'no models no rules' policy. I would love to see a clearer separation between tournament and casual play.

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine





 PaddyMick wrote:
I would love to see a clearer separation between tournament and casual play.


It's arguably not a clear distinction up front, but in application it has been very clear in my area that using a Chapter Approved War Zones (such as Nephium) matched play rules is for tournament play/practice. And pretty much everything else is casual, typically being Tempest of War and Open War card decks for my area. Since playing anything deviated from current CA matched play isn't supported by the tournament scene. I can't say if there are players using current War Zone matched played rules but not going tournament-play with them, as I don't like any aspect of those missions and rules add-ons anyway.

It works pretty well, as tournament play is highly restrictive and fairly foolproof to not accidentally schedule a game versus an optimized opposing army list. I don't know how standardized modern gaming is worldwide. But open _______ game night isn't a thing for 40k (even most of the smaller games don't do this) anymore where I live. No one just shows up to a store with an army looking for an opponent. Everywhere has their own Discord where players look for games and hash out the details with DMs with their opponents. Some places have players book their table times (usually the smaller places), others are on a first come, first served basis (though, most places have plenty of tables if there isn't a tournament happening).

And just wanting a game with Tempest, Open or even just a 4'x6' table instantly takes the game out of tournament play/practice. Even if it didn't, both players exchange lists online well before the game happens, and in theory; list tuning of either list could be done should either play feel they are mismatched. In practice, I tend to roll with whatever my opponent wants to bring (probably the same with most of my opponents). As well as Tempest and Open War seem to favor more TAC armies. As a result, most of my games have been close. There's still the occasional blow-out, but I feel it is rarer than typical casual gaming scenes, since there are a lot of variables that can go wrong in something like Tempest/Open War 9th ed 40k.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 PaddyMick wrote:
I'd prefer a full re-set but only if it chucks out the 'no models no rules' policy. I would love to see a clearer separation between tournament and casual play.


I'd very much prefer a clearer separation between tournament and narrative/casual play. You want stratagems? Go buy the tournament pack that GW prints out every 3 months to get the latest and greatest broken stratagems for your army, but leave the rest of us alone!

I also wouldn't mind a return to paperback codexes. Cheaper, easier to use in a game and transport, can be rebound by an office supply company so you can add/remove pages for gaming, or kept pristine for collection. Collector's Edition Codexes could remain hardback and such.

There's challenges to all the paper GW is pushing out, including worldwide shortages, printing slow-downs, and when something gets sold out faster than they anticipated, it takes that much longer for another shipment to come in, which creates big gaps in what players can do and what tournaments will even allow. Going digital at least with the datasheets of various units would be a big step in the right direction, but we've seen how GW has struggled to do that with their own list-building app, so...

Overall, less time reading the book in the middle of a game (ie searching for stratagems, double-checking rules interactions, looking up USRs or unique abilities) is better. The one advantage to pre 8th edition was that unit stats were relatively easy to memorize, and WYSIWYG was all you needed to worry about.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/06 21:40:12


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






8th edition had 4 modes of play and it had zero effect.

There was:
Open Play
Narrative Play
Matched Play
Organized Play (i.e. tournament play / competitive play)

99% of players didn't know that Organized Play and Matched Play were two different modes of play and just lumped it all together. This is solely why 9th edition combined Matched and Organized.

Another issue was that 99% of players also didn't realize that the procedures for deployment and going first were mission specific and NOT a general game update from the annual Chapter Approved.

It was great that there was a separation, but it didn't matter because 99% of players worldwide were fething doing it wrong and had no clue they were doing it wrong. It frustrates me to this day that SOoo many people got it wrong.

Anyway, my point being, making Matched and Organized (i.e. tournament play / competitive play) separate will accomplish absolutely nothing.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/06 22:25:42


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 oni wrote:
8th edition had 4 modes of play and it had zero effect.

There was:
Open Play
Narrative Play
Matched Play
Organized Play (i.e. tournament play / competitive play)

99% of players didn't know that Organized Play and Matched Play were two different modes of play and just lumped it all together. This is solely why 9th edition combined Matched and Organized.

Another issue was that 99% of players also didn't realize that the procedures for deployment and going first were mission specific and NOT a general game update from the annual Chapter Approved.

It was great that there was a separation, but it didn't matter because 99% of players worldwide were fething doing it wrong and had no clue they were doing it wrong. It frustrates me to this day that SOoo many people got it wrong.

Anyway, my point being, making Matched and Organized (i.e. tournament play / competitive play) separate will accomplish absolutely nothing.





I don't think people are asking for Matched and Organized to be different. They're asking for Casual and Tournament play to be separate.

The fact that people didn't understand the difference was on GW for not making that language and verbiage clearer, but the flip side of it is that many players, if they're going to bother playing 'matched play' want the most balanced experience possible, and tournament play is supposed to supply that, which is why we see it used more often than not.

On the flip side, I've seen more people have more fun with Crusade than trying to do matched play or tournament play. So, I'd love to see Crusade expanded upon and continue to be supported into the future. Not via expensive campaign books, but ideally through PDF mission updates that people can access easily, jump into, and play.

One thing I agree with Ash from GMG on is the idea that "GW does not make money per game played, they make money by selling models". Trying to cater to the tournament crowd and create a balanced game is something that ultimately may be a waste of time. On the other hand, things like creating ally rules, new types of detachments, different styles of missions give people more reasons to buy models. Supporting those things is what I'd like to see more of.

Tank-only battles. Hero-heavy battles. The new boarding actions that's all infantry is a great direction as well that we should see in the Arks of Omen books. Being more free to soup things like Chaos factions without losing a ton of rules or CP as a result is better because it lets people make thematic forces with larger collections.

If parts of those become horribly balanced, THAT'S what you limit when it comes to 'tournament play', but for CASUAL or narrative play, having those options open is more important.

The other issue is that many players view Open play as undesirable - unbalanced and without restriction it can be a mess to play a game like that, so people shy away from it. But Crusade is literally just Open play with a little more structure and some exp and growth mechanics. That's why it's so fun.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

GW think that Open is casual. They think that casual means using the ass-backwards Power Level system to organise forces.

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

 
   
Made in mx
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

IMHO part of the issue is that there is no universal casual experience, it all depends on the local meta.

In some places, casual means people throw together thematic games without a lot of optimization. In other places casual is just disorganized competitive play with people using 2000pts optimized lists. And in a lot of places it is somewhere in the middle in which someone brought their first thematic 2k list and their opponent brought an optimized list with obvious results.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/07 00:07:47


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Tyran wrote:
IMHO part of the issue is that there is no universal casual experience, it all depends on the local meta.

In some places, casual means people throw together thematic games without a lot of optimization. In other places casual is just disorganized competitive play with people using 2000pts optimized lists. And in a lot of places it is somewhere in the middle in which someone brought their first thematic 2k list and their opponent brought an optimized list with obvious results.


That's a good point. In a way, Casual can cover any of the gamemodes, while Competitive only really covers Matched and Tournament play.

I wouldn't mind it if they got rid of the Power Level system. It is a little more convenient when it comes to crusade, but it also means that Crusade armies can get horribly, horribly skewed.

But anyway, all the more reason to reset the entire system. I'd rather see them start fresh than try to 'fix' what's already here, because they'll have to remove whole swathes of rules in order to get any sort of 'fix' to work anyway.
   
Made in jp
Battleship Captain






The Land of the Rising Sun

I want to put a stop to widespread 2+ reroll 6s generate MWs that some factions get. It totally invalidates the stat line of the enemy, and turns the game into a just count the wounds mess.

M.

Jenkins: You don't have jurisdiction here!
Smith Jamison: We aren't here, which means when we open up on you and shred your bodies with automatic fire then this will never have happened.

Raxmei wrote:24ps is the range. 24". If that were the points cost then lasguns and plasma guns would cost the same amount and flamers would have a cost of "Souffle".

Every year Golden Week Tournament at www.nagoyahammer.com 
   
Made in mx
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

The big problem with a reset is that indexes are inherently stopgag rules of lesser quality. GW simply cannot put the same level of attention on an Index compared to a codex.

So a reset would mean everyone would suffer barebones rules while waiting a year or two for their codex.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/07 01:18:58


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: