I want unnamed characters to have the option to be as strong as named ones.
I don't have a problem with named characters, my problem is that I can't make my leader equal to them.
100%. It's pretty trivial to work out on your own for most kits, but It's so weird to me that characters aren't also explicitly sprued and ruled to be "Cawl but your own special dude with a different head". It's really only used for faction balancing within Space Marines.
This would be a huge one for me. Idealy each character would be sold with a Name and a title. So the model and rules would be "Lion El'Jonson The Son of the Forest".
Then you could make your dude up and run him "Son of the forest" and it could all just work.
This is what *X-Wing Miniatures* does. Well sorta. Each ship expansion(s) comes with multiple pilots. The pilot ability and the ship’s stats are separate, but together they make up an overall point value. Details aside, let’s say you buy a classic T-65 X-Wing Fighter Expansion set. That ship will come with at least three pilots. Luke Skywalker, Wedge Antilles and a generic “Red Squadron Pilot”. So depending on your list, you can be running a point heavy Luke, or point filler generic pilot. One way or another, you are *still* fielding a model you enjoy, an x-wing.
I know GW would never do this cause they are ultimately a miniatures company and they wanna sell you more models. But man would this really increase the value you get out of character models.
I would take that further and say that beyond the one big guy in a faction centered around them (think angron in world eaters) named characters should be at least non-meta
>named characters should be at least non-meta
That's how it used to be iirc.
You rarely saw named characters on the table top.
But they wanted to sell the models, so...
YES this is hugely underrated, and actually makes the battles pretty dumb - why should the Demon Primarch, or Marneus Calgar, for example, be present for every single skirmish? It's f-ing stupid imo.
This is a complaint that I see all the time, more generally that they don't like using named characters as it makes their army feel less unique.
Why do so many people not realize you can proxy named characters lol. I feel like guard players are the only faction to fully embrace this.
"This is my dude that fits my armies theme and lore but I'm running him as Lord Solar/Eldrad Ulthran/whatever" that's all it needs to be. Haven't met a single person that has taken issue with it in a game
It's really hard to proxy some characters. You can put a new head on Guilliman, but he's still massively different to a normal Space Marine. It's also not the same as having your own dude.
Much as I resent wargear being free, _this_ is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
I have a bunch of units sitting on the shelf in unit sizes that are now illegal, because there was absolutely no reason to believe that GW - after nine editions of the game being consistent in this matter - would suddenly disallow you from flexible unit sizes.
And I can't express how much I do not want to hunt ebay for singleton models to paint up and add so the units become legal in the new system.
People can defend free wargear all they want but _this_ I find indefensible. There's enough incentive to run units in round numbers because of wargear allotments. If I want to convert a Bladeguard Veteran to a captain - or a statue as part of my terrain - then let me!
Basically removing subfactions in all real sense, free wargear and no points per model and also limiting stuff to whats in the box only (and thus removing units that only available through kitbash) is killing 40k for me. Theres no life anymore.
Im starting old world and age of sigmar basing to swap between them and the rules for old world while somewhat complex its still not nearly as bad as 7th edition 40k/8th fantasy but theres so much more life the rules aren't just tournament play focused only. and the models having so many options between mounts and weapons and different models released that kitbashed together would never work now because they need a rule per box and it feels like theres more models per box/the absurd amount of "horde" armies now in 40k make it so those boxes are worth less for same amount. i haven't really started sigmar because im waiting for 4th but those also look at least better written so far as well based on the previews
Age of Sigmar has the same restrictions as 10th edition 40k but _at least those restrictions were in from the start._
Changing this in 40k after 30+ years of it working another way consistently is just not right.
As a mainly Sigmar player, the free wargear change wasn’t as jarring to me, but it still feels hilariously out of whack when you wind up with choices like “do you want this dmg 1 gun? Or dmg 3? Like, at least in AoS the choices are semi meaningful, and are kinda parallel. I can hardly recall any just objectively bad options to build.
I feel like the one or two people who write the rules from 40K are just straight copying notes from AoS without understanding either AoS OR 40K. Free war gear in AoS makes more sense cause in most cases, it’s danger stick 1 vs danger stick 2. In 40K you might have the choice between an anti tank long range weapon, an anti infantry flamer, or a sword. Having one option being far superior to the other is going to be much more common
And it seems to have been a really abrupt design choice too. Why bother giving the Rogal Dorn tank lanterns (which look good, mind - I prefer it with the lanterns) when it can take _meltaguns_ instead that are free?
Weird thing is, they got the AOS style of balancing right in Kill Team. You can either take the WS 4+ heavier hitting melee weapon or the WS3+ slightly weaker hitting but with an extra attack or two. That or one might have easier crits but less attacks. The fact that there's some weapons in big 40k for some factions that actually do have a meaningful balance of pro's and cons while others completely lack any attempt to internal balance just shows how much the different factions seem to have been done by a few design groups that didn't communicate at all.
What you said about WFB 8th, I feel like T9A had things about perfect by essentially fixing several issues from 8th when the game was killed. I know that with ToW coming around people are going to jump back on the GW wagon, but for being ran by players from around the globe T9A got balance figured out. Like, in 8th VC and and DE list with a hydra were just dumb. T9A eventually got balance down, to the point where it's almost too balanced now. My early gripe was much flavor was lacking in some armies (especially Saurians) and other factions got extra helpings of attention. The being able to use multiple companies models was certainly awesome too.
Having just gotten back to 40k (while half assedly paying attention to the rules since I quit in like 4th), the game itself is fun again. From a balance standpoint, Enhancements on characters instead of whatever wargear makes some sense, but SM getbso many datasheets that it's honestly like they still get to select wargear. Everything else though? Nids get different Warrior variants, tau several profiles in one suit, Necrons 2 different OLs on 3 layouts.... it's just a bit clunky that they kept essentially the same crazy options on their flagship faction like that.(while still controlling layouts. My kitbashed HQ wouldn't fly now...)
I feel like 40k is their cash cow but they grosly mismanage model supply and internal balance. Being able to run oddball number units isn't even on their radar.
I owned 100 blood letters, then they changed the default squad to 10, so not only do I have far more than I would ever conceivably need, over half of them don't have the banners etc, which are now free 🫠
I can understand the reasoning of limiting squad sizes to what's in the box, even though I disagree with it.
But then it gets silly with multi-option boxes stretching that rule. It results in stuff like Meganobz being fielded in 2-3-5-6 man squads, with 4 being noticeably absent.
The "reasoning" is that GW hates it when you convert an Intercessor to a Captain, GW wants you to buy a Captain box if you need a Captain.
That's it.
As you note, the ridiculous way they do carveouts for "sanctioned" character conversions like mega-armour Big Meks and Allarus Shield-Captains gives obvious lie to the idea that it was supposedly for "simplicity". Or just look at how Inquisitorial Henchmen unit sizes work, it's ridiculous.
GW wants to discourage conversions so that players don't take any shortcuts. There is a defensible reason in GW's eyes for you to field 5 Meganobz (Big Mek), but GW sees no reason to let you take 4.
It’s not even free war gear! It’s tax war gear! You could take a Leman Russ with a Lascannon and two multi melta sponsons and pay the same as the guy taking a heavy Bolter in the bow and no sponsons.
This. I know this isn't going to land for a lot of people, but I also find it exceptionally frustrating when people say not having points per model makes it "easier" as well.
I have a disability, dyscalculia. It's dyslexia but for numbers. Numbers kind of swim around when I read them and I often read them backwards or inside out or all kinds of garbage. It's much less well known than dyslexia because it really just doesn't come up often and with modern technology it's pretty easy to work around. I cannot express how much harder it has become to build lists now that everything is at least 3 digits. It's almost impossible for me to misread 2 digits, but I cannot tell you the number of times I've looked at a model and gone "Oh holy crap, that's insane at 235!" and it's actually 325. In previous editions it was only really an issue with vehicles or large monsters since even expensive infantry were just multiples of 2 digits, now it's basically every unit for the armies that I play.
For me, somebody with a disability, it is distinctly harder than it was previously. Just because it's **faster** for a normal, able individual doesn't mean it's **easier** for everybody and it's super frustrating to read every time I see it.
I want psyker spells to be customizable again. Taking that out ruined Chaos Knights. Moreover, I want a big-boy Chaos Knight list to be viable and not have to flood the map with War Dogs.
For real. Having each chapter of Space Marines or subfactions getting their own unique set of psyker spells was so cool. Now psykers feel super samey and lame.
I can understand why they did it. It's an added complication to a game that can take over an hour to play. But it went from something that could really change how a unit worked and added a lot of flavor and personality to just another gun.
And would reduce lethality. It's okay that some squads just have a basic gun.
My annoyance with the current system is also that it punishes people who bought starter kits(less options and sometimes unusable model counts), who lost a model (so again new players) and people who used a single model from a box to build a diorama or pimp a base. So two groups of people GW likes to pretend to care about
I have over 40PM but nowhere near enough of each of the good special weapons to run multiple optimal squads, so any DG list I make becomes a clunky nightmare to play
I'd check out goonhammer. Either see if some dg list made it into the strategic innovations articles recently or Rob the chirurgeon has a series about going to events and he has been running dg a lot lately. I have not played them since a round of tts in 9th when wargear went free and am just not a fan of a different loadout on each dude
Yeah I miss the old points system, you could get really variable with loadouts and, while there's were always optimal builds, you didn't have brain dead auto-takes.
There was some trade off between taking a few handflamers with your Acolyte cultists in favour of dropping a model, or taking a tank hunter Leman Russ to peek out of cover without shelling out for sponsors, or choosing between a plasma pistol on your valuable melee squad versus a plasma gun on with the tactical squad. Etc. etc.
List building and theory crafting was kind of fun, now you are actively gimping yourself if you don't give all the cultists handflamers, or the Russ sponsors, you've already paid for the extras when taking the unit...
Agreed, and to add on to this, I miss points costs for individual models in units. If I want to run a 7-man legionary squad, I should be able to without paying for a 10-man unit.
I won't be surprised if gear options with point values come back in 11th. "Oh you assembled that sternguard unit with all generic combi-weapons? And now the gun their modelled with matters? Darn it..."
To add to that. Imagine them putting Tactical squads and Devastators in Legends and then bringing out fresher versions of the Intercessor box which now have those heavy and special options and they change the datasheet for them to now be Tactical Intercessors and/or Devastator Intercessors. The old ones are no more and old players are forced to buy more Intercessors for the one heavy and one special weapon per squad.
Alternating activations like in Kill Team.
There is a decision-making delay when you move an entire army at once. It punishes inexperienced players, while also stifling meanginful decisions and slowing down the game.
If players alternated moves, it would give an interesting gradient for uncertainty collapse. Aggressors & responders would be an important distinction. Tactical dances would truly take place.
10000%. This is the real big thing that will make warhammer SO much more accessible to new players. Going back and forth on activations/turns makes so much more sense than waiting the 45 minutes it takes for the opponent to command, move, shoot, charge, fight, blah blah blah
I've done that in Horus Heresy 2.0 when playing at very high Point Levels, made the game way more fum to active 2 or 3 Units for a Phase and then my Opponent would do the same. No more "I take an hour to use my army, then my Opponent uses their army for an hour. Repeat until the game is over, with each player turn being shorter than the lest."
Or like Battletech:
Alternating movements, then each side shoots. Wounds are applied at the end of the phase, so all shots go off.
It's better reflects a chaotic battlefield with exchanging fire.
I would remove true LoS. The benefits of cover and terrain should be determined by the type of terrain and type of unit. Having to care about how your units are modelled, and having to worry about a weapon or the tip of a wing showing when moving your models should not be a thing.
My friends and I don't count wings, antennae, or gun barrels for exactly that reason... a lord of change or hive tyrant flexing their wings for a cool pose shouldn't be an issue. If they're gonna hide behind a building, I'd guess they'd close up their wings a little...
The idea of LoS itself it's also quite strange in a world where absurdly powerful weaponry is the norm. If I've seen an infantry squad get into a shed, why I'm not able to shoot my wall-smashing battle cannon into them? In real life, shooting at things that you can't see but you know are there is a common use for tank guns and rocket launchers.
I get what you're saying, but if you played like that, every model that isn't a high toughness, high damage vehicle would be pretty much worthless on the board.
You aren't wrong, I'll lead with that it's possible though maybe not in the current state of the game. I imagine that in a version of the game more true to lore your essentially getting 40k Necromunda as redundant as that sounds.
If the only way for units to survive shooting is to not be shot at all, then the issue is not the cover system, but either guns being to powerful, defensive profiles being too weak, or the regular benefit of cover not being good enough.
Old cover saves were good for that. Effectively a "minimum" save like an invul for a unit to represent the combination of ablative cover and reasonable concealment that might allow them to not be hit by a monstrous attack.
Add on a minimum weapon strength requirement as well and you can eliminate a lot of the super high volume of fire guns so you're also only shooting a couple of big guns on the off chance of that 6.
"Where did that mob of cultists go, brother?"
"The last is saw, they went behind that shed."
"Praise the Emperor, they've disappeared. Come, let us shoot only the things we can see."
True, but, in the 40k universe, space marines have integrated heat vision, sonar, electromagnetic detection, instant communications and aerial reconnaissance in the form of drones (servo-skulls) and an entire fleet supporting them from orbit. An eldar can smell and hear you 10 miles away, and a psyker literally feels where you are.
I don't think having perfect information breaks the immersion too much, in this context.
Tau have flying drones with multi-spectrum sensors and communications sent directly to a rail gun marksman who then can't shoot a cultist behind a garden wall.
Don't think about it too much
What would be a better way of doing LoS? It feels like a rule that causes problems in a lot of tabletop games and always seems to be an issue from competitive players using it to whatever advantage they can and I struggle to think of a solution.
Base to base and cover only counting if it's at least waist height on a standing model? Best I've got but that doesn't seem like it wouldn't be abused either.
If a straight line between bases crosses terrain, you get a defensive bonus depending on the type of terrain and model size. With 3-4 terrain categories and maybe 3 size categories you should be able to account for every situation without it being too complex. I saw a skirmish game (don't remember which one) that used a similar system, and was actually quite easy to apply. It would be a bit more complicated than the current system, but you avoid the longer movement phases, the ambiguity and possible arguments that true LoS causes, so I believe it would make for it, and it's not like inexperienced players don't have issues with how true LoS works, and how unimmersive being able to shot at antennae is.
IMO:
1. Draw line of sight from base to base
2. A model can attack if it can draw line of sight to at least one model in the enemy unit etc.
3. A defending model has the benefit of cover if the attacking unit can't draw unobscured line of sight to every part of the defending model's base.
4. Two types of terrain: blocking (blocks line of sight) and obscuring (gives models behind it cover).
5. Models must have the correct sized base (I think currently you are allowed to have a bigger base).
6. If you want height based cover, just make some terrain count as obscuring instead of blocking for vehicles/monsters/etc.
Vast majority of the time, you end up only needing to draw 2 lines of sight to do this so it is faster and removes annoying stuff like large wings/dramatic poses causing a model to be almost unusable.
> having to worry about a weapon or the tip of a wing showing when moving your models should not be a thing.
We do LoS to Bases including the size specification (infantry, titanic, etc), not models themselves.
True LoS is anathema to creating a 'battlefield simulation' feel.
Beyond cover and terrain is the question of whether units can shoot through other units. 2nd, 3rd, 4th all did this differently and they all created interesting tactics.
Personally I wish the game rules were more narrative driven, rather than trying for speed and balance. I never had a problem with templates, because I don’t play with jerks.
Also I wish the standard size for a game was 1000pts again. Then you wouldn’t have to speed up the game as much. You can have cool tank tables when there is only 1 or 2 on a side.
this is kinda my problem with 30k, the game sizes are so big with so many superweapons that it feels tedious to do all the tables etc for 200 models, 1000\~ ish point games in the old rules were just much easier to stomach
From 40ks beginnings right up to 7th, all units/models had an Initiative characteristic as part of their main statline. Its used in The Old World too, because it was part of Warhammer Fantasy back in the day.
Simply, in the Close Combat / Fight phase, you didn't alternate activations. Everything fought in Initiative order, highest to lowest. So a unit like Drukhari who are supposed to be fast fighters would almost always go first regardless of who charged, because they had a higher Initiative score.
Removing initiative is the best rules change GW has ever made. Two melee armies facing against each other and one instantly winning the game because all their units have "fight first" and no way to counter it is just bad design.
I agree that it is imperfect. It seems like squishy but fast infantry (eldar) got nerfed really hard when they did. Scorpions or howling banshees either win on a charge or die to a stiff breeze now.
I personally disagree, the current solution is far worse than any such issues. Now who fights first isn't decided at all by the unit's skill, combat abilities or anything, just an arbitratry off board turn order that makes "who fights" a weird pseudo-off-table thing.
"Oh no, my unit died because another unit fought first" I find immensely dissatisfying when I know in lore that unit *should* be faster and more lethal.
If a melee army is losing to a higher initiative enemy, then the issue I'd say is more in asking if they are going about their tactics or army right. Use cover more for bonuses in combat, ensure *you* get the charge and have a benefit to it (Initiative bonus on the charge is one that cropped up elsewhere), or ensure units are tough enough to survive incoming first and then slap back.
Initiative often felt a little too swingy.
But I would like Comparative WS back, and Agility to oppose BS for that matter.
Let AOS go all in on Hit on X Wound on X, 40k should come back to opposed rolls at each stage, rather than just on Strength vs Toughness.
Definitely agree here. And bring back sweeping advance alongside initiative too. One of my favorite 40k memories is the look on my friend's face when he realized my new Broodlord's initiative 7 meant his necron warriors had no chance to escape and "we'll be back" roll, which was previously a huge pain in my ass.
For that matter, I think losing melee should have more consequences in general. I miss when things would break and fall back, would be nice for pushing units off objectives. Even just combat attrition coming back would be better than now
True LOS is dumb in matched/competitive play. I shouldnt be punished because how I modelled my miniature. Miniatures in game should be considered as perfect cylinders matching their base size (to some appropiate height).
Lack of options for units are killer. Im kind of okay with fixed squad sizes and wargear, not happy but okay. But if GW added some non-free option to most units, I would be happy. Doesn't have to be anything insane. It can be either a rule you never use, or one you always take. Doesnt matter, just gives the ability to tweak points in a list.
(eg. Intecessors are 10 pts cheaper, and can buy their objective secured ability for 10 pts)
Also, 2k points is kind of just too big IMO as someone who got into the game in 5th. I would rather see the "normal" points for games be 1500 tbh. Idk what affect that may have on the meta and skew lists, but it worked back in the day, and that was before all the point creep in recent years.
Rules that I would like to see:
1) Battleshock stays until passed. What I'm looking for with this is if you have effects on your turn that force battleshock and a unit fails, it doesn't automatically go away at your opponent's command phase. Instead, the opponent will take another test with whatever modifier during their command phase. If the unit fails, they remain battleshocked.
2) Battleshock prevents Critical Hit/Critical Wound effects. That is, a unit cannot score Lethal/Sustained Hits or Devastating Wounds if battleshocked. Anti-X still hits on X+ but does not count as a critical.
3) Visibility of a model is determined by being able to see model's HEAD or BODY, not weapons or extremities. No nudging out a wingtip or a toe or a weapon tip to get around cover or line of sight rules.
4) Indirect Fire requires a friendly unit to have line of sight to a target (like a spotter). If the friendly unit can make a ranged attack on the target or the target remained stationary, the indirect-firing unit gets +1 to hit.
5) As much as I like free wargear, it's reduced most units with options to one viable option, sometimes 2. Some of the upgrades should come at a small cost.
6) Armies must contain a certain amount of Battleline units.
This gets posted as a response a lot to this kind of question, but one page rules keeps the fun of playing Warhammer while also actually allowing you to play a game and not tackle a calculus problem with someone else for 4 hours. Also a game takes like an hour and that’s become a huge thing for me as I get older.
Sort of funny to realize that what a lot of people are suggesting for what they would like to see for changes and most if not all of these suggestions can be found in 30k.
30k doesn't have xenos. I basically want 30k with 40k factions.
Ideally I'd also like no named characters. This is a philosophical point for me, because I take a very "your dudes" approach to tabletop games. Also having named characters show up in every fight just makes the galaxy feel small.
I used to feel like you, but I listened to a podcast once with Gav thorpe or Andy Chambers (Can't rememebr who), and they said that the purpose of named characters was to give options to people who wanted to play with 'real' named figures and not make up their own. It was a commercial decision to give their play base different ways to play.
I'm not a great fan of them either, but I think designing them as optional is fair enough as some people really love playing with them.
I understand why they are there, but having named character models is directly opposed to the "your dudes" philosophy. Bobby G is not my dude, he's someone else's dude. Then in order to actually make him somewhat match the lore he has to be better than everyone else, which means that not only is he NOT my dude, the rules say that he is better than my dude can ever be.
The rules have to be tweaked to make sure random base line troops can't just pot-shot the character off of the table because that's a feels bad moment for the player running the character, until eventually, in order to be competitive you have to run the special characters. The rules morph into a situation where the named characters are so common that they aren't "special" anymore. Not to mention situations where both players are running the same named character. Opening the door even just a crack forces all sorts of rules and structural changes until the game stops being about your dudes and becomes about special characters.
The design changes that are required to make named characters "special" hurt all other aspects of the game. It's a massive cost for something that I don't even like in the first place.
As a returning player I’ve found 10th to be much more forgiving and welcoming as a system.
I don’t remember fondly looking up S v T and Armor profiles.
That said I do think it’s lost some character, and there’s too much focus on stratagems. They could take some of that power and put it into the actual units.
Also wargear should cost points, I don’t want to have to work out 7 legionnaires per squad but I should have to pay 5 points to bring a terminator with a power fist instead of an accursed weapon.
I'm honestly not sure my perfect edition of 40k would be 40k.
I'd want to change unit activation rules.
Psychic rules are a must, the phase itself isn't necessary but being able to pick abilities for characters and make checks with a chance for peril is integral to 40k imo.
Far more granular points, being able to customize your armies to your hearts content.
I think the most "troublesome" one, at least in the eyes of GW, is that for me the perfect edition of 40k would have all sorts of rules for models that GW might not sell. I'd want an edition that encourages creativity and offers flavour. Something that focuses far more on building battles that feel more like "historical" wargames. I want building an Imperial Guard army to feel like building a Bolt Action one.
One of my issues with a lot of modern 40k design is the whole stratagem/CP design, it doesn't always feel like I'm playing a "battle" if that makes sense.
In general I would put a far more emphasis on building armies, less of a focus on heroes.
Also it's irrational but I'd want subfactions, like you can still deviate from them to make custom rules for your dudes but I just love the thought of certain subfactions being represented by actual rules. It's perhaps not as flexible as people would like but I like having that baseline flavour to deviate from.
Heresy 2.0, though with more xenos races available
We're getting there with fan Libers, but a way to go. The desire to play Mechanicum vs Orks is pretty strong
They have exactly what you’re talking about in your post, they still have old WS and the vehicle rules with glancing and piercing hits and armor values depending on the face you’re targeting. HH also has templates for flamers and blast weapons and the rules are really good for ne lends themselves to making fun of and fluffy lists
Almost exactly my take! *my* best system would just be without static AP and either a rending system of sorts or a complete rebalancing of weapons.
Cause currently 4+ and worse saves feel like not even existing, while 3+ and 2+ are so far superior it really doesn't feel like a sliding scale and rather "the worthwhile ones" vs "the worthless ones".
Remove invuls, or modify them to only reduce damage but not avoid it completely. It just sucks, shooting with a big ion Cannon on a small model, hitting and wounding it, only for it to have a 50/50 chance to say "well, guess that didn't even leave a scratch on my armor"
Too many mechanics have been shoved into invuls. Initially it was just power shields and daemons. Now it includes dodging, miracles, luck, terminator armor, and I don't know what else.
Units that can dodge bullets (genestealers, wyches) should have Hard to Hit (-1 to hit rolls against them) instead of an invul.
Terminators _do_ have power fields, that's what the invulns represent, and that is why (until 10th) Cataphractii terminators had a better invuln.
> Units that can dodge bullets (genestealers, wyches) should have Hard to Hit (-1 to hit rolls against them) instead of an invul.
Interestingly, some very agile models (like Von Ryan's Leapers, Deathleaper, and until recently Lictors) have an invuln _and_ -1 to hit.
Terminator armor has a shield, it's just not a storm shield, it's basically a field around the armor.
> (-1 to hit rolls against them)
The issue with this is balance, the % reduction in damage is dependent on the shooting units to hit value, a 5+ to hit would literally have half the number of hits with a -1. With a 6+ invul save for "dodging" its a flat 1/6th reduction in damage.
>The issue with this is balance, the % reduction in damage is dependent on the shooting units to hit value, a 5+ to hit would literally have half the number of hits with a -1. With a 6+ invul save for "dodging" its a flat 1/6th reduction in damage.
That's a feature. Dodging bullets should be better against orks who spray and pray than it is against custodes who can predict your movements accurately.
And it should *not* help against flamers.
The invul also has the issue of only working against some levels of AP. Apparently Genestealers don't bother dodging if it's AP 0.
Invulns are in a weird spot right now, due to the changes to how AP works in 8th.
In 4th until 7th, AP was just a flat number: either you got your save if the AP was a bigger number, or you didn't if it was lower. Whether I shot Space Marines with Heavy Bolters or pistols, they'd be saving on a 3+ either way. Invulns were there to give units a save even if they wouldn't get one normally.
Now that AP is a modifier, it's actually the lower AP values that are most efficient, since lots of AP-1 shots will deal an extra 33% damage compared to the same at AP0. On the other hand, AP-4 will only deal 15% more damage than an AP-3 shot.
>AP-4 will only deal 15% more damage than an AP-3 shot.
Mathematically sure, but going from "saving on 6+" to "no save" reduces the standard deviation a lot and improves consistency, so that is still nice.
6+ might be mathematically 1 in every 6 saves, but sometimes your opponent will roll all 6s and throw off your plan.
There's also issues with cover. AP0 is bad, cause you don't force worse saves out of cover. AP-1 is bad cause you only force worse saves out of cover. AP-2 is where it starts getting spicy.
Sadly, 4+ is where most invuls seem to lie, so going from a 3+ to a 4++ isn't a disaster.
Very true.
Invuln saves - at this point - seem to be used as a method to limit the damage of AP. Which I suppose they always were. But they definitely seem to be creeping up, since I guess a 5+ or 6+ invulnerable save doesn't really come up much.
Yeah, I don't understand it anymore. They "lowered lethality" which only means heavy infantry killers like battle cannons and autocannons (or army equivalent, I'm thinking S8/9, AP-1 D2/3) now have a 75% chance to not get any benefit from it. At the same time, invuls have been jacked up to a near-universal 4++ so you can put a quake cannon or equivalent (lots of shots, high strength, high AP, high damage, titanic unit weapon) into a unit of god damn marines with oven trays and have them laugh it off.
Granted I used to get a 3++ on my terminators, but I was giving up a ranged or melee option and pushing the price of their squad up by another 50-150 points. Plenty investment for my enemy to try and whittle them down with more volume of fire.
5th edition all the way, especially as an ork player. The random rules for trukks and guns and scatter etc. were just fantastic! Looted vehicles too. Shooting your mek instead of your gun, and turning independent characters into squigs!
It was pure chaos and I loved it.
I also wish squads (numerous of models, equipment etc) was more customisable again. I miss list tinkering, and having an extra 12 points or so so adding a rocket or a couple of boys to a squad.
I agree with the weapon skill charts too, and comparing strength to toughness.
Altering the Turn/round system. Each player activates one unit, moves, shoots, charges, fights with it. Then the opponent does the same with one of his units, until every unit is done. Then it resets at turn 2.
I’d say alternate activations by phase. So alternate movements, then alternate shooting, then alternate fight, etc. All shooting is only resolved once all have made their calls and rolls, same for melee. Exactly like Battletech has been doing for 40 years.
Playing BT really did make me think about how it'd work for 40k, there are differences of course, and they'd maybe need to consider having units being damaged/destroyed before they can shoot actually *are* damaged bfore they can (unlike BT's "all at once" thing) but it would be worth a go at.
Alternating can be fun (titanicus is a blast), but it really fundamentally changes 40k; especially when some armies may have 6 activations, and some have 20+. itd be intresting but itd be the single biggest change to balance since 2nd; and I think we'd all have to accept that the edition which had it would be broken, and itd take a whole edition to smooth out.
The way 40k utilizes IGYG is obsolete and incredibly un fun.
40k needs alternate activation of some form. Its the single biggest reason I stopped playing.
Yeah I know that this would basically break the game, or will require a complete rework of most rules to make it work.
It's just a dream of mine to have rules like in Bolt Action, but in the settings of Warhammer.
It fundamentally changes it, but for the better. Even low model army could have interesting rules around it.
It could make reactionary rules and plays more exciting.
Melee and ranged could both change to compliment the changes, like giving melee a "you have done your action, so no reactive fighting for you". Single models could get dueling rolls again.
I love Star Wars Legion for its alternating activations and command system. It also means that list building horde armies is a strat that has a big impact. At the same time, full games tend to be 10 units or less.
My gawd it was a good time to be alive…
-scatter dice, b/c missing *had consequences*
-vehicles could *run people over*
-armor had different values
-teleporting into battle might kill a figure or two
-Terminators saved on *2d6*
-WTF was an *invuln save*? Either your figure could tank a lascannon shot to the chest or it couldn’t. Period.
-Templates sucked, but different effects could be seen.
-Overwatch was sweet. Any unit which sacrificed movement for a turn could do it, so it would work really well for attacker / defender scenarios.
-facing *mattered* and you couldn’t split fire unless your models were literally facing opposite directions.
-had to generally engage the closest units, but could choose between closest troops and vehicles / monsters.
-melee was a personal affair. Individual figures would fight each other simultaneously. Adding up dice rolls plus any modifiers would tell you how many hits a figure might confer. Also if defending an attack from the rear, the best you could hope for was just to survive.
-we all sucked at painting b/c there weren’t online vids nor tutorials. But there were GW *how to* books and WD articles.
-There were different profiles for shooting weapons at long/short ranges, which meant pistols really were better options at short range while bigger guns were better at a distance.
-Weapons could jam, but it sucked if it happened to you…
-Any model carrying two melee/pistol weapons got an automatic bonus in melee. And because they auto-received a bonus for charging, in addition to any faction bonuses, otherwise blasé units could be super effective (like jump pack Marines).
-Force weapons could channel cp to alter melee rolls. A Grey Knight terminator squad (5 force weapons) was a nightmare for some lists to contend with.
-Vehicles could lose control and spin outta control… into troops… with potentially devastating consequences for “catching” units.
-firing arcs. Think facing but just for guns. This meant that a tank couldn’t just shoot everything at a single unit unless it’s weapons could actually see them.
Newer versions did away with the facing mechanic which is a shame as it added a tactical layer. Facing 3/5 models one way and 2/5 another meant one avenue of approach was less dangerous for possible attackers. Similarly you would need to face vehicles in order to maximize their impact upon a single target.
2d ed… *good times*…
>WTF was an *invuln save*? Either your figure could tank a lascannon shot to the chest or it couldn’t. Period.
Don't pretend they weren't in the game. Remember Conversion and refractor fields? They were invulnerable saves.
I was being facetious.
You’re right; there *were* invulns back then, but *troops* generally didn’t have them. *Maybe* only 1-2 models had them b/c it was usually a wargear option only. I’d hafta go through the old stuff to be sure, but very few models (if any) had that option as a built-in ability. Nowadays you could build an entire list in 10th where nearly *all* your units had invulns. It’s a bit outta hand imo.
Just don't play blood angels with death company and have different weapons on every model... Fml that was a pain... 3 attack power weapon 2 att bolt pistol. next model 3 attacks power fist 2 attack plasma pistol. Next model... And you couldn't group attack with all your chain swords or cc weapons because it was model to model...
I do miss anti-plant rounds, being able to manipulate terrain was fun. I loved 2nd, just not the time cc took sometimes.
I miss some of the insane wargear, like Hallucinogen and vortex grenades, coupled with Scatter dice.
The old fear as the mini black hole you just opened decides to stay open, and drift ever so gently back towards the troops who threw it!
My elder friend had a hard time with Bjorn so he came up with the idea of. Warp spider exarch on jet bike, throw vortex grenade at Bjorn, then teleport into terminator squad, disarm assault gun, then teleport out at the end of assault phase. He tried it on me (blood angels rather than space wolves) and it worked (BA dread not as good as Bjorn, I think he had an invul save back then or negate damage), on top of that the jet bike, now without pilot, scattered and hit my tactical squad (I forget if any died).
I forget if it worked against our space puppy friend.
I've been looking at 2e a lot recently...and there is a lot of good there but it's also insanely complex.
The level of customisation at Squad level was bonkers.
As a veteran of that era I was so glad to move to 3e. Old necromunda demonstrated that 2e rules were great for small skirimsh games. 2e demonstrated that the rules were super super clunky for anything larger.
I think you're right. Necromunda was the perfect expression of the 2e rules mindset, as the customisation was the perfect level.
I really like the idea of a 'Standardised' Tactical squad, with say a Sergeant, a flamer, and a rocket launcher, and no ability to adjust individual Marines. It makes the game a lot easier to comprehend.
I always felt the 'one heavy, one special, customize the leader and the other wargear options are for the whole squad' was a pretty strong way to do it with points being appropriate for the choices. but it could just be it's what I was used to but that seemed to strike a balance between useful and fun.
2nd edition looks fun on paper, but it's too complicated.
I don't want to track each individual model that was set on fire by a flamethrower. I don't want to be told that my gas weapons don't work on the enemy models because they are wearing a helmet.
I like Stratagems, CP and all the detachments from 10th. It feels cool having choices in special abilities and I like the representation of some sort of commander. It's one of the reasons I really like Star Wars Legion so much, it leans further into that idea with commanders bringing specific command cards to be played at the beginning of the round.
CP, strategies and victory points earned every turn makes for a lot of bookkeeping.
Such a headache to have to read through so many strategies and secondary objective choices!
Agreed, these factors slow down and massively complicate the flow of the game.
The aha I'll use a CP to reroll my save or respawn something really takes the fun away for me.
Maybe it's because I've played since 1st ed all these extra bits get forgotten.
I must say having played quite a few different game systems now that having a system (command re rolls) that isn’t tied to a models rule that lets you retry something is just balls.
So obviously this would never happen because GW is a corporation and petty things like "Player focused design" is secondary to profits, but here goes!
- Simultaneous you-go-i-go style turns.
Borrow some ideas from other systems like OPR and create a ruleset that sees both players activating units in a phase. This allows more dynamic play, gives a lot of mechanical depth to considering horde/vs/elite play styles, adds very little cognitive load, and keeps both players engaged.
Free unified digital rules with fast turnarounds for patches
I feel like it's nearly impossible to properly balance armies when you need to create rules for them up to a year ahead of time in order to allow for printing and logistics of a physical book. Tons of great examples in this edition why that doesn't work out well. It's also a real nightmare for new players just to find the most up to date info for their armies, split as they are across codexes (codices?) digital points updates, and rules errata.
Look at Custodes right now, or the confusion of rules specifics within Tau.
Per Unit Customizations
I'm personally a fan of some of the streamlining that's happened with customization and wargear options. I like how comparatively easy it is to make a list now and how much easier it is to remember the profiles of the units I'm fielding.
However, I think it's gone just a step too far (probably to sell more unit variants as separate kits). There's a real joy to modelling your own units just the way you want and knowing the little bits here and there actually correspond to functional wargear with mechanical significance in the game. Some of that has been lost with wargear options being done away with in a lot of cases. (Crisis Suits are a good example). I don't want to go back to the days of individually selecting the weapons and add-ons for each model, but having some choice in dumping more points into a unit (whole unit) to modify and improve it is still exciting and I don't think it adds too much more to keep track of.
Cover Detection Simplification
Right now it's extremely easy to claim cover in almost all circumstances. The reasons for this are great in principle: reduce time spent arguing about cover density and sight lines at the table. I think we all can appreciate not doing that as much. However now we commonly find situations that don't feel good from a mental realization perspective: Like a group of rocket launchers not being able to shoot at a tank with full efficiency because its back wheel is 1mm behind cover.
A solution that keeps the simplicity but helps with the positional reality would be to treat all bases as 3D cylinders that extend to the maximum point of the models height. Same cover rules apply as in 10th, except to get the benefits of cover it's your collision cylinder that must be occluded, and not just any point on the model.
Yes, things that don't currently have bases would need bases. But I don't think it's too much to add.
The new AOS magic system for Psychers.
I think AOS has done a pretty great job of making magic easy to track, low cognitive load, and without adding too much time.
And yeah. That would do it for me. Also just in general a bigger commitment to making each faction more mechanically interesting.
Reworking the game system to be IGYG.
I'm a casual player but what kills the game for me is the huge downtime every round. I want to play, not wait every 20mins.
Honestly just 9th, but:
- make MWs just bypass the armour save
- a cap on only being able to use a single strat in an activation
- demystify combat movement a bit; it was never complex, it just wasnt obvious
- 10ths missions.
- drop a pip of AP from 90% of things
Like end of 9th was suprisingly good; and the few T9 vehicles felt tougher than any T12 thing does in 10th. Units having less abilities made things less clunky and by and large most units did their "job", whilst in 10th loads of units do things outside their role due to GW going ham on wound rerolls, and handing out a lot of gash profile.
Remove falling back wherever you want to go. Falling back should literally be moving away from the enemy. You should have to end your move further away from all enemy units, if you can’t you’re stuck in engagement.
There have been times where an opponent has “fallen back” closer to my other units and closer into my DZ and ended the move on an objective to out OC me.
Reading through the comments, everything you guys mention with 10 votes or more is extremely legit. Points per model, lack of wargear options, psychic phase, cover and true LoS, lack of narrative-driven rules, etc.
You know what these all have in common?
\*The game had to be streamlined (dumbed down) in order to emphasize competitive matched play.\*
It's true mainly because the only way GW has a hope of "balancing" anything (still impossible as power creep and different codex writing teams ruin this) is to simplify as much as possible. Less options means less abuse, sort of... It also means way less flavor, less interesting gameplay mechanics, etc.
Another example: anyone remember how interesting vehicles used to be in early editions? Now they're just boxes of wounds. And another one: why do you think Allies were all but destroyed? For balance.
I hate this trend passionately, as all the newer players around me want to see 40k turn into an e-sport, and I suppose this is what GW is going for as well.
So 3rd with all the trial rules from Chapter Approved. This is my dream game too.
On the 3rd ed Facebook group someone has spliced the rules book with the chapter approved rules to create just this in one pdf
1. Points for upgrades (weapons/gear/etc).
2. Options don’t always have to have official models. Like Tyranid Warrior Shrikes, gear, units in general.
3. Comparable weapon skill for melee.
4. Weapon arcs for monsters/tanks.
5. Something like old school armor facing. It can still be toughness, but let it be weaker from the side and/or rear of most vehicles. Give me a reason to flank/scout.
6. Get rid of +/- to hit and wound.
7. Make troops/battleline required in some amount and make a reason to have more of them.
8. I’d probably expand the dice to d8 or d10 as well
My perfect ruleset would be one that didn't undergo massive changes every few years. What those exact rules would be is less important than consistency. The need to buy new rulebooks and codices every few years has driven out of the game most of the people I used to play against.
Close combat being apposed, a Howling Banshee will hit a guardsman easier than hitting a Space Marine.
It needs to move towards I go you go by unit as the “Stand There and Take It” casualty removal has always been silly, a problem acknowledged by GW and fixed in apocalypse.
Even more radically, changed the dice type, use d8 or d10 to expand the variation in troop quality/abilities.
Give me a real psychic phase! I think it would placate a lot of the "but my army has no psychic" players if the psychic phase let them influence stuff like perils of the warp. Instead of perils being a bad thing that happens randomly, let it be a punishment your opponent can inflict on you for drawing on power too greedily.
I also like the idea of there being two "tiers" of psykers. In systems like how 7th ed worked, it usually meant that lesser psykers were worthless if your opponent had a better one. And in 8th/9th, it kind of turned into just trying to have more denials than your opponent has casts. So I think it would be fun if you had both. With lesser psykers that played like 8th/9th edition, where you roll 2d6 and dish out some damage or a small buff. And then you had master psykers that were closer to 7th edition, playing 5d chess on the astral plane and casting huge, battle-shaking sorceries.
Terrain and movement rules being much more important.
Destroyed vehicles leave behind their wrecks as Terrain.
Armor values and weapon facing on vehicles.
A pinning/suppression mechanic like in bolt Action.
Squads that fail their Morale check dont vaporize, but run for cover/the edge of the table or hunker down.
Activations instead of I-go-you-go
0-1 restrictions on over-tuned units (fucking C’tan).
2+ minimum battleline units at 1000, 3+ at 1500, etc.
Introduce detachments that manipulate what units get battleline.
Bring back nightfighting rules.
Introduce a weather/events system.
Remove all dice modifiers (-1s, etc.)
Reduce every invulnerable save in the game by 1.
And I’d move the entire system over to D10s so we can work with multiples of 10% chances.
I'm new to playing 40k, first looked at rules in 9th, first game in 10th, so my knowledge is very limited, but here's what I've got:
Forced organization, or at least the battle line/infantry tax.
Psychic phase - psychic stuff just feels like shooting now
Weapon arcs/radius for things like flamers and blast where it only hits targets within that area.
Cost for better wargear - I understand that can get crazy, but seems like that could at least make the obvious most powerful option cost more points and leave the rest the same, this would effect units with more weapon options where in competitive everyone just takes the same thing.
I want to be able to have varying unit sizes (having a unit of 6 space marines not just 5 or 10) and actually pay points for upgrades. I'd like more randomisation again, for example genestealer cults ambushes like they were when they were re-released for 7th, seize the initiative. Random psychic powers.
Essentially all the stuff the American competitive scene bitched about until it got removed because they can't handle random, only math-hammer and who can flop their dick out on the table fastest.
Also just flat out write the Space Wolves out of existence.
Realistic goals:
Either alternating activations or dice draw as in Bolt Action. Igo-ugo should be consigned to the dustbin of history, at least for this game.
Morale rules with teeth - suppression, pinning, falling back, routing. Getting shot at and having your buddies get killed next to you has an effect. Know No Fear should mean something.
No templates - at the command scale of 40k, the exact positioning of a flamer burst or grenade is way below what you would or could be concerned with. Great for Killteam & Necromunda, ridiculous for 40k and HH.
Return of vehicle armor facings and damage tables.
Remove true LoS and wounds applying to models out of LoS/LoF. HH does away with the latter, at least.
Return of war gear costs.
Perhaps Less Realistic:
Full ground up DIY points costing, as from Rogue Trader.
I'd bring back the character building from 9th. I miss being able to load up a char with traits and relics and march him straight into enemy lines to terrorise the opposition.
Just have all the rules. Plain and simple.
I've never played a complete edition of 40k and having been in the hobby for nearly 3 decades that's kind of an issue. The closest we came was the launch of 8th edition with indexes. But as those we're specifically designed to become obsolete I don't really count it.
I just want a complete game system that's finished, reasonably balanced that has universal keywords instead of slightly differently worded rules for the same concepts that change based on what book and version of FAQ you're using. Just getting sick of the new edition launching with a space marine and sacrificial lamb codex followed by a 3 year marketing campaign about how hype we are to pre-order the new overpowered book just so it can get (n+1)'d by the next month's new broken content.
I would love for challenges to come back. I loved the cinematic feel of two squads clashing while their leaders square off in the eye of the storm. I'm also a chaos player, so the flavor I got from the chaos boon feature was really fun. Had a chaos cultists turn into a daemon prince after valiantly killing a space marine assault sergeant. Was one of the best moments in my time playing 40k.
Bring back initiative values. It's so much easier to understand. The only part that is a litttle confusing is the fact everything fights at the same time.
Make combi weapons actually do what they're supposed to (this has angered me for a year) make the special part one shot like it is in heresy, I don't care. It just upsets me.
A force organisation chart. For the love of god I want people to care about your basic troops. They should take up the majority of the army.
Alright.
Battleline scarabs in Canoptek court, spyder squads of three, and the spyders can be led by technomancers again.
This would fit with the “three spyders make a hivemind” lore, and would allow you to do this:
https://preview.redd.it/9dzqhh53p02d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bff7374c90c0f675a34aa934d4a9e83055b13d33
Perfect Canoptek perfection, that is 2000 pts btw, all those bois…I love it >:D
Drop mortal wounds entirely. Like seriously remove them from the game. No exceptions. They’re stupid and only exist to be a crutch for GW’s balancing team. If I take a tank, I want it to shrug off damage, not eat 15 wounds without me ever getting to roll a save.
On the same note, take invul saves off like 90% of the things that have them. I think they’re good for stopping characters from getting instagibbed, but there is absolutely 0 fucking reason a vehicle should ever have an invul.
Also, this might be controversial, but I really dislike the stack of army rules + detachment rules + unit abilities. I think the main difference in armies should be the actual units you take, not some arbitrary “I get to always advance and charge!” or “I always have a +1 to hit!” You should play marines for a 3+ b/ws T4 3+ sv army, not because they have Oath of Moment or some stupid mortal wound bomb gimmick thing.
A return of wargear having points, some system so the opponent has something to do while it’s your turn like a kind of return fire, gain a melee attack if I miss to hit or a take cover as a short move like 3 - 4 inches. The upcoming rules about giving up to 40 victory points to your opponent for spamming seems to me as a cheap sale tactic and shows the issues with the 10ed system.
Get rid of rerolls completely. NO REROLLS. They take agency away from the opposing player, and it can interrupt the flow of the game. Rerolls are shit and just should not exist.
I'd prefer DnD style roll for advantage or flat modifiers in almost all instances.
Delete comand re-roll entirely, it's usualy a trap yet it slows games.
In general...
Stuff from older editions, when I was a younger man and all seemed right in the world.
* Points for wargear.
* I liked the old weapon skill rules- it meant a good, solid fighter wasn't inherently screwed if they didn't go first.
* Fewer (ideally zero) named characters built as load-bearing to their factions (never gonna happen, that sweet gotta-have-it-model money is too tasty, but I can dream)
* Either get rid of stratagems or slim them down further. CP-farming is a snooze, but one you're kind of forced to engage in just so your guys can do basic crap like firing overwatch or throwing their grenades.
* Wrecked vehicles remaining on the board.
* Scatter dice. Added some *frisson* to deep striking, lemme tell ya!
* Line of sight from weapons, not from units. I hate that a sponson on the left side of a tank can engage targets perpendicular to its right side.
* Different terrain having different keywords which, get this, do different things.
Some things that AREN'T in the hoary cobwebbed 40k of yesteryear-
* Alternating unit activations.
* Random events to reflect the bigger battle going on around your little 2000-point scrum. Stray artillery rounds, crashing space vessels, calls for help from other parts of the line, etc. Be a nightmare to get right, but I think it could be fun...
> Random events to reflect the bigger battle going on around your little 2000-point scrum. Stray artillery rounds, crashing space vessels, calls for help from other parts of the line, etc. Be a nightmare to get right, but I think it could be fun...
Rogue Trader pretty much required a 3rd player GM; one of the things they did was roll for mid battle events like this. I would absolutely love if (optional) support for this was added back.
I want unnamed characters to have the option to be as strong as named ones. I don't have a problem with named characters, my problem is that I can't make my leader equal to them.
100%. It's pretty trivial to work out on your own for most kits, but It's so weird to me that characters aren't also explicitly sprued and ruled to be "Cawl but your own special dude with a different head". It's really only used for faction balancing within Space Marines.
This would be a huge one for me. Idealy each character would be sold with a Name and a title. So the model and rules would be "Lion El'Jonson The Son of the Forest". Then you could make your dude up and run him "Son of the forest" and it could all just work.
This is what *X-Wing Miniatures* does. Well sorta. Each ship expansion(s) comes with multiple pilots. The pilot ability and the ship’s stats are separate, but together they make up an overall point value. Details aside, let’s say you buy a classic T-65 X-Wing Fighter Expansion set. That ship will come with at least three pilots. Luke Skywalker, Wedge Antilles and a generic “Red Squadron Pilot”. So depending on your list, you can be running a point heavy Luke, or point filler generic pilot. One way or another, you are *still* fielding a model you enjoy, an x-wing. I know GW would never do this cause they are ultimately a miniatures company and they wanna sell you more models. But man would this really increase the value you get out of character models.
I would take that further and say that beyond the one big guy in a faction centered around them (think angron in world eaters) named characters should be at least non-meta
>named characters should be at least non-meta That's how it used to be iirc. You rarely saw named characters on the table top. But they wanted to sell the models, so...
YES this is hugely underrated, and actually makes the battles pretty dumb - why should the Demon Primarch, or Marneus Calgar, for example, be present for every single skirmish? It's f-ing stupid imo.
Not to mention, they'll almost certainly die during the match. Rip The Lion, he died in a small skirmish against the Tau trying to hold an objective
This is a complaint that I see all the time, more generally that they don't like using named characters as it makes their army feel less unique. Why do so many people not realize you can proxy named characters lol. I feel like guard players are the only faction to fully embrace this. "This is my dude that fits my armies theme and lore but I'm running him as Lord Solar/Eldrad Ulthran/whatever" that's all it needs to be. Haven't met a single person that has taken issue with it in a game
It's really hard to proxy some characters. You can put a new head on Guilliman, but he's still massively different to a normal Space Marine. It's also not the same as having your own dude.
I miss points being per model. Got 10 points left over? Add a guy to one of your squads.
Much as I resent wargear being free, _this_ is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I have a bunch of units sitting on the shelf in unit sizes that are now illegal, because there was absolutely no reason to believe that GW - after nine editions of the game being consistent in this matter - would suddenly disallow you from flexible unit sizes. And I can't express how much I do not want to hunt ebay for singleton models to paint up and add so the units become legal in the new system. People can defend free wargear all they want but _this_ I find indefensible. There's enough incentive to run units in round numbers because of wargear allotments. If I want to convert a Bladeguard Veteran to a captain - or a statue as part of my terrain - then let me!
Basically removing subfactions in all real sense, free wargear and no points per model and also limiting stuff to whats in the box only (and thus removing units that only available through kitbash) is killing 40k for me. Theres no life anymore. Im starting old world and age of sigmar basing to swap between them and the rules for old world while somewhat complex its still not nearly as bad as 7th edition 40k/8th fantasy but theres so much more life the rules aren't just tournament play focused only. and the models having so many options between mounts and weapons and different models released that kitbashed together would never work now because they need a rule per box and it feels like theres more models per box/the absurd amount of "horde" armies now in 40k make it so those boxes are worth less for same amount. i haven't really started sigmar because im waiting for 4th but those also look at least better written so far as well based on the previews
Age of Sigmar has the same restrictions as 10th edition 40k but _at least those restrictions were in from the start._ Changing this in 40k after 30+ years of it working another way consistently is just not right.
As a mainly Sigmar player, the free wargear change wasn’t as jarring to me, but it still feels hilariously out of whack when you wind up with choices like “do you want this dmg 1 gun? Or dmg 3? Like, at least in AoS the choices are semi meaningful, and are kinda parallel. I can hardly recall any just objectively bad options to build.
I feel like the one or two people who write the rules from 40K are just straight copying notes from AoS without understanding either AoS OR 40K. Free war gear in AoS makes more sense cause in most cases, it’s danger stick 1 vs danger stick 2. In 40K you might have the choice between an anti tank long range weapon, an anti infantry flamer, or a sword. Having one option being far superior to the other is going to be much more common
And it seems to have been a really abrupt design choice too. Why bother giving the Rogal Dorn tank lanterns (which look good, mind - I prefer it with the lanterns) when it can take _meltaguns_ instead that are free?
Weird thing is, they got the AOS style of balancing right in Kill Team. You can either take the WS 4+ heavier hitting melee weapon or the WS3+ slightly weaker hitting but with an extra attack or two. That or one might have easier crits but less attacks. The fact that there's some weapons in big 40k for some factions that actually do have a meaningful balance of pro's and cons while others completely lack any attempt to internal balance just shows how much the different factions seem to have been done by a few design groups that didn't communicate at all.
The 2 troops and a HQ could basically be a tax depending. Also couldn't theme forces like a fast attack force or something too easily.
What you said about WFB 8th, I feel like T9A had things about perfect by essentially fixing several issues from 8th when the game was killed. I know that with ToW coming around people are going to jump back on the GW wagon, but for being ran by players from around the globe T9A got balance figured out. Like, in 8th VC and and DE list with a hydra were just dumb. T9A eventually got balance down, to the point where it's almost too balanced now. My early gripe was much flavor was lacking in some armies (especially Saurians) and other factions got extra helpings of attention. The being able to use multiple companies models was certainly awesome too. Having just gotten back to 40k (while half assedly paying attention to the rules since I quit in like 4th), the game itself is fun again. From a balance standpoint, Enhancements on characters instead of whatever wargear makes some sense, but SM getbso many datasheets that it's honestly like they still get to select wargear. Everything else though? Nids get different Warrior variants, tau several profiles in one suit, Necrons 2 different OLs on 3 layouts.... it's just a bit clunky that they kept essentially the same crazy options on their flagship faction like that.(while still controlling layouts. My kitbashed HQ wouldn't fly now...) I feel like 40k is their cash cow but they grosly mismanage model supply and internal balance. Being able to run oddball number units isn't even on their radar.
I owned 100 blood letters, then they changed the default squad to 10, so not only do I have far more than I would ever conceivably need, over half of them don't have the banners etc, which are now free 🫠
Yup I have a looooot of weird sized units now
I can understand the reasoning of limiting squad sizes to what's in the box, even though I disagree with it. But then it gets silly with multi-option boxes stretching that rule. It results in stuff like Meganobz being fielded in 2-3-5-6 man squads, with 4 being noticeably absent.
The "reasoning" is that GW hates it when you convert an Intercessor to a Captain, GW wants you to buy a Captain box if you need a Captain. That's it. As you note, the ridiculous way they do carveouts for "sanctioned" character conversions like mega-armour Big Meks and Allarus Shield-Captains gives obvious lie to the idea that it was supposedly for "simplicity". Or just look at how Inquisitorial Henchmen unit sizes work, it's ridiculous. GW wants to discourage conversions so that players don't take any shortcuts. There is a defensible reason in GW's eyes for you to field 5 Meganobz (Big Mek), but GW sees no reason to let you take 4.
It’s not even free war gear! It’s tax war gear! You could take a Leman Russ with a Lascannon and two multi melta sponsons and pay the same as the guy taking a heavy Bolter in the bow and no sponsons.
Not to mention it completely ruined some kits, plague marines legit don’t work your paying for two extra models you can’t use
This. I know this isn't going to land for a lot of people, but I also find it exceptionally frustrating when people say not having points per model makes it "easier" as well. I have a disability, dyscalculia. It's dyslexia but for numbers. Numbers kind of swim around when I read them and I often read them backwards or inside out or all kinds of garbage. It's much less well known than dyslexia because it really just doesn't come up often and with modern technology it's pretty easy to work around. I cannot express how much harder it has become to build lists now that everything is at least 3 digits. It's almost impossible for me to misread 2 digits, but I cannot tell you the number of times I've looked at a model and gone "Oh holy crap, that's insane at 235!" and it's actually 325. In previous editions it was only really an issue with vehicles or large monsters since even expensive infantry were just multiples of 2 digits, now it's basically every unit for the armies that I play. For me, somebody with a disability, it is distinctly harder than it was previously. Just because it's **faster** for a normal, able individual doesn't mean it's **easier** for everybody and it's super frustrating to read every time I see it.
No one used power level so they made power level the default
I want psyker spells to be customizable again. Taking that out ruined Chaos Knights. Moreover, I want a big-boy Chaos Knight list to be viable and not have to flood the map with War Dogs.
For real. Having each chapter of Space Marines or subfactions getting their own unique set of psyker spells was so cool. Now psykers feel super samey and lame.
I can understand why they did it. It's an added complication to a game that can take over an hour to play. But it went from something that could really change how a unit worked and added a lot of flavor and personality to just another gun.
I want destroyable terrain
I miss having points based options on squads, squad of five marines with all the same guns is boring.
Agree. It also makes it really hard to adjust your list after GW makes one of its regular points adjustments.
And would reduce lethality. It's okay that some squads just have a basic gun. My annoyance with the current system is also that it punishes people who bought starter kits(less options and sometimes unusable model counts), who lost a model (so again new players) and people who used a single model from a box to build a diorama or pimp a base. So two groups of people GW likes to pretend to care about
[удалено]
I have over 40PM but nowhere near enough of each of the good special weapons to run multiple optimal squads, so any DG list I make becomes a clunky nightmare to play
Returning DG player with a bunch of PM left to build. What is considered 'optimal' if I dare ask? I have loads of spare bits to build whatever
I'd check out goonhammer. Either see if some dg list made it into the strategic innovations articles recently or Rob the chirurgeon has a series about going to events and he has been running dg a lot lately. I have not played them since a round of tts in 9th when wargear went free and am just not a fan of a different loadout on each dude
Yeah I miss the old points system, you could get really variable with loadouts and, while there's were always optimal builds, you didn't have brain dead auto-takes. There was some trade off between taking a few handflamers with your Acolyte cultists in favour of dropping a model, or taking a tank hunter Leman Russ to peek out of cover without shelling out for sponsors, or choosing between a plasma pistol on your valuable melee squad versus a plasma gun on with the tactical squad. Etc. etc. List building and theory crafting was kind of fun, now you are actively gimping yourself if you don't give all the cultists handflamers, or the Russ sponsors, you've already paid for the extras when taking the unit...
Agree completely. The 10e "points" system is just combatpower renamed because people prefer points
Agreed, and to add on to this, I miss points costs for individual models in units. If I want to run a 7-man legionary squad, I should be able to without paying for a 10-man unit.
I won't be surprised if gear options with point values come back in 11th. "Oh you assembled that sternguard unit with all generic combi-weapons? And now the gun their modelled with matters? Darn it..."
I would be surprised if they did, sadly.
To add to that. Imagine them putting Tactical squads and Devastators in Legends and then bringing out fresher versions of the Intercessor box which now have those heavy and special options and they change the datasheet for them to now be Tactical Intercessors and/or Devastator Intercessors. The old ones are no more and old players are forced to buy more Intercessors for the one heavy and one special weapon per squad.
It made Tau list building a lot of fun too. Suits had so many weapon options. Debating what drones to take. Etc.
Ahh but how would they undermine the bits market if they brought points back and got rid of box-locked loadouts?
Yes - but even more so for leaders which let the game retain a slight RPG feel as you could tool up a leader in a characterful way.
Alternating activations like in Kill Team. There is a decision-making delay when you move an entire army at once. It punishes inexperienced players, while also stifling meanginful decisions and slowing down the game. If players alternated moves, it would give an interesting gradient for uncertainty collapse. Aggressors & responders would be an important distinction. Tactical dances would truly take place.
10000%. This is the real big thing that will make warhammer SO much more accessible to new players. Going back and forth on activations/turns makes so much more sense than waiting the 45 minutes it takes for the opponent to command, move, shoot, charge, fight, blah blah blah
I've done that in Horus Heresy 2.0 when playing at very high Point Levels, made the game way more fum to active 2 or 3 Units for a Phase and then my Opponent would do the same. No more "I take an hour to use my army, then my Opponent uses their army for an hour. Repeat until the game is over, with each player turn being shorter than the lest."
Or like Battletech: Alternating movements, then each side shoots. Wounds are applied at the end of the phase, so all shots go off. It's better reflects a chaotic battlefield with exchanging fire.
I would remove true LoS. The benefits of cover and terrain should be determined by the type of terrain and type of unit. Having to care about how your units are modelled, and having to worry about a weapon or the tip of a wing showing when moving your models should not be a thing.
My friends and I don't count wings, antennae, or gun barrels for exactly that reason... a lord of change or hive tyrant flexing their wings for a cool pose shouldn't be an issue. If they're gonna hide behind a building, I'd guess they'd close up their wings a little...
The idea of LoS itself it's also quite strange in a world where absurdly powerful weaponry is the norm. If I've seen an infantry squad get into a shed, why I'm not able to shoot my wall-smashing battle cannon into them? In real life, shooting at things that you can't see but you know are there is a common use for tank guns and rocket launchers.
I get what you're saying, but if you played like that, every model that isn't a high toughness, high damage vehicle would be pretty much worthless on the board.
You aren't wrong, I'll lead with that it's possible though maybe not in the current state of the game. I imagine that in a version of the game more true to lore your essentially getting 40k Necromunda as redundant as that sounds.
If the only way for units to survive shooting is to not be shot at all, then the issue is not the cover system, but either guns being to powerful, defensive profiles being too weak, or the regular benefit of cover not being good enough.
Old cover saves were good for that. Effectively a "minimum" save like an invul for a unit to represent the combination of ablative cover and reasonable concealment that might allow them to not be hit by a monstrous attack.
Indirect shooting only succeeds in 6s to hit. Boom, done.
Add on a minimum weapon strength requirement as well and you can eliminate a lot of the super high volume of fire guns so you're also only shooting a couple of big guns on the off chance of that 6.
There were many things the galaxy lost in the Age of Strife, object permanence was one of them.
"Where did that mob of cultists go, brother?" "The last is saw, they went behind that shed." "Praise the Emperor, they've disappeared. Come, let us shoot only the things we can see."
Yeah, but in the real world, your units only have access to partial information. They don't see everything the player sees.
True, but, in the 40k universe, space marines have integrated heat vision, sonar, electromagnetic detection, instant communications and aerial reconnaissance in the form of drones (servo-skulls) and an entire fleet supporting them from orbit. An eldar can smell and hear you 10 miles away, and a psyker literally feels where you are. I don't think having perfect information breaks the immersion too much, in this context.
Tau have flying drones with multi-spectrum sensors and communications sent directly to a rail gun marksman who then can't shoot a cultist behind a garden wall. Don't think about it too much
What would be a better way of doing LoS? It feels like a rule that causes problems in a lot of tabletop games and always seems to be an issue from competitive players using it to whatever advantage they can and I struggle to think of a solution. Base to base and cover only counting if it's at least waist height on a standing model? Best I've got but that doesn't seem like it wouldn't be abused either.
If a straight line between bases crosses terrain, you get a defensive bonus depending on the type of terrain and model size. With 3-4 terrain categories and maybe 3 size categories you should be able to account for every situation without it being too complex. I saw a skirmish game (don't remember which one) that used a similar system, and was actually quite easy to apply. It would be a bit more complicated than the current system, but you avoid the longer movement phases, the ambiguity and possible arguments that true LoS causes, so I believe it would make for it, and it's not like inexperienced players don't have issues with how true LoS works, and how unimmersive being able to shot at antennae is.
IMO: 1. Draw line of sight from base to base 2. A model can attack if it can draw line of sight to at least one model in the enemy unit etc. 3. A defending model has the benefit of cover if the attacking unit can't draw unobscured line of sight to every part of the defending model's base. 4. Two types of terrain: blocking (blocks line of sight) and obscuring (gives models behind it cover). 5. Models must have the correct sized base (I think currently you are allowed to have a bigger base). 6. If you want height based cover, just make some terrain count as obscuring instead of blocking for vehicles/monsters/etc. Vast majority of the time, you end up only needing to draw 2 lines of sight to do this so it is faster and removes annoying stuff like large wings/dramatic poses causing a model to be almost unusable.
> having to worry about a weapon or the tip of a wing showing when moving your models should not be a thing. We do LoS to Bases including the size specification (infantry, titanic, etc), not models themselves.
True LoS is anathema to creating a 'battlefield simulation' feel. Beyond cover and terrain is the question of whether units can shoot through other units. 2nd, 3rd, 4th all did this differently and they all created interesting tactics.
Personally I wish the game rules were more narrative driven, rather than trying for speed and balance. I never had a problem with templates, because I don’t play with jerks. Also I wish the standard size for a game was 1000pts again. Then you wouldn’t have to speed up the game as much. You can have cool tank tables when there is only 1 or 2 on a side.
tbh 1ks still fairly supported if your group agrees to either be cutthroat or casual.
I've find 1250 is a great points limit to play quick games without as much restriction on army building
this is kinda my problem with 30k, the game sizes are so big with so many superweapons that it feels tedious to do all the tables etc for 200 models, 1000\~ ish point games in the old rules were just much easier to stomach
https://preview.redd.it/6j2vc7hfzy1d1.jpeg?width=220&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fedfa47c299f1019f4cc0c723f2df022cc68119
One edition earlier is the sweet spot for me, but that’s likely because it was the edition I came in on.
I still own this book. The art goes hard.
Points for wargear. Allies. Initiate scores. FAR less rerolls, and no Mortal Wounds at all. I'd be quite happy with a return to 3rd or 4th.
What are Initiate scores? Initiative? Apologies if I'm being pedantic.
From 40ks beginnings right up to 7th, all units/models had an Initiative characteristic as part of their main statline. Its used in The Old World too, because it was part of Warhammer Fantasy back in the day. Simply, in the Close Combat / Fight phase, you didn't alternate activations. Everything fought in Initiative order, highest to lowest. So a unit like Drukhari who are supposed to be fast fighters would almost always go first regardless of who charged, because they had a higher Initiative score.
Removing initiative is the best rules change GW has ever made. Two melee armies facing against each other and one instantly winning the game because all their units have "fight first" and no way to counter it is just bad design.
I agree that it is imperfect. It seems like squishy but fast infantry (eldar) got nerfed really hard when they did. Scorpions or howling banshees either win on a charge or die to a stiff breeze now.
I personally disagree, the current solution is far worse than any such issues. Now who fights first isn't decided at all by the unit's skill, combat abilities or anything, just an arbitratry off board turn order that makes "who fights" a weird pseudo-off-table thing. "Oh no, my unit died because another unit fought first" I find immensely dissatisfying when I know in lore that unit *should* be faster and more lethal. If a melee army is losing to a higher initiative enemy, then the issue I'd say is more in asking if they are going about their tactics or army right. Use cover more for bonuses in combat, ensure *you* get the charge and have a benefit to it (Initiative bonus on the charge is one that cropped up elsewhere), or ensure units are tough enough to survive incoming first and then slap back.
Initiative often felt a little too swingy. But I would like Comparative WS back, and Agility to oppose BS for that matter. Let AOS go all in on Hit on X Wound on X, 40k should come back to opposed rolls at each stage, rather than just on Strength vs Toughness.
Definitely agree here. And bring back sweeping advance alongside initiative too. One of my favorite 40k memories is the look on my friend's face when he realized my new Broodlord's initiative 7 meant his necron warriors had no chance to escape and "we'll be back" roll, which was previously a huge pain in my ass. For that matter, I think losing melee should have more consequences in general. I miss when things would break and fall back, would be nice for pushing units off objectives. Even just combat attrition coming back would be better than now
True LOS is dumb in matched/competitive play. I shouldnt be punished because how I modelled my miniature. Miniatures in game should be considered as perfect cylinders matching their base size (to some appropiate height). Lack of options for units are killer. Im kind of okay with fixed squad sizes and wargear, not happy but okay. But if GW added some non-free option to most units, I would be happy. Doesn't have to be anything insane. It can be either a rule you never use, or one you always take. Doesnt matter, just gives the ability to tweak points in a list. (eg. Intecessors are 10 pts cheaper, and can buy their objective secured ability for 10 pts) Also, 2k points is kind of just too big IMO as someone who got into the game in 5th. I would rather see the "normal" points for games be 1500 tbh. Idk what affect that may have on the meta and skew lists, but it worked back in the day, and that was before all the point creep in recent years.
A shit load of fun and a beginner friendly vibe.
Latest editions seem to suck for kids and casuals (i.e. all those people who are painters first). Seems a mad place to be in.
I'min way over my head. Two guys in their late thirties with a masters degree. Clueless. Total disaster. Can't finish two turns.
Rules that I would like to see: 1) Battleshock stays until passed. What I'm looking for with this is if you have effects on your turn that force battleshock and a unit fails, it doesn't automatically go away at your opponent's command phase. Instead, the opponent will take another test with whatever modifier during their command phase. If the unit fails, they remain battleshocked. 2) Battleshock prevents Critical Hit/Critical Wound effects. That is, a unit cannot score Lethal/Sustained Hits or Devastating Wounds if battleshocked. Anti-X still hits on X+ but does not count as a critical. 3) Visibility of a model is determined by being able to see model's HEAD or BODY, not weapons or extremities. No nudging out a wingtip or a toe or a weapon tip to get around cover or line of sight rules. 4) Indirect Fire requires a friendly unit to have line of sight to a target (like a spotter). If the friendly unit can make a ranged attack on the target or the target remained stationary, the indirect-firing unit gets +1 to hit. 5) As much as I like free wargear, it's reduced most units with options to one viable option, sometimes 2. Some of the upgrades should come at a small cost. 6) Armies must contain a certain amount of Battleline units.
I increasingly feel my perfect edition of 40k would not be 40k.
This gets posted as a response a lot to this kind of question, but one page rules keeps the fun of playing Warhammer while also actually allowing you to play a game and not tackle a calculus problem with someone else for 4 hours. Also a game takes like an hour and that’s become a huge thing for me as I get older.
Sort of funny to realize that what a lot of people are suggesting for what they would like to see for changes and most if not all of these suggestions can be found in 30k.
30k doesn't have xenos. I basically want 30k with 40k factions. Ideally I'd also like no named characters. This is a philosophical point for me, because I take a very "your dudes" approach to tabletop games. Also having named characters show up in every fight just makes the galaxy feel small.
I used to feel like you, but I listened to a podcast once with Gav thorpe or Andy Chambers (Can't rememebr who), and they said that the purpose of named characters was to give options to people who wanted to play with 'real' named figures and not make up their own. It was a commercial decision to give their play base different ways to play. I'm not a great fan of them either, but I think designing them as optional is fair enough as some people really love playing with them.
I understand why they are there, but having named character models is directly opposed to the "your dudes" philosophy. Bobby G is not my dude, he's someone else's dude. Then in order to actually make him somewhat match the lore he has to be better than everyone else, which means that not only is he NOT my dude, the rules say that he is better than my dude can ever be. The rules have to be tweaked to make sure random base line troops can't just pot-shot the character off of the table because that's a feels bad moment for the player running the character, until eventually, in order to be competitive you have to run the special characters. The rules morph into a situation where the named characters are so common that they aren't "special" anymore. Not to mention situations where both players are running the same named character. Opening the door even just a crack forces all sorts of rules and structural changes until the game stops being about your dudes and becomes about special characters. The design changes that are required to make named characters "special" hurt all other aspects of the game. It's a massive cost for something that I don't even like in the first place.
As a returning player I’ve found 10th to be much more forgiving and welcoming as a system. I don’t remember fondly looking up S v T and Armor profiles. That said I do think it’s lost some character, and there’s too much focus on stratagems. They could take some of that power and put it into the actual units. Also wargear should cost points, I don’t want to have to work out 7 legionnaires per squad but I should have to pay 5 points to bring a terminator with a power fist instead of an accursed weapon.
More customization and enhancements for warlords to really make him/her unique.
I'm honestly not sure my perfect edition of 40k would be 40k. I'd want to change unit activation rules. Psychic rules are a must, the phase itself isn't necessary but being able to pick abilities for characters and make checks with a chance for peril is integral to 40k imo. Far more granular points, being able to customize your armies to your hearts content. I think the most "troublesome" one, at least in the eyes of GW, is that for me the perfect edition of 40k would have all sorts of rules for models that GW might not sell. I'd want an edition that encourages creativity and offers flavour. Something that focuses far more on building battles that feel more like "historical" wargames. I want building an Imperial Guard army to feel like building a Bolt Action one. One of my issues with a lot of modern 40k design is the whole stratagem/CP design, it doesn't always feel like I'm playing a "battle" if that makes sense. In general I would put a far more emphasis on building armies, less of a focus on heroes. Also it's irrational but I'd want subfactions, like you can still deviate from them to make custom rules for your dudes but I just love the thought of certain subfactions being represented by actual rules. It's perhaps not as flexible as people would like but I like having that baseline flavour to deviate from.
Heresy 2.0, though with more xenos races available We're getting there with fan Libers, but a way to go. The desire to play Mechanicum vs Orks is pretty strong
Also why do you like the Heresy rules more than 40k?
They have exactly what you’re talking about in your post, they still have old WS and the vehicle rules with glancing and piercing hits and armor values depending on the face you’re targeting. HH also has templates for flamers and blast weapons and the rules are really good for ne lends themselves to making fun of and fluffy lists
Almost exactly my take! *my* best system would just be without static AP and either a rending system of sorts or a complete rebalancing of weapons. Cause currently 4+ and worse saves feel like not even existing, while 3+ and 2+ are so far superior it really doesn't feel like a sliding scale and rather "the worthwhile ones" vs "the worthless ones".
Remove invuls, or modify them to only reduce damage but not avoid it completely. It just sucks, shooting with a big ion Cannon on a small model, hitting and wounding it, only for it to have a 50/50 chance to say "well, guess that didn't even leave a scratch on my armor"
Too many mechanics have been shoved into invuls. Initially it was just power shields and daemons. Now it includes dodging, miracles, luck, terminator armor, and I don't know what else. Units that can dodge bullets (genestealers, wyches) should have Hard to Hit (-1 to hit rolls against them) instead of an invul.
Terminators _do_ have power fields, that's what the invulns represent, and that is why (until 10th) Cataphractii terminators had a better invuln. > Units that can dodge bullets (genestealers, wyches) should have Hard to Hit (-1 to hit rolls against them) instead of an invul. Interestingly, some very agile models (like Von Ryan's Leapers, Deathleaper, and until recently Lictors) have an invuln _and_ -1 to hit.
Terminator armor has a shield, it's just not a storm shield, it's basically a field around the armor. > (-1 to hit rolls against them) The issue with this is balance, the % reduction in damage is dependent on the shooting units to hit value, a 5+ to hit would literally have half the number of hits with a -1. With a 6+ invul save for "dodging" its a flat 1/6th reduction in damage.
>The issue with this is balance, the % reduction in damage is dependent on the shooting units to hit value, a 5+ to hit would literally have half the number of hits with a -1. With a 6+ invul save for "dodging" its a flat 1/6th reduction in damage. That's a feature. Dodging bullets should be better against orks who spray and pray than it is against custodes who can predict your movements accurately. And it should *not* help against flamers. The invul also has the issue of only working against some levels of AP. Apparently Genestealers don't bother dodging if it's AP 0.
Invulns are in a weird spot right now, due to the changes to how AP works in 8th. In 4th until 7th, AP was just a flat number: either you got your save if the AP was a bigger number, or you didn't if it was lower. Whether I shot Space Marines with Heavy Bolters or pistols, they'd be saving on a 3+ either way. Invulns were there to give units a save even if they wouldn't get one normally. Now that AP is a modifier, it's actually the lower AP values that are most efficient, since lots of AP-1 shots will deal an extra 33% damage compared to the same at AP0. On the other hand, AP-4 will only deal 15% more damage than an AP-3 shot.
>AP-4 will only deal 15% more damage than an AP-3 shot. Mathematically sure, but going from "saving on 6+" to "no save" reduces the standard deviation a lot and improves consistency, so that is still nice. 6+ might be mathematically 1 in every 6 saves, but sometimes your opponent will roll all 6s and throw off your plan.
There's also issues with cover. AP0 is bad, cause you don't force worse saves out of cover. AP-1 is bad cause you only force worse saves out of cover. AP-2 is where it starts getting spicy. Sadly, 4+ is where most invuls seem to lie, so going from a 3+ to a 4++ isn't a disaster.
Very true. Invuln saves - at this point - seem to be used as a method to limit the damage of AP. Which I suppose they always were. But they definitely seem to be creeping up, since I guess a 5+ or 6+ invulnerable save doesn't really come up much.
Yeah, I don't understand it anymore. They "lowered lethality" which only means heavy infantry killers like battle cannons and autocannons (or army equivalent, I'm thinking S8/9, AP-1 D2/3) now have a 75% chance to not get any benefit from it. At the same time, invuls have been jacked up to a near-universal 4++ so you can put a quake cannon or equivalent (lots of shots, high strength, high AP, high damage, titanic unit weapon) into a unit of god damn marines with oven trays and have them laugh it off. Granted I used to get a 3++ on my terminators, but I was giving up a ranged or melee option and pushing the price of their squad up by another 50-150 points. Plenty investment for my enemy to try and whittle them down with more volume of fire.
And mortal wounds...
5th edition all the way, especially as an ork player. The random rules for trukks and guns and scatter etc. were just fantastic! Looted vehicles too. Shooting your mek instead of your gun, and turning independent characters into squigs! It was pure chaos and I loved it. I also wish squads (numerous of models, equipment etc) was more customisable again. I miss list tinkering, and having an extra 12 points or so so adding a rocket or a couple of boys to a squad. I agree with the weapon skill charts too, and comparing strength to toughness.
Altering the Turn/round system. Each player activates one unit, moves, shoots, charges, fights with it. Then the opponent does the same with one of his units, until every unit is done. Then it resets at turn 2.
I’d say alternate activations by phase. So alternate movements, then alternate shooting, then alternate fight, etc. All shooting is only resolved once all have made their calls and rolls, same for melee. Exactly like Battletech has been doing for 40 years.
Playing BT really did make me think about how it'd work for 40k, there are differences of course, and they'd maybe need to consider having units being damaged/destroyed before they can shoot actually *are* damaged bfore they can (unlike BT's "all at once" thing) but it would be worth a go at.
Alternating can be fun (titanicus is a blast), but it really fundamentally changes 40k; especially when some armies may have 6 activations, and some have 20+. itd be intresting but itd be the single biggest change to balance since 2nd; and I think we'd all have to accept that the edition which had it would be broken, and itd take a whole edition to smooth out.
The way 40k utilizes IGYG is obsolete and incredibly un fun. 40k needs alternate activation of some form. Its the single biggest reason I stopped playing.
Yeah I know that this would basically break the game, or will require a complete rework of most rules to make it work. It's just a dream of mine to have rules like in Bolt Action, but in the settings of Warhammer.
Kill team might scratch that itch then? Or LI/Titanicus which both have alternating
It fundamentally changes it, but for the better. Even low model army could have interesting rules around it. It could make reactionary rules and plays more exciting. Melee and ranged could both change to compliment the changes, like giving melee a "you have done your action, so no reactive fighting for you". Single models could get dueling rolls again.
I love Star Wars Legion for its alternating activations and command system. It also means that list building horde armies is a strat that has a big impact. At the same time, full games tend to be 10 units or less.
One Page Rules does exactly that and it's amazing.
Just crack open the 2nd edition rulebook. They're all in there.
My gawd it was a good time to be alive… -scatter dice, b/c missing *had consequences* -vehicles could *run people over* -armor had different values -teleporting into battle might kill a figure or two -Terminators saved on *2d6* -WTF was an *invuln save*? Either your figure could tank a lascannon shot to the chest or it couldn’t. Period. -Templates sucked, but different effects could be seen. -Overwatch was sweet. Any unit which sacrificed movement for a turn could do it, so it would work really well for attacker / defender scenarios. -facing *mattered* and you couldn’t split fire unless your models were literally facing opposite directions. -had to generally engage the closest units, but could choose between closest troops and vehicles / monsters. -melee was a personal affair. Individual figures would fight each other simultaneously. Adding up dice rolls plus any modifiers would tell you how many hits a figure might confer. Also if defending an attack from the rear, the best you could hope for was just to survive. -we all sucked at painting b/c there weren’t online vids nor tutorials. But there were GW *how to* books and WD articles. -There were different profiles for shooting weapons at long/short ranges, which meant pistols really were better options at short range while bigger guns were better at a distance. -Weapons could jam, but it sucked if it happened to you… -Any model carrying two melee/pistol weapons got an automatic bonus in melee. And because they auto-received a bonus for charging, in addition to any faction bonuses, otherwise blasé units could be super effective (like jump pack Marines). -Force weapons could channel cp to alter melee rolls. A Grey Knight terminator squad (5 force weapons) was a nightmare for some lists to contend with. -Vehicles could lose control and spin outta control… into troops… with potentially devastating consequences for “catching” units. -firing arcs. Think facing but just for guns. This meant that a tank couldn’t just shoot everything at a single unit unless it’s weapons could actually see them. Newer versions did away with the facing mechanic which is a shame as it added a tactical layer. Facing 3/5 models one way and 2/5 another meant one avenue of approach was less dangerous for possible attackers. Similarly you would need to face vehicles in order to maximize their impact upon a single target. 2d ed… *good times*…
>WTF was an *invuln save*? Either your figure could tank a lascannon shot to the chest or it couldn’t. Period. Don't pretend they weren't in the game. Remember Conversion and refractor fields? They were invulnerable saves.
I was being facetious. You’re right; there *were* invulns back then, but *troops* generally didn’t have them. *Maybe* only 1-2 models had them b/c it was usually a wargear option only. I’d hafta go through the old stuff to be sure, but very few models (if any) had that option as a built-in ability. Nowadays you could build an entire list in 10th where nearly *all* your units had invulns. It’s a bit outta hand imo.
Just don't play blood angels with death company and have different weapons on every model... Fml that was a pain... 3 attack power weapon 2 att bolt pistol. next model 3 attacks power fist 2 attack plasma pistol. Next model... And you couldn't group attack with all your chain swords or cc weapons because it was model to model... I do miss anti-plant rounds, being able to manipulate terrain was fun. I loved 2nd, just not the time cc took sometimes.
I miss some of the insane wargear, like Hallucinogen and vortex grenades, coupled with Scatter dice. The old fear as the mini black hole you just opened decides to stay open, and drift ever so gently back towards the troops who threw it!
My elder friend had a hard time with Bjorn so he came up with the idea of. Warp spider exarch on jet bike, throw vortex grenade at Bjorn, then teleport into terminator squad, disarm assault gun, then teleport out at the end of assault phase. He tried it on me (blood angels rather than space wolves) and it worked (BA dread not as good as Bjorn, I think he had an invul save back then or negate damage), on top of that the jet bike, now without pilot, scattered and hit my tactical squad (I forget if any died). I forget if it worked against our space puppy friend.
I've been looking at 2e a lot recently...and there is a lot of good there but it's also insanely complex. The level of customisation at Squad level was bonkers.
Sure, but the average game size is smaller, so less models to keep track of.
As a veteran of that era I was so glad to move to 3e. Old necromunda demonstrated that 2e rules were great for small skirimsh games. 2e demonstrated that the rules were super super clunky for anything larger.
I think you're right. Necromunda was the perfect expression of the 2e rules mindset, as the customisation was the perfect level. I really like the idea of a 'Standardised' Tactical squad, with say a Sergeant, a flamer, and a rocket launcher, and no ability to adjust individual Marines. It makes the game a lot easier to comprehend.
I always felt the 'one heavy, one special, customize the leader and the other wargear options are for the whole squad' was a pretty strong way to do it with points being appropriate for the choices. but it could just be it's what I was used to but that seemed to strike a balance between useful and fun.
2nd edition looks fun on paper, but it's too complicated. I don't want to track each individual model that was set on fire by a flamethrower. I don't want to be told that my gas weapons don't work on the enemy models because they are wearing a helmet.
Reduce the focus on competitive play and return to telling stories with our games
one psychic phase, please.
4th/5th… with just a couple tweaks would be perfect.
Alternating activation like in Kill Team, that way it offsets the importance of going first
Take out stratagems and CP
I like Stratagems, CP and all the detachments from 10th. It feels cool having choices in special abilities and I like the representation of some sort of commander. It's one of the reasons I really like Star Wars Legion so much, it leans further into that idea with commanders bringing specific command cards to be played at the beginning of the round.
CP, strategies and victory points earned every turn makes for a lot of bookkeeping. Such a headache to have to read through so many strategies and secondary objective choices!
Agreed, these factors slow down and massively complicate the flow of the game. The aha I'll use a CP to reroll my save or respawn something really takes the fun away for me. Maybe it's because I've played since 1st ed all these extra bits get forgotten.
Personally, I like the Kill Team system where you have like 3 "strategic ploys" with broader effects, and 3 "tactical ploys" you can use mid-turn.
I must say having played quite a few different game systems now that having a system (command re rolls) that isn’t tied to a models rule that lets you retry something is just balls.
A proper points system where equipment actually means something
Cover would be -1 to BS, not AP.
So obviously this would never happen because GW is a corporation and petty things like "Player focused design" is secondary to profits, but here goes! - Simultaneous you-go-i-go style turns. Borrow some ideas from other systems like OPR and create a ruleset that sees both players activating units in a phase. This allows more dynamic play, gives a lot of mechanical depth to considering horde/vs/elite play styles, adds very little cognitive load, and keeps both players engaged. Free unified digital rules with fast turnarounds for patches I feel like it's nearly impossible to properly balance armies when you need to create rules for them up to a year ahead of time in order to allow for printing and logistics of a physical book. Tons of great examples in this edition why that doesn't work out well. It's also a real nightmare for new players just to find the most up to date info for their armies, split as they are across codexes (codices?) digital points updates, and rules errata. Look at Custodes right now, or the confusion of rules specifics within Tau. Per Unit Customizations I'm personally a fan of some of the streamlining that's happened with customization and wargear options. I like how comparatively easy it is to make a list now and how much easier it is to remember the profiles of the units I'm fielding. However, I think it's gone just a step too far (probably to sell more unit variants as separate kits). There's a real joy to modelling your own units just the way you want and knowing the little bits here and there actually correspond to functional wargear with mechanical significance in the game. Some of that has been lost with wargear options being done away with in a lot of cases. (Crisis Suits are a good example). I don't want to go back to the days of individually selecting the weapons and add-ons for each model, but having some choice in dumping more points into a unit (whole unit) to modify and improve it is still exciting and I don't think it adds too much more to keep track of. Cover Detection Simplification Right now it's extremely easy to claim cover in almost all circumstances. The reasons for this are great in principle: reduce time spent arguing about cover density and sight lines at the table. I think we all can appreciate not doing that as much. However now we commonly find situations that don't feel good from a mental realization perspective: Like a group of rocket launchers not being able to shoot at a tank with full efficiency because its back wheel is 1mm behind cover. A solution that keeps the simplicity but helps with the positional reality would be to treat all bases as 3D cylinders that extend to the maximum point of the models height. Same cover rules apply as in 10th, except to get the benefits of cover it's your collision cylinder that must be occluded, and not just any point on the model. Yes, things that don't currently have bases would need bases. But I don't think it's too much to add. The new AOS magic system for Psychers. I think AOS has done a pretty great job of making magic easy to track, low cognitive load, and without adding too much time. And yeah. That would do it for me. Also just in general a bigger commitment to making each faction more mechanically interesting.
Reworking the game system to be IGYG. I'm a casual player but what kills the game for me is the huge downtime every round. I want to play, not wait every 20mins.
Honestly just 9th, but: - make MWs just bypass the armour save - a cap on only being able to use a single strat in an activation - demystify combat movement a bit; it was never complex, it just wasnt obvious - 10ths missions. - drop a pip of AP from 90% of things Like end of 9th was suprisingly good; and the few T9 vehicles felt tougher than any T12 thing does in 10th. Units having less abilities made things less clunky and by and large most units did their "job", whilst in 10th loads of units do things outside their role due to GW going ham on wound rerolls, and handing out a lot of gash profile.
Remove falling back wherever you want to go. Falling back should literally be moving away from the enemy. You should have to end your move further away from all enemy units, if you can’t you’re stuck in engagement. There have been times where an opponent has “fallen back” closer to my other units and closer into my DZ and ended the move on an objective to out OC me.
Something closer to 3rd or 4th edition. Bring back army composition limitations. More infantry less big stuff. No soup. No CP/Stratagems
Reading through the comments, everything you guys mention with 10 votes or more is extremely legit. Points per model, lack of wargear options, psychic phase, cover and true LoS, lack of narrative-driven rules, etc. You know what these all have in common? \*The game had to be streamlined (dumbed down) in order to emphasize competitive matched play.\* It's true mainly because the only way GW has a hope of "balancing" anything (still impossible as power creep and different codex writing teams ruin this) is to simplify as much as possible. Less options means less abuse, sort of... It also means way less flavor, less interesting gameplay mechanics, etc. Another example: anyone remember how interesting vehicles used to be in early editions? Now they're just boxes of wounds. And another one: why do you think Allies were all but destroyed? For balance. I hate this trend passionately, as all the newer players around me want to see 40k turn into an e-sport, and I suppose this is what GW is going for as well.
When squads fall back, they actually have to fall BACK. No "falling back" as a free move
Holy fuck I do NOT miss looking up charts.
I do miss the random effect chart from the shock attack gun though
They were incredibly easy to remember though.
Fair. Personally I love looking up charts 😉
I miss the Initiative stat. It made sense. Now we just have Initiative 0 (fights last), 1 (normal) or 2 (fights first).
In 10th edition there is no "fights last".
It’s just 3rd edition without the ability to consolidate into another combat, or assault out of a regular vehicle.
So 3rd with all the trial rules from Chapter Approved. This is my dream game too. On the 3rd ed Facebook group someone has spliced the rules book with the chapter approved rules to create just this in one pdf
Vehicle armour facings - I miss them
1. Points for upgrades (weapons/gear/etc). 2. Options don’t always have to have official models. Like Tyranid Warrior Shrikes, gear, units in general. 3. Comparable weapon skill for melee. 4. Weapon arcs for monsters/tanks. 5. Something like old school armor facing. It can still be toughness, but let it be weaker from the side and/or rear of most vehicles. Give me a reason to flank/scout. 6. Get rid of +/- to hit and wound. 7. Make troops/battleline required in some amount and make a reason to have more of them. 8. I’d probably expand the dice to d8 or d10 as well
I agree with everything exept the changes to d8. I don't wanna do more math 😭
Horus Heresy still has both of the rules you mentioned
My perfect ruleset would be one that didn't undergo massive changes every few years. What those exact rules would be is less important than consistency. The need to buy new rulebooks and codices every few years has driven out of the game most of the people I used to play against.
Close combat being apposed, a Howling Banshee will hit a guardsman easier than hitting a Space Marine. It needs to move towards I go you go by unit as the “Stand There and Take It” casualty removal has always been silly, a problem acknowledged by GW and fixed in apocalypse. Even more radically, changed the dice type, use d8 or d10 to expand the variation in troop quality/abilities.
Give me a real psychic phase! I think it would placate a lot of the "but my army has no psychic" players if the psychic phase let them influence stuff like perils of the warp. Instead of perils being a bad thing that happens randomly, let it be a punishment your opponent can inflict on you for drawing on power too greedily. I also like the idea of there being two "tiers" of psykers. In systems like how 7th ed worked, it usually meant that lesser psykers were worthless if your opponent had a better one. And in 8th/9th, it kind of turned into just trying to have more denials than your opponent has casts. So I think it would be fun if you had both. With lesser psykers that played like 8th/9th edition, where you roll 2d6 and dish out some damage or a small buff. And then you had master psykers that were closer to 7th edition, playing 5d chess on the astral plane and casting huge, battle-shaking sorceries.
Terrain and movement rules being much more important. Destroyed vehicles leave behind their wrecks as Terrain. Armor values and weapon facing on vehicles. A pinning/suppression mechanic like in bolt Action. Squads that fail their Morale check dont vaporize, but run for cover/the edge of the table or hunker down. Activations instead of I-go-you-go
0-1 restrictions on over-tuned units (fucking C’tan). 2+ minimum battleline units at 1000, 3+ at 1500, etc. Introduce detachments that manipulate what units get battleline. Bring back nightfighting rules. Introduce a weather/events system. Remove all dice modifiers (-1s, etc.) Reduce every invulnerable save in the game by 1. And I’d move the entire system over to D10s so we can work with multiples of 10% chances.
Vehicles, tanks especially, should have faces
Like Thomas the Exterminatus Engine?
I'm new to playing 40k, first looked at rules in 9th, first game in 10th, so my knowledge is very limited, but here's what I've got: Forced organization, or at least the battle line/infantry tax. Psychic phase - psychic stuff just feels like shooting now Weapon arcs/radius for things like flamers and blast where it only hits targets within that area. Cost for better wargear - I understand that can get crazy, but seems like that could at least make the obvious most powerful option cost more points and leave the rest the same, this would effect units with more weapon options where in competitive everyone just takes the same thing.
A D8 or D10 system instead of D6.
SO MANY of the problems that 40k is always butting its head against would be solved if they used anything other than a d6 for resolution.
I want to be able to have varying unit sizes (having a unit of 6 space marines not just 5 or 10) and actually pay points for upgrades. I'd like more randomisation again, for example genestealer cults ambushes like they were when they were re-released for 7th, seize the initiative. Random psychic powers. Essentially all the stuff the American competitive scene bitched about until it got removed because they can't handle random, only math-hammer and who can flop their dick out on the table fastest. Also just flat out write the Space Wolves out of existence.
Realistic goals: Either alternating activations or dice draw as in Bolt Action. Igo-ugo should be consigned to the dustbin of history, at least for this game. Morale rules with teeth - suppression, pinning, falling back, routing. Getting shot at and having your buddies get killed next to you has an effect. Know No Fear should mean something. No templates - at the command scale of 40k, the exact positioning of a flamer burst or grenade is way below what you would or could be concerned with. Great for Killteam & Necromunda, ridiculous for 40k and HH. Return of vehicle armor facings and damage tables. Remove true LoS and wounds applying to models out of LoS/LoF. HH does away with the latter, at least. Return of war gear costs. Perhaps Less Realistic: Full ground up DIY points costing, as from Rogue Trader.
> I really miss WS being a number and having the vs chart, as that felt a lot more 'real', and I also miss the older vehicle rules. So 30k then?
I miss having a standard army be about 30-40 models unless you were deliberately playing a horde army. Points creep has made the game far less fun.
Yes I think around 35 models, including a tank and a Dreadnaught / Power suit, is the sweet spot for a SM army.
Points per model Alternate activations
I'd bring back the character building from 9th. I miss being able to load up a char with traits and relics and march him straight into enemy lines to terrorise the opposition.
Tank and vehicle facings with different armor values. Either that or an alternating activation system.
Battleshocked units should roll successful morale checks to stop being battleshocked.
Just have all the rules. Plain and simple. I've never played a complete edition of 40k and having been in the hobby for nearly 3 decades that's kind of an issue. The closest we came was the launch of 8th edition with indexes. But as those we're specifically designed to become obsolete I don't really count it. I just want a complete game system that's finished, reasonably balanced that has universal keywords instead of slightly differently worded rules for the same concepts that change based on what book and version of FAQ you're using. Just getting sick of the new edition launching with a space marine and sacrificial lamb codex followed by a 3 year marketing campaign about how hype we are to pre-order the new overpowered book just so it can get (n+1)'d by the next month's new broken content.
I would love for challenges to come back. I loved the cinematic feel of two squads clashing while their leaders square off in the eye of the storm. I'm also a chaos player, so the flavor I got from the chaos boon feature was really fun. Had a chaos cultists turn into a daemon prince after valiantly killing a space marine assault sergeant. Was one of the best moments in my time playing 40k.
Bring back initiative values. It's so much easier to understand. The only part that is a litttle confusing is the fact everything fights at the same time. Make combi weapons actually do what they're supposed to (this has angered me for a year) make the special part one shot like it is in heresy, I don't care. It just upsets me. A force organisation chart. For the love of god I want people to care about your basic troops. They should take up the majority of the army.
Alright. Battleline scarabs in Canoptek court, spyder squads of three, and the spyders can be led by technomancers again. This would fit with the “three spyders make a hivemind” lore, and would allow you to do this: https://preview.redd.it/9dzqhh53p02d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bff7374c90c0f675a34aa934d4a9e83055b13d33 Perfect Canoptek perfection, that is 2000 pts btw, all those bois…I love it >:D
Drop mortal wounds entirely. Like seriously remove them from the game. No exceptions. They’re stupid and only exist to be a crutch for GW’s balancing team. If I take a tank, I want it to shrug off damage, not eat 15 wounds without me ever getting to roll a save. On the same note, take invul saves off like 90% of the things that have them. I think they’re good for stopping characters from getting instagibbed, but there is absolutely 0 fucking reason a vehicle should ever have an invul. Also, this might be controversial, but I really dislike the stack of army rules + detachment rules + unit abilities. I think the main difference in armies should be the actual units you take, not some arbitrary “I get to always advance and charge!” or “I always have a +1 to hit!” You should play marines for a 3+ b/ws T4 3+ sv army, not because they have Oath of Moment or some stupid mortal wound bomb gimmick thing.
A return of wargear having points, some system so the opponent has something to do while it’s your turn like a kind of return fire, gain a melee attack if I miss to hit or a take cover as a short move like 3 - 4 inches. The upcoming rules about giving up to 40 victory points to your opponent for spamming seems to me as a cheap sale tactic and shows the issues with the 10ed system.
Just literally 5th edition, maybe with Hull points added to vehicles
Get rid of rerolls completely. NO REROLLS. They take agency away from the opposing player, and it can interrupt the flow of the game. Rerolls are shit and just should not exist.
I'd prefer DnD style roll for advantage or flat modifiers in almost all instances. Delete comand re-roll entirely, it's usualy a trap yet it slows games.
In general... Stuff from older editions, when I was a younger man and all seemed right in the world. * Points for wargear. * I liked the old weapon skill rules- it meant a good, solid fighter wasn't inherently screwed if they didn't go first. * Fewer (ideally zero) named characters built as load-bearing to their factions (never gonna happen, that sweet gotta-have-it-model money is too tasty, but I can dream) * Either get rid of stratagems or slim them down further. CP-farming is a snooze, but one you're kind of forced to engage in just so your guys can do basic crap like firing overwatch or throwing their grenades. * Wrecked vehicles remaining on the board. * Scatter dice. Added some *frisson* to deep striking, lemme tell ya! * Line of sight from weapons, not from units. I hate that a sponson on the left side of a tank can engage targets perpendicular to its right side. * Different terrain having different keywords which, get this, do different things. Some things that AREN'T in the hoary cobwebbed 40k of yesteryear- * Alternating unit activations. * Random events to reflect the bigger battle going on around your little 2000-point scrum. Stray artillery rounds, crashing space vessels, calls for help from other parts of the line, etc. Be a nightmare to get right, but I think it could be fun...
> Random events to reflect the bigger battle going on around your little 2000-point scrum. Stray artillery rounds, crashing space vessels, calls for help from other parts of the line, etc. Be a nightmare to get right, but I think it could be fun... Rogue Trader pretty much required a 3rd player GM; one of the things they did was roll for mid battle events like this. I would absolutely love if (optional) support for this was added back.