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.

Valrak is pretty amusing at times. I can’t really see why anyone would begrudge the guy making some money doing his thing. There’s obviously an audience for it. Haters gonna hate I guess. Pretty sad tho.

Weird he didn't mention the new Termagants or Hormagaunts...

drbored wrote:
GW needs to either squat the bio/pyrovore or update it. Lictor is an iconic and fun unit that deserves plastic.

Biovore is as much iconic as Lictor. I cannot imagine having it squatted.

I added the newest batch of Valrak rumours regarding 10th edition and Space Marines to the OP.

Tsagualsa wrote:
I added the newest batch of Valrak rumours regarding 10th edition and Space Marines to the OP.

Thanks.

Does that mean we can have Primaris on a drop pod now? I hope so!

In contradiction, from Orange Knight on B&C:

Hello all

I have recently come to hear some interesting information pertaining to the year ahead.

-10th edition is indeed coming this year, and apparently some information may come to light at Adepticon.

-10th edition will be an evolution of the core rules of 9th edition, not a complete re-write. There are massive changes coming to the stratagem system. Streamlining and significant cutbacks - I heard mention of a dozen generic stratagems for use across all factions, and a single unique strat per army. (To me this sounds like the reaction system in 30k)

-The Codex chapter supplements are not coming in 9th edition (Fists, Iron Hands, Ultras, etc). They were planned for 9th initially but will now be too close to 10th.

Anyways, this all sounded plausible to me. I'm not sure how GW would plan on an evolution of the rules, whilst scrapping all stratagems from the 9th edition books. The unit rules across all faction have been gutted, and their abilities converted to strats. I don't even want to imagine the volume of FAQs and Errata.

heard (2nd hand, so take that as you will) that GW have indeed become aware of the issues with 40k as it currently stands, and that they are aware of the sentiments of many players.

Unfortunately the gears and mechanisms turn slowly, and any significant changes they come up with are probably years away. What gets released is typically 2 years behind what they are working on at any given time. It's why I have become more cynical about 10th edition - I believe that the real change needed probably won't arrive until 11th.

It's why I believe what I was told about the edition being an evolution of 9th. Now, as others have pointed out, the changes could still be significant and just because the core rules aren't changed completely the various codex books could still be invalidated.

This was backed up by Noserenda:

Id heard similar a while back from someone inside, they know the 9th ed codexes got out of hand but couldn't fix it just yet, I expected to see it in the later codexes (I've not been paying much attention to rules recently though) but an edition reset also makes sense.

Added the B&C rumours to the OP and edited them for brevity.

I'm optimistic about 10th. It doesn't take GW 2 years to write codexes or battletomes (we know this because they've written some books that have been updated within that period of time, like Lumineth and Sisters of Battle), so them being aware of the issues means that hopefully 10th wont get as out of hand as 9th did, balance wise.

drbored wrote:
I'm optimistic about 10th. It doesn't take GW 2 years to write codexes or battletomes (we know this because they've written some books that have been updated within that period of time, like Lumineth and Sisters of Battle), so them being aware of the issues means that hopefully 10th wont get as out of hand as 9th did, balance wise.

Uh you know right they can start working on next book before 1st is even out? They didn't need to wait lumineth book 1 to be out before starting to work on 2nd book...nor wait for that to come out before starting on 3rd edition book.

Lol people keep thinking gw does quick changes and forget lead times.

I really don't get the Valrak hate. He isn't a nazi like Arch, and I don't find him particularly grating as a character like... some... other walking hairstyles that have suddenly started popping up on my youtube recommendations....

I can just about (nearly, sort of) understand some manbabies being upset by incorrect rumours when they're (usually pretty transparently) designed to tickle some very specific fancies, but Valrak isn't making them up himself. He's just enthusiastic about the hobby and likes to pass on info he's heard. If you don't share that same enthusiasm then why are you getting het up about what are pretty clearly labelled as rumours in the first place?

Pretty much the only issue with Valrak is that he likes the wrong Manchester football team. The wrong one. Actually, I've changed my mind, he's a despicable human being. BURN THE HERETIC

I really hope that the bit about removing the marine primaris/non-primaris vehicle restrictions is true.

Dudeface wrote:

This was backed up by Noserenda:

Id heard similar a while back from someone inside, they know the 9th ed codexes got out of hand but couldn't fix it just yet, I expected to see it in the later codexes (I've not been paying much attention to rules recently though) but an edition reset also makes sense.

Codex creep / special rules creep happens every edition, to the point where some books get rewritten within an edition, or have content added through supplements. I have yet to see why it will be any different going forward.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

This was backed up by Noserenda:

Id heard similar a while back from someone inside, they know the 9th ed codexes got out of hand but couldn't fix it just yet, I expected to see it in the later codexes (I've not been paying much attention to rules recently though) but an edition reset also makes sense.

Codex creep / special rules creep happens every edition, to the point where some books get rewritten within an edition, or have content added through supplements. I have yet to see why it will be any different going forward.

IMHO the specific problem at the moment is the insane amount of bookkeeping with all sorts of points, doctrines and random stuff like that you have to do at the moment. Among e.g. command points, doctrines, cabal points and so on you'd have to be constantly on the ball to play your own army correctly, yet alone have a vague idea what your enemy is able to do at any given time. It also does not help that in many cases there's multiple layers of nested rules, so that even if you use some sort of app or other assisting systems, you can't often at a glance check up a rule interaction, but have to probe around between the layers. To add insult to injury, the actual effect of these things is often not so big after all, double shots, a reroll, D3 mortal wounds or such, but it's quite irksome that you're constantly in danger of a misplay or oversight.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

This was backed up by Noserenda:

Id heard similar a while back from someone inside, they know the 9th ed codexes got out of hand but couldn't fix it just yet, I expected to see it in the later codexes (I've not been paying much attention to rules recently though) but an edition reset also makes sense.

Codex creep / special rules creep happens every edition, to the point where some books get rewritten within an edition, or have content added through supplements. I have yet to see why it will be any different going forward.

Change in management, Stu took over about a year ago I think from Cruddace? So far he's been a lot more transparent and vocal, a lot of the more recent changes about sharing the data etc have been on his watch, so there is a chance that an edition starting under his guidance might go differently.

The B&C rumors sound way more plausible than what Valrak passed on.

Tsagualsa wrote:
IMHO the specific problem at the moment is the insane amount of bookkeeping with all sorts of points, doctrines and random stuff like that you have to do at the moment. Among e.g. command points, doctrines, cabal points and so on you'd have to be constantly on the ball to play your own army correctly, yet alone have a vague idea what your enemy is able to do at any given time. It also does not help that in many cases there's multiple layers of nested rules, so that even if you use some sort of app or other assisting systems, you can't often at a glance check up a rule interaction, but have to probe around between the layers. To add insult to injury, the actual effect of these things is often not so big after all, double shots, a reroll, D3 mortal wounds or such, but it's quite irksome that you're constantly in danger of a misplay or oversight.

Yeah, that's mainly why I've given up on 40K. It's too much volume of rules and too much time spent managing your army's special rules and interactions and stratagem gotchas rather than good, basic, engaging gameplay. GW makes better games. I feel far more engaged when playing Warcry and AT, which also manage to have factions that feel and play differently without an overwhelming amount special rules and such (yes, even AT).

lol, that Stratagem Part was also Part of a Rumor on Faeit212 some months ago....

RazorEdge wrote:
lol, that Stratagem Part was also Part of a Rumor on Faeit212 some months ago....

All rumours end up posted somewhere, not sure of the relevance really?

 gorgon wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
IMHO the specific problem at the moment is the insane amount of bookkeeping with all sorts of points, doctrines and random stuff like that you have to do at the moment. Among e.g. command points, doctrines, cabal points and so on you'd have to be constantly on the ball to play your own army correctly, yet alone have a vague idea what your enemy is able to do at any given time. It also does not help that in many cases there's multiple layers of nested rules, so that even if you use some sort of app or other assisting systems, you can't often at a glance check up a rule interaction, but have to probe around between the layers. To add insult to injury, the actual effect of these things is often not so big after all, double shots, a reroll, D3 mortal wounds or such, but it's quite irksome that you're constantly in danger of a misplay or oversight.

Yeah, that's mainly why I've given up on 40K. It's too much volume of rules and too much time spent managing your army's special rules and interactions and stratagem gotchas rather than good, basic, engaging gameplay. GW makes better games. I feel far more engaged when playing Warcry and AT, which also manage to have factions that feel and play differently without an overwhelming amount special rules and such (yes, even AT).

The core of the problem is that Warhammer 40k is still married to game design conventions and concepts that are at this point at least 30 years old, and a lot of the bolted-on crunch is stuff that tries to make that 'engine' perform like more modern systems that manage the same or better results with a fraction of the effort both on the writing side and on the playing side. Look, for example, how long they took until they adopted something like degrading profiles for tanks and monsters. Other stuff, like e.g. morale checks, function exactly like they did 20 years ago. More egregious examples can be found, like e.g. some psychic powers requiring up to dozens of dice rolls to eventually deal out ~~D6 mortal wounds, and so on. As you said, their side games that were designed from the ground up and according to somewhat more modern standards show that they can actually design decent games, but not if they have to ultimately run on the Warhammer 'engine'.

Tsagualsa wrote:


The core of the problem is that Warhammer 40k is still married to game design conventions and concepts that are at this point at least 30 years old, and a lot of the bolted-on crunch is stuff that tries to make that 'engine' perform like more modern systems that manage the same or better results with a fraction of the effort both on the writing side and on the playing side... Other stuff, like e.g. morale checks, function exactly like they did 20 years ago.

I'd argue that morale is actually worse now than 20+ years ago. The current system just gives you units that either fold to morale as soon as they lose a few models, or effectvely ignore the system completely. Right now morale is simply losing extra models as punishment for losing models. At least in older rule sets there were mechanics for being pinned down, running away, and getting units safe to rally & join the fight again.

Something high on my wishlist for a new edition is a morale system that functions more like Epic 40k / Dawn of War did; units that are right in the thick of the fighting get less combat effective over time, but still have an opportunity to recover. In Epic some unit types were more resistant to this (space marines counted as double models compared to other factions), but everything up to and including titans were susceptible to getting bogged down in fierce enough fighting.
By changing the system from one that outright removes models into one that makes units degrade & possibly recover, it means it can be used with a much wider scope for everyone. Factions like Night Lords should be able to take their fear & terror theme and apply it to almost any opponent, rather than it just being effective against a few factions.

Tsagualsa wrote:
e.g. morale checks, function exactly like they did 20 years ago.

The current morale rules are VERY different to those of twenty years ago.

Chess is still 100 of years old mechanics wise


The issue isn't the mechanics themselves, newer games are often just using different systems but they are not always inherently better nor worse.

The main problems with 40K rules are

1) That GW's rules team/resource allocation are just not setup to allow for tight quality rules production.
From the fact that they don't field test enough to the issue that every few years they release a new edition that changes enough of the core rules that its a new slate. So even with their faster adjustments for balance that they are doing right now, it all goes out the window every edition cycle.

2) GW got addicted to expansion books which then branched out into adding value to White Dwarf and online FAQs and Errata. The result is that GW has wound up creating a system of dozens of different rules resources scattershot all over the place which makes it a rather a nightmare to actually keep up with.

3) Somewhere along the lines GW lost the ability (or desire) to write rules in a sensible way. Old codex used to have points and rules and stats all on one page for most units, with a few tables here and there.
Then GW got into the idea of putting points on a separate page, then upgrade points on another; stats for weapon types on another, etc... The result is that the information for one model is no longer mostly on one page but scattershot through the book all over the place. This makes constructing or referencing a model in the book much harder than it should be.

They have got a tiny bit better than their worst, but they still have issues. Heck they still keep putting power-level costs on the model page but points on another.



Sure as they release FAQ and updates to the game many of those values (esp points)might change in update tables, but its much easier if things start out on the same page for each model.




GW is basically running a very messy rules system which makes things more complicated simply because how they have approached it; not really due to the underlaying concept of the rule mechanics.



I'd also add its not a "oh we just need digital rules" issue. Digital rules are simply a different type of reference material. There's no reason that GW couldn't produce tighter rules; stop changing everything every edition; write codex in a more logical way to reference and shift away from updating everything all over the place.

I get a feeling that GW are releasing some of these issues at the HQ end - I think expansion books aren't selling as well as they used too. I think people are showing that getting 2 or so new model stats in a few army updates in a £30+ book every few months is burning people out and making a mess of things.

Fundamentally what we really need is for higher ups at GW to actually value rules as a tight system.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
e.g. morale checks, function exactly like they did 20 years ago.

The current morale rules are VERY different to those of twenty years ago.

Yeah. The morale rules now are not morale rules. They're "lose more" rules that punish you for losing models by making you lose more models.

Worse, they completely bypass the entire system of causing casualties, making them extremely (and unnecessarily and inappropriately) deadly.

Unlike some others, I do not like the merging of firstborn and Primaris Marines. I think they need to bite the bullet and phase out the firstborn. It's clearly where this is all headed, and having the 2 together in the same army has always been weird.

I am also skeptical about a box set that contains both types of Marines. I am prepared to bet that it'll be Primaris only.

 Snord wrote:
Unlike some others, I do not like the merging of firstborn and Primaris Marines. I think they need to bite the bullet and phase out the firstborn. It's clearly where this is all headed, and having the 2 together in the same army has always been weird.

I am also skeptical about a box set that contains both types of Marines. I am prepared to bet that it'll be Primaris only.

Merging them may very well be the first step on the road to phasing the Firstborn out, without in-game relevance the need to distinguish both basically dissappears, so you can keep the relevant iconic stuff like Terminators and the O.G. Marine vehicles, but retire the humble Tac Squad etc. while expanding the range with new kits in 'Primaris Scale' but under the generic 'Space Marine' umbrella. Sooner or later the remaining Firstborn kits will be phased out anyway, and what will eventually replace them will just be upscaled 'Space Marines' at least on the model front.

TBH "rebuilt from the ground up" is one of those hyperbolic notions that could mean a lot.

I don't think they'll have a core rules system that is very different to 10th (IGYG etc) but so much of the game's rules now is the rules bloat in every codex that throwing them all out and starting again is pretty much the ground at this point.

 The Phazer wrote:
TBH "rebuilt from the ground up" is one of those hyperbolic notions that could mean a lot.

I don't think they'll have a core rules system that is very different to 10th (IGYG etc) but so much of the game's rules now is the rules bloat in every codex that throwing them all out and starting again is pretty much the ground at this point.

True. For example, if you really wanted to radically cut out the stratagem system like the posters on B&C said, that would imply that you'd have to issue an errata or fix for every single codex, because the stratagem stuff directly impacts things like relics, army composition and so on. If you count that as a 'big reset' / 'rebuild from the ground up' or 'just an update' is pretty much down to your personal perspective.

 Snord wrote:
Unlike some others, I do not like the merging of firstborn and Primaris Marines. I think they need to bite the bullet and phase out the firstborn. It's clearly where this is all headed, and having the 2 together in the same army has always been weird.

This! They should use the Arks stories to tell some bla bla bla how Firstborn were decimated while valiantly defending something/somewhere/everywhere etc. etc. The result will be that the remaining few survivors will play no role in the galaxy wide wars and therefore only Primaris will be representing SM on the table.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 Snord wrote:
Unlike some others, I do not like the merging of firstborn and Primaris Marines. I think they need to bite the bullet and phase out the firstborn. It's clearly where this is all headed, and having the 2 together in the same army has always been weird.

This! They should use the Arks stories to tell some bla bla bla how Firstborn were decimated while valiantly defending something/somewhere/everywhere etc. etc. The result will be that the remaining few survivors will play no role in the galaxy wide wars and therefore only Primaris will be representing SM on the table.

That's more or less what they did with Shield of Baal iirc - Blood Angels and their successors won a phyrric victory against the Tyranids and were decimated in the process, but then Cawls Primaris reinforcements showed up and bolstered them back up to about the strength they were at before.

If Valraks rumour about the 10th starter box being BAs versus Tyranids is true, that's basically the justification for a box of just Primaris right there.

 Snord wrote:
Unlike some others, I do not like the merging of firstborn and Primaris Marines. I think they need to bite the bullet and phase out the firstborn. It's clearly where this is all headed, and having the 2 together in the same army has always been weird.

I am also skeptical about a box set that contains both types of Marines. I am prepared to bet that it'll be Primaris only.

Honestly I think Primaris were just going to be the new marine sculpts and then someone at HQ said - why not both at once.
It explains why their entire line almost copies the core marine unit roster unit for unit with equivalents. It's also so strange to have one army with basically two armies within it.

I think if Primaris had really been very different and brought totally new things to the table entirely it would have done better, but as it stands they are "odd" when paired with regular marines.


At the same time I can't see GW losing all regular marines. Some things like Rhinos and Landraiders are just so iconic to the range, to the marketing and so heavily set with 40 years of gaming behind them that to remove them for hovertanks I think would be a mistake.



I feel like Primaris are part of the legacy of choices from the Kirby era which weren't lore, gamer or customer focused and as a result end up being sore thorns in how to sort things out now. Esp since GW can't just split the Space Marines into two separate armies across every chapter