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.

I keep hearing tales of three-year cycles and needed patches to 10th edition.

What, in your mind, does 11th Edition need? Does it need a complete rewrite? Should it just be a 10.5 with all the errata and updates compiled into one source?

Or should it be something entirely new? Perhaps a major Canon change or playstyle is introduced, or in the case of Aircraft, reintroduced.

And do you think GW will continue what it started with 10th edition and give out the Core Rules for free?

What 11th needs is for the entire 10th edition rulebook to be put into a shredder, then for the resulting paper to be fed to pigs, then for those pigs to be fired into the sun.

Well, based on recent editions, GW's pattern seems to be to have even-numbered editions be overhauls, then for odd-numbered editions to refine some of the introduced concepts while also adding a lot of bloat.

So if that "pattern" (limited datapoints) holds, 11th will start as 10.5, but then they'll either flood the game with a ton of poorly tested detachments or else add a new layer of rules/buffs that use unpolished and poorly balanced mechanics. Eventually the edition will bloat up so that we're sick of the power creep/bloat, and they'll market 12th edition as a super balanced edition. Which they'll sort of make true by somehow removing even more options/customization.

So my half-joking prediction is that 11th edition will be 10.5 with a boat load of new detachments or a new layer of buffs, and then 12th will be an overhaul with army construction that looks a lot like Boarding Actions.

What I'd *like* would be an overhaul that values balance but also focuses much more heavily on narrative missions/mechanics. So less standing in magic circles, and more taking out the weapon batteries on an enemy base. Less "your jetbikes reroll to-hit rolls) and more "your jetbikes can move really fast/move after shooting."

Basically, I'm more interested in 40k as a system for mashing action figures together than as turn-based E-sports. I just want *enough* balance that my opponent and I can have a close match regardless of which action figures we're mashing.

I'd like to see them return some equipment costs, but I'm not sure if they will. It wouldn't be on everything, just on the heavy gear that actually makes a difference rather than the old bolt pistol vs. laspistol debate.

I'd like for new Crusade content to not invalidate, but rather expand and compliment 10th's Crusade content.

And I'd like to see chosen psychic powers again. I have been convinced we don't necessarily need a phase. But every psyker of the same type being required to have exactly the same psychic powers as every other psyker of the same type is just... Dull, boring, and stupid game design.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Well, based on recent editions, GW's pattern seems to be to have even-numbered editions be overhauls, then for odd-numbered editions to refine some of the introduced concepts while also adding a lot of bloat.

So if that "pattern" (limited datapoints) holds, 11th will start as 10.5, but then they'll either flood the game with a ton of poorly tested detachments or else add a new layer of rules/buffs that use unpolished and poorly balanced mechanics. Eventually the edition will bloat up so that we're sick of the power creep/bloat, and they'll market 12th edition as a super balanced edition. Which they'll sort of make true by somehow removing even more options/customization.

So my half-joking prediction is that 11th edition will be 10.5 with a boat load of new detachments or a new layer of buffs, and then 12th will be an overhaul with army construction that looks a lot like Boarding Actions.

What I'd *like* would be an overhaul that values balance but also focuses much more heavily on narrative missions/mechanics. So less standing in magic circles, and more taking out the weapon batteries on an enemy base. Less "your jetbikes reroll to-hit rolls) and more "your jetbikes can move really fast/move after shooting."

Basically, I'm more interested in 40k as a system for mashing action figures together than as turn-based E-sports. I just want *enough* balance that my opponent and I can have a close match regardless of which action figures we're mashing.

Yee.

 PenitentJake wrote:
I'd like to see them return some equipment costs, but I'm not sure if they will. It wouldn't be on everything, just on the heavy gear that actually makes a difference rather than the old bolt pistol vs. laspistol debate.

I'd like for new Crusade content to not invalidate, but rather expand and compliment 10th's Crusade content.

And I'd like to see chosen psychic powers again. I have been convinced we don't necessarily need a phase. But every psyker of the same type being required to have exactly the same psychic powers as every other psyker of the same type is just... Dull, boring, and stupid game design.

I'd like that to not be limited to Psykers.

Psykers should have several powers to choose from.
Captains should have several buffs to choose from.
Heck, Battleline units should have several ways to engage with the game, based on choices made with them.

Edit: What I expect? A modest clean-up of 10th, and then more stuff added.

Looking at it from a very casual perspective, the rules are fine, tidy up the places where they've frayed and give it some Wax On, Wax Off, job done. I have no idea what GW might do, but I'd like to see list-building return to a more flexible model - doesn't have to be a complete free-for-all, but for discussion's sake let's say the norm will be 'this unit consists of 5-10 models, each one costs X points', still somewhat constrained and predictable (and therefore less likely to cause min-max mayhem), but if you bought a box of ten Interociters and converted one to a Captain, you can still field the remaining 9 as a unit. Or you tried converting one and screwed it up. Or you've got a squad of five and the free mini of the month is another one, now you've got a squad of six. Or just let me tinker with my list, rather than basically having to start from scratch if I want to try a new unit that's not exactly the same points cost as the one I'm dropping.

A proper ally system would be great too. Marines alongside Sisters, or Guard and Eldar, or Orks and Genestealers - screw it, anyone and anyone, do whatever tinkering it takes to make the detachment rules not broken when you have two on the table at once, and let me worry about explaining it.

On program on warhammer + they spoke to a rules guy and he mentioned wargear cost and they are looking at brining some aspect of it back, he talked about how some units have some war gear options that are flat out better than others and said they are looking at charging for those but only those, think he used some sisters of battle unit with multi meltas as the example, armed with them they would cost more than not. So not as granular as before thank god because I hated that and prefer it as is but it might encourage other builds if they are cheaper.

Im really enjoying 10th, most playable edition since 2nd for me, most fun too. Just tweaks is all that’s needed for me. Even the codexs should carry over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The problem with allies, as fluffy and fun as they are they open the game up to certain types of players trying to exploit weird combos and using it only to be WAAC.

If they brought it in as part of a narrative supplement so couldn’t be used to abuse weird combos it’d be ok.

Yeah, wargear costs and something with psykers are the big problems, at least if we only look at problems that GW is likely to solve.

Basically one should hope they keep it at that and don't do it like when they moved from 8th to 9th with unnecessary changes for the worse.

 PenitentJake wrote:
I'd like to see them return some equipment costs, but I'm not sure if they will. It wouldn't be on everything, just on the heavy gear that actually makes a difference rather than the old bolt pistol vs. laspistol debate.

I'd like for new Crusade content to not invalidate, but rather expand and compliment 10th's Crusade content.

And I'd like to see chosen psychic powers again. I have been convinced we don't necessarily need a phase. But every psyker of the same type being required to have exactly the same psychic powers as every other psyker of the same type is just... Dull, boring, and stupid game design.

I'd be all for lowering the overall squad costs and then having to pay for heavy weapons again. But, I think it should be a flat cost, regardless of heavy weapon chosen.
Same, with a psychic powers; give us a few choices to customize, without a psychic phase.

I've said it before (to mixed reviews): the D6 needs to be replaced. It's too limiting for the scale of this game. I feel swapping to D8's, D10's or even better D12's would do this game more justice.

make it more complex and add more thematic rules. at least try to correct all the stupid retcons too, like Eldar ore, but I doubt they'd ever do that.

Is there a class of units that’s underperfoming? Their rules will get a buff.

Gota shift up what’s hot.

I expect it'll be an iteration on 10e rather than a departure.

It's absolutely nuts that they are on a fixed 3 year cycle now. In a decade we'll be on 14th edition. I don't know any other game with so many editions.

3 years isn’t enough time for them to get the codexs out. If they have to it should be 5 years minimum or maybe an update after 3 but keep the codex until the next edition.

PenitentJake wrote:I'd like to see them return some equipment costs, but I'm not sure if they will. It wouldn't be on everything, just on the heavy gear that actually makes a difference rather than the old bolt pistol vs. laspistol debate.

The more I sit with the idea, the more I think they should just have optional wargear "add-ons" that you can pay points for.

So a squad of Devastators costs 60 points. (Or whatever.)
* Add 5 bolter boys for +50 points.
* Let the sergeant swap out his gear for +10 points.
* Let 4 guys swap their bolters for the mediocre special weapons for +20 points OR let 4 guys swap their bolters for good special weapons for +40 points.

(Don't get hung up on the exact points values. Just throwing numbers out their for the sake of the example.)

JNAProductions wrote:I'd like that to not be limited to Psykers.

Psykers should have several powers to choose from.
Captains should have several buffs to choose from.
Heck, Battleline units should have several ways to engage with the game, based on choices made with them.

Heck yeah! I really liked the exarch powers and pivotal roles from 8th/9th. They were a good way to add flexibility to how you built units without being reliant on bits. I was hoping GW would expand the concept to more units/armies, but instead they just removed those options completely.

Lord Clinto wrote:I've said it before (to mixed reviews): the D6 needs to be replaced. It's too limiting for the scale of this game. I feel swapping to D8's, D10's or even better D12's would do this game more justice.

To what end though? Adding granularity only matters if you do something meaningful with that granularity. Squeezing sororitas ballistics skill between that of guardsmen and marines is fine, but it's also mostly splitting hairs. (Less than a 9% difference in how often a die roll succeeds if we're talking about switching to d12s.) The only thing that springs to mind that added granularity would facilitate is to bring back stacking to-hit mods because it would let you put a -2 or -3 penalty on something without making the math go completely bonkers.

Andykp wrote:
The problem with allies, as fluffy and fun as they are they open the game up to certain types of players trying to exploit weird combos and using it only to be WAAC.

Yeah well, that's a problem for the game designers - pay a points cost for the option to include an ally, calibrated to game size and how useful each ally might be in patching your base army's shortcomings, let an ally have their army rule but not a detachment rule, maybe they only get an army rule if they're a 'proper' force (1 HQ 2 Battleline) and single squads get nothing, I dunno. In this theoretical scenario I'm sitting in the fancy office telling my lackeys to go back to their cubicles and figure out the details.

Besides fluff and fun though, I feel like there's real buying value to allies - right now if you're not willing to collect 1000pts (or more likely 2000) you may as well not bother with anything outside your own range, unless it's purely for paint and display. Maybe allies remove the incentive for some buyers to collect that 1K, but it also opens the field up to everyone who's not that flush with cash to have a tabletop use for any one-off purchase that catches their fancy. Even if it's not the most clinically effective tabletop use, just being able to field the squad's a reason to buy - I feel like that's worth chaining the devs to their desks until they iron out the kinks (except for the EC, we like our kinks thank you).

 Daia T'Nara wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The problem with allies, as fluffy and fun as they are they open the game up to certain types of players trying to exploit weird combos and using it only to be WAAC.

Yeah well, that's a problem for the game designers - pay a points cost for the option to include an ally, calibrated to game size and how useful each ally might be in patching your base army's shortcomings, let an ally have their army rule but not a detachment rule, maybe they only get an army rule if they're a 'proper' force (1 HQ 2 Battleline) and single squads get nothing, I dunno. In this theoretical scenario I'm sitting in the fancy office telling my lackeys to go back to their cubicles and figure out the details.

Probably not the direction to go. You're talking about asking the designers to come up with custom points costs for every possible faction a datasheet could be taken in. And that's not factoring in the context of potentially making that unit even stronger by mixing in a second allied datasheet potentially from a third faction.

Basically, allies outside of very tightly controlled contexts (like the ally detachments we have in 10th) is just inviting imbalance and creating a ton more scenarios that designers have to try to balance around. A more managable solution is probably to just makes allies a thing in Crusade/narrative games. So you can give people the option to tell the stories they want, but you also acknowledge that taking allies might result in games that are a bit less balanced than usual.

Besides fluff and fun though, I feel like there's real buying value to allies - right now if you're not willing to collect 1000pts (or more likely 2000) you may as well not bother with anything outside your own range, unless it's purely for paint and display. Maybe allies remove the incentive for some buyers to collect that 1K, but it also opens the field up to everyone who's not that flush with cash to have a tabletop use for any one-off purchase that catches their fancy. Even if it's not the most clinically effective tabletop use, just being able to field the squad's a reason to buy - I feel like that's worth chaining the devs to their desks until they iron out the kinks (except for the EC, we like our kinks thank you).

Agreed here. I picked up a bunch of models in 7th and 8th because I wanted to splash them into larger forces. Said units have been on the shelf for a while as a result.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
You're talking about asking the designers to come up with custom points costs for every possible faction a datasheet could be taken in.

I was thinking simpler - your codex has a list of available allied forces, and the points cost you pay to attach something from that force. Doesn't matter which squad you choose, you just pay, say, 50pts to have the option of taking Sororitas, and then you pay the normal points cost for whatever those Sororitas units are. Imperial Guard offer more potential benefits to whatever your base army is? 100pts if you want any allied Guards then. At present there're, what, 29 armies? Shouldn't be that arduous to come up with 28 point costs while you're writing a new codex, and just multiply them up from 1K to 2K and so on. It's not like GW are shy of just tossing numbers into the wild and adjusting them later when they see what's sinking or swimming. I'm just inventing this off the top of my head, all I mean by it is I don't think it's a gamebreaking problem.

What will 11th edition be?

A continued dumbing-down of the rules. We've now gone from actual upgrades to units (better guns, wargear, etc.) factoring into your points cost to simply being automatic free choices for a set cost. Why? Because GW cast the models with those choices. Will the next step be taking away choice entirely and dictating what your units have based on the re-worked sprues?

Here is your X-number squad of Y. They have Z weapons because that's what everyone always took and modeled them as, so now those are all we've put on the sprues. BTW, we've increased the cost 50% because we did your thinking for you. Do you have older models with different stuff? Too bad. Welcome to the Squat/Slann army era again.

The bitterness in my tone comes from having lived though this multiple times, and the resignation in my voice from wondering why I or anyone else would keep doing so. It's like battered spouse syndrome at this point.

If only anyone else, at any point, could come up with a seriously competitive product. I'm also wildly gun-shy of investing in the myriad of "fresh, new, better" miniature games that show up for two years then fold, dying on the vine. That's just money thrown in a hole you dug, peed on, then set on fire. I've done that a few times now. Wargods, Confrontation, Dark Age...

At least if I'm going to waste money and time, I can do it with other like-minded people.

Every attempt to 'simplify' the game seems to make it more bloated and complex (removing stats from a sheet, but then adding actual special rules to re-compensate for missing granularity that was once done with an easy number; removing options but then having to compensate by having entire new profiles for variations), and strategems also slowing it down.

While I don't see them doing this, the correct solution is to go back to the old full stat line: M, WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld; and old wargear selection etc. and eject things like strategems, or if stategems absolutely must stay, make them cost hefty points so while they add their own bloat, they remove models from the army meaning armies with strategems are smaller and thus go through their turn faster.

Not a fan of allies really outside of explicitly fluffy combinations (probably determined by detachment rules that bring their own limitations). I think 8th edition soup was impossible to balance, but also severely undermined the flavour of the various factions that could all be merged together.

Don't even really want points for wargear back. I think some optionality would be nice (note DE=none etc). But while you can mock the bolt pistol vs laspistol debate, it kind of applies all the way down. Unclear the game had better balance when a heavy bolter was 10 points, a multimelta was 20 etc. What matters is if the unit with heavy bolters has a different function to the one with multimeltas - which is usually best covered by rules rather than just being a bit cheaper. There's no point having it cheaper if you still never take it because heavy bolters are a bit pointless outside of the "massively buffed up Heavy Bolters" detachment. Having some sort of shared points total to aim at should inform you how good the rules need to be.

I'd like a bit of variability in psychic powers - mainly so you can bring multiples of the same character and they aren't just clones. Arguably this could apply to character buffs. But I guess if you were picking both from a pool, there's a danger you turn a sea of characters into functionally interchangeable pieces.

I guess what I'd find interesting (although viewed with concern) would be changes to scoring. I mean some critics/haters rightly observe that we have been playing "stand on the circles" (and variants thereof) for many years now. I have no desire to go back to end of game scoring - or the often badly thought through missions of the past. But feel like some sort of shakeup might be in order. It would need curating (by faction and detachment) - but perhaps keep trying to make battleline units more key to scoring.

Well, ideally 11th ed will be a return to form with list-building and unit compositions that actually make sense and matters instead of just getting special weapons and abilities for free.

What we will probably get is an even more bland game where you can just use any weapon profile at any time without actually needing to include it in the list, army compositions are locked behind cookie cutter detachments where you have to buy whatever gak GW wants to peddle that month.
The only unit that actually has some degree of customization and focus is your leader unit because GW played LoL and thought it was a good game. As such, missions will be more character focused, with characters being the only ones who can take objectives and having a lot of special rules and deal the most damage.

Because if you can just take any weapon for free and wound allocation doesn't matter, then do you really need to specify having such a weapon in the unit?

Why go through the hassle of making a list when you can just let GW decide for you?

Why worry about outfitting, modeling and painting your rank and file when you can just focus on whatever overly detailed, overpriced and overpowered centerpiece GW wants you to buy that month? So much easier to just ignore 90% of your army composition and just paint and gear up one guy.

Why bother worrying about tactical missions when you can just roll dice and forge the narrative with your totally-original-donut-steel munchkin of a character?

For people that start playing 40K in 11th, it’ll be the best edition ever. They’ll likely look back at it for most, if not all their wargaming life with rose-coloured nostalgia and fondly remember it as the best version of 40K ever, probably overlooking some of its issues and confounding rules-quality with the joy of playing and discovering it for the first time.

For old curmudgeons who have similarly rose-coloured nostalgia for older editions, it will be further evidence of GW’s “decline”, simply because it’ll obviously move further away from older paradigms of game design.

For most people, it’ll be a cool edition to play 40K, probably it’ll have some flaws, but also some neat innovations and cool miniatures.

It is going to be like 9th, was to 8th ed. I expect more cross game polination from AoS. Maybe we will see psychic powers as models, and we will definitly see more faction terrain.
Aside of that same sesonal system, same pretending that narrative/open is a thing just as much as match played. More terrain wierdness and obligatory jerk knee reactions to "big" problems from 2 years before, that in a new setting no longer are a problem. Marine will get more of their line turned and split in to primaris, but there will still be stuff left for 12th ed still to do. A few factions will get an update (aka 2-3 units, 2-3 characters), a faction or two may get a refresh, everyone else will get the new codex+HQ you probably didn't want or need.
Prices will go up and I think it is high time to start removing some of the older primaris boxes to replace them with new controversial ones. Like lets say a box of intercessor which can now sport a hellblaster, las talon, pyro option. Starting an out cry from all the people that bought their intercessor when those things were not an option, respons from others "just buy box of X, Y and Z" and the obligatory "but my [insert unimportant non marine faction] only got one model why do marines get 10 new" etc.

I don't think it'll be anything other than a tidy up, but I want them to really think about terrainand how to try and get more game balance from something other than LoS blocking L's.

I am aware that you can do that now, but it requires such careful care and balance on the set up.

Assuming the just want to improve the current game and not just cause an upheaval for sales sake, there are a few things that should be changed:
- Clean up core rules. A bunch of things have clearly not not worked well as written and were fixed with so much errata, they now look like a looted wagon. Devastating wounds, towering, "shooting as if it were the shooting phase", indirect fire, flying, pivoting, actions, just to name a few. Much of that errata is wonky for the sole reason of having to fit a square peg into a round hole. The game that's currently being played doesn't have a whole lot to do with what was printed in the leviathan books.
- New keywords for things we have in almost every army, likes sticky objectives or
- Improve terrain rules, so ruins aren't the only valid terrain. A table covered in pipelines, barricades, industrial terrain and craters should be just as valid as one covered in L-shaped ruins.
- Get rid of TLoS, ffs. We dropped it as a house rule in favor of just drawing lines like KT does, and it's just a all upside change. Heck, 40k even has the rules defined to support it right now.
- Do something about aircraft. Either make them all hover or turn them into AoS Endless Spells, I don't care. Current rules simply don't work.
- After being in favor of the new psykers originally, I changed my mind. Psykers should be powerful, versatile and explode when something goes wrong. The game currently doesn't reflect that at all outside of former "warp charge 1" psykers. And no, choosing powers should stay dead. We all know everyone is going to chose the same ones every time anyways.
- I'd like another pass at the whole pile-in and engagement range topic. It still feels like a mess. Maybe just don't let units pile in and make the engagement range more generous instead?
- Battle shock needs slight tweaks. It both needs to be a bit more punishing (can no longer critical hit/wound? lose abilities?) and not automatically disappear when inflicted by an opponent's unit. I feel like it's almost where it should be.
- Sometimes upgrade should cost points, options should not. I'm fine with a base line smattering of special or heavy weapons being priced into the squads. I'm especially fine with marines no longer leaving all their plasma guns and sponsons at home so Brother Extrawound and his bolter squad can join them. I'm also fine with icons, power swords and bomb squigs no longer being optional. However, sometimes one option is a no downsides upgrade over another. Especially single models with multiple melee weapons, big guns on tanks/artillery or one of the many models where you have the choice between a lascannon and a heavy bolter. In some cases, GW has solved this issue by duplicating datasheets (daemon princes, space marine dreads, tau suits), but I feel like this solution doesn't scale well.

Yeah, that's about it. Many low hanging fruits to make the game vastly better. I would also prefer them not braking all the crusade content of the last two editions. Narrative gaming never had better support than it does now, it would be a shame to start from zero.

Given that it's nearly 2 years since 10th launched and I still don't have a codex for any of my 3 (!) armies I hope that a) 10th lasts more than 3 years, and b) that 11th isn't a re-write!

 dreadblade wrote:
Given that it's nearly 2 years since 10th launched and I still don't have a codex for any of my 3 (!) armies I hope that a) 10th lasts more than 3 years, and b) that 11th isn't a re-write!

A) It won't.
B) 50/50 odds.

I have to say, 3 years seems like a ridiculously short time to establish and flesh out an edition with a game of 40ks depth and size. I agree with those who say 5-6 years is far more reasonable.

Particularly with age, my mid-40s, 3 years takes about 5 minutes to pass.

Tyel wrote:


Don't even really want points for wargear back. I think some optionality would be nice (note DE=none etc). But while you can mock the bolt pistol vs laspistol debate, it kind of applies all the way down. Unclear the game had better balance when a heavy bolter was 10 points, a multimelta was 20 etc. What matters is if the unit with heavy bolters has a different function to the one with multimeltas - which is usually best covered by rules rather than just being a bit cheaper. There's no point having it cheaper if you still never take it because heavy bolters are a bit pointless outside of the "massively buffed up Heavy Bolters" detachment. Having some sort of shared points total to aim at should inform you how good the rules need to be.

I'd say this is a symptom of typical GW piss-poor game design.

All you have to do is look one system over, to HH, to see a solid (not perfect by any means, but definitely 'proof of concept') example of how this could work.

HH 2.0 has many things which 40k abandoned, especially squads with flexible special weapon picks that are priced differently. The humble TSS is a troop choice which comes stock with all flamers, a short-range anti horde option. They can swap for free to all volkite chargers (a slightly longer range anti horde option which performs better against mid-range infantry such as marines), or pay points they can go all plasma / all melta, turning them into dangerous anti heavy-infantry / dreadnought, or straight up tank hunters. The more dangerous weapons can more than double the cost of the squad itself, and come with trade offs of their own. Changes in range, desired target, and even how much they cost are all important; a TSS with flamers or chargers is less dangerous as an all melta one but in turn their also less likely to die, where as the metal squad is paying 25 ppm and a much jucier target for good shooting / charge units to take down.

40k has previously, and absolutely could, implement this kind of thing. Giving weapons niches, even within the same niche when balanced by cost, is system agnostic and only dependent on conscious and intentional design. Which 40k will never see, because 40k hasn't been about tight rulesets or good design in nearly 20 years. These days it's all turn-and-burn baby.

If we're (realistic) wishlisting I pretty much agree with everything Jidmah mentioned. I'd add in 1) rules for units in transports not completely ceasing to exist 2) get rid of the weird alternating melee thing 3) make character models and bodyguards into a single unit in all respects 4) switch to two stratagems per detachment plus four per faction 5) remove the ban on duplicate weapons 6) crack down on rerolls and d3/d6 weapon characteristics.

That's basically a list of minor tweaks that wouldn't change the way the game plays substantially but would simplify the ruleset and speed up play. Conversely though it wouldn't fix many of the fundamental complaints people have about the game.