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 can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further? Remember that the peak of GW's streamlining efforts were the core rules of AoS's release version, proudly marketed as being only four pages long. Then they had to add a twelve page FAQ/commentary document to add necessary rules and interactions to make the four pages of core rules kinda sorta work. It would be much the same for 10th ed 40k and, well, we can hope that GW occasionally learns from experience, right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So let's fix 9th's lethality issues by making it even easier to kill things.

That sounds like a GW solution alright.

On the good side it means you won't have to complain about Hammer of the Emperor Born Soldiers anymore!

 Geifer wrote:
I can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further? Remember that the peak of GW's streamlining efforts were the core rules of AoS's release version, proudly marketed as being only four pages long. Then they had to add a twelve page FAQ/commentary document to add necessary rules and interactions to make the four pages of core rules kinda sorta work. It would be much the same for 10th ed 40k and, well, we can hope that GW occasionally learns from experience, right?

I'd still argue that AoS is a much more streamlined system than 40k. By no means perfect, but the states I am concerned about are all on a single warscroll

As for the idea of a complete reboot, that nonsense. Selling new codices and new AoO books that will only be valid for a couple of months is not ok.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
As for the idea of a complete reboot, that nonsense. Selling new codices and new AoO books that will only be valid for a couple of months is not ok.

Well, 4 months. But the point is valid.

 Geifer wrote:
I can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further?

It seems especially suspect since they specifically called out the over-streamlining of 8th as a problem when they introduced 9th. They mentioned terrain as one area they went too far with at the time. I'd be surprised if they tried to streamline the core rules again.

I'd be less surprised if they streamlined the Codeices and strats, WLT and relics in some way. That's where a lot of the current bloat is really problematic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So let's fix 9th's lethality issues by making it even easier to kill things.

That sounds like a GW solution alright.

That lethality is necessary though for game length and model density. Changing it is the only way to push up one or push down the other.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Selling new codices and new AoO books that will only be valid for a couple of months is not ok.

as if anyone had a problem with this before
a book only being valid for 1 months would be proof that those rumours are true


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So let's fix 9th's lethality issues by making it even easier to kill things.

That sounds like a GW solution alright.

That lethality is necessary though for game length and model density. Changing it is the only way to push up one or push down the other.

which is strange as the game takes significant longer than back when lethality was lower

 Dr. Mills wrote:
I'm hoping they say 'feth it' and reintroduce D4, D8, D10, D12 rolls/dice rather than 2D6+2 nonsense.

Straight dice roll. Easy. Can make tough armour tough again, such as Terminator armour being 3+ but on a D12 or something, with the fallback to 5++ on a D6 if hit with something hilariously big.
It would even benefit simple troops, such as guardsmen, would be 5+ still, but on a D8 so a straight 50/50. Hell, there's so much granularity you could have that would address issues of a straight D6 system...

They will be proprietary GW d9s, copyrighted, trademarked and patented.

Mark my words.

IIRC the next regular polyhedron is somewhere in the 50s in regards to size. I can see GW moving to that scale and just making everything based on a single roll for all of your attacks from 1 unit and an opposed roll for the defender. Cross index the resulting difference and viola!.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
I'm hoping they say 'feth it' and reintroduce D4, D8, D10, D12 rolls/dice rather than 2D6+2 nonsense.

Straight dice roll. Easy. Can make tough armour tough again, such as Terminator armour being 3+ but on a D12 or something, with the fallback to 5++ on a D6 if hit with something hilariously big.
It would even benefit simple troops, such as guardsmen, would be 5+ still, but on a D8 so a straight 50/50. Hell, there's so much granularity you could have that would address issues of a straight D6 system...

They will be proprietary GW d9s, copyrighted, trademarked and patented.

Mark my words.

It will be a D8 that starts at 2.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further? Remember that the peak of GW's streamlining efforts were the core rules of AoS's release version, proudly marketed as being only four pages long. Then they had to add a twelve page FAQ/commentary document to add necessary rules and interactions to make the four pages of core rules kinda sorta work. It would be much the same for 10th ed 40k and, well, we can hope that GW occasionally learns from experience, right?

I'd still argue that AoS is a much more streamlined system than 40k. By no means perfect, but the states I am concerned about are all on a single warscroll

I'm not exactly in the loop on current AoS, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that because the rules designers know the limitations of their system, work within that system and don't try to overburden it with a ton of special rules? At least comparatively speaking?

Because the big issue with 8th ed and onward is that the core rules are a poor foundation for the breadth of themes the designers want to see expressed in the rules. 40k is already too streamlined to accommodate that but the designers prefer to just tack on more special rules in a million places in the hope that the final construct somehow works.

Slipspace wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further?

It seems especially suspect since they specifically called out the over-streamlining of 8th as a problem when they introduced 9th. They mentioned terrain as one area they went too far with at the time. I'd be surprised if they tried to streamline the core rules again.

I'd be less surprised if they streamlined the Codeices and strats, WLT and relics in some way. That's where a lot of the current bloat is really problematic.

Yeah, I could maybe see them try that, but would they refrain from immediately heaping more stuff back on and end up right back where they started? Rulesets expand over time. That's just the way it is and not even unique to GW. But the speed with which the designers bloated the game since 8th ed is legendary, and frankly was entirely foreseeable from the moment GW previewed the rules in the lead up to 8th ed.

If they're trying to rein in the bloat without tackling the underlying issues, I don't think it's going to be a much different experience than the previous edition.

Whitefang over on The Grand Alliance called out these three items specifically as false:

>Core rules are streamlined

>Psychic Phase and Command Phase are combined

>Toughness is now only on datasheets with a [Heavy Armour] keyword ability. E.g Terminators, Rhinos, Dreadnoughts etc. Generic troops now only roll to hit when attacking and save when defending.

Whitefang has a really, really good(albeit annoyingly cryptic) track record despite primarily being AoS rumors.

GW already has D16's for Blood Bowl.

D16's are mathematically 10x better than D6's (It's a mathematical fact, totally proven, irrefutable) So says the rules department chief monkey.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Whitefang over on The Grand Alliance called out these three items specifically as false:

>Core rules are streamlined

>Psychic Phase and Command Phase are combined

>Toughness is now only on datasheets with a [Heavy Armour] keyword ability. E.g Terminators, Rhinos, Dreadnoughts etc. Generic troops now only roll to hit when attacking and save when defending.

Whitefang has a really, really good(albeit annoyingly cryptic) track record despite primarily being AoS rumors.

Added to the OP, with source & link. Because i'm nice like that.

Apple fox wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
I'm hoping they say 'feth it' and reintroduce D4, D8, D10, D12 rolls/dice rather than 2D6+2 nonsense.

Straight dice roll. Easy. Can make tough armour tough again, such as Terminator armour being 3+ but on a D12 or something, with the fallback to 5++ on a D6 if hit with something hilariously big.
It would even benefit simple troops, such as guardsmen, would be 5+ still, but on a D8 so a straight 50/50. Hell, there's so much granularity you could have that would address issues of a straight D6 system...

They will be proprietary GW d9s, copyrighted, trademarked and patented.

Mark my words.

It will be a D8 that starts at 2.

No, they'll have faction specific D6's. Which will actually be D8's with extra 6's for Space Marines and extra 1's for Orks. They can do a whole range of different results for each faction with specialty GW dice! Or may 1 extra 6 and another side that says "roll again", since there isn't enough of that already.

 Geifer wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further?

It seems especially suspect since they specifically called out the over-streamlining of 8th as a problem when they introduced 9th. They mentioned terrain as one area they went too far with at the time. I'd be surprised if they tried to streamline the core rules again.

I'd be less surprised if they streamlined the Codeices and strats, WLT and relics in some way. That's where a lot of the current bloat is really problematic.

Yeah, I could maybe see them try that, but would they refrain from immediately heaping more stuff back on and end up right back where they started? Rulesets expand over time. That's just the way it is and not even unique to GW. But the speed with which the designers bloated the game since 8th ed is legendary, and frankly was entirely foreseeable from the moment GW previewed the rules in the lead up to 8th ed.

If they're trying to rein in the bloat without tackling the underlying issues, I don't think it's going to be a much different experience than the previous edition.

The bloat isn't a bug; it's a feature.

Every edition it's the same stupid story: "oh, there's too many special rules, too many books, we need to start over to make things easier for players..." and so they promptly release a new edition, throw out a Space Marine codex and start over with the same thing only different in a multitude of tiny, almost meaningless ways.

The entire rules cycle is driven by the company's overwhelming need to create an ever-larger bucket of profit for the shareholders.

No-one would be more delighted than me if 10th edition turned out to be a modern rewrite from the ground up that was actually fun to play with a wealth of in-game options for both players at every step of the game. But it won't. It'll be a heap of small changes that are almost impossible for my middle-aged brain to differentiate from editions past, some extra randomization (because hey, it's so cinematic! What will the dice do next? They could show almost ANYTHING!!!) and yet another treadmill-like bloat cycle of overpriced rulebooks that are out of date before you can even finish painting an army.

Man, every day I'm more grateful that I decided to sell off my Apocalypse-sized Nid army last year. Bring on the refresh! And please give us new Gaunts. Please...

leopard wrote:
thinking about it, if the "to wound" roll goes this is a massive buff to any horde shooting army like say Imperial Guard..

basically it can work in historical games where everyone is equally squishy and weapons are equally lethal if they hit - so all that matters is "did you hit?" and "do they have effective armour?"

but not sure the idea of the best anti infantry weapon being the las gun because of how many you bring working is going to be fun

Well that would be depending on values. Those lasguns doing that damage on say 6+ is not so hot now is it?

I presume you weren't expecting current bs and that's it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Selling new codices and new AoO books that will only be valid for a couple of months is not ok.

as if anyone had a problem with this before
a book only being valid for 1 months would be proof that those rumours are true


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So let's fix 9th's lethality issues by making it even easier to kill things.

That sounds like a GW solution alright.

That lethality is necessary though for game length and model density. Changing it is the only way to push up one or push down the other.

which is strange as the game takes significant longer than back when lethality was lower

Too many diceroll's, rerolls etc. When unit can take about 200 rolls to resolve attacks. Add up to 5 times moving same models in a turn...

Yeah, now that Whitefang has weighed in, I'm content to let all that bunk die off.

Importantly, he only quoted the rule change stuff, but left other stuff untouched.

So Dark Mech and new xenos still on the table...

of course
the more dice you roll and the more often you roll them the more time it takes
the same the more often you touch a model to move it

increase the number if dice to roll because the game already takes too long has therefore the opposite effect (even if out sounds reasonable to roll more dice to compensate more models)

hence re-rolls, always wound on 6 (because if you have the chance you do it), moving outside the movement phase, and higher rate of fire increase the time needed to play without a real benefit for the game
specially if the game is won by scenario as it does not matter if half the models are dead or all of them


For this case, if GW does not re-write 40k from scratch, and I really mean this not like 8th were they took half of the old rules to save time, it won't get better but worse (no matter if there are Index or not)

drbored wrote:
Yeah, now that Whitefang has weighed in, I'm content to let all that bunk die off.

Importantly, he only quoted the rule change stuff, but left other stuff untouched.

So Dark Mech and new xenos still on the table...

Weirdly the thing a lot of people picked fault with was the fact it was DA in the box, which wasn't said to be wrong.

Dudeface wrote:

drbored wrote:
Yeah, now that Whitefang has weighed in, I'm content to let all that bunk die off.

Importantly, he only quoted the rule change stuff, but left other stuff untouched.

So Dark Mech and new xenos still on the table...

Weirdly the thing a lot of people picked fault with was the fact it was DA in the box, which wasn't said to be wrong.

Yeah, I think early rumors of BA vs Tyranids were just because, 'god forbid tyranids fight anyone but BA'

 Geifer wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further? Remember that the peak of GW's streamlining efforts were the core rules of AoS's release version, proudly marketed as being only four pages long. Then they had to add a twelve page FAQ/commentary document to add necessary rules and interactions to make the four pages of core rules kinda sorta work. It would be much the same for 10th ed 40k and, well, we can hope that GW occasionally learns from experience, right?

I'd still argue that AoS is a much more streamlined system than 40k. By no means perfect, but the states I am concerned about are all on a single warscroll

I'm not exactly in the loop on current AoS, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that because the rules designers know the limitations of their system, work within that system and don't try to overburden it with a ton of special rules? At least comparatively speaking?

Because the big issue with 8th ed and onward is that the core rules are a poor foundation for the breadth of themes the designers want to see expressed in the rules. 40k is already too streamlined to accommodate that but the designers prefer to just tack on more special rules in a million places in the hope that the final construct somehow works.

AoS has no toughness and you rarely measure any of your stats against an incoming stat(like Strength v. Toughness). AoS is also much less inclined to give stuff rend(ap in AoS).You can get maybe -1 rend but only the big toys and heroes can get a better rend.

So honestly the rumors kind of make me feel that 40k might go more AoS than 40k. Only time will tell though.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Added to the OP, with source & link. Because i'm nice like that.

You're doing great with this thread! For some reason, my browser doesn't like their direct-linking or I'd have given you one rather than just the quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

drbored wrote:
Yeah, now that Whitefang has weighed in, I'm content to let all that bunk die off.

Importantly, he only quoted the rule change stuff, but left other stuff untouched.

So Dark Mech and new xenos still on the table...

Given the generally cryptic nature of Whitefang's posts, I'm willing to think that it might be the specific contents of those changes.

 Eldarsif wrote:

AoS has no toughness and you rarely measure any of your stats against an incoming stat(like Strength v. Toughness). AoS is also much less inclined to give stuff rend(ap in AoS).You can get maybe -1 rend but only the big toys and heroes can get a better rend.

So honestly the rumors kind of make me feel that 40k might go more AoS than 40k. Only time will tell though.

I really hope not. Having both fixed to hit and fixed to wound roll is pointless. In AOS you have interesting weapon choices like choosing between 3+ to hit and 4+ to wound and 4+ to hit and 3+ to wound...

Getting rid of Strength vs Toughness would massively narrow the design space that allows different weapons to be effective against different targets, which in turn would remove large chunk of tactics.

drbored wrote:
Yeah, now that Whitefang has weighed in, I'm content to let all that bunk die off.

Well that's a bit of good news for a change.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
On the good side it means you won't have to complain about Hammer of the Emperor Born Soldiers anymore!

Thanks?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
That lethality is necessary though for game length and model density. Changing it is the only way to push up one or push down the other.

You in the market for bridges? I have a few to sell!

 Crimson wrote:
Getting rid of Strength vs Toughness would massively narrow the design space that allows different weapons to be effective against different targets, which in turn would remove large chunk of tactics.

Silver lining: We wouldn't need 40+ different types of Bolters.

 Crimson wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

AoS has no toughness and you rarely measure any of your stats against an incoming stat(like Strength v. Toughness). AoS is also much less inclined to give stuff rend(ap in AoS).You can get maybe -1 rend but only the big toys and heroes can get a better rend.

So honestly the rumors kind of make me feel that 40k might go more AoS than 40k. Only time will tell though.

I really hope not. Having both fixed to hit and fixed to wound roll is pointless. In AOS you have interesting weapon choices like choosing between 3+ to hit and 4+ to wound and 4+ to hit and 3+ to wound...

Getting rid of Strength vs Toughness would massively narrow the design space that allows different weapons to be effective against different targets, which in turn would remove large chunk of tactics.

I'm still not a huge fan of the way Age of Sigmar handles it. If I'm swinging an axe, I should not have the same chance of hurting a massive dragon as I do a goblin.

angryboy2k wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I can believe that streamlining the core rules some more is a bogus rumor. What's there to streamline about it any further?

It seems especially suspect since they specifically called out the over-streamlining of 8th as a problem when they introduced 9th. They mentioned terrain as one area they went too far with at the time. I'd be surprised if they tried to streamline the core rules again.

I'd be less surprised if they streamlined the Codeices and strats, WLT and relics in some way. That's where a lot of the current bloat is really problematic.

Yeah, I could maybe see them try that, but would they refrain from immediately heaping more stuff back on and end up right back where they started? Rulesets expand over time. That's just the way it is and not even unique to GW. But the speed with which the designers bloated the game since 8th ed is legendary, and frankly was entirely foreseeable from the moment GW previewed the rules in the lead up to 8th ed.

If they're trying to rein in the bloat without tackling the underlying issues, I don't think it's going to be a much different experience than the previous edition.

The bloat isn't a bug; it's a feature.

Every edition it's the same stupid story: "oh, there's too many special rules, too many books, we need to start over to make things easier for players..." and so they promptly release a new edition, throw out a Space Marine codex and start over with the same thing only different in a multitude of tiny, almost meaningless ways.

The entire rules cycle is driven by the company's overwhelming need to create an ever-larger bucket of profit for the shareholders.

No-one would be more delighted than me if 10th edition turned out to be a modern rewrite from the ground up that was actually fun to play with a wealth of in-game options for both players at every step of the game. But it won't. It'll be a heap of small changes that are almost impossible for my middle-aged brain to differentiate from editions past, some extra randomization (because hey, it's so cinematic! What will the dice do next? They could show almost ANYTHING!!!) and yet another treadmill-like bloat cycle of overpriced rulebooks that are out of date before you can even finish painting an army.

This. GW very rarely do big changes to their games, because they don't want to do something that causes sales to decline. Last time they did a radical change which resulted in poor sales it killed off what had been a 3rd core game system... Epic. So unless the game was on life support (WFB), GW are not.going to take massive risks with changing the system too much. 8th/9th isn't that different from 3rd edition. Still a lot of the old DNA in there.

2nd to 3rd was a radical change, but done to shift the game from a skirmish level to a platoon level game.

10th will be a series of minor tweaks here and there. Still going to be IGOUGO, still going to have the same phases, still going to use a D6, still going to have the same weapon types, etc... Still going to be claimed to be the best edition ever, and make GW a lot of money.

And it will use GW propietary measurements. Because the need to protect their IP the designers will drop those uncopyrightable inches in exchange for a set of random characters painted on a stick that will be online only at FW's prices.
And people will say it was the best decision ever.

M.