10th Edition's Biggest Missed Opportunity

[@jackflashman3322]

For a company whose business model revolves around selling miniatures, GW often makes it very difficult to buy and use those miniatures for their intended purpose.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

You know what? You're not wrong ~Sunny

[@LaPaginadiLeonardo]

40k got severly dumbed down with years. I come from a time where vehicles actually had armour values, different for every side and Orc animosity in Wfb was absolute chaos!

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

I remember those times, I also remember I barely have an hour to spare each day so I don't mind simplifed but I do mind simplistic there is different - Cal

[@thepiratepenguin4465]

I like your idea regarding the D10, but I would all so as the Order dice system from Bolt Action as it adds a randomness to the game & helps keep tract of unit's action.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

We aren't as familiar with bolt action, but that makes the game challenging not the dice rolls being the challenge, and I like that ~Sunny

[@thepiratepenguin4465]

@@WhatareyouPaintingnow The order dice come in 2 colour, one colour per player, the number of dice are equal the amount for units the player field. Say I'm feeling 10 units & you are feeling 12 in the points limit, I would have 10 green dice in the bag & you would have 12 blue dice in the bag. we the take turns dawning dice from the back. Having 2 extra dice in the bag give you an advantage that your dice will be drawn first. once an dice is drawn the play activated a unite & select the action. once the action is completed, the order dice is placed next the unite with the stated action such as "Run" or "shoot". This way everyone knows which unite has been activated that round & which action was performed. When the round is over, the dice go back into the bag. Should a unite be lost, that order dice is remove from the bag & given to the opposing member as a trophy. The person with the most order dice at the end of the game wins.

[@seanmalloy7249]

It's a particularly outré choice for a die size, but if you roll 3D34 - 2 (yes, 34-sided dice are real), you get a 1-100 result that follows a bell curve distribution, which gives you a lot of room to play with how shifting chances further away from the mean can have larger effects. But that's much too big a change to make; it would be impractical if you're rolling for several units at once.

[@BarronFamily231]

We started using d10’s back in Rogue Trader and 2nd. It made things so much better, especially since the stats were originally on a one-to-ten scale anyway. I hate how the current system opts for the least amount of granularity possible. Thank you for this video!

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Glad you enjoyed 😊 - Cal

[@friendlyneighbourhoodsunwheel]

Ive been saying that we need to break with the d6 for years to fully realise the skill of factions like custodians and grots just as the toughness scale got expanded we should move to a D10 or preferred 12.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

I like D10 for two reasons the marketing would have been so easy and 10 is easy math for everyone more accessible - Cal

[@Battlefang]

introducing CO-OP, SOLO and Narrative play modes, would be beneficial for the game in many ways. from time to time there are people who play "multiplayer warhammer" usually in 2v2 format or 1v1v1v1 (free for all). but there are no truly elegant rules for such. and the crusade mode (or comparable in other games) is close to "narrative play", where the armies evolves and changes over time in a series of games. CO-OP could serve as an introductory mode for new players, were a veteran and fresh player work together to deal with a threat using the rules of the big game or slightly simplified rules. SOLO could work well for the player who have many armies and lives a fair bit away from friends, so rules enabling SOLO play could help them get games in without having to travel. NARRATIVE could present itself as a campaign (a series of games) and could be played SOLO or CO-OP or regular 1v1 style, and would likely run in a similiar manner as "Crusade". could have rules variation depending on play mode.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Sounds like there is some passion there! Yeah we think they are good ideas and those are great follow ups - Cal

[@Calapet]

If 40k had these changes that you mentioned, I wouldn't even think twice and I would start an army. Unfortunately, right now I feel like the only feasible option is Kill Team. It's much more fun and entertaining as well as more affordable 😅

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Affordable yeah and barely, if you get the starter you can get an Xbox for just as much - Cal

[@rumbleroocomics]

Digging that LNH (Ludo Narative Harmony)

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Yeah that's our number one goal with Xor'Veil - Cal

[@Dram1984]

100% agree with your Warhammer Legacy. It’s basically the “legends” units but for rules.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Yeah and you mate who played years ago will be able to pick up where they left off - Cal

[@BrandonL337]

I feel like that's just, using the books as they were written? like, yeah, digital rules are getting updated all the time, but 10 years from now, I'll still have my xth edition rule book and codices, after all. now, some updates are pretty important, and I think GW should publish an "end of edition" book with the final version of the core rules, errata, FAQs, etc. and the most recently updates point costs.

[@Dram1984]

@ sure you can always use whatever rules set you want but there is a certain weight to an “official GW” ruleset that will just make your life easier when looking for players, etc…

[@Jleot]

I do like the ideas surrounding how to deal with saves. Ive long thought that we should gonto d10s but i could never think of a decent way to make it simple enough to not detract from the game itself I really like what yall have come up with

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Glad to hear you like it we bit of thought into the ideas - Cal

[@darthpejter]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who can't understand that GW sticks to d6 when D&D implements many more. When my play group discovers Vampire: The Masquerade and it's D10 system I was super concerned why GW don't use it in Warhammer

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

I feel it's a great dice for the setting - Cal

[@creator58]

Yeah I agree with you here, the marketing for 10th edition introducing the D10 writes itself as well! I see what youre getting at with the stats adding variabilty but I wonder if the added complexity raises barrier to entry too high (although if you change the rolls like you suggest perhaps not)

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Well perhaps more stats would raise the barrier to entry but that would mean you can lean more on them and have less special rules... I mean how many of those are there atm - Cal

[@Greyboar]

0:25 Sorry, can you explain this part a little more? Like, what are the these 3 results you can get? And how is Space Marines missing 33%, and Orks hitting 33% of the time the same? That still means the Space Marines are twice as likely to hit. And you mention 1's and 2's, and 5's and 6's, but what about 3's and 4's for those target numbers? I'm just really struggling to understand this section of the video

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Design wise missing 33% of the time and hitting 33% of the time is the same space. So, you want to design something and you want it to look a certain way, so you only have three spaces to play with. 16.7% (going off the top of my head) 33% and 50% That is all the space you have room for because in the way they design the game you are either lookin for a 1 or 6, and even if you were looking at other numbers it would still have that percentage of success. So the success rate for marines is the same space as the fail rate for Orks. Design wise, they are the same because they only care about 33% of the time. I hope that helps - Cal

[@Greyboar]

@@WhatareyouPaintingnow Ok, I think I understand the point you're making now, but I guess I'm still lost on why it's an issue. Like, to continue with the Space Marine/Ork comparison, "So the success rate for marines is the same space as the fail rate for Orks" why is it that they fall in the same space a problem? I guess I'm just not understanding this "spaces" framing. If I'm trying to hit a value on a d6 in one of the ranges greater than 1, I still see a d6 as giving ~16.7%, ~33%, 50%, *and* ~66% and ~83% for each of those ranges To be clear, I'd be fully on-board with a switch to d10s or d12s for the increased variability, that increased range of potential results that makes playing around with more and varied bonuses and minuses. I'm just confused by this framing of the problem with d6s, and I don't like being confused 😅

[@MrFiremagnet]

D10 is such a no-brainer for 40k. Could solve a lot of problems with balance, although they'll have to rebalance the whole system all over again. I agree with Initiative needing a comeback, because it was a good way to push the player into a certain playstyle. Low initiative? Avoid close combat or get more bodies. High initiative, low save? Play aggressively. It gave so much flavor. We already have initiative, but with extra steps and zero clarity - with all those fights first/fights last shenanigans. Bring back the numerical initiative or remove fight first/last. Other thing I would suggest, since we are talking about game design, is introduction of the "action points" and prepared actions like in DnD. Like, you get one movement, one shooting and one charge action. So you can emulate alternate movement without hanging warhammer into something completely else while giving more tactical options. For example, instead of moving, you can order to hold the ground and give a defensive or accuracy bonus. Instead of shooting you can set to overwatch, and the enemy will have to think twice before getting in your radius. Instead of charging you can set to defend or set to fall back (but would have to roll the initiative check, otherwise it would be impossible for the melee armies to ever reach anyone - but remove the random charge move, so unsuccessful charge won't make you army stand still, but would actually force the charged until to be forced to leave if they don't want to fight and suffer the casualties). You could do many more with that system. For example, maybe give only two universal action points instead of one for one per phase (or maybe give each model a certain amount of action points per phase - 1 for npc, 2 for guardsman, 3 for the space marines, 4 for the custodians and characters), so the player would have to choose between moving and shooting and moving and charging. Or shooting and charging. Or maybe you could spend both action points into shooting to bolster it in one way or another and receive a bonus (for example, open a suppressive fire - you are obviously exposed and wouldn't be able to react to anything but you'll be able to do something more meaningful). It would alone make the game much more fast-paced since there would be simply less possible activations in the game. But I personally lean towards the one action point per phase concept, with giving at least one active and one reactive option per phase, with different additional options for different armies - for example, tau pathfinders could markerlight instead of shooting, orks shooting in the air to intimidate etc. Morale phase should be able to give something instead of being just a punishment for having larger squads. Like orks have mob rule, but why don't everybody have some sort of bonus for coming in huge numbers, if you managed to avoid the heavy casualties? Rn game literally punishes for larger squads by both making them vulnerable against the blast weapons and the morale damage. I also feel like stratagems shouldn't allow the armies to break the rules but either amplify existing ones or give some abilities that don't exist outside of the strategems. Like I really don't appreciate abilities that allow the units to break the regular sequences of movement. Feels like legal cheats that are almost impossible to take into the account while building the core rules. And but not least, can we have a rule that we can target only visible models? Without the rest magically distributing to the rest even if only one model is visible in the squad. This have always been extremely annoying.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Yeah in short it gives you greater varieties of play and things are much more interesting that way. And it's not as if these things are untested I mean you go back a few editions and ta da most of it is there. Intelligence, Flexibility and Cool are the only things not really tested in large style games - Cal

[@erikmazon4587]

D10 would rock it, but it faces several problems: - d6 is even easier to read, and if you roll 40 die three times per attack you need that time - it is so popular and familiar and available! For many it is possible to gather ten more die from other board games at home. - current players have essily 50 to 100 die. They do not want to see them useless. Those can be countered, though: - using d10 should not need three rolls per attack to get the same granularity. - people have less and less board games at home - gw didnt care about peoples space marine armies, so why care now?

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Well GW don't care is always a thing but we have to believe that someone cars! We care - Cal

[@Tremezy]

Really love the d10 idea, i thibk its really solid. The only thing that could possibly work against it, is that d6 are easier to transport. I think a mix of a simple system, like OPR with d10 dices would go REALLY hard.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

D6 are cubes yep 100% but, I just think they will work better system wise and it gives GW another excuse to charge people for something... not that they needed it - Cal

[@Sleepynotlazy]

I would love to try out these rules. It feels like you touched on most of the issues I've had over the years (with perhaps the length of gamed being the exception). Any plans to release a play test thing in the future?

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Outside of the scope of what we do currently as unless this burst out the scene it will be bit to esoteric for our audience... But if this is very successful we won't rule it out... Or should I say we will rule it out - Cal

[@carek99]

Have you written up your ideas somewhere for distribution?

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Nope, just the video and about what we saw as missed opportunity but a few people have asked - Cal

[@faiir]

You're just describing an rpg where each player leads a team rather than 1 character

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

@@faiir if by an army you mean a team I guess so? - Cal

[@liammorgan1413]

A d10 system has its place, but if the current examples of games that already use d10 systems are any indication, it may not be the path to go down for current edition 40k. Of the games I am aware of with a d10 system in place: - Black Seas (a Napoleonic naval game by Warlord Games) uses a "roll low" d10 system specifically for gunnery, with a roll of 5 or less being the default, and modified thereafter by ship veterancy, target ship size and speed, and target range. Outside of critical hits, there's no rolling for whether the hit is a damaging hit, let alone any saves against it - the target just takes damage based on the types of cannons it got hit with (these are colour-coded: light guns [red] = 1/hit, heavy guns [blue] = 2/hit, carronades [black] = 3/hit). It should therefore be pretty telling that ships and boats in Black Seas tend to have their hull points in the double-digits on average. - Blood & Plunder and Blood & Crowns (both by Firelock Games) use a "roll high" d10 system in which units must equal or beat the relevant attribute value in order to succeed on the dice roll, and in which there are only three attributes that share five values between them: Shoot (Offense/Defense), Fight (Offense/Defense), and Resolve. These values rarely, if ever, get better than 5 (10 being the worst). Apart from buildings and ships (the latter of which really just being terrain pieces that you can pay for, arm, and move with your warband) the games eschew any notion of Attacks, Toughness, or Wounds in the Warhammer sense of the terms - each model only makes one attack, each hit is a wounding hit, and each failed defense roll is a model removed. It should also be noted that these games typically don't use anywhere near as many models for standard games as are required for 40k by comparison. If you really want to be playing around with a d10 adaptation of Warhammer however, and still want the granularity that permits ludo-narrative harmony, you may instead want to review how the Fantasy Flight Games RPGs function off of their percentile systems (those being Rogue Trader, Only War, Deathwatch, Black Crusade, Dark Heresy, and Warhammer Fantasy RP), and maybe file off the last digit for comparative sake.

[@ShockArcl1te]

Played co-op and it's a blast. Definitely fosters more positive vibes.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Co-op is a good way to spend an evening and have a drink and just relax - Cal

[@oniswdbs]

I would love to hear your guys' thoughts and opinions about the game Waraurge

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Afraid I don't know that one - Cal

[@oniswdbs]

@WhatareyouPaintingnow it's really awesome! The whole idea is designing your army to play how you want them to. It's also miniature and setting agnostic. But don't let that fool you. It absolutely matters what models you use. Warsurge has given me and my play group the tools needed to play gundam vs. 40k and 40k vs. Star Wars and Star Wars vs. Warhammer Fantasy and just so much more.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

@@oniswdbs Interesting took a look but it looks like it will have to take a bit of a dive to understand - Cal

[@Braindead154]

Why not a D12 and then you can just use two D6?

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Well part of it is another hidden selling point which is teaching math to kids because that is part of it and everyone can do 10%, 20% and so on in their head fairly easily and work out if good or bad idea - Cal

[@Jfk2Mr]

The problem with 2d6 is that effectively, you roll 1+d11, if you're rolling for a sum and not for duplicates

[@kekker_]

1d12 and 2d6 are different in not very obvious ways. First, you can't roll 1 on 2d6. The range is 2-12 instead of 1-12. Second, 2d6 is a bell curve. You're vastly more likely to roll 7 on 2d6 than any other number because more combinations result in 7 (1+6/6+1, 2+5/5+2, 3+4/4+3, compared to only 6+6 for 12). 1d12 is linear, so you have the same probability of rolling any individual number. Lastly, Warhammer is built around rolling fistfulls of individual dice. If each space marine in a unit of 10 does a 2d6 attack... how do you even do that? You can't roll 20d6, because each space marine has to attack with a _pair_ of d6, so you'd have to roll 2d6 ten times. I do like 1d12 a lot more than 1d10, but you can't simply migrate to that system by allowing players to use either 1d12 or 2d6.

[@Dram1984]

I’ve really tried to like 10e but for all the reasons people are tired of hearing about I just can’t get into it (boring, comp focus, endless rerolls, too many “off table” things to do (stratagems, etc…), no wargear, etc…). Every game I’ve played feels like 10 minutes of fun spread over 3 hours.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

That's totally fair - Cal

[@damianallen4964]

If you ever publish the d10 rules, please please PLEASE make them public/cheap. I've been struggling, designing a d12 system, and am currently in a slump, and am resistant to going back to d6.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Will do - Cal

[@clydemarshall8095]

Let us know when you have a custom ruleset for us to try

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Will do we have a whole game we have made but for an RPG need to get publishing that just between our million other projects - Cal

[@Stormeris]

I just like the clickity clack of a D6 better.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Fair I think it has much smaller design range - Cal

[@Localfriendlyanarchist]

You've hit on a fairly big issue that's not really discussed very loudly in our communities. The way we've lost a lot of the narrative side of 40k in favour of what GW insists is "streamlining" over the editions is a shame. I could see things going this way when I first opened my 3rd ed rulebook. The key point you raised i think is separating competitive and casual play. It's pretty obvious that GW want to have competitive play in the same model as MtG. Cash cow products essential for players to remain competitive. But that's not going to go well long term. It'll result in GW relying on cash injection events like Space Marine 2 or returning Primarchs. It's also pretty obvious that the covid shutdowns and warehouse issues made GW drastically reassess their supply chains. We can see that they're aiming to cut down their range sizes and their holding stock. They are intentionally producing less than demand and using just in time logistics. All results of incorporation of the company. There's no going back from that and GW has to continue to use corporate business practice or it won't survive. Unfortunately for GW it's current direction towards competitive play and "seasons" will change the nature of their games to the point that it's only competitive players left playing. And that will essentially be the end of their success. It's the casuals, kitbasers and collectors that actually drive the hobby. They are the foundations GW has been able to build its successes on. Competitive play just doesn't foster the creative attitude that the kitbasers, modelers and homebrewers do. Even GW tournaments are propped up by casual players just looking for some games and socialising. Less than half of tournament goers are there purely to compete. If you do want to compete then say goodbye to your fun weird list. Just look at how removing Force Org charts has reinvigorated the tournament scene. Crazy lists might not be competitive but at least now they're playable. I doubt a switch to d10s would be likely. The idea of using d6 has always been accessibility. Getting your hands on a fist full of d6s is a lot easier than d10s. The Ansell quote goes something along the lines of "most kids have a few d6s from other games already". Which isn't really the case any more. And now it's infinitely easier to get dice on mail order than it was in 1983 so not having somewhere local you can get them isn't the issue it was. The old reasoning might not add up anymore but d6 is synonymous with GW games at this stage so I can't see them changing

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

I think GW needs to revaluate otherwise they will loose their consistent business, I mean when people like Magiflycarp I believe his name is, famous KZbinr, getting 100ks of views can't keep up... that's a bad sign - Cal

[@Localfriendlyanarchist]

@@WhatareyouPaintingnow I'd agree. I think a factor in why GW don't seem worried about that is there isn't any one single competitor chasing them down. Another symptom of having too many business people, not enough hobby people running the company. There's enough smaller games out there that gamers will pick up whatever is popular locally. There doesn't need to be a direct competitor for GW for them to loose customers. Hobby people would see that risk. Sure GW don't need to worry about games like X-wing or Fallout because or the licencing limits but look at OPR or the buzz around Trench Crusade. There's Infinity, Gaslands, Dropfleet, Warzone, Antares. That's just the sci fi stuff. GW are so big they crash overnight, but that could mean they loose their monopoly too slowly for them to notice. I reckon they need to send some people over to lego to learn how they caused and got past near bankruptcy

[@Beaver_Queen]

I like your idea about game play, spliting it up and all. The stats are iffy for me but I remember the ye ole days. Moving to D10s wouldn't be bad for game play like you say but the poor Ork players put there with thousands of D6. Be interesting to see what GW does of course. Of course y'all could do your own OPR thing...

[@dirkgaffron5456]

Why not a D12?

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

10th edition D10 - Cal

[@rutgaurxi7314]

Playing 10th? I'm still the kino that's the first edition that's the 1st editions of Necro and HH.

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

Does kino mean keen? Kino is kind of gambling here - Cal

[@fujin27]

40-50? Lololol

[@WhatareyouPaintingnow]

She misspoke it happens - Cal

[@fujin27]

@@WhatareyouPaintingnow I know it’s just funny. I make fun of my fiancé all the time for it and she does it to me too lol

[@marcoghiotti7153]

D6 are commonly used only because they were easier to manifacture in the past. In 2024 we could print Platonic shapes at home with a click. So, any game system that still adopts the d6-framework is lazy, monotonous and rather intellectually flat. Moreover, adult players should be encouraged to learn a little bit of arithmetic. Use a d100 please, you have got functioning neurons able to handle base-10 computation. Happy wargaming to all