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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S

Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.

Is your name a license plate style writing of "Amish Porn?

In any event, it would be hilarious if GW actually did something that gave VP to the Painted armies, but gave +1 to armor saves for unpainted "fades into the grey dawn"...or -1 to hit. In non-tournament games.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S

Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.

Is your name a license plate style writing of "Amish Porn?

In any event, it would be hilarious if GW actually did something that gave VP to the Painted armies, but gave +1 to armor saves for unpainted "fades into the grey dawn"...or -1 to hit. In non-tournament games.

Growing up near Amish, we had Amish signs to watch out for them and saw them all the time (Grandparents had a small farm out in no where, nothing too big enough food for a few families). So it just stuck with me, the Number is random, the Prn is a joke.... if you can guess it

 Amishprn86 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S

Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.

Un painted minis cannot use strats or reroll any die would be a needed adittion to 10th.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I would like to see the all of the current 40k rules writers to be replaced by other people. Preferably by a mix of AoS, KT, 30k and Armageddon authors.

Unless that happens, 10th will face the same issues as all the other editions they have written.

Honestly they need to hire designers from outside of GW. There are tonnes of great designers but GW insists in staying in house. Eric Lang for example (regardless of if you like his style or not) especially is great at designing streamlined games with low rules overhead which is exactly what GW wants from 40k AND he has experience designing wargames (he designed CMONs A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game). Even if they just brought him in as a consultant he'd do wonders for the game, but GW insists on promoting people from within the company to these positions and they rarely are much better at designing games than the people on Dakka.

Sure, I'd be fine with pretty much anyone but the current ones. It's just that the designers GW already has seem to be doing a much better job at solving the very problems their flagship product fails at over and over again.

Question for those who suggest die type changes:

I understand how a higher die type would help the game, and I don't disagree with this proposal in terms of what it does for the rules. But I do try to anticipate unintended consequences, and I'm curious if anyone has considered how much more expensive the game is likely to be if we move away from the ubiquitous d6.

GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.

I can buy d6 for a dime each... But I can also raid my Yahtze and Backgammon games of their dice FOR FREE.

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right? First there's the distribution issue- a d12 has an equal chance to roll any of the twelve numbers.

2d6, on the other hand, are far more likely to generate sevens, they almost never generate twos and twelves, and they cannot generate a one.
Another problem? You also can't speed roll. Have fun rolling each of you 120 gaunt fleshborer shots individually. I'll pass. Again, I know a higher range is good for the game. That's not the issue. D6 were chosen because they were practical. They still are, and no other option is as remotely practical.

PenitentJake wrote:
Question for those who suggest die type changes:

I understand how a higher die type would help the game, and I don't disagree with this proposal in terms of what it does for the rules. But I do try to anticipate unintended consequences, and I'm curious if anyone has considered how much more expensive the game is likely to be if we move away from the ubiquitous d6.

GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.

I can buy d6 for a dime each... But I can also raid my Yahtze and Backgammon games of their dice FOR FREE.

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right? First there's the distribution issue- a d12 has an equal chance to roll any of the twelve numbers.

2d6, on the other hand, are far more likely to generate sevens, they almost never generate twos and twelves, and they cannot generate a one.
Another problem? You also can't speed roll. Have fun rolling each of you 120 gaunt fleshborer shots individually. I'll pass. Again, I know a higher range is good for the game. That's not the issue. D6 were chosen because they were practical. They still are, and no other option is as remotely practical.

You do realise they could just up the ammount of dice to roll right? Instead of 1d6 to settle if a d3 weapon damages a t9 TITAN, how about you roll 2d6 and have to score a 11+. That way it's within the realm of possability, but significantly less likely.

I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.

yeah, and feth rolling more than one dice for any attack
(unless its for number of shots or damage)

But don't ask me to start rolling 2d6 to see if every shot wounds

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.

It does provide more granularity. However, D10s or D12s are larger, which makes rolling even a relatively small number more difficult, and the results take longer to read than the pips on a D6, so there are some drawbacks to consider.

Personally I think the D6 is fine. It's just GW's implementation of the rules that is the problem. As such, I'm not sure shifting to a larger die would help since GW would still be the ones writing the rules.

D10s and D12s don't use pips. They use plain numbers. Also, not gonna lie, I worry about people throwing d12s around. Those can do way more damage to a game board (knocking models around, chipping paint, detroying or moving terrain) than a couple blocky d6s which usually roll between 3-5 times before coming to rest. Unless you are purposely rolling hard.

instead of rolling bigger dice, we could also just roll less D6's

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.

In theory. In practice, game designers gravitate to the same rough percentage chances (33%, 50%, 66%)

Slipspace wrote: Personally I think the D6 is fine. It's just GW's implementation of the rules that is the problem. As such, I'm not sure shifting to a larger die would help since GW would still be the ones writing the rules.

Also, yeah. This.

I made a large post a while ago breaking down why D12's would be far better for balance, so I'm not going to re-iterate that here. A lot of people already seem to be covering that anyway. At least at my local store, you can pick up D12's on the cheap, but I don't know if that's the case for everyone. The new starter set would have to come with quite a few. Keep in mind too that you'd be rolling far less dice in the case so you wouldn't need 40+ like you do now for D6's.

Realeasing all the codecies at once would be my biggest thing, though I don't see that ever happening as it changes their entire business model. What they could do (though I don't think they will) is have all the base codices come out at once without any subfaction elements, then release the subfactions through the year, making it a fair bit easier to balance while still giving them their boost in sales every few months that we all know they are never going to give up.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
D10s and D12s don't use pips. They use plain numbers. Also, not gonna lie, I worry about people throwing d12s around. Those can do way more damage to a game board (knocking models around, chipping paint, detroying or moving terrain) than a couple blocky d6s which usually roll between 3-5 times before coming to rest. Unless you are purposely rolling hard.

Really? A dice tray costs like 10 currency, there's no reason this should be a worry for anyone.

I don't know what I'd like to se for 10th at this point. I feel like everything's been done and I don't care for 9th so I would like a slightly different direction. I'd almost like to see Apoc rules changed how ever it would take to play smaller games. at least I'd like to see it done if it can be done. But I don't know if that's the direction I'd like to see 10th got.
I feel like each edition has offered something good that I have enjoyed a bit and would like to see all of that stirred up into an edition not unlike Pro hammer classic. what that could mean as a GW product who can say.

 Sim-Life wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
D10s and D12s don't use pips. They use plain numbers. Also, not gonna lie, I worry about people throwing d12s around. Those can do way more damage to a game board (knocking models around, chipping paint, detroying or moving terrain) than a couple blocky d6s which usually roll between 3-5 times before coming to rest. Unless you are purposely rolling hard.

Really? A dice tray costs like 10 currency, there's no reason this should be a worry for anyone.

My LGS even leaves trays on the gaming table for everyone to use

Sim-Life wrote:I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.

Which reflects an underlying issue that the game mechanics are too shallow to meaningfully differentiate units and equipment except through stat minutiae, and players miss the forest for the trees. The game already has a lot more checks and rolls to resolve a basic attack than most of its counterparts, providing tons and tons of stat levers to differentiate things, but then it's got big glaring holes like how there's no graceful way to represent speed as defense and target size or range have no impact on hit likelihood.

I'd be okay with additional dice if it were used to do something clever. In Starship Troopers different weapons had different dice types, so you never had to look at a chart, just roll the D6 or D8 or 2D12+2 and see if you beat the target's Hit or Kill stats. In Apocalypse, saves are normally taken on D12s, but every two hits rolls up into a single save on a D6, reducing the number of rolls and ensuring you only roll a single D12 at a time. It also had weapon stats on D12s so you could just roll D6s to hit and then D12s to inflict damage and then that's it, attack resolved, on to the next.

But if GW were to replace D6s solely for the sake of stat granularity while still having the same blind spots in the rules, I'd probably be out of 40K altogether.

Anyways, my wishlist for 10th is basically just to course-correct on some of the issues that have cropped up in 8th/9th:

-Put someone on the design team who understands the term 'cognitive load'. No lists of 30 stratagems that need to all be remembered. No drawn-out turn-by-turn abilities provided without player aids to help navigate. No layers upon layers upon layers of ever-changing buffs that are hard enough for the owning player to remember, let alone their opponent.

-Find a way to associate costs with subfaction bonuses or ditch them entirely. We've already seen that it's virtually impossible to balance units that could be effectively un-buffed or could have multiple stacking effects supercharging their capabilities, and it strongly encourages Flanderized depictions of subfactions.

-Clean up the keyword system for terrain so that it makes sense and doesn't require a cheat sheet for each terrain type.

-Get rid of the crude band-aid fixes like Armor of Contempt and Hammer of the Emperor.

More fundamental and less realistic:

-Move to a digital living rulebook model rather than outdated-on-release codices.

-Get away from pure IGOUGO, integrate more player engagement and reactivity.

-Check out what the rest of the industry is doing and shake up the 'build a list without knowing the opponent, objective, or terrain and then deploy it all at once' paradigm. Doesn't have to be the only way to play, just an alternate setup less dominated by skew lists and alpha striking would be nice.

And while I'm at it, I'd like a pony.

I like a lot of the ideas in this thread, first and foremost, a design philosophy that is consistent across the whole of the edition, and connected to this, an end of codex creep. Preferably by releasing all the rules at once.

I also like the idea of going to a d12 based system rather than d6, but I think that’s even less likely than sticking to a design plan. IIRC someone from GW has said in the past that this isn’t an option for them and they want to stick to d6 because they are so commonplace, everyone has some somewhere at home, in monopoly or snakes and ladders etc.

That being said, in addition to the above my wish list would be:

- Make morale matter. The morale system needs to be completely reworked. Every faction should be thinking about morale; and leveraging morale should be a valid way to play the game.

- Bring back USRs. Not too many though, but a dozen or so that really are universal, and no USRs that grant other USRs. Also, USRs shouldn’t grant similar effects, there shouldn’t be more than one rule to represent infiltrating or deep striking or FNP etc.

- Less special rules in general. If something can be represented in the core rules or a Unit’s stat line, then this should be used rather than a USR or individual special rules. My go-to example for this is ATSKNF, if they want space marines to be more resistant to morale, give them a higher Ld stat instead of a special rule.

- A possible exception to using stats rather than special rules, are when the base rules need you to roll a bucket of dice for a statistically unlikely chance of success. Adding more dice shouldn’t be the preferred solution, the same (or very similar) outcome can be achieved in other ways.

- Less re-rolling across the board.

- Less RNG. Its just to swingy. Dice rolling for taking actions like hitting, wounding, armour saves etc. are fine, but I’d reduce it significantly (or altogether) elsewhere, especially random damage and random number of shots.

- Either reduce the number and the of stratagems significantly or get rid of them completely. Stratagems shouldn’t be used in lieu of unit rules, wargear, weapons etc. this should all be in the stat lines, in the USRs, and/or the unit specific special rules and the unit’s points/PL adjusted accordingly. Stratagems, if they are kept, should be for pre-game gambits, and in-the-moment decisions by the battlefield commander. I’d also remove the auto-pass morale and command re-roll stratagems.

- Subfaction rules should be pared down and be flavourful but not have a significant impact on the relative strength of one subfaction over another. They could be used to encourage certain flavourful builds for certain subfactions without changing the unit rules in the list building phase – some possibilities using White Scars as an example, one of: they got their CP refund if the Warlord is in an Outrider detachment; or BIKER units got Ob sec, but Infantry lost it; or Bikers count as Troops for that subfaction; or Bikers gain the CORE keyword. Something along those lines, but it would depend on how that interacts with the rest of the ruleset.

- Far fewer auras. A forcefield bubble as an aura makes sense, but not to represent inspiring commanders etc. Instead of anyone within x inches getting a re-roll or some special ability, the unit with the aura should target the appropriate unit within range.

Republish 3rd edition.

PenitentJake wrote:
GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.

This took me all of 30 seconds to find: https://www.dicegamedepot.com/12-sided-dice-d12/

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right?

It doesn't work in your very narrow interpretation of how the game should work. In reality it works just fine as long as your system has dice math that is designed around the bell curve distribution.

Another problem? You also can't speed roll. Have fun rolling each of you 120 gaunt fleshborer shots individually.

Or, here's an idea: change the system to require fewer rolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
In practice, game designers gravitate to the same rough percentage chances (33%, 50%, 66%)

Let's not preemptively assume incompetence. But even if the base rules stayed with those percentages it still gives more room for modifiers. Instead of having a million different versions of "your unit shoots slightly better" to make a D6 give a 60% chance to hit you give +1 to the D12 roll. Just getting rid of re-rolling 1s would be a significant improvement in play speed.

As someone returning from 4th/5th/6th Ed, I’d like to see:

-Far less rerolls. It feels like everyone and their dog gets to reroll everything.

-Far less emphasis on stratagems, maybe removed completely. There are already enough unit rules, without having to remember every ‘gotcha’ strat that people can throw out.

-Make things actually feel unique again. Every army now has stuff to plaster over the cracks and cover their weaknesses. Units feel less unique when you spam them with strats too.

-Make the game less hyper-lethal. I like my carefully painted models to survive more than 1 turn alpha strikes.

-Please, please PLEASE bring back USRs. It just makes the game so much more accessible. It’s so much easier to understand ‘fleet’, ‘rending’, ‘feel no pain’ etc, than thesaurus-soup rule names that are the same for every army.

nemesis464 wrote:
As someone returning from 4th/5th/6th Ed, I’d like to see:

-Far less rerolls. It feels like everyone and their dog gets to reroll everything.

-Far less emphasis on stratagems, maybe removed completely. There are already enough unit rules, without having to remember every ‘gotcha’ strat that people can throw out.

-Make things actually feel unique again. Every army now has stuff to plaster over the cracks and cover their weaknesses. Units feel less unique when you spam them with strats too.

-Make the game less hyper-lethal. I like my carefully painted models to survive more than 1 turn alpha strikes.

-Please, please PLEASE bring back USRs. It just makes the game so much more accessible. It’s so much easier to understand ‘fleet’, ‘rending’, ‘feel no pain’ etc, than thesaurus-soup rule names that are the same for every army.

Yeah I hate they even went and too away rules from a unit (which made it unique) to make it into a Stratagem. This creates a few problems;
1) Now more units can use it, making it harder to balance
2) Takes away from the uniqueness of the units
3) Requires more gotcha moments bc it is a resource you dont know what unit will use it
4) Means I HAVE to know more rules bc that 1 stratagem can be used at anytime, if it was only on a unit then I dont need to worry about any bonus rules not on units.

I think we could replace HIGH VOLUME shooting, with HIGH VALUE Shooting. Maybe that squad of 4 Punishers doesn't get 80-160 shots, they get automatic hits on anything over a certain shots? So that way it actually simulates throwing a WALL of lead at your opponent and being guaranteed an actual effect. Obviously this should be tweaked for various targets. 100 infanty attacks shouldn't guarantee 40 wounds to a titan.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.

This took me all of 30 seconds to find: https://www.dicegamedepot.com/12-sided-dice-d12/

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right?

It doesn't work in your very narrow interpretation of how the game should work. In reality it works just fine as long as your system has dice math that is designed around the bell curve distribution.

I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.

This took me all of 30 seconds to find: https://www.dicegamedepot.com/12-sided-dice-d12/

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right?

It doesn't work in your very narrow interpretation of how the game should work. In reality it works just fine as long as your system has dice math that is designed around the bell curve distribution.

I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

Why not use D12 instead?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?

Things that would get me back to playing:

• Alternative activations.
• Switch to a D10 system.
• Replace Toughness and Armour save with a value needed to beat to cause damage.
• Scrap Stratagems.
• Reduce the amount of Re-rolls.
• Tone down just how lethal the game has become.
• Only Troops can score/contest objectives.
• Bring back proper psychology.
• Bring in the reaction system from HH.
• Split the Marines into First Born and Primaris.
• Return to 4' by 4' and 4' by 6' tables.
• Reintroduce USR.
• Go back to the original FoC.
• Have an 'All out War' game mode, this is where Lords of War can enter the game.
• Return Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy back to how they were in 3rd edition.
• Make Melee worth while.
• Add in a suppression mechanism.

Doubtful even half of these will happen, so I'll just keep not playing 40k.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?

"Hey guys, if you use every other rule exactly how it is and only substitute in a 2D6 instead of making an actual 2D6 system it doesn't work very well!"

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?

"Hey guys, if you use every other rule exactly how it is and only substitute in a 2D6 instead of making an actual 2D6 system it doesn't work very well!"

Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.