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 wonder if we could get something like partial indexes. The stratagem and CP is rebooted and reworked and the indexes are for the replacing system, but we still use the codexes for datasheets.

 Tyran wrote:
I wonder if we could get something like partial indexes. The stratagem and CP is rebooted and reworked and the indexes are for the replacing system, but we still use the codexes for datasheets.

That's what i'm thinking. The CP-system rework would make Indexes necessary because at least some armies rely on CP-based shenanigans for subfactions, relics and so on, so you'd have to solve that somehow if you didn't want to break the lot of them by a hard cutoff of the old system. I think most of us agree that the bookkeeping of various points and abilities got out of hand, so that'd be a very obvious avenue of attack to prune stuff with a new edition.

 Tyran wrote:
I wonder if we could get something like partial indexes. The stratagem and CP is rebooted and reworked and the indexes are for the replacing system, but we still use the codexes for datasheets.

I think the strategems and datasheets would need to go hand in hand.

In 9th, many datasheet abilities got moved to strategems - e.g. smoke launchers. Reworking the datasheets would be desirable if the supplemental strategems went away.

Yeah, many units just don't work as currently written without stratagems. I don't think that approach would work at all.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wonder if we could get something like partial indexes. The stratagem and CP is rebooted and reworked and the indexes are for the replacing system, but we still use the codexes for datasheets.

I think the strategems and datasheets would need to go hand in hand.

In 9th, many datasheet abilities got moved to strategems - e.g. smoke launchers. Reworking the datasheets would be desirable if the supplemental strategems went away.

Many of which were just dumb to move in the first place:
"Sir, we are under heavy fire, shall we launch the smoke grenades attached to the outside of the vehicle?!"
"No private, we cannot do that without express authorisation from high command, and they can only call in so many favours..."
"What, favours? But they are right there!"
"My hands are tied private..."

The tank blows up.

I'd be all for basic equipment being rolled back into the datasheet.

Yeah, I get that they're useful for mechanical balance, but they also so quickly turned into a weird design space: especially when gear is common (yeah, smoke launchers) or unique and makes more sense to just be lumped into equipment you buy or come with.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, I get that they're useful for mechanical balance, but they also so quickly turned into a weird design space: especially when gear is common (yeah, smoke launchers) or unique and makes more sense to just be lumped into equipment you buy or come with.

At the current scale and scope of the game, stuff like smoke launchers is probably very near to the point that it just has to go away. Consider it 'always on' and built-in to general modifiers, cover and so on, and save actual wargear for stuff like sophisticated countermeasures or active denial systems.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, I get that they're useful for mechanical balance, but they also so quickly turned into a weird design space: especially when gear is common (yeah, smoke launchers) or unique and makes more sense to just be lumped into equipment you buy or come with.

At the current scale and scope of the game, stuff like smoke launchers is probably very near to the point that it just has to go away. Consider it 'always on' and built-in to general modifiers, cover and so on, and save actual wargear for stuff like sophisticated countermeasures or active denial systems.

Smoke launchers used to represent an interesting choice though- do I risk a vehicle dying, or reduce that risk at the expense of the vehicle not shooting next turn? Likewise, it was something you could force onto your opponent. The same goes for Go to Ground rules.

A lot of these kind of trade-off choices are gone from modern 40k, to be replaced by the resource management of command points.

 Haighus wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, I get that they're useful for mechanical balance, but they also so quickly turned into a weird design space: especially when gear is common (yeah, smoke launchers) or unique and makes more sense to just be lumped into equipment you buy or come with.

At the current scale and scope of the game, stuff like smoke launchers is probably very near to the point that it just has to go away. Consider it 'always on' and built-in to general modifiers, cover and so on, and save actual wargear for stuff like sophisticated countermeasures or active denial systems.

Smoke launchers used to represent an interesting choice though- do I risk a vehicle dying, or reduce that risk at the expense of the vehicle not shooting next turn? Likewise, it was something you could force onto your opponent. The same goes for Go to Ground rules.

A lot of these kind of trade-off choices are gone from modern 40k, to be replaced by the resource management of command points.

Yes. I personally think that the current scale/scope of 40k is much too big for its own good - stuff like what you mentioned is flavorful, interesting and opens design space because it gives the players options for tactical gameplay. The current size creep leads to 'parking lots' and necessitates bolting on 'artificial' gameplay and stuff like multi-phase doctrines and the like. It also does not generally sit well with the 'every model matters' philosophy that GW games have and can't really drop because selling individual models is their purpose.

It would probably be better for the health of 40k as a game to shrink back a bit towards a more skirmish-style scale, but GW wants to sell more, and bigger, models, so i doubt that this is going to happen. The best we can hope for is probably that 'proper' 40k grows so much that there'll be space for '40k Skirmish' in between it and e.g. Killteam.

 Tyran wrote:
I wonder if we could get something like partial indexes. The stratagem and CP is rebooted and reworked and the indexes are for the replacing system, but we still use the codexes for datasheets.

This is my personal hope. They could easily release a document that adjusts rules, takes out stratagems, or 'indexifies' stratagems to help cut down on bloat right from the get-go.

They did it with Blast weapons and a few other things. This would be a much more ambitious adjustment, but much needed for the health of the game, and especially if they do indeed change the CP system again...

All I'm really hoping for with the 10th is a stop to the bloat of stratagems. I would take them gutting secondaries as they're IMHO one of the worst parts (way too gamey), and I wouldn't mind them not having a bunch of terrain keywords either which seem like unnecessary extras. But the bare minimum is to get rid of the "every codex adds stratagems" crap.

I also wouldn't mind a more streamlined "Combat Patrol" style subset of rules, that's not just "pick 500 points and use these missions". Something with more restrictions, like when they used to have 0-1 type of stuff. Small point games can IMHO be a ton of fun, but not with the rules as they are.

The absolute best thing would be for them to basically break up 40k into three parts: Kill Team, "Firefight" (approximately company level, this would be "regular" 40k), Apocalypse (using the apoc rules that they had done with movement trays and whatnot). So you can keep stuff like flyers and superheavies and junk that don't belong in "normal" 40k in apocalypse (get rekt Knight players) and out of the regular game.

I hope they go with AoS version of Stratagems. Here’s a ~dozen generic ones everyone has access to, but then many characters offer their own unique one they can use.

 AduroT wrote:
I hope they go with AoS version of Stratagems. Here’s a ~dozen generic ones everyone has access to, but then many characters offer their own unique one they can use.

That would actually work really well.

Hell, just give in and adapt most of AOS to 40k. Maybe something like wounds don't carry over UNLESS it's in melee or the weapon has like Blast or something where it would make sense it could kill multiple dudes.

drbored wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wonder if we could get something like partial indexes. The stratagem and CP is rebooted and reworked and the indexes are for the replacing system, but we still use the codexes for datasheets.

This is my personal hope. They could easily release a document that adjusts rules, takes out stratagems, or 'indexifies' stratagems to help cut down on bloat right from the get-go.

They did it with Blast weapons and a few other things. This would be a much more ambitious adjustment, but much needed for the health of the game, and especially if they do indeed change the CP system again...

They did something similar with WHFB 8th so there is precedence.

drbored wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wonder if we could get something like partial indexes. The stratagem and CP is rebooted and reworked and the indexes are for the replacing system, but we still use the codexes for datasheets.

This is my personal hope. They could easily release a document that adjusts rules, takes out stratagems, or 'indexifies' stratagems to help cut down on bloat right from the get-go.

They did it with Blast weapons and a few other things. This would be a much more ambitious adjustment, but much needed for the health of the game, and especially if they do indeed change the CP system again...

Having the app this time around should, in theory, make Index-ifying easier. Everyone who has the 9th ed. Codex for an army unlocked in the app could get the 10th ed. Index rules and updates for that army unlocked in the app on launch day.

That would address many of the complaints about temporary Indexes from last time around.

Makes more sense than using up a lot of the main rulebook to print lists like in 3rd.

you certainly don't want the main rulebook with lists that are quickly out of date.

an approach similar to what Battlefront did with Flames 3 works, there the main rulebook was a slip case with three sections, the rulebook, a "gets you started" set of army lists that was gradually replaced and they had a painting guide section.

here I'd love a similar split, nice presentation slip case containing:
- the rules, every "rule" lives here, scenarios etc, the idea being this is a book you bring to games
- the armies, a starter list like the indexes, or a subset of them to get you going, intended to be replaced and in softback
- the background, all the fluff stuff thats nice to read, nice to have and can be inspiring but you don't need to play the game

then a separate quick paint guide for whatever models are in the box

and the idea that those with recent books can unlock the digital versions as they are released to avoid the "so what was this bought for?" is a nice gesture

leopard wrote:
you certainly don't want the main rulebook with lists that are quickly out of date.

an approach similar to what Battlefront did with Flames 3 works, there the main rulebook was a slip case with three sections, the rulebook, a "gets you started" set of army lists that was gradually replaced and they had a painting guide section.

here I'd love a similar split, nice presentation slip case containing:
- the rules, every "rule" lives here, scenarios etc, the idea being this is a book you bring to games
- the armies, a starter list like the indexes, or a subset of them to get you going, intended to be replaced and in softback
- the background, all the fluff stuff thats nice to read, nice to have and can be inspiring but you don't need to play the game

then a separate quick paint guide for whatever models are in the box

and the idea that those with recent books can unlock the digital versions as they are released to avoid the "so what was this bought for?" is a nice gesture

GW did a slip case set for 6th. (Might have been 7th, it’s been a while)

IMHO enough broad sweeping changes need to happen to almost every weapon profile, and a chunk of statlines that some form of index would be required. Of course, if GW doesn’t feel the need to curb the power creep as much as I do, a simple FAQ might suffice.

No way it will happen, but what I Really want them to do is stop printing books and just use the app. It was great when it could work that way thru the old AoS app.

 AduroT wrote:
No way it will happen, but what I Really want them to do is stop printing books and just use the app. It was great when it could work that way thru the old AoS app.

It would be nice they they still had the books, but they were 100% optional. So free rules and everything you need to play online, but for collectors ot people who want all the fluff/lore, it’s there.

I would dabble in so many armies if I didn’t need to shell out cash for codexes.

(And yes, I know there are options)

 AduroT wrote:
No way it will happen, but what I Really want them to do is stop printing books and just use the app. It was great when it could work that way thru the old AoS app.

I see the benefits but to be honest I've not yet had a books battery go flat on me or had a book removed from me because the publisher no long has a license for it etc.

as long as the online version doesn't need an internet connection to work (e.g. occasional updates to it not server based) and the contents and wording of it and the physical book are the same when errata for the physical book is considered there are advantages to having both for sure, but for me just an app is a hard pass, in this age there should also be the 'app' option and stuff like online army builders are very good and very useful but for actually playing I want a book

a book thats pre-drilled for a ring binder ideally so I can leave the bits I don't need at home

Frankly I wish they would start doing datasheet cards either as part of the book purchase or a standalone product.

I love those things for AoS.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly I wish they would start doing datasheet cards either as part of the book purchase or a standalone product.

I love those things for AoS.

that works [but only if they are not limited release... they need to be something someone wandering into the hobby can actually get hold of - and they need to be revised every so often - e.g. when the say twice annual rebalance is done a pack issued of any that have changed, or just have an annual re-issue for all factions - change the border colour or something so its really clear what "this years" pack is

but also don't do what Battlefront have done, leave the things as optional not ala Flames where if the card is different to the book its the card thats right (unless the FAQ says otherwise) and there is a whole stack of stuff thats only on the 'optional' cards

cards make a very good reference, I like the ones I have from AoS, I just wish I could have gotten hold of the rest of them for the factions I actually have - would be happy to have bought them but apparently GW didn't want my money

For me, I think that a return to things like Universal Special Rules - used by every army - would really help.

AoS3 is pretty good from the games I've seen of it; it wouldn't hurt to just... write 10th in the same way to be honest.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
For me, I think that a return to things like Universal Special Rules - used by every army - would really help.

AoS3 is pretty good from the games I've seen of it; it wouldn't hurt to just... write 10th in the same way to be honest.

Gasp!! Don't say that too loudly or you'll bring all the rampant AoS haters out of the woodworks who still feel stung, 8 years later, by the killing of WHFB that they still insist wasn't their own fault for gatekeeping an exceedingly expensive hobby even by the standards of the early 2000's!

drbored wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
For me, I think that a return to things like Universal Special Rules - used by every army - would really help.

AoS3 is pretty good from the games I've seen of it; it wouldn't hurt to just... write 10th in the same way to be honest.

Gasp!! Don't say that too loudly or you'll bring all the rampant AoS haters out of the woodworks who still feel stung, 8 years later, by the killing of WHFB that they still insist wasn't their own fault for gatekeeping an exceedingly expensive hobby even by the standards of the early 2000's!

I will never give up mocking GW for that, Even when I agree !

Apple fox wrote:

drbored wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
For me, I think that a return to things like Universal Special Rules - used by every army - would really help.

AoS3 is pretty good from the games I've seen of it; it wouldn't hurt to just... write 10th in the same way to be honest.

Gasp!! Don't say that too loudly or you'll bring all the rampant AoS haters out of the woodworks who still feel stung, 8 years later, by the killing of WHFB that they still insist wasn't their own fault for gatekeeping an exceedingly expensive hobby even by the standards of the early 2000's!

I will never give up mocking GW for that, Even when I agree !

Is it alright for us to hate them because AOS 1.0 rules sucked?

 Theophony wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

drbored wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
For me, I think that a return to things like Universal Special Rules - used by every army - would really help.

AoS3 is pretty good from the games I've seen of it; it wouldn't hurt to just... write 10th in the same way to be honest.

Gasp!! Don't say that too loudly or you'll bring all the rampant AoS haters out of the woodworks who still feel stung, 8 years later, by the killing of WHFB that they still insist wasn't their own fault for gatekeeping an exceedingly expensive hobby even by the standards of the early 2000's!

I will never give up mocking GW for that, Even when I agree !

Is it alright for us to hate them because AOS 1.0 rules sucked?

I Agree, So go for it!
I actually love Fantasy, but it’s not like it was in a good state. And.
I still think AoS needs another few editions before it’s good, but GW is a slow beastie.

 Nevelon wrote:

GW did a slip case set for 6th. (Might have been 7th, it’s been a while)

Yes, but that was a fluff book, an art book, and the rules. They're asking for something more like the 3rd Ed BBB with the army lists built in.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

GW did a slip case set for 6th. (Might have been 7th, it’s been a while)

Yes, but that was a fluff book, an art book, and the rules. They're asking for something more like the 3rd Ed BBB with the army lists built in.

Same basic idea. Have multiple parts so you don’t need to drag the whole damn tome to game night every time. Just replace art book with starter army index.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

GW did a slip case set for 6th. (Might have been 7th, it’s been a while)

Yes, but that was a fluff book, an art book, and the rules. They're asking for something more like the 3rd Ed BBB with the army lists built in.

Same basic idea. Have multiple parts so you don’t need to drag the whole damn tome to game night every time. Just replace art book with starter army index.

this, 100% this