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.

100th edition is a different take on the .5 edition projects, where 7.5 might try to remove the obnoxious parts of 7th edition like invisible deathstars and overpowered decurion detachments granting hundreds of free points, 107th edition would instead try to bring what 7th tried to do different from other editions into 10th edition by editing core rules and codexes to fit the design goals. This thread is not for presenting the finished version of any of these editions, but rather to discuss ideas not for how to make 10th necessarily better for most people, but for how to make 10th better for a people looking for a particular type of wargame set in the 40k universe.

101st Edition – Skirmishhammer – Adds small-unit campaign play, injury tables, loot tables and narrative events to the 10th chassis.

102nd Edition – Cinemahammer – Replaces victory conditions with story beats, has a cinematic event table, removes standard scoring.

103rd Edition – Simplehammer – Removes stratagems and upgrades, units carry a special weapon, they do not upgrade a botler to a plasma gun or meltagun.

104th Edition – Narrativehammer – Adds fog of war, asymmetrical missions, secret objectives and narrative victory conditions.

105th Edition – Strategyhammer – Brings back old AP system, makes lots of units unkillable from small-arms fire, big guns never tire is nerfed, charge and fight rules are more permissible and desperate escapes are harder.

106th Edition – Ruleshammer – Loads in simulationist extras: vehicle facings, ammo, weather, etc. The closest model is assigned damage. Units can be forced to flee.

107th Edition – Formationhammer – Switches to alternating activations and formation-based bonuses. Games are intended to be big and long to fit the necessary number of formations in a game to provide back-and-forth.

108th Edition – Rank & Filehammer – Strict list composition rules similar to WHFB, Knights become part of other factions, Flyers become skimmers, minimal stratagems, fewer unit and faction abilities.

109th Edition – Designhammer – Every unit gets its own Stratagem instead of its own ability, characters move on their own and provide aura buffs, Enhancements replaced by relics and WL traits, Detachments are made by the player, inclusion of allies much more permissible (Taudar).

Which do you think sounds the most or least fun to you? Which do you think would be most popular?

All combined?

Some interesting ideas here. Some of them don't really appeal to me, though I could be persuaded otherwise if I had more details.

Some specific comments:

Skirmishhammer - Have you heard of Heralds of Ruin? I used to follow its development, though from what I can tell the project has been abandoned for some years. Certainly had some interesting concepts in it. Even ignoring third party games we already have Kill Team, Crusade and Necromunda. How much more would this bring to the table?

Cinemahammer - Sounds like this could have some legs. Can't say much more without knowing more.

Simplehammer - Not a fan of this idea at all.

Narrativehammer - Yes, this could have some potential, depending on the execution.

Strategyhammer - Don't like the sound of this. On a side note: Introducing AP was one of the worst changes that 3rd Edition 40K introduced. Getting rid of it was one of the best things about 8th Edition.

Ruleshammer - Could be good, though on the face of it sounds too nitty gritty for my liking.

Formationhammer - Alternating activations sounds good but formation based bonuses don't. Why not just play Epic?

Rank & Filehammer - Don't like this, just doesn't sound like 40K.

Designhammer - Not a bad idea. I especially like the idea of bringing back allies, though only in casual games. I can see it being a big no-no at tournaments.


So yeah, I think some of your ideas are suitable for 6mm / 8mm games but not for 28mm.

 kabaakaba wrote:
All combined?

No, the design goals are often in opposition. You cannot have a streamlined game that provides a predictable decent play experience at the same time as a maximalist game all about trying to combo layers of rules.

El Torro wrote:
Skirmishhammer - Have you heard of Heralds of Ruin? I used to follow its development, though from what I can tell the project has been abandoned for some years. Certainly had some interesting concepts in it. Even ignoring third party games we already have Kill Team, Crusade and Necromunda. How much more would this bring to the table?

I read through it, never played first edition or Kill Team. You are probably right that this does not need to be a new thing as much as the others do. But having not played 1st-4th I am limited in terms of knowledge of what the design goals for these editions were and what set them apart mechanically.

Narrativehammer - Yes, this could have some potential, depending on the execution.

What speaks to you about this idea, what are you missing?

Ruleshammer - Could be good, though on the face of it sounds too nitty grittyhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CkbVKSFzUBhLw7nfQncqCTiJzwn4lKEBn03aZSJYwbQ/edit?fbclid=IwY2xjawJZEsRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHedk1t5aiL1Chd2TJveJiz3noBV4Ashz28DDqq22x9FnRWWin9Z25JATqw_aem_GOWEVMtlOHQC9845abmPPw&gid=0#gid=0 for my liking.

Right, you probably want some things, but not all of them, so it's a question of which of these simulationist rules are you looking for to add more narrative and verisimilitude to your game and where do just want to quickly skip over something to keep the game pace up.

Formationhammer - Alternating activations sounds good but formation based bonuses don't. Why not just play Epic?

Epic cuts down on details, so you don't get as much "my guys" and does not have the Decurion aspect 7th edition 40k introduced to 40k. 103rd - Simplehammer should pretty much do it as well. The idea with this concept is that there are fewer changes from the 10th edition rules than you would find in a specialist game like Necromunda or Epic, giving 10th a nudge in whatever direction you want it to go rather than making a whole new game. Probably at most I could do a design document for each of these and the core rules, maybe 2 factions across the editions, because importing every unit into it would be insane.

Rank & Filehammer - Don't like this, just doesn't sound like 40K.

I am a bit surprised to hear you say this, Troops were mandatory and lords of war were banned for many years. I suppose the force organisation chart might be an easier sell than WHFB-style percentage requirements.

I'm surprised you didn't list UnityHammer. The edition where all Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k have their crossover event and both games are played using the same ruleset.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I'm surprised you didn't list UnityHammer. The edition where all Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k have their crossover event and both games are played using the same ruleset.

That'd just be making 40k codexes for the AoS factions right? You wouldn't need to change the core rules of 10th at all.