Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 13:41:09


Post by: Tresson


So rumors is 10th ed is going to be a hard reset with a return of indexes. If this is true what changes would you like to see in it.

For me personally like to get rid of strats as they currently are and replace them with some form of the reaction rules from HH and AOS. I'd also like them to limit the amount of them that can be used in a battle. They can print as many as they like but a play could only bring something like 4 or 5 to a battle. The would get rid of a lot of the gotcha moments and speed up the game because a player wont stop the game to leaf through their codex to find an obscure strat that might help them now.

The other thing I'd see a return of USRs. Keep them to a small list of 10 or, max, 15 and print them in the back of any and all Codexes.

Finally I respectfully ask those that don't want a new edition or don't want a hard reset to refrain from posting in this post. There is a post in the News & Rumors section better fitted for that and I'd rather not see those that want to discuss possible rules changes to be drowned out by other off topic posts.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 13:44:39


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Fix the Line of Sight rules.

Change the morale system so that it's a suppression system that limits what you can do with units (how they interact with objectives and other characters/buffs/abilities), rather than the current "lose more" system that punishes you for losing troops by making you lose more troops, and in a way that completely bypasses the entire structure of strength/save mod/damage vs toughness/saving throw/wounds.



Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 13:49:29


Post by: VladimirHerzog


remove strats
bring back USRs
make the game alternating activations
lower lethality

thats my big 4


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 13:51:40


Post by: Sim-Life


Hard to believe honestly but I'd welcome it if it means GW have sorted out their lack of design philosophy on the game

But sure, here's my wishlist:
- no strats
- no subfactions
- no doctrines
- no super doctrines
- USRs
- HQ units lets you change the classification of specific units (so a Trygon Prime makes Ravaners troops for example)
- more interesting rules that reroll auras and +/-1 modifiers on everything
- more out of turn movement actions like falling back, counter-charges, going to ground etc
- just more emphasis in manuvering in general


I'd be okay with keeping secondaries if all of the above happened honestly. My big issue with 40k 9th Ed s the book keeping and mental load honestly.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 13:55:51


Post by: Tiberias


I'd like 10th to be more like the new Heresy edition...not exactly like it, but a lot more like it. Bring back initiative, WS comparison, remove all the stratagems and do something like the new Heresy reactions for example.

And they need to tone down the lethality of the game, it's completely gotten out of hand.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 14:08:39


Post by: Just_Breathe


Degrading profiles should be replaced with a lesser one that is more consistent.
Higher granularity would be nice.

AND PLEASE release all the codices at the same f-ing time, with no significant rule changes and only point adjustments as the edition moves forward.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 14:17:49


Post by: PenitentJake


I will refrain from posting the thing OP didn't want me to post, so let me say this instead:

I hope that game size mechanics and Crusade continue to be a part of 40k going forward. I further hope that the new rules allow existing Crusade content to continue to be used.

I see the first of these things as being possible and even likely. I see the second as a real longshot. If they keep Crusade at all, they will reduce it to the AoS equivalent (Path to Glory or whatever).

A lot of folks like Path to Glory better than Crusade, because it's more streamlined and simple. I haven't studied it closely, as I don't play AoS (and can't afford to in addition to 40k), but from what I've seen, it isn't well developed as Crusade, and doesn't allow for the same kind of detail with long term faction specific goals. Which is to say that it wouldn't be enough to convince me to buy into 10th, but at least I would feel like GW was still trying to support a narrative spirit of linked games, and army growth via narrative progression.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 14:20:19


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


Horus Heresy WS chart.
Old editions Wounding chart.
Remove Stratagems.
Add reactions, but not necessarily like how the Horus Heresy does it. More along the lines of smaller benefits, with drawbacks. But keep reaction counter play.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 14:39:38


Post by: H.B.M.C.


PenitentJake wrote:
I hope that game size mechanics...
I hope that concepts like game size mechanics are actually used more often. For instance, I don't think we need to remove stratagems from the game, only reduce the amount per Codex by about 60% (including all equipment strats, which should just be wargear, and any that just apply to a single unit type, those can be special rules baked into the unit).

For the remainder, you should have to choose a selection from your pool over overall strats, and how many you get should be tied to game size. The bigger the game, the more strats you can select.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 14:59:54


Post by: Sim-Life


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
I hope that game size mechanics...
I hope that concepts like game size mechanics are actually used more often. For instance, I don't think we need to remove stratagems from the game, only reduce the amount per Codex by about 60% (including all equipment strats, which should just be wargear, and any that just apply to a single unit type, those can be special rules baked into the unit).

For the remainder, you should have to choose a selection from your pool over overall strats, and how many you get should be tied to game size. The bigger the game, the more strats you can select.


I still think CP would be better used as a universal order system that lets you preform out of turn actions like I mentioned earlier with triggers based on the opponents actions and keywords as a limiter. For example a melee unit get the [Counter Charge] keyword and when an enemy unit ends a charge within 9" they can spend CP to declare a charge and fight a round of combat. There just needs to be something more dynamic in the game and just lumping a rule that gives +1 to a roll is just so bland.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:03:14


Post by: oni


I mostly like the 9th edition Core Rules.

1. The current mission design needs to be set on fire and forgotten for all time. Bring back the 8th edition mission design. Keep Tempest of War.
2. Engagement Range should just be Engagement and require base-to-base contact. None of this 1", 1/2" of 1" and 2" through terrain nonsense. Models are engaged and can fight if they're in base-to-base contact... done.
3. Stratagems either need to be eliminated entirely or changed such that they're purchased during list building and are one use only.
4. Eliminate Warlord Traits and Relics.
5. Change Aura abilities to target a single unit in the Command Phase.
6. Reduce faction rules bloat. Reduce bespoke rules for units - not every damn unit needs to be special and have its own bespoke rules.
7. GW rules writers need to get their heads out their arse and set a strict, system wide design criteria for weapon strength, AP and Damage to keep things consistent and relatively balanced.
8. Make Grenades meaningful. Have them be a unit ability and not a weapon.
9. Eliminate Power Levels.
10. The current mission design needs to be set on fire and forgotten for all time. This cannot be stressed enough. The current mission design is trash. Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

And...

11. Remove vehicle squadrons. There is no need to have these. This was a moronic idea to sell models and as a result hurt the game.
12. Remove the Flyer battlefield role from all detachments and have a specific Flyer detachment that's 1 to 3 Flyers.
13. Transports should be purchased with the unit.

Wish-listing...
Remove corporate influence from game design and game rules.




Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:09:48


Post by: Toofast


The main change I want is strats to be more like Horus Heresy. 3-5 per army, 3-5 universal ones. We don't need 700 strats in the game.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:11:37


Post by: Aelyn


If this were to happen, I think there would need to be a few high-level principles driving the changes - as such, I've organised my thoughts by category.

Simplify the game and reduce bloat
* Significantly reduce stratagems and tie their use to characters (like AoS command abilities). Also reduce auras and Command Phase abilities - these can be consolidated into a single system.
* Consolidate common rules into explicit keywords / USRs which are freely available.
* Reduce or remove subfaction benefits. Let the models decide how the game goes, not the paint scheme.

Reduce lethality and make models matter
* Lower both the volume and damage potential of weaponry across the board.
* Either remove mortal wounds entirely, or come up with a limited and well-defined set of usage conditions and stick to it.
* Re-introduce morale and bonuses for maneuvering. GW have begun to touch on this, but could do a lot more.
* Cut down all the re-rolls.

And if we're talking in a wishlist of implementable but unlikely ideas...
* Move to D10s to increase granularity.
* Significantly streamline and Consolidate weapon profiles - does a plasma gun really *need* to be different from a grav gun or a melta gun? Does that make sense at the current game scale?
* Look at the IGO-UGO system and consider how this can be tweaked to reduce waiting around. If it's not going to go to alternate activation or some other full shift away from IGO-UGO, consider things like AoS's reactive commands, 30K's reactions, or MtG's instants to provide models of how you can still have interactivity on a player-turn model.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:31:10


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Line of Sight is a big one. Being able to shoot a tank with every weapon you have because an antenna is visible has always been silly to me.

I would love to see a reduction in the layers-upon-layers of rules.

I think we may also see changes to Strength and Toughness, with infantry going up to 6 or even 10; currently most infantry is in the 3-5 range.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:42:15


Post by: Jidmah


I would like to see the all of the current 40k rules writers to be replaced by other people. Preferably by a mix of AoS, KT, 30k and Armageddon authors.

Unless that happens, 10th will face the same issues as all the other editions they have written.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:46:03


Post by: Slipspace


The main thing I'd hope they do, which won't happen, is release all the Codices at once. It's going to suck having to wait through another cycle of releases, hoping your army isn't waiting until the very end.

More realistically, GW need to create a design document and stick to the principles within it. We shouldn't be seeing whole new paradigms in army or weapon design halfway through an edition because one writer thought it'd be cool. Things like, what damage an anti-tank weapon should do to vehicles, or what types of buff are available shouldn't radically change throughout an edition.

Bloat needs to be reduced. USRs are needed and strats need either completely removed or massively curtailed. Why do we have 40+ strats per army when only a handful get used? The layers upon layers of army, detachment and sub-faction buffs need seriously reining in. Lethality also needs to be reduced across the board. Switching away from IGOUGO could achieve this, but there are other solutions too, mainly around reversing the stat increases we've seen since the beginning of 8th.

I'd like to see a system that inherently limits buffs and debuffs in some way. Much like how modifiers to hit and wound don't stack beyond +/-1, I'd like a system that codifies and restricts buffs so we can stop units that normally hit on 4s and wound on 3s suddenly getting +1 to hit, reroll all hits, reroll 1s to wound and exploding 6s. Similarly, we can prevent units getting multiple debuffs. Basically, a unit's stats should matter much more than how many bonuses you can apply to them. The number of buffs, especially re-rolls, should probably be reduced anyway.

Reduce the number of dice being rolled. It's frankly ludicrous that we can need 40+ dice to resolve the hit rolls for a 10-man unit. Does a Punisher really need to roll 40 dice for its main gun? There are more elegant ways to represent these things. While we're at it, I'd like to see a removal of dual-profile close combat weapons. Things that do one big smash, or lots of smaller attacks, effectively just mean their unit doesn't have a weakness in close combat. That needs to stop.

Morale should matter more, and not just as a way to kill more models. Hardly anything should outright ignore morale.



Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:50:34


Post by: EviscerationPlague


AA needs to be implemented. It helps curb power creep significantly. Otherwise there's no point to a new edition except to take your money.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:52:43


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I would love to see AT/AI weapon profiles, where a AT round fired at a vehicle is the only way to damage it. Someweapons could be hybrid, like Plasma, but a Las Rifle shouldn't have the ability to wound Titans.

Remove Obsec entirely from the game, and just make all models count as 1 for holding objectives.

Remove Blast from the game, and make "blast" weapons auto-wound hordes (Anything with 5+ models+.

Remove Character Targeting rules. Just have "If you can see it you can shoot it. No more 12" Dreads hiding behind bodyguard units.

Remove "Fly" keyword, and just make them all aircraft
- Make all aircraft unable to hold objectives or capture points. Make Aircraft unable to be in melee with non-aircraft.

Remove Grenades.
Remove Assassins.
Remove Custodes/SoS.
Remove Inquisitors.

Make Inquisitors, Custodes, SoS, and Assassins a seperate dex.

Remove Strats.

Make the Guard able to freely soup with any other imperial faction.

Remove Before game strats.

Remove painting rule.

Remove Rule of 3.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 15:54:39


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jidmah wrote:
I would like to see the all of the current 40k rules writers to be replaced by other people. Preferably by a mix of AoS, KT, 30k and Armageddon authors.

Unless that happens, 10th will face the same issues as all the other editions they have written.


Honestly they need to hire designers from outside of GW. There are tonnes of great designers but GW insists in staying in house. Eric Lang for example (regardless of if you like his style or not) especially is great at designing streamlined games with low rules overhead which is exactly what GW wants from 40k AND he has experience designing wargames (he designed CMONs A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game). Even if they just brought him in as a consultant he'd do wonders for the game, but GW insists on promoting people from within the company to these positions and they rarely are much better at designing games than the people on Dakka.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 16:03:09


Post by: Heafstaag


Bring back USRS and redo missions. Some people like these, but make more interesting and flavorful ones.

Also get rid of secondaries. They are lame.

Bring in a modified 7th edition fantasy victory condition in as a game type.

Basically you just count how many points of stuff you killed and go there. Have holding objectives or something give you extra. It would be glorious.

Oh, and stop removing the magic of the dice. Bring back d3, d6 damage weapons. Those are fun. It would cut back on lethality quite a bit.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 16:05:29


Post by: Insularum


General stuff:
1. No strats (or at least most strats being standardised into either core rules or a generic card deck for single use like 2nd ed strategy card deck).
2. USR's linked to keywords/keywords on weapon profiles.
3. Keep IGOUGO (as AA on 40k scale would involve a lot of book keeping), but with more strategic choices like interruption mechanics.
4. Codify how allies should actually work. A general allied detachment that you can take one of travelling players style with a limit on spamming same datasheets would be fine.
5. Review rules with at least a nod to suspension of disbelief. For example melee superheavies only having a 1" range on weapons the size of a house is a bit silly (they should have a ranged profile so as to not break engagement range restrictions).


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 16:14:35


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I forgot one!

Go to a d12 system, or just 2d6. d6 is killing the game.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 16:31:30


Post by: morganfreeman


Create a document which lays out design goals / code of conduct / standards for measuring power. Then fething use it. The intent being to keep all codex's throughout the edition similar in power and design ideaology, so we don't end up with Tyranid / D-eldar / Mechanicus / Harlies level codex' existing alongside those at Ork / Crons / D-guard.

Massively reduce lethality across the board.

Rework moral. Moral should be trigger by more than just taking losses, such as being shot without interceding cover or particularly dangerous / suppressing weapons. It should also not result in casualties but rather result in retreating, pinning, and more commonly reducing characteristics (shot in the open but don't take losses? Take a moral check, receiving a -1 BS modifier if you fail, but also a +1 to movement if you move towards the nearest cover). 30k is a step in the right direction in this regard, with ample pinning and the Shell Shock rule, but it's not enough.

Rework the armor system. 30k again has a better idea of this, with massively reducing the number of 'high penetration' weapons but also introducing effects such as breaching / scaling rending. Combining the two would be ideal; AP 4 is only heavy weapons and AP 3 / 2 is extremely rare, but a suitable number of weapons have breaching / rending / a rule to reduce armor saves by -1 or more.

Get rid of stratagems, rework them into command abilities & reactions.

Fix the melee vs shooting divide. Making shooting more effective at controlling your enemy (via the mentioned moral, suppression, ect) but significantly less lethal, where as melee is a "win or lose" state which results in higher casualties.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 16:36:38


Post by: Amishprn86


Relics
-Make them cost points again

Bring back more USR
-We need a handful USR, we already have them just make it centralized now, 10-15 is way enough
-Units needs a USR set too (Infantry, Beasts, Bike, Flyer, Fly, Monster, Vehicle, Walker, Tank, Titan, Knight) these can be used to help balance the game better for terrain, fallbacks, shooting in combat, etc...
-Add Horde/Large unit/Swarm etc..., as a Keyword for Blast to work against (Something like, If an attack hits, if a unit is larger than starting size add 1 auto hit, if double starting size add 2 to auto hits) Note this is an example of ideas

Terrain changes
-Old obscuring (aka can only kill what you see outside of ignore LoS/Cover)
-Better save mechanics to make it useful for all units and not just 2-4+ saves (aka 5+/6+/7+ saves)

Moral Overhaul
-I completely hate lose more version we have
-Some type of check still
-Way less immunity to moral
-Pinning, go to ground, force fallbacks, etc.. something that changes the game state and makes you want to go for these checks

Damage in game
-Damage is too high, too much ap, too many re-rolls, its why we have all these save stacking, ignore ap, can only take X damage per phase rules all over now
-Less dice over all please, why do I need 35 dice for a 5 man making attacks?

Stratagems
-Remove from game
-CP is only for Reactions, so its pseudo AA

Flyers/Airborne
-Make them Fast Skimmers not actual flyers


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 16:39:39


Post by: EviscerationPlague


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I forgot one!

Go to a d12 system, or just 2d6. d6 is killing the game.

2d6 is too long to roll out and has weirder averages


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 16:47:55


Post by: Voss


 morganfreeman wrote:
Create a document which lays out design goals / code of conduct / standards for measuring power. Then fething use it. The intent being to keep all codex's throughout the edition similar in power and design ideaology, so we don't end up with Tyranid / D-eldar / Mechanicus / Harlies level codex' existing alongside those at Ork / Crons / D-guard.

Massively reduce lethality across the board.

Rework moral. Moral should be trigger by more than just taking losses, such as being shot without interceding cover or particularly dangerous / suppressing weapons. It should also not result in casualties but rather result in retreating, pinning, and more commonly reducing characteristics (shot in the open but don't take losses? Take a moral check, receiving a -1 BS modifier if you fail, but also a +1 to movement if you move towards the nearest cover). 30k is a step in the right direction in this regard, with ample pinning and the Shell Shock rule, but it's not enough.

Rework the armor system. 30k again has a better idea of this, with massively reducing the number of 'high penetration' weapons but also introducing effects such as breaching / scaling rending. Combining the two would be ideal; AP 4 is only heavy weapons and AP 3 / 2 is extremely rare, but a suitable number of weapons have breaching / rending / a rule to reduce armor saves by -1 or more.

Get rid of stratagems, rework them into command abilities & reactions.

Fix the melee vs shooting divide. Making shooting more effective at controlling your enemy (via the mentioned moral, suppression, ect) but significantly less lethal, where as melee is a "win or lose" state which results in higher casualties.


I agree with basically all of this. But especially the first one- a design document is mandatory and so basic to any sort of process.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:01:30


Post by: VladimirHerzog


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Remove Obsec entirely from the game, and just make all models count as 1 for holding objectives.


lol, and make most troops effectively useless
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Remove Character Targeting rules. Just have "If you can see it you can shoot it. No more 12" Dreads hiding behind bodyguard units.

Just make Characters part of squads again
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Remove "Fly" keyword, and just make them all aircraft
- Make all aircraft unable to hold objectives or capture points. Make Aircraft unable to be in melee with non-aircraft.

Damn, my raptors are now aircrafts? I guess NL needes the nerf




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insularum wrote:

3. Keep IGOUGO (as AA on 40k scale would involve a lot of book keeping), but with more strategic choices like interruption mechanics.


No it wouldn't. I don't know where people get that idea, do you magically forget which units you moves with during your turn?

And theres already other wargames that do AA with the same amount of units than 40k and its simply false that its too much book keeping.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:03:17


Post by: -Guardsman-


 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:04:18


Post by: Arbitrator


Alternating activations.

Vehicle facings.

Rest I'm too lazy to think up right now.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:05:25


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 morganfreeman wrote:
Create a document which lays out design goals / code of conduct / standards for measuring power. Then fething use it. The intent being to keep all codex's throughout the edition similar in power and design ideaology, so we don't end up with Tyranid / D-eldar / Mechanicus / Harlies level codex' existing alongside those at Ork / Crons / D-guard.


Yeah, design the codexes all at the same time too, if theyre gonna start a new edition, they might as well delay it a bit so that every army is on an equal footing. No more waiting 3+ years with an out of date gakky codex only to play it for a few months before we start the loop again (my demons are weeping)


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:05:46


Post by: SamusDrake


I'll be getting 10th edition anyway if it is true that Tyranids are going to be the focus, but something I'd like to see is the addition of solo-coop play. Not necessarily in the big rule book itself, but as a one-off companion book for those of us who'd like to give that a try.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:06:24


Post by: Sim-Life


-Guardsman- wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?


They can be better represented through encouraging thematic list building rather than blanket army-wide rules.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:08:25


Post by: Voss


-Guardsman- wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?


I could see it. Removing subfactions strips out a lot of the bloat. Its really arguable if various flavors of X (space marines, guard regiments, hive fleets, whatever) really need to be differentiated at that level. Its like playing a superhero RPG where you get a basic power set but then additional, separate power sets for being a 'chosen one.' Is it really adding anything? Isn't being superhuman enough already?

Especially the way warhammer does it based on color-coding.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:09:09


Post by: VladimirHerzog


-Guardsman- wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?


probably because right now they give too many things for free and are unbalanced.

IMO subfactions could stay but i'd have them give you something very simple, like a USR only and apply a tax on your units depending on what the buff is. No more list of warlord trait / relics/ strats (pls delete those). Then players would have a slight buff to their units that hopefully would encourage taking certain units that fit with the legion

For example :
White scars : Advance and charge (Fleet USR?) (+5pts per model)
Night Lords : -1 Morale aura (Fearsome USR?) (+1pts per model)

obviously those arent the exact things, i'm just giving an example of how to value traits


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:38:17


Post by: Amishprn86


As a DE player, I hate Subfactions now.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:55:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a DE player, I hate Subfactions now.


what subfactions? Do you not just cherry pick whatever buffs you want for your units ?

(feth i hate how bland the drukhari dex is)


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 17:58:33


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?


probably because right now they give too many things for free and are unbalanced.

IMO subfactions could stay but i'd have them give you something very simple, like a USR only and apply a tax on your units depending on what the buff is. No more list of warlord trait / relics/ strats (pls delete those). Then players would have a slight buff to their units that hopefully would encourage taking certain units that fit with the legion

For example :
White scars : Advance and charge (Fleet USR?) (+5pts per model)
Night Lords : -1 Morale aura (Fearsome USR?) (+1pts per model)

obviously those arent the exact things, i'm just giving an example of how to value traits

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 18:08:28


Post by: VladimirHerzog


EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.


If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 18:08:34


Post by: Sim-Life


Actually add warlord traits to the things I'd get rid of. Relics can stay but only if they go back to a "build your own hero" style where you can mix and match and they cost points.

Edit: Just give me a weird mix of 5th Ed, 8th Ed and WHFB 8th Ed and I'm good.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 18:14:47


Post by: Eldarsif


The changes I can kind of expect to see(if a hard reset is in the work) are things I kind of want to see:

* Reduction of stratagems considerably. I imagine going to something like Death Guard had in 8th, if not less.
* Add universal reaction commands. They are super nice in AoS 3.0 and I've heard good things about the Horus Heresy version.
* I imagine GW might put 40k into a universal point system like AoS 3.0 has. That means all upgrades are tied into the cost of a unit which means every weapon and upgrade has to be addressed so as not to create obvious superior weapon choice. If a hard reset holds true I imagine this would be the main reason why it would happen as it is the only way to scale weapons to fit that type of system.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 18:33:41


Post by: Amishprn86


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a DE player, I hate Subfactions now.


what subfactions? Do you not just cherry pick whatever buffs you want for your units ?

(feth i hate how bland the drukhari dex is)


Its that GW wants Kabals to be their own, Coven to be their own, and Wych to be their own. Then you have to make hoops to jump through just for DE to list build. If I want some Kabal with a splash of coven i have to ether 1) Lose obsessions on the Coven or 2) Take another Patrol (it is free CP at least), so in order to splash you need a troop and HQ even if all you wanted was a Heavy.

The army doesn't feel like an army at all, it feels like Im gaming the system to get the best units out of 3 mini armies. Half the time the Obsession doesn't even matter (see wych units splashing into Coven bc who cares about their obsession they dont do enough) so If i am losing them anyways why even both with all these loop holes and jank?

Did you know DE can have 2 versions of their Masters bc of that? Yeah I can take a Subfaction with a Master Haemonculus, take another detachment, say a Wych one, add in Urien R, now I can have 2 special units called Haemoxytes and 2 master, but wait, that coven detachmen can have Lelith, so now I can have 2 Bloodbrides and 2 Master Succubi! See what I mean about jank....

I miss the days of just taking what I want and not picking 3 patrols and fiddling with all this crap, if I wanted RsR then i lose out on a lot of other things so I dont want that either.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 18:47:42


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.


If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.

They don't NEED to be super imbalanced though. You know why Night Lord morale shenanigans suck? Because morale doesn't matter, and people have been wanting it to matter.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 18:54:19


Post by: VladimirHerzog


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.


If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.

They don't NEED to be super imbalanced though. You know why Night Lord morale shenanigans suck? Because morale doesn't matter, and people have been wanting it to matter.



I know they don't need to be imbalanced, still, the easiest way to balance them is for them to not be free.

If a trait is too strong, make it cost more.

The other solution would be to give a mix of abilities that together would have a relatively close powerlevel, which is more complicated and GW would surely feth up.

Either subfactions traits are removed (in favor of players bringing fluffy army composition)
Or theyre simplified and taxed.

And i picked two existing trait with obvious power discrepancies to demonstrate my point. (Night lords trait should refund pts in the current game tbh).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:

Spoiler:

Its that GW wants Kabals to be their own, Coven to be their own, and Wych to be their own. Then you have to make hoops to jump through just for DE to list build. If I want some Kabal with a splash of coven i have to ether 1) Lose obsessions on the Coven or 2) Take another Patrol (it is free CP at least), so in order to splash you need a troop and HQ even if all you wanted was a Heavy.

The army doesn't feel like an army at all, it feels like Im gaming the system to get the best units out of 3 mini armies. Half the time the Obsession doesn't even matter (see wych units splashing into Coven bc who cares about their obsession they dont do enough) so If i am losing them anyways why even both with all these loop holes and jank?

Did you know DE can have 2 versions of their Masters bc of that? Yeah I can take a Subfaction with a Master Haemonculus, take another detachment, say a Wych one, add in Urien R, now I can have 2 special units called Haemoxytes and 2 master, but wait, that coven detachmen can have Lelith, so now I can have 2 Bloodbrides and 2 Master Succubi! See what I mean about jank....

I miss the days of just taking what I want and not picking 3 patrols and fiddling with all this crap, if I wanted RsR then i lose out on a lot of other things so I dont want that either.


yeah i know, i've stopped playing them completely this edition, thats what i mean by boring, theres barely any flavor in there and it feels GW decided that breaking all the list building rules was a better solution than making the army interesting


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:05:27


Post by: Wayniac


Ditch stratagems/secondaries. Maybe keep a small subset but not bloating codexes with them. Ditch TLOS which is and always has been awful.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:10:11


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Sim-Life wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?


They can be better represented through encouraging thematic list building rather than blanket army-wide rules.

I might change my mind once I actually saw it, but I think what I'd like to see is this: Don't have "subfaction" benefits. Have "army themes" that are subfaction agnostic. And then have the benefits of themes be horizontal changes to the way the army plays rather than vertical buffs. So instead of having rules for "White Scars," you have rules for "mounted companies" or whatever. And instead of giving them pure benefits, you let them trade-out the default marine special rules for alternative ones and/or give them access to a submechanic that has built-in trade-offs.

So using the "mounted company" example, maybe you gain the option to field bikes as troops and can charge after falling back, but you lose bolter discipline and shock assault. Maybe you gain a "velocity" submechanic that makes units moving fast enough hit harder on the charge or makes them harder to hit, but you can only rotate up to 90* before moving forward (like a flyer) when traveling at speed. Not a perfect pitch, but the idea is that:
A.) Every subfaction can potentially benefit from the army theme. Subfaction becomes just a paint scheme and lore again.
B.) The benefits should only be about as powerful as what you give up. Maybe a bike-heavy army is better off using the mounted company rules than not, but a mounted company army shouldn't be significantly stronger than a vanilla army.
C.) The main point of the themes should be to give you meaningfully different ways to play your army that evoke your army's fluff. The guy using a mounted company will be thinking about where he wants to move a turn in advance and picking out targets that are a bit farther away so he can get his benefits for traveling at speed. Which should feel very different from the sneaky marine army that uses GSC blips and has to figure out how to get the most out of his his ambush mechanics, which should feel very different from glory seeker army that wants to take out the enemy's characters and most expensive units to gain "glory buffs". My hope is that, by making these armies play so differently and reducing the vertical benefits they provide, you avoid having one or two defacto "best" benefits that always get taken while all the others are ignored. Where chapter tactics are an optimization puzzle, army themes should be a matter of what playstyle you want to enjoy that day.

-------------------
My 10th edition wishlist:

1. Get rid of (or at least overhaul) stratagems. Replace them with something like AoS orders.
2. Warlord traits and wargear strats go back to just being wargear you purchase with points. Relics also become wargear you purchase with points, possibly with a "1 per army" restriction.
3. Overhaul mission design to be less book-keepy. Tracking secondaries is probably the number one thing that has me a little burned out on 40k right now.
4. Get rid of doctrines and their equivalents. There are some cool ideas in there that I'd like to keep (see above about army themes), but their current incarnation just creates too much book keeping and too many stackable vertical buffs.
5. More emphasis on movement and positioning. Make rules like the GSC book's crossfire a core part of the game.
6. I'd kind of like to see Weapon Skill return to an opposed value comparison. I know it's less newbie friendly, but it did a lot to make more skilled units feel like they had an edge over less skillful ones. As-is, the lack of skill comparison kind of makes it feel like you're just slinging damage-optimized haymakers at each other.
7. I like the idea of introducing an Evasion stat that Ballistics Skill gets compared against. Orkz, humans, and marines would probably all have the same Evasion. Eldar would probably be a bit higher. Especially bulky and cumbersome units would be a bit lower. This could also potentially replace a lot of the to-hit modifier rules floating around and let them stack in a way that doesn't result in eldar having -2 to hit on everything.
8. Hot take: get rid of psychic tests. You can make psychic powers less impressive if you need to, but it's pretty unfluffy for most psykers in the game to just randomly fail to make magic happen. How often do you read about librarians or warlocks raising their hands and then looking surprised when no lightning shoots out? Also, go back to charging points for psychic powers so that we don't have to make all psychic powers equally potent.
9. Keep Crusade in some fashion. Expand on it even. Give me rules to tell different kinds of campaign stories. Maybe my drukhari aren't expanding their empire; maybe they're trying to keep it from falling apart. Maybe I can only use certain units while I control certain types of territory. Etc.

Long Shots:
1. Alternating Activation really seems like it ought to be a thing. It's just tricky to make work in 40k without somehow forcing armies to have comparable numbers of units.
2. Find a way to make knights not automatically be skew lists. It's not much fun knowing your small arms fire is going to be basically useless because of the faction your opponent chose. Honestly, knights are really cool, but they are just such an awkward game design duck.
3. No more of this nonsense of selling subfaction-specific books (the chapter-specific marine splats), and certainly no more spreading that nonsense to other factions.
4. In fact, you really ought to make your rules cheaper and more accessible in general, GW. Drivethrurpg gives me soooo much more content per dollar.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:12:52


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.


If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.

They don't NEED to be super imbalanced though. You know why Night Lord morale shenanigans suck? Because morale doesn't matter, and people have been wanting it to matter.



I know they don't need to be imbalanced, still, the easiest way to balance them is for them to not be free.

If a trait is too strong, make it cost more.

The other solution would be to give a mix of abilities that together would have a relatively close powerlevel, which is more complicated and GW would surely feth up.

Either subfactions traits are removed (in favor of players bringing fluffy army composition)
Or theyre simplified and taxed.

And i picked two existing trait with obvious power discrepancies to demonstrate my point. (Night lords trait should refund pts in the current game tbh).

Very few people would argue there have been more traits that are too strong compared to just bad traits in general. I mean, look at CSM in 8th. Word Bearers weren't going to be played even if the trait was free compared to everyone else LOL

While they're not a slam dunk each time, I'm giving GW credit this one time for better internal balance on terms of the Faction rules. I can see cases of use for each SM founding Chapters and CSM Legions.
Units is a whole other story of course.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:25:01


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


1) Cut the rules bloat. Subfactions are gone. Stratagems are gone. WLTs are gone or incorporated into character rules. Relics are gone or incorporated into unit rules. And USRs are back. We don't need a million different versions of "deep strike" or "this unit can re-roll 1s".

2) IGOUGO is replaced by a modern alternating activation system. IGOUGO can GDIAF and will not be missed.

3) Improve the depth of the core rules. Morale should matter, facing should matter, suppressing fire should matter, etc. With the codex bloat cleared away there will be more room to make the core mechanics interesting and less need for an awkward pseudo-CCG to add the illusion of depth as a replacement.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:27:49


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
1) Cut the rules bloat. Subfactions are gone. Stratagems are gone. WLTs are gone or incorporated into character rules. Relics are gone or incorporated into unit rules. And USRs are back. We don't need a million different versions of "deep strike" or "this unit can re-roll 1s".

2) IGOUGO is replaced by a modern alternating activation system. IGOUGO can GDIAF and will not be missed.

3) Improve the depth of the core rules. Morale should matter, facing should matter, suppressing fire should matter, etc. With the codex bloat cleared away there will be more room to make the core mechanics interesting and less need for an awkward pseudo-CCG to add the illusion of depth as a replacement.


I actually 100% agree with you on that one, feels strange considering the recent days lol


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:32:56


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


I'd be fine with either alternating activations or an Action/Reaction system. I honestly just don't want to spend an hour between doing things.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:34:48


Post by: Stevefamine


Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:36:55


Post by: Amishprn86


 Stevefamine wrote:
Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges


No Premeasuring is terrible lol.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 19:52:42


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Stevefamine wrote:
Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges


No Premeasuring is terrible lol.


yeah, some people just have no depth perception and i feel that not allowing premeasuring actually slows down the game because people try and mentally evaluate if they are within range or not instead of taking 2 seconds to measure it


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 20:07:45


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


 Stevefamine wrote:
No premeasuring


No. Banning measuring only leads to a whole bunch of cheating and "accidentally" waving tape measures in the place you want to measure. Let's not go back to that stupidity.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 20:15:00


Post by: Stevefamine


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
 Stevefamine wrote:
No premeasuring


No. Banning measuring only leads to a whole bunch of cheating and "accidentally" waving tape measures in the place you want to measure. Let's not go back to that stupidity.



Ahh I forgot about Warmachine and the old WHFB Cannons and Guess

Makes sense, I'll replace that idea with flamer templates being added


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 20:41:41


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Stevefamine wrote:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
 Stevefamine wrote:
No premeasuring


No. Banning measuring only leads to a whole bunch of cheating and "accidentally" waving tape measures in the place you want to measure. Let's not go back to that stupidity.



Ahh I forgot about Warmachine and the old WHFB Cannons and Guess

Makes sense, I'll replace that idea with flamer templates being added

Flamer templates mostly just punish melee armies (especially hordes) for trying to get models into engagement range.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 21:12:49


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models? The Baal PRed and the Furioso Dread come to mind. Or do we not count chaos factions as "sub factions"? Like, do we get rid of the Chaos factions like Death Guard or Grey Knights? Or are those stand alone?
Removing sub factions sounds good shouted, but then we have to pick and choose what gets the Legends treatment.

It's like saying, PRIMARIS IS HERE, DEAL WITH IT, NO MORE OLD MARINES.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 21:15:11


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models?


They can either be standard equipment or they can be aesthetic alternatives for standard units. Or, in the case of the awful marine flyers, they can be removed from the game.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 21:25:53


Post by: VladimirHerzog


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models? The Baal PRed and the Furioso Dread come to mind. Or do we not count chaos factions as "sub factions"? Like, do we get rid of the Chaos factions like Death Guard or Grey Knights? Or are those stand alone?
Removing sub factions sounds good shouted, but then we have to pick and choose what gets the Legends treatment.

It's like saying, PRIMARIS IS HERE, DEAL WITH IT, NO MORE OLD MARINES.


i assume people mean the factions that don't have their own codexes

so Blood Angels / Deathguard & co would be still there


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 21:29:17


Post by: Wyldhunt


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models? The Baal PRed and the Furioso Dread come to mind. Or do we not count chaos factions as "sub factions"? Like, do we get rid of the Chaos factions like Death Guard or Grey Knights? Or are those stand alone?
Removing sub factions sounds good shouted, but then we have to pick and choose what gets the Legends treatment.

It's like saying, PRIMARIS IS HERE, DEAL WITH IT, NO MORE OLD MARINES.

I was picturing us getting rid of the subfaction keywords and basically going back to the pre-keyword method of army creation. So White Scars and Ultramarines would functionally be the same faction, and you could have the Khan hanging out with Marneus Calgar. But anything with its own book would still exist and be supported. So Thousand Sons would still exist, but maybe we get rid of the Deception/Magic/Time/etc. cults; or at least don't treat them as mechanically distinct from each other.

That said, I'm not opposed to rolling most of the marines together into a handful of books, but that's a can of worms and not the case I'm making in this thread.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 21:38:28


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models?


They can either be standard equipment or they can be aesthetic alternatives for standard units. Or, in the case of the awful marine flyers, they can be removed from the game.

Exactly, as some equipment should be standard. You don't think it's silly Iron Hands of all Chapters can't make a Predator with a TL Assault Cannon?


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 21:46:56


Post by: Vatsetis


I HOPE that in 10th 40k is refined to its core, therefore there will only be two Codex... CODEX Space Marines (AKA every colour in the rainbow gives you a snowflake rule) and CODEX NPC faction (which even doe it joins 15 or so previous codexes has much less datasheets than the Astartes one).


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 22:02:39


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


All I want, is at least 25 types of Bolter. Thats all!!


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 23:05:28


Post by: PenitentJake


The Big Book of Bolters!


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 23:07:02


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


That would certainly lay to rest any illusion that 40k is a functioning game instead of the deranged ramblings of an InfoWars poster.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/02 23:39:30


Post by: ERJAK


Tiberias wrote:
I'd like 10th to be more like the new Heresy edition...not exactly like it, but a lot more like it. Bring back initiative, WS comparison, remove all the stratagems and do something like the new Heresy reactions for example.

And they need to tone down the lethality of the game, it's completely gotten out of hand.


Initiative is the single worst mechanic in warhammer. It turns CQC into Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet.

You might as well just remove CQC entirely at that point. Give each squad a 'battle number' and when two squads fight, whoever's battle number is highest wins and the other unit dies.

It's exactly how melee works in Initiative systems, just without the wasting 5 minutes rolling unnecessary dice for a foregone conclusion.

Also, Horus Heresy's reaction mechanic is just a knock-off of Sigmar's Command point system. If you're going to copy systems from other games, copy the good ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stevefamine wrote:
Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges


You can't get a system that doesn't have premeasuring. You can get a system that doesn't ALLOW premeasuring, but you can't get one that doesn't have it.

All denying premeasuring does is encourage people to cheat or to get really really good at comparing the length of their hands to the length of a gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models? The Baal PRed and the Furioso Dread come to mind. Or do we not count chaos factions as "sub factions"? Like, do we get rid of the Chaos factions like Death Guard or Grey Knights? Or are those stand alone?
Removing sub factions sounds good shouted, but then we have to pick and choose what gets the Legends treatment.

It's like saying, PRIMARIS IS HERE, DEAL WITH IT, NO MORE OLD MARINES.


i assume people mean the factions that don't have their own codexes

so Blood Angels / Deathguard & co would be still there


That's MY change to the edition:

No special snowflake space marines.

One Codex for all marines, the only difference between a Blood Angel and an Ultramarine is the paint scheme. Any chapter specific unit that can't be equipped to match a generic profile is moved to Legends.

If you want to talk about where edition bloat REALLY comes from, it comes from marine books.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 00:11:59


Post by: Purifying Tempest


I'd like the return to armor and armor pen, though definitely spruced up for modern readers (those who only read at a glance...). The old version of it reminded me of THAC0. Of course that'd mean cover has to provide a unique save again (heck, even make it either an armor boost or unique save chosen at the time it is taken)... because otherwise ork players will be even louder about GW wanting to delete them (guard too).

I think I like AV coming back for vehicles, as well as a less generous wound table overall. Not sure how I feel about facings though... some people got real gamey and cereal when facings came up (both shooting and being shot). As for wounding though... I believe you need to go to 6s to wound sooner than half STR, and some things should just be invulnerable to smaller caliber rounds. Be it by keyword (VEHICLE or having an AV) or a function of STR vs T.

I miss pie plate templates but not flamer ones. Sorry, the flamer template didn't allow for variances between different flamers. Not totally for this change, though, because templates were also abused and gamey by those guys which just led to table friction.

I think there needs to be a game-wide reduction in volume so that "more dakka" doesn't become the one size solution to all problems. Make weapons do what they're supposed to do by perhaps working better against specific keywords (like guard lasguns getting +1 to wound INFANTRY or something, for example).

While I think alternate activations is a bit of a problem to implement and will likely come with sprinkling markers all over the table, perhaps a middle ground could be found by activating by detachment (poor Drukhari - but remember, organization isn't really your thing). It'd be easier to understand without over reliance on tokens, which I think can quickly down out the spectacle of the board. Didn't 8th edition Apocalypse do this?

Divorce force altering stratagems for CP. WLTs and Relics and stratagems that pass out this candy or upgrade units needs to be handled with points. "Command" points feel like they should cover in-the-moment decisions made by a leader to affect the outcome of the battle, not bring more bling. I think the same can be said about the heroic deed ones- make them one shot abilities that can be purchased as an upgrade.

In the spirit of the above changes, reduce CP greatly. I think I like Nephalims approach, but maybe starting with something like 1, 2, or 3 depending on game size and then getting a pittance per turn would allow stratagems being used to feel a bit more heroic, could even reward timely play of them more than just "use X every turn!" type play. Could even limit stratagems and then just let CP basically be slots where you can place stratagems... but once used, they're burnt for the game. That may prevent the over-reliance on an overperforming strat while keeping literally everything else in your back pocket.

I don't agree with removing subfactions as it debilitates all of the wrong factions more than it cleans up space marine bloat. Just clean up space marines and stop making the rest of the game pay for their sins.

Do get rid of custom traits. They were a cool idea, but introduced more in the way of abuse than I think was intended. I think with 6ish subfactions per book, a "counts as" approach is a nice comprise.

Continue crusade. Expand it. Get people back to the game's roots of being something closer to D&D with miniatures instead of some real life RTS simulator or MOBA.

I could go on for awhile, but I think I've reached my posting limit for the day


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 00:21:17


Post by: Just_Breathe


Stratagems should be traded for more elaborate point upgrade choices. Instead of paying however many command points for transhuman physiology equivalents and etc., have them be a thing you can buy during the list building stage.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 00:23:48


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Purifying Tempest wrote:
I'd like the return to armor and armor pen, though definitely spruced up for modern readers (those who only read at a glance...). The old version of it reminded me of THAC0. Of course that'd mean cover has to provide a unique save again (heck, even make it either an armor boost or unique save chosen at the time it is taken)... because otherwise ork players will be even louder about GW wanting to delete them (guard too).

I think I like AV coming back for vehicles, as well as a less generous wound table overall. Not sure how I feel about facings though... some people got real gamey and cereal when facings came up (both shooting and being shot). As for wounding though... I believe you need to go to 6s to wound sooner than half STR, and some things should just be invulnerable to smaller caliber rounds. Be it by keyword (VEHICLE or having an AV) or a function of STR vs T.

I miss pie plate templates but not flamer ones. Sorry, the flamer template didn't allow for variances between different flamers. Not totally for this change, though, because templates were also abused and gamey by those guys which just led to table friction.

I think there needs to be a game-wide reduction in volume so that "more dakka" doesn't become the one size solution to all problems. Make weapons do what they're supposed to do by perhaps working better against specific keywords (like guard lasguns getting +1 to wound INFANTRY or something, for example).

While I think alternate activations is a bit of a problem to implement and will likely come with sprinkling markers all over the table, perhaps a middle ground could be found by activating by detachment (poor Drukhari - but remember, organization isn't really your thing). It'd be easier to understand without over reliance on tokens, which I think can quickly down out the spectacle of the board. Didn't 8th edition Apocalypse do this?

Divorce force altering stratagems for CP. WLTs and Relics and stratagems that pass out this candy or upgrade units needs to be handled with points. "Command" points feel like they should cover in-the-moment decisions made by a leader to affect the outcome of the battle, not bring more bling. I think the same can be said about the heroic deed ones- make them one shot abilities that can be purchased as an upgrade.

In the spirit of the above changes, reduce CP greatly. I think I like Nephalims approach, but maybe starting with something like 1, 2, or 3 depending on game size and then getting a pittance per turn would allow stratagems being used to feel a bit more heroic, could even reward timely play of them more than just "use X every turn!" type play. Could even limit stratagems and then just let CP basically be slots where you can place stratagems... but once used, they're burnt for the game. That may prevent the over-reliance on an overperforming strat while keeping literally everything else in your back pocket.

I don't agree with removing subfactions as it debilitates all of the wrong factions more than it cleans up space marine bloat. Just clean up space marines and stop making the rest of the game pay for their sins.

Do get rid of custom traits. They were a cool idea, but introduced more in the way of abuse than I think was intended. I think with 6ish subfactions per book, a "counts as" approach is a nice comprise.

Continue crusade. Expand it. Get people back to the game's roots of being something closer to D&D with miniatures instead of some real life RTS simulator or MOBA.

I could go on for awhile, but I think I've reached my posting limit for the day


You just brought THAC0 into a thread where most people were learning to tie their shoes during THAC0. And thank god that math nerd of a mechanic was taken out back and old yellered.

I do agree on making "armor" saves relevant again, and removing the rediculousness that is Saves creep. We now have rules that avoid the rules to avoid the rules about what saves get made. Just make one save. That's it.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 01:03:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


Voss wrote:
 morganfreeman wrote:
Create a document which lays out design goals / code of conduct / standards for measuring power. Then fething use it. The intent being to keep all codex's throughout the edition similar in power and design ideaology, so we don't end up with Tyranid / D-eldar / Mechanicus / Harlies level codex' existing alongside those at Ork / Crons / D-guard.

Massively reduce lethality across the board.

Rework moral. Moral should be trigger by more than just taking losses, such as being shot without interceding cover or particularly dangerous / suppressing weapons. It should also not result in casualties but rather result in retreating, pinning, and more commonly reducing characteristics (shot in the open but don't take losses? Take a moral check, receiving a -1 BS modifier if you fail, but also a +1 to movement if you move towards the nearest cover). 30k is a step in the right direction in this regard, with ample pinning and the Shell Shock rule, but it's not enough.

Rework the armor system. 30k again has a better idea of this, with massively reducing the number of 'high penetration' weapons but also introducing effects such as breaching / scaling rending. Combining the two would be ideal; AP 4 is only heavy weapons and AP 3 / 2 is extremely rare, but a suitable number of weapons have breaching / rending / a rule to reduce armor saves by -1 or more.

Get rid of stratagems, rework them into command abilities & reactions.

Fix the melee vs shooting divide. Making shooting more effective at controlling your enemy (via the mentioned moral, suppression, ect) but significantly less lethal, where as melee is a "win or lose" state which results in higher casualties.


I agree with basically all of this. But especially the first one- a design document is mandatory and so basic to any sort of process.

Thirded. And just like Voss, especially the first one. Make a plan, stick to it. No more of this "making it up as they go along" and one-upmanship stuff.

As for my preference: just take the HH 2.0 rules and add all of the 40k factions/units. And keep the Night Lords rules the same as they are in HH.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 02:59:38


Post by: Sledgehammer


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
remove strats
bring back USRs
make the game alternating activations
lower lethality

thats my big 4
this.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 04:30:03


Post by: kurhanik


Off the top of my head:

1) Alternating Activation

2) Better Line of Sight and Terrain Rules - true line of sight is awful and I prefer more abstract terrain rules. I think the last time 40k had this right was maybe 4th edition with area terrain rules and visibility through it

3) Less Lethality

4) Less Rules Bloat

5) Leadership mattering - and not just for the npc factions.

6) More Maneuver - make it harder to shoot across the entire board turn 1 or jet across the board for a turn 1/2 charge.

7) Make Transports Useful - I feel since 8th dropped that transports really got the short end of the stick - after 7th we've gotten smaller default boards, restrictions on what can leave transports, loss of fire points on most transports, etc.

8) Fewer Invulnerable Saves

9) Fewer "Rules that Ignore X Rule" - ie: this gun ignores invulnerable saves! This unit is so tough they ignore rules that ignore invulnerable saves!

10) Universal Special Rules - we can still have unique rules for certain units, but most things should simply be covered with a handful of USRs.

11) d10s or d12s - just to allow for some more design space so that the rules writers don't have to differentiate units as much with special rules.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 06:24:01


Post by: vict0988


Remove Core, AoC, HotE, Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines, faction-Stratagems, faction-secondaries and faction WL traits. Expand universal Stratagems and make selecting which ones you take into battle part of list building. Expand universal WL traits. Rework Relics to never just be +1 dagger as a replacement for the thematic rules Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines currently provide. Remove the current armies of renown, none of them need to exist.

Rename abilities to universal names. Reduce lethality by going back to 8th edition profiles or some kind of middle ground and remove stacking offensive HQ buffs, making a unit 20% harder to kill, 20% faster, 20% killier is fine but the multiplicative effect of several buffs is an unfixable balance problem.

 Eldarsif wrote:

* I imagine GW might put 40k into a universal point system like AoS 3.0 has. That means all upgrades are tied into the cost of a unit which means every weapon and upgrade has to be addressed so as not to create obvious superior weapon choice. If a hard reset holds true I imagine this would be the main reason why it would happen as it is the only way to scale weapons to fit that type of system.

https://me.me/i/disgust-1-nose-wrinkling-1-2-upper-lip-raised-me-irl-15358071

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
That would certainly lay to rest any illusion that 40k is a functioning game instead of the deranged ramblings of an InfoWars poster.

The Alex Jones reactions to Total War Warhammer factions on Youtube are great.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 06:30:54


Post by: Sim-Life


Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:

The Alex Jones reactions to Total War Warhammer factions on Youtube are great.


Sounds like something a goblin kisser would say.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 07:02:17


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 07:37:23


Post by: Vatsetis


Since BF has changed a lot its game mechanics in 4th edition, if 40K 10th edition basically adapted FOW 3rd edition rules it would veva dream come true!!!


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 07:52:47


Post by: Sim-Life


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.




Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 08:02:11


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Cutting the speed and range of everything down a bit would make tables a bit larger overall.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 08:03:19


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


 Sim-Life wrote:
Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.


Then add mechanics that make it matter: meaningful terrain effects, flanking, suppressing fire, etc. Or play with fewer models on a larger table. Cutting range limits down beyond any plausible fluff justification is not the answer.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 08:38:55


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Alternative activations
Fewer stratagems
lethality going down
More narrative mission support
No models no rules has to die, proper legends support and reintegration into the game
USRs
Improved morale mechanics
Streamlined terrain mechanics
A total overhaul of providing digital rules, it's baffling how they could make it even worse than "pay nearly the same price for that pdf that you'd pay for the actual book and no, you can't get a translated pdf".


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 09:52:06


Post by: tneva82


 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns..


Then you need to reduce movement values, charge ranges etc.

And preferably reduce size of models to have things make any sense.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 10:02:26


Post by: Slipspace


tneva82 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns..


Then you need to reduce movement values, charge ranges etc.

And preferably reduce size of models to have things make any sense.

Ranges already make no sense. They never have in 40k if you want something approaching "realistic" ranges.

I think 24" is probably too short a mx range, but you could help 40k a lot by reversing some of the range increases GW have given out in the 6-18" range band. Movement needs to be curtailed too, especially if they insist on keeping IGOUGO. A significant number of armies can trivially pull off first turn charges, which is a highly frustrating feature to have to paly around as the current turn structure makes it almost foolproof.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 10:07:03


Post by: wuestenfux


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
remove strats
bring back USRs
make the game alternating activations
lower lethality

thats my big 4

Would be fantastic.
Simplification of the game should also mean to make games shorter.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 11:02:21


Post by: usernamesareannoying


return of the original version of overwatch.
bring back AP.
no templates... they just drag things out... its touching, not its not... bleh
Bring back initiative... i don't think i agree with whoever goes first always wins.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 11:06:36


Post by: tneva82


Slipspace wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns..


Then you need to reduce movement values, charge ranges etc.

And preferably reduce size of models to have things make any sense.

Ranges already make no sense. They never have in 40k if you want something approaching "realistic" ranges.

I think 24" is probably too short a mx range, but you could help 40k a lot by reversing some of the range increases GW have given out in the 6-18" range band. Movement needs to be curtailed too, especially if they insist on keeping IGOUGO. A significant number of armies can trivially pull off first turn charges, which is a highly frustrating feature to have to paly around as the current turn structure makes it almost foolproof.


Yea but at least you shoot further than you can charge on foot with basic guys with no special rules...

12" would just make it even more silly.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 11:30:35


Post by: Siegfriedfr


Add a layer of player interaction, because alpha strike and turn 1 are boring. They always have been. Let the attacked be able to react.
- Alternate activation per PHASE (not per units)
- Reactive gameplay (see New Horus heresy)

Stratagems :
- Heavily cut back on stratagem bloat. Stratagems should be generic (no unit-specific stratagems), selected before the battle, and limited to X (few) per turn

Superpowers :
- Remove all sort of rerolls or "ignore rules" superpowers

Bring back USR :
- USR should simply be brought back, have the same name and wording in all codexes for the entirety of an edition. they can remain on unit datasheet for easier reference (altho i frankly don't get why people didn't like USR in the first place)

Trim down stats/rules bloat :
- Invulnerable saves should be a character/ HQ-only feature in ANY circumstances
- fire distance should be reduced gamewide to encourage movement tactics
- all sort of bolters should be damage 1 AP 0 as a base
- Remove ballistic skill and Hit rolls

Give vehicles different stats and profiles:
- vehicles should have parts that can be targetted, affecting their movement, firepower or efficiency (think Horizon Zero Dawn way or targetting different parts)




Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 12:39:09


Post by: VladimirHerzog


ERJAK wrote:


That's MY change to the edition:

No special snowflake space marines.

One Codex for all marines, the only difference between a Blood Angel and an Ultramarine is the paint scheme. Any chapter specific unit that can't be equipped to match a generic profile is moved to Legends.

If you want to talk about where edition bloat REALLY comes from, it comes from marine books.


whats your opinion on DeathGuard/ThousandSons/WorldEaters/Emperors children/Grey knights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


i disagree with you on that, i'd rather ranges matter, 30" on basic bolters is way too much, shooting from deployment to deployment should be rare IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:


Yea but at least you shoot further than you can charge on foot with basic guys with no special rules...

12" would just make it even more silly.


when i say reduce range, i include movement too.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 12:47:06


Post by: Lord Clinto


I know it will never happen but I would like to see GW switch to d10's or preferably d12's (d12's roll nicer than d10's), adjusting the BS/WS stat lines appropriately and then remove most rerolls from the game.

Much more granularity with a larger numbered die & it would reduce the homogenization of the d6

For Example, BS to hit:
11+ on 1d12 - "Overwatch" shots
9+ on 1d12 - Orks/"Frateris Militia"/standard humans
7+ on 1d12 - Guardsman/Termagants/Eldar Guardians/Gretchin
6+ on 1d12 - Battle Sisters/Fire Warriors/Necron Warriors/AdM Rangers/Cabalites <- would show that they have better training than their base race but not at the superhuman level of more elite troops
5+ on 1d12 - standard Space Marine/CSM Legionnaire/Necron Immortals/Knights
4+ on 1d12 - Custodes/Phoenix Lords

For Example, WS to hit:
9+ on 1d12 - Gretchin/standard humans
8+ on 1d12 - "Frateris Militia" (higher WS reflects their zealotry)
7+ on 1d12 - Guardsman/Termagants/Eldar Guardians/Fire Warriors
6+ on 1d12 - Necron Warriors & Immortals/Battle Sisters/AdM Rangers
5+ on 1d12 - Orks/standard Space Marine/CSM Legionnaire/Knights/Inncubi/Genestealers
4+ on 1d12 - Custodes/Phoenix Lords


"Heroes" would, situationally, have a BS/WS to hit 1 higher than their base troops: Space Marine Captain BS to hit: 4+ on 1d12

Only truly exceptional units (R.G./Abaddon/Drazhar/Bloodthirsters/Swarmlord/etc..) would have a 2+ to hit on 1d12


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 12:59:32


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 13:00:36


Post by: Amishprn86


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S


Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 13:06:42


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 Amishprn86 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S


Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.


Is your name a license plate style writing of "Amish Porn?

In any event, it would be hilarious if GW actually did something that gave VP to the Painted armies, but gave +1 to armor saves for unpainted "fades into the grey dawn"...or -1 to hit. In non-tournament games.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 13:18:53


Post by: Amishprn86


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S


Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.


Is your name a license plate style writing of "Amish Porn?

In any event, it would be hilarious if GW actually did something that gave VP to the Painted armies, but gave +1 to armor saves for unpainted "fades into the grey dawn"...or -1 to hit. In non-tournament games.


Growing up near Amish, we had Amish signs to watch out for them and saw them all the time (Grandparents had a small farm out in no where, nothing too big enough food for a few families). So it just stuck with me, the Number is random, the Prn is a joke.... if you can guess it


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 13:22:40


Post by: Vatsetis


 Amishprn86 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S


Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.


Un painted minis cannot use strats or reroll any die would be a needed adittion to 10th.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 13:38:12


Post by: Jidmah


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I would like to see the all of the current 40k rules writers to be replaced by other people. Preferably by a mix of AoS, KT, 30k and Armageddon authors.

Unless that happens, 10th will face the same issues as all the other editions they have written.


Honestly they need to hire designers from outside of GW. There are tonnes of great designers but GW insists in staying in house. Eric Lang for example (regardless of if you like his style or not) especially is great at designing streamlined games with low rules overhead which is exactly what GW wants from 40k AND he has experience designing wargames (he designed CMONs A Song Of Ice And Fire miniatures game). Even if they just brought him in as a consultant he'd do wonders for the game, but GW insists on promoting people from within the company to these positions and they rarely are much better at designing games than the people on Dakka.


Sure, I'd be fine with pretty much anyone but the current ones. It's just that the designers GW already has seem to be doing a much better job at solving the very problems their flagship product fails at over and over again.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 13:53:41


Post by: PenitentJake


Question for those who suggest die type changes:

I understand how a higher die type would help the game, and I don't disagree with this proposal in terms of what it does for the rules. But I do try to anticipate unintended consequences, and I'm curious if anyone has considered how much more expensive the game is likely to be if we move away from the ubiquitous d6.

GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.

I can buy d6 for a dime each... But I can also raid my Yahtze and Backgammon games of their dice FOR FREE.

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right? First there's the distribution issue- a d12 has an equal chance to roll any of the twelve numbers.

2d6, on the other hand, are far more likely to generate sevens, they almost never generate twos and twelves, and they cannot generate a one.
Another problem? You also can't speed roll. Have fun rolling each of you 120 gaunt fleshborer shots individually. I'll pass. Again, I know a higher range is good for the game. That's not the issue. D6 were chosen because they were practical. They still are, and no other option is as remotely practical.



Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 14:05:12


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


PenitentJake wrote:
Question for those who suggest die type changes:

I understand how a higher die type would help the game, and I don't disagree with this proposal in terms of what it does for the rules. But I do try to anticipate unintended consequences, and I'm curious if anyone has considered how much more expensive the game is likely to be if we move away from the ubiquitous d6.

GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.

I can buy d6 for a dime each... But I can also raid my Yahtze and Backgammon games of their dice FOR FREE.

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right? First there's the distribution issue- a d12 has an equal chance to roll any of the twelve numbers.

2d6, on the other hand, are far more likely to generate sevens, they almost never generate twos and twelves, and they cannot generate a one.
Another problem? You also can't speed roll. Have fun rolling each of you 120 gaunt fleshborer shots individually. I'll pass. Again, I know a higher range is good for the game. That's not the issue. D6 were chosen because they were practical. They still are, and no other option is as remotely practical.



You do realise they could just up the ammount of dice to roll right? Instead of 1d6 to settle if a d3 weapon damages a t9 TITAN, how about you roll 2d6 and have to score a 11+. That way it's within the realm of possability, but significantly less likely.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 14:06:18


Post by: Sim-Life


I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 14:15:42


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yeah, and feth rolling more than one dice for any attack
(unless its for number of shots or damage)

But don't ask me to start rolling 2d6 to see if every shot wounds


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 14:15:46


Post by: Slipspace


 Sim-Life wrote:
I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.

It does provide more granularity. However, D10s or D12s are larger, which makes rolling even a relatively small number more difficult, and the results take longer to read than the pips on a D6, so there are some drawbacks to consider.

Personally I think the D6 is fine. It's just GW's implementation of the rules that is the problem. As such, I'm not sure shifting to a larger die would help since GW would still be the ones writing the rules.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 15:06:38


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


D10s and D12s don't use pips. They use plain numbers. Also, not gonna lie, I worry about people throwing d12s around. Those can do way more damage to a game board (knocking models around, chipping paint, detroying or moving terrain) than a couple blocky d6s which usually roll between 3-5 times before coming to rest. Unless you are purposely rolling hard.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 15:09:53


Post by: VladimirHerzog


instead of rolling bigger dice, we could also just roll less D6's


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 15:15:28


Post by: Voss


 Sim-Life wrote:
I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.


In theory. In practice, game designers gravitate to the same rough percentage chances (33%, 50%, 66%)

Slipspace wrote: Personally I think the D6 is fine. It's just GW's implementation of the rules that is the problem. As such, I'm not sure shifting to a larger die would help since GW would still be the ones writing the rules.

Also, yeah. This.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 15:25:39


Post by: Tawnis


I made a large post a while ago breaking down why D12's would be far better for balance, so I'm not going to re-iterate that here. A lot of people already seem to be covering that anyway. At least at my local store, you can pick up D12's on the cheap, but I don't know if that's the case for everyone. The new starter set would have to come with quite a few. Keep in mind too that you'd be rolling far less dice in the case so you wouldn't need 40+ like you do now for D6's.

Realeasing all the codecies at once would be my biggest thing, though I don't see that ever happening as it changes their entire business model. What they could do (though I don't think they will) is have all the base codices come out at once without any subfaction elements, then release the subfactions through the year, making it a fair bit easier to balance while still giving them their boost in sales every few months that we all know they are never going to give up.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 15:31:47


Post by: Sim-Life


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
D10s and D12s don't use pips. They use plain numbers. Also, not gonna lie, I worry about people throwing d12s around. Those can do way more damage to a game board (knocking models around, chipping paint, detroying or moving terrain) than a couple blocky d6s which usually roll between 3-5 times before coming to rest. Unless you are purposely rolling hard.


Really? A dice tray costs like 10 currency, there's no reason this should be a worry for anyone.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 15:34:53


Post by: warhead01


I don't know what I'd like to se for 10th at this point. I feel like everything's been done and I don't care for 9th so I would like a slightly different direction. I'd almost like to see Apoc rules changed how ever it would take to play smaller games. at least I'd like to see it done if it can be done. But I don't know if that's the direction I'd like to see 10th got.
I feel like each edition has offered something good that I have enjoyed a bit and would like to see all of that stirred up into an edition not unlike Pro hammer classic. what that could mean as a GW product who can say.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 17:06:15


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Sim-Life wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
D10s and D12s don't use pips. They use plain numbers. Also, not gonna lie, I worry about people throwing d12s around. Those can do way more damage to a game board (knocking models around, chipping paint, detroying or moving terrain) than a couple blocky d6s which usually roll between 3-5 times before coming to rest. Unless you are purposely rolling hard.


Really? A dice tray costs like 10 currency, there's no reason this should be a worry for anyone.


My LGS even leaves trays on the gaming table for everyone to use


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 17:22:25


Post by: catbarf


Sim-Life wrote:I think people want d10s and d12s because it gives you more wiggle room for stats and such.


Which reflects an underlying issue that the game mechanics are too shallow to meaningfully differentiate units and equipment except through stat minutiae, and players miss the forest for the trees. The game already has a lot more checks and rolls to resolve a basic attack than most of its counterparts, providing tons and tons of stat levers to differentiate things, but then it's got big glaring holes like how there's no graceful way to represent speed as defense and target size or range have no impact on hit likelihood.

I'd be okay with additional dice if it were used to do something clever. In Starship Troopers different weapons had different dice types, so you never had to look at a chart, just roll the D6 or D8 or 2D12+2 and see if you beat the target's Hit or Kill stats. In Apocalypse, saves are normally taken on D12s, but every two hits rolls up into a single save on a D6, reducing the number of rolls and ensuring you only roll a single D12 at a time. It also had weapon stats on D12s so you could just roll D6s to hit and then D12s to inflict damage and then that's it, attack resolved, on to the next.

But if GW were to replace D6s solely for the sake of stat granularity while still having the same blind spots in the rules, I'd probably be out of 40K altogether.

Anyways, my wishlist for 10th is basically just to course-correct on some of the issues that have cropped up in 8th/9th:

-Put someone on the design team who understands the term 'cognitive load'. No lists of 30 stratagems that need to all be remembered. No drawn-out turn-by-turn abilities provided without player aids to help navigate. No layers upon layers upon layers of ever-changing buffs that are hard enough for the owning player to remember, let alone their opponent.

-Find a way to associate costs with subfaction bonuses or ditch them entirely. We've already seen that it's virtually impossible to balance units that could be effectively un-buffed or could have multiple stacking effects supercharging their capabilities, and it strongly encourages Flanderized depictions of subfactions.

-Clean up the keyword system for terrain so that it makes sense and doesn't require a cheat sheet for each terrain type.

-Get rid of the crude band-aid fixes like Armor of Contempt and Hammer of the Emperor.

More fundamental and less realistic:

-Move to a digital living rulebook model rather than outdated-on-release codices.

-Get away from pure IGOUGO, integrate more player engagement and reactivity.

-Check out what the rest of the industry is doing and shake up the 'build a list without knowing the opponent, objective, or terrain and then deploy it all at once' paradigm. Doesn't have to be the only way to play, just an alternate setup less dominated by skew lists and alpha striking would be nice.

And while I'm at it, I'd like a pony.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 17:33:26


Post by: Aash


I like a lot of the ideas in this thread, first and foremost, a design philosophy that is consistent across the whole of the edition, and connected to this, an end of codex creep. Preferably by releasing all the rules at once.

I also like the idea of going to a d12 based system rather than d6, but I think that’s even less likely than sticking to a design plan. IIRC someone from GW has said in the past that this isn’t an option for them and they want to stick to d6 because they are so commonplace, everyone has some somewhere at home, in monopoly or snakes and ladders etc.

That being said, in addition to the above my wish list would be:

- Make morale matter. The morale system needs to be completely reworked. Every faction should be thinking about morale; and leveraging morale should be a valid way to play the game.

- Bring back USRs. Not too many though, but a dozen or so that really are universal, and no USRs that grant other USRs. Also, USRs shouldn’t grant similar effects, there shouldn’t be more than one rule to represent infiltrating or deep striking or FNP etc.

- Less special rules in general. If something can be represented in the core rules or a Unit’s stat line, then this should be used rather than a USR or individual special rules. My go-to example for this is ATSKNF, if they want space marines to be more resistant to morale, give them a higher Ld stat instead of a special rule.

- A possible exception to using stats rather than special rules, are when the base rules need you to roll a bucket of dice for a statistically unlikely chance of success. Adding more dice shouldn’t be the preferred solution, the same (or very similar) outcome can be achieved in other ways.

- Less re-rolling across the board.

- Less RNG. Its just to swingy. Dice rolling for taking actions like hitting, wounding, armour saves etc. are fine, but I’d reduce it significantly (or altogether) elsewhere, especially random damage and random number of shots.

- Either reduce the number and the of stratagems significantly or get rid of them completely. Stratagems shouldn’t be used in lieu of unit rules, wargear, weapons etc. this should all be in the stat lines, in the USRs, and/or the unit specific special rules and the unit’s points/PL adjusted accordingly. Stratagems, if they are kept, should be for pre-game gambits, and in-the-moment decisions by the battlefield commander. I’d also remove the auto-pass morale and command re-roll stratagems.

- Subfaction rules should be pared down and be flavourful but not have a significant impact on the relative strength of one subfaction over another. They could be used to encourage certain flavourful builds for certain subfactions without changing the unit rules in the list building phase – some possibilities using White Scars as an example, one of: they got their CP refund if the Warlord is in an Outrider detachment; or BIKER units got Ob sec, but Infantry lost it; or Bikers count as Troops for that subfaction; or Bikers gain the CORE keyword. Something along those lines, but it would depend on how that interacts with the rest of the ruleset.

- Far fewer auras. A forcefield bubble as an aura makes sense, but not to represent inspiring commanders etc. Instead of anyone within x inches getting a re-roll or some special ability, the unit with the aura should target the appropriate unit within range.



Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 18:40:11


Post by: General Hobbs




Republish 3rd edition.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 19:30:26


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


PenitentJake wrote:
GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.


This took me all of 30 seconds to find: https://www.dicegamedepot.com/12-sided-dice-d12/

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right?


It doesn't work in your very narrow interpretation of how the game should work. In reality it works just fine as long as your system has dice math that is designed around the bell curve distribution.

Another problem? You also can't speed roll. Have fun rolling each of you 120 gaunt fleshborer shots individually.


Or, here's an idea: change the system to require fewer rolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
In practice, game designers gravitate to the same rough percentage chances (33%, 50%, 66%)


Let's not preemptively assume incompetence. But even if the base rules stayed with those percentages it still gives more room for modifiers. Instead of having a million different versions of "your unit shoots slightly better" to make a D6 give a 60% chance to hit you give +1 to the D12 roll. Just getting rid of re-rolling 1s would be a significant improvement in play speed.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 19:40:32


Post by: nemesis464


As someone returning from 4th/5th/6th Ed, I’d like to see:

-Far less rerolls. It feels like everyone and their dog gets to reroll everything.

-Far less emphasis on stratagems, maybe removed completely. There are already enough unit rules, without having to remember every ‘gotcha’ strat that people can throw out.

-Make things actually feel unique again. Every army now has stuff to plaster over the cracks and cover their weaknesses. Units feel less unique when you spam them with strats too.

-Make the game less hyper-lethal. I like my carefully painted models to survive more than 1 turn alpha strikes.

-Please, please PLEASE bring back USRs. It just makes the game so much more accessible. It’s so much easier to understand ‘fleet’, ‘rending’, ‘feel no pain’ etc, than thesaurus-soup rule names that are the same for every army.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 19:51:36


Post by: Amishprn86


nemesis464 wrote:
As someone returning from 4th/5th/6th Ed, I’d like to see:

-Far less rerolls. It feels like everyone and their dog gets to reroll everything.

-Far less emphasis on stratagems, maybe removed completely. There are already enough unit rules, without having to remember every ‘gotcha’ strat that people can throw out.

-Make things actually feel unique again. Every army now has stuff to plaster over the cracks and cover their weaknesses. Units feel less unique when you spam them with strats too.

-Make the game less hyper-lethal. I like my carefully painted models to survive more than 1 turn alpha strikes.

-Please, please PLEASE bring back USRs. It just makes the game so much more accessible. It’s so much easier to understand ‘fleet’, ‘rending’, ‘feel no pain’ etc, than thesaurus-soup rule names that are the same for every army.


Yeah I hate they even went and too away rules from a unit (which made it unique) to make it into a Stratagem. This creates a few problems;
1) Now more units can use it, making it harder to balance
2) Takes away from the uniqueness of the units
3) Requires more gotcha moments bc it is a resource you dont know what unit will use it
4) Means I HAVE to know more rules bc that 1 stratagem can be used at anytime, if it was only on a unit then I dont need to worry about any bonus rules not on units.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 21:36:25


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I think we could replace HIGH VOLUME shooting, with HIGH VALUE Shooting. Maybe that squad of 4 Punishers doesn't get 80-160 shots, they get automatic hits on anything over a certain shots? So that way it actually simulates throwing a WALL of lead at your opponent and being guaranteed an actual effect. Obviously this should be tweaked for various targets. 100 infanty attacks shouldn't guarantee 40 wounds to a titan.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 21:37:17


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.


This took me all of 30 seconds to find: https://www.dicegamedepot.com/12-sided-dice-d12/

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right?


It doesn't work in your very narrow interpretation of how the game should work. In reality it works just fine as long as your system has dice math that is designed around the bell curve distribution.

I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:02:40


Post by: Vatsetis


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
GW would start selling boxes of 10 d10 or d12, but you'd pay GW prices for them. I'm not sure whether other manufacturers would start selling them in bulk for cheap, or how long it would take. Currently in my city, if you want a d12, you buy a set of dragon dice and you get ONE- no one sells singles. At the peak of World of Darkness, you used to be able to buy a tube of d10, but that wasn't particular cheap either.


This took me all of 30 seconds to find: https://www.dicegamedepot.com/12-sided-dice-d12/

Also, a few people have proposed 2d6... But you know that doesn't work, right?


It doesn't work in your very narrow interpretation of how the game should work. In reality it works just fine as long as your system has dice math that is designed around the bell curve distribution.

I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


Why not use D12 instead?


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:04:17


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:13:24


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:14:30


Post by: stonehorse


Things that would get me back to playing:

• Alternative activations.
• Switch to a D10 system.
• Replace Toughness and Armour save with a value needed to beat to cause damage.
• Scrap Stratagems.
• Reduce the amount of Re-rolls.
• Tone down just how lethal the game has become.
• Only Troops can score/contest objectives.
• Bring back proper psychology.
• Bring in the reaction system from HH.
• Split the Marines into First Born and Primaris.
• Return to 4' by 4' and 4' by 6' tables.
• Reintroduce USR.
• Go back to the original FoC.
• Have an 'All out War' game mode, this is where Lords of War can enter the game.
• Return Rapid Fire, Assault, and Heavy back to how they were in 3rd edition.
• Make Melee worth while.
• Add in a suppression mechanism.

Doubtful even half of these will happen, so I'll just keep not playing 40k.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:20:42


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?


"Hey guys, if you use every other rule exactly how it is and only substitute in a 2D6 instead of making an actual 2D6 system it doesn't work very well!"


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:26:33


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?


"Hey guys, if you use every other rule exactly how it is and only substitute in a 2D6 instead of making an actual 2D6 system it doesn't work very well!"

Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:34:02


Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.


"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:45:19


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.


"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."

Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:46:38


Post by: apogats


1. Keep stratagems but reduce the amount of them. Maybe 5 Core rulebook stratagems and an additional 5 with your codex book. Or some system of choosing your Stratagems before the game starts (much like a psyker chooses their available psychic powers). You have a small list of stratagems you can use, and thats it. No surprises.

2. Fix cover system. Get rid of every rule that "ignores cover" if you want cover to be meaningful. Possibly give an alternative benefit for low save models (cover either +1 to your save or a 6+ INV or something like that), so that low save models actually get some benefit from cover.

3. Reduce the focus on special characters. Look I love Guilliman, the Silent King, Mortarion, Abaddon, etc. as much as the next guy, but frankly I just dont want to see them in 40k all that much. These characters seem like they'd be a better fit on the battlegrounds of Epic, commanding huge armies. If removing them from the game entirely isn't an option, at least put some heavy restrictions on them.

4. A much better Crusade system. Crusade was one of the things I was most excited about from 9e. IMO it didn't live up to the expectation. Despite a lot of people really wanting a great narrative system... I think at this point we can all agree that Crusade failed at that. I like fancy unit upgrades (if they're well balanced; which the crusade ones are not) but what I really want is a How-To guide on actually running a campaign. Somehow that part is missing, unfortunately for all of us.



Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 22:58:20


Post by: Amishprn86


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.


"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."

Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.


Exactly, its not about if it is better for math, its not better for player experience. Imagine with Terminators has 2D6 saves again and a BA player jumps in with 40 saves you have to make, nightmare player experience right there.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:00:02


Post by: VladimirHerzog


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we could replace HIGH VOLUME shooting, with HIGH VALUE Shooting. Maybe that squad of 4 Punishers doesn't get 80-160 shots, they get automatic hits on anything over a certain shots? So that way it actually simulates throwing a WALL of lead at your opponent and being guaranteed an actual effect. Obviously this should be tweaked for various targets. 100 infanty attacks shouldn't guarantee 40 wounds to a titan.


stop with suggesting everything gets auto hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?


to be fair, no squad should have that many output IMO.

one or two attacks MAXIMUM per model


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.


"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."


ok, provide a good 2d6 system that would fit with 40k in your eyes.


Battletech:destiny uses it in an interesting way but thats because pretty much every gun is only one attack (with some dealing damage in clusters, so a gun might do flat 4 damage but another would do 2+2+2 for example)


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:12:02


Post by: catbarf


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.


You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:18:41


Post by: Eldarsif


I find the suggestion of 2d6 kind of humorous. Mostly because it implies people do not want to play Warhammer and instead play something completely different. Like Warmachine perhaps?


Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:36:48


Post by: alextroy


If GW is going to hard reset 40K, they need to change some basic tenets of the game:
  • Alternative Activations: To avoid both downtime disinterest and alpha strikes.
  • Units, not model: Change the rules to be based around units instead of models. You don't have stats for models that then combine to form a unit. You have stats for a unit. This will allow for mass simplification of the rules and reduction of the dice rolling overload we see.
  • Stratagems redesign: Stratagems and CP should be things used in army construction and battle setup, not unit activation.


  • Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:42:48


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     catbarf wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
    2D6 sucks, just get over it.


    You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

    Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.

    Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:47:52


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    I want Sly Marbo to be able to remove any model from the table, as long as he can see it, even on another games' table. Once per day.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:55:53


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    2D6 systems work fine with a game that has the right scale for it. BattleTech works fine with a 2D6 system as you can have anywhere from 12 units a side to maybe 1 unit per player, so rolling a bunch of 2D6's for all your weapons isn't a big deal.

    Now try that on a game the scale of 40k, with units that have multiple attacks. That's why a 2D6 system wouldn't work with 40k unless you heavily simplified how many attacks things get to make.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/03 23:56:54


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    2D6 systems work fine with a game that has the right scale for it. BattleTech works fine with a 2D6 system as you can have anywhere from 12 units a side to maybe 1 unit per player, so rolling a bunch of 2D6's for all your weapons isn't a big deal.

    Now try that on a game the scale of 40k, with units that have multiple attacks. That's why a 2D6 system wouldn't work with 40k unless you heavily simplified how many attacks things get to make.


    battletech also doesnt have guns that shoot 100 shots so thats another reason why 2d6 works there


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 00:15:02


    Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.


    "I still can't imagine a real 2D6 system but the bad one I came up with is bad."


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.


    Roll 2D6 per 5 models vs. armor, for each point you beat the armor value by inflict one wound. Done.

    Is it a perfect system? Probably not, but it's one I came up with in 30 seconds. 2D6 systems only fail if you assume you're using the current 40k rules and only changing the dice.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 00:36:15


    Post by: Inquisitor Kallus


    2D6 is a terrible idea for 40k. If you want that granularity for a mass squad game its better to go D10/D12.

    I'd like to see vehicle facings or crossfire as a general rule. Suppression /better morale rules. I like strays, relics etc, just drastically rdfjce number you can take in a game, it choose beforehand. Relic takes up CP or syptrat slot. Different non standard formations mean less cp/strats. If trying to wound somethkngvreally tough.you need to roll 6+followed by 4/5/6+ etc more than double toughness for example.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 00:50:32


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.


    "I still can't imagine a real 2D6 system but the bad one I came up with is bad."


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.


    Roll 2D6 per 5 models vs. armor, for each point you beat the armor value by inflict one wound. Done.

    Is it a perfect system? Probably not, but it's one I came up with in 30 seconds. 2D6 systems only fail if you assume you're using the current 40k rules and only changing the dice.

    So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.
    Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 01:09:08


    Post by: catbarf


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     catbarf wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
    2D6 sucks, just get over it.


    You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

    Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.

    Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.


    Okay, here's a basic concept I just made up. I'm sure it could be refined further.

    Roll 2D6, add your ballistic skill, add the number of shots being fired. Compare to the target's modified Defense (including cover). If the total equals the target's Defense, inflict a hit, and then an additional hit for every 2 points the target's Defense is exceeded by, up to the number of shots fired.

    Your squad of five BS4 Terminators, with two shots apiece, fires on a squad of Ork Boyz in cover with a modified Defense of 12. You roll 2D6 and score a 7, so add it to your combined BS+shots of 14, and total 21. You've beaten the Orks' Defense so score a hit, and beat it by 9, so dividing in half and rounding down gives you an extra 4 hits. 5 hits total and you're done.

    So you roll exactly two dice and perform elementary school arithmetic and come out with 5 hits. Is the outcome statistically identical to treating each shot as an isolated process like 40K currently does? No. Is that a requirement for a good game? Also no. Moving on.

    Blanket statements about what dice types work for what scale of game are silly- it's all about implementation. You can use D20s in a mass battle game (Starship Troopers) or D6s in a crunchy simulationist wargame (anything by Avalon Hill) or mixed dice pools of different types and colors (Fireball Forward) or even D3s for everything (Dust). Mechanics matter, not how many faces are on the polyhedral shapes you're throwing or how many are used at once.

    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.
    Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.


    Seen the Blast rule recently?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 01:23:33


    Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.


    Yes, you found a potential flaw in my quick 30 second idea to use the system from Apocalypse with 2D6. Unfortunately you missed the point about not being tied to specific 40k mechanics and decided to nitpick the details instead.

    Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.


    PL would be fine if it didn't have obvious balance problems and strictly better/worse choices. PL works fine if you build the game around design rules like "every unit has a heavy weapon, you just choose which one from a list of equally powerful options" or "unit sizes are always in increments of 5". The reason PL sucks is that GW is trying to apply it to a system designed to use the conventional point system and ignoring the places where it doesn't fit.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 01:37:37


    Post by: PenitentJake


    apogats wrote:


    I think at this point we can all agree that Crusade failed at that.


    No, we can't. I'm not going to get into this again- because just like last time, neither of us is ever going to change the other's mind.

    But I can say for certain, that no, we don't ALL agree.

    apogats wrote:

    I really want is a How-To guide on actually running a campaign. Somehow that part is missing, unfortunately for all of us.


    If you have ever run a or participated in any 40k narrative tree campaign in any edition, the rules/ guidelines you used there would still work with crusade games. In fact, the Urban Conquest rules from 8th, are fully compatible with 9th. Also, GW did publish rules for running tree campaigns, they just messed up and put it in the Octarius campaign book instead of putting it in the core rule book; the truth is that there's no reason to connect campaign rules to a specific way to play- they're just as viable with matched or open as they are for Crusade. In fact, I believe that's how the rules are presented in Octarius.

    Personally, I think that tree campaigns, as presented in Octarius and even in previous editions of 40k fall a bit short- especially in the era of Agendas. I can have a typical tree campaign with branches based on win/loss as usual, but then have particular agendas trigger/ unlock side battles that either run in parallel with the main tree games (which would mean splitting your force into two separate detachments and sending one to each battle) or between main tree games (in which case your full roster is at your disposal). This is also a fun way to tie in other games like KT/AI/ AT if your players are into that.

    I agree 100% with you though that campaign rules should have been in the BRB, and that they should be included in the BRB for 10th.

    A great alternative if they decide to keep Crusade or something like it would be to release a Big Book of Narrative Play along side the BRB. This would contain all the bespoke content (assuming they keep that), as well as a sizable section on campaign formats, including but not limited to Map Based, Tree and Ladder, and also a selection of pre-made Warzones, as well as build-your-own warzone rules. If they release a book like this alongside the BRB, so that everyone has everything they need to get Crusading (or whatever they decide to call it) on day one, that would certainly be an improvement upon how they approached it in 9th.

    I love Crusade, but that does not mean it can't be improved. My fear is that they'll oversimplify it when they streamline it and end up ruining the things it got right.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 01:40:51


    Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


    PenitentJake wrote:
    No, we can't. I'm not going to get into this again- because just like last time, neither of us is ever going to change the other's mind.


    Because, just like last time, you'll declare that since Crusade works well for telling the one very specific story that you want to tell all of its many flaws can be handwaved away and no other system that doesn't function exactly like Crusade will ever be acceptable.

    But sure, I'll modify that statement a bit: we can all agree that Crusade is an utter failure if you evaluate it as a general narrative system for telling a broad range of stories, not just PenitentJake's SoB force in games of tournament 40k with a buff table.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 03:18:07


    Post by: PenitentJake


     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:


    But sure, I'll modify that statement a bit: we can all agree that Crusade is an utter failure if you evaluate it as a general narrative system for telling a broad range of stories, not just PenitentJake's SoB force in games of tournament 40k with a buff table.


    Okay Bob.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 03:19:59


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    PenitentJake wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:


    But sure, I'll modify that statement a bit: we can all agree that Crusade is an utter failure if you evaluate it as a general narrative system for telling a broad range of stories, not just PenitentJake's SoB force in games of tournament 40k with a buff table.


    Okay Bob.


    Thank you! Someone else calls it like it is. This is silly at this point. Just go back to being Bob. I defended Bob's antics in several posts. But this is just sad.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 03:43:46


    Post by: apogats


    ...Did I have this discussion with PenitentJake before? Because I have no memory of it. Anyway, I'm not saying there isn't anything to like about Crusade, and I'm glad PenitentJake finds it works for him.

    The fact of the matter remains that very few people feel the same. Try looking up Crusade stuff on youtube and you will get a sense of how popular it is. A small handful of crusade games which pale in comparison to the absolute wealth of matched play battle reports. And the "Crusade" games that you do find are often heavily modified/house ruled which indicates pretty well that the system isnt functioning as intended.

    I *wanted* to love the crusade system. I still do. I consider myself much more of a narrative player than a matched play enthusiast. So when 10e comes around I want a robust crusade system, with guidelines on how to run a narrative campaign, and I want it to be *in the rulebook*. And if there are unit upgrades I'd like them to be a lot more balanced and less exploitable. I know you might say that if balance is your thing you should play matched play; but some of it is just absolutely unforgivable.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 03:46:43


    Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


    apogats wrote:
    ...Did I have this discussion with PenitentJake before?


    You personally, no. But it's something that comes up often, where he feels compelled to defend Crusade as his perfect narrative system. He has a really obnoxious "I've got mine, screw you" attitude about it, and now he's apparently decided to fall back on "agree to disagree" rather than answer any of the valid criticism that several of us have posted. Because it works for his pet SoB army nothing you can say to him will ever convince him that Crusade should be changed.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 04:02:32


    Post by: Blndmage


     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
    apogats wrote:
    ...Did I have this discussion with PenitentJake before?


    You personally, no. But it's something that comes up often, where he feels compelled to defend Crusade as his perfect narrative system. He has a really obnoxious "I've got mine, screw you" attitude about it, and now he's apparently decided to fall back on "agree to disagree" rather than answer any of the valid criticism that several of us have posted. Because it works for his pet SoB army nothing you can say to him will ever convince him that Crusade should be changed.


    You're really being aggressive.
    Knock it off with the attacks.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 04:09:35


    Post by: PenitentJake


    @apogats

    I was pretty sure I hadn't seen your handle before, and your post count is low- it's one of the reasons I responded to you, because I wasn't sure you were aware of some of the recent threads here where this has come up.

    What's happened here with Shaso is exactly what I was hoping to prevent by answering the first part of your post as I did.

    I have very reasonably and diplomatically engaged in dozens of discussions on this forum about Crusade. I've never once denied that it could be improved. I often post agreeing with other people who suggest improvements.- as I did in the very post Shaso is responding to- agreeing both that campaign rules should have been included in 9th's BRB and that they should be included in 10's BRB.

    If you'd like to talk more about campaign systems, ways of linking games either as part of Crusade or not, by all means, lets started another thread about that.

    This gak with Shaso isn't going anywhere good, but you seem like someone I could have decent conversations with.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 04:29:35


    Post by: Shas'O Ky'husa


    PenitentJake wrote:
    I've never once denied that it could be improved.


    Sure, but only in minor and irrelevant ways that don't address the fundamental problem with Crusade: that it's tournament 40k with a bolted-on D6 table of buffs to roll on and some off-table solitaire bookkeeping stuff that adds nothing to the story, not a genuine story-focused narrative system.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 09:35:46


    Post by: Spoletta


    Please don't let it be a reset.
    The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

    A 10th edition should just adjust a bit the terrain rules and reshape (again) morale rules. That's it, don't touch anything else please.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 09:42:41


    Post by: tneva82


     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.


    "I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."


    40k 2nd ed model count less, dice rolls less(lasgun 1 shot period), rolling 2d6 per every fricking save still sucked.

    You need to either make model count smaller than 2nd ed or put entire unit shooting to 1 dice roll. But then basically individual models don't matter. Different scale game more suited for 6mm models.

    Compared to d10/d12 not worth it. And gw isn't turning 40k into game where squad is basically abstract 1 model with rest at most taking space.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 10:01:31


    Post by: nemesis464


    Spoletta wrote:

    The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

    Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 10:33:00


    Post by: vict0988


    nemesis464 wrote:
    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

    Because we know they can be implemented. The people that dislike USR have also been quiet for this thread, but they do exist. I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 10:43:38


    Post by: nekooni


    Why are you trying to make 2d6 work anyway? The solutions that would allow it to work will have to increase abstraction, rolling 2d6+BS+Shots fired works, but is very different from what 40k is right now. While you add something to the game, youre also taking something away just to achieve that.

    Rolling a d12 per shot would simply add a Ton of Design Space without taking anything away. Yes, you cant use your existing D6 anymore, but thats really it, isnt it?

    On top of that the results from a 2d6 are a lot less spread out than a d12 is due to probabilities, so youre again reducing the effective Design Space as 2 and 12 are each sitting at 1/36 instead of 1/12

    This works for battletech as 2 and 12 are the most desirable results on the Hit distribution table, but its also a lot more "sim-like" as a System and takes its sweet time to resolve a single shot


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 10:46:40


    Post by: Eldarsif


     catbarf wrote:

    Okay, here's a basic concept I just made up. I'm sure it could be refined further.

    Roll 2D6, add your ballistic skill, add the number of shots being fired. Compare to the target's modified Defense (including cover). If the total equals the target's Defense, inflict a hit, and then an additional hit for every 2 points the target's Defense is exceeded by, up to the number of shots fired.

    Your squad of five BS4 Terminators, with two shots apiece, fires on a squad of Ork Boyz in cover with a modified Defense of 12. You roll 2D6 and score a 7, so add it to your combined BS+shots of 14, and total 21. You've beaten the Orks' Defense so score a hit, and beat it by 9, so dividing in half and rounding down gives you an extra 4 hits. 5 hits total and you're done.


    No offense meant, but this system sounds horrible. It's giving me flashbacks of Shadowrun after second edition(best version barring the Matrix system) as you kind of need a gamemaster to arbitrate things for you and give you final target numbers and options.

    Which is why 2d6 system will never work for Warhammer. Warhammer is a mass market product that wants to be accessible - even if shoot itself in the foot with the hundreds of stratagems it has introduced.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 10:49:35


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    Necrons are robots, and at least the warriors are incapable of feeling fear, or acting upon it. The fact that they have to deal with morale at all is odd. But losing more is always a bad way to do morale. I really like how it's done in Warhammer Fantasy 6th, as panicking armies feel like they're losing ground, feel like they're running away, while things that ignore Panic or Fear or even just any Psychology, or have Frenzy, they don't run away unless things get really dire.

    The closest things to Necrons in WHFB 6th is the Tomb Kings. Their skeletons do not run away, but they do lose more. Why does it work in this army, but if it were the entire game, I'd be annoyed?
    Because a few factions trading being completely immune to fear with being partially destroyed because of it feels more thematic than Empire Knights dying of a stroke due to the enemy winning combat by 1, rather than just fleeing.

    I should mention that we play with a modified sweeping advance, where all attacks auto hit, and they count as having charged in the next combat phase. But even if I changed that back, we'd still have a functioning morale system, and your Necrons would be just fine, as they'd use the same rules regarding breaking.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 11:45:50


    Post by: Spoletta


    nemesis464 wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:

    The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

    Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.


    5th/7th edition was a nice system for a standard medieval sci-fi wargame, with armor facings, challenges, blast templates, pinning and so on.

    Too bad that as soon as someone remembered that they were playing 40K and not Horus Heresy, and wanted to know how to make a croissant shaped vehicle and a big bug fit in all that... the system simply crumbled to dust.

    It isn't a case that the worst xeno dexes were made in that era. Seriously, raveners suffering from deepstrike failures???

    8th/9th edition created a system with a lot less standard wargame rules and simply a sandbox level of rules on which to build bespoke rules for the strangest things the galaxy has to offer. 8th/9th edition system is vastly superior to 5th/7th in the scope of Warhammer 40K, because it isn't tailor cut on the concept of human modern warfare. This makes it an inferior system for Horus Heresy and similar more "Standard" wargames, which in fact kept going on with 7th edition rules.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 12:11:25


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


    Faster to play, less to remember (especially about the enemy), more on table tactical play (tricky with current model density and smaller tables). But at this point this comment and many others here kinda reveals we should be playing a different game...


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 12:15:54


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Blndmage wrote:


    You're really being aggressive.
    Knock it off with the attacks.


    Nonono, you see THEY'RE the ones being attacked. /s




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     vict0988 wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:
    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

    Because we know they can be implemented. The people that dislike USR have also been quiet for this thread, but they do exist. I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.


    People that dislike USRs actually dislike GW's implementation of them. That was obvious in the many many many threads about bringing back USRs


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 12:27:22


    Post by: Amishprn86


    Spoletta wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:

    The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

    Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.


    5th/7th edition was a nice system for a standard medieval sci-fi wargame, with armor facings, challenges, blast templates, pinning and so on.

    Too bad that as soon as someone remembered that they were playing 40K and not Horus Heresy, and wanted to know how to make a croissant shaped vehicle and a big bug fit in all that... the system simply crumbled to dust.

    It isn't a case that the worst xeno dexes were made in that era. Seriously, raveners suffering from deepstrike failures???

    8th/9th edition created a system with a lot less standard wargame rules and simply a sandbox level of rules on which to build bespoke rules for the strangest things the galaxy has to offer. 8th/9th edition system is vastly superior to 5th/7th in the scope of Warhammer 40K, because it isn't tailor cut on the concept of human modern warfare. This makes it an inferior system for Horus Heresy and similar more "Standard" wargames, which in fact kept going on with 7th edition rules.


    Disagree completely. Both versions are great and work fine, 8th/9th has just as much problems as 5th and 7th (not 6th, 6th was insanely bad) and both are playing the game so differently you can't say 1 is better within bias, the person that likes blasts, facing, usrs, and many of the things older editions brought will much prefer it over 8th style. And bc 8/9 th are so simple you have insane rules bloat anyways bc they have to keep adding more and more rules to already rules (see remain stations, see teleporting, see etc... many rules literally have 8-12 extra rules to them bc they didnt address them in other steps of the game correctly). Personally I want a mix style of 9th, 5th, and 7th. Bring back USRs, Fast skimmer (with modifiers) for flyers, actually write rules instead of clips of rules and 100+ amendments later, remove stratagems, make relics cost points not CP to actually balance them, have unit types in rules again to balance MC/Vehicles better vs str 2 attacking a Land raider, can only kill what you can see would really help. But i dont want remove pre measuring, no challenges, gun can only shoot forward crap (its a dynamic setting being played stationary, I like how we can shoot any direction now bc it shows the game state is on a dynamic battlefield).

    Also xenos was the strongest armies in 7th, wtf do you mean they were the worst, I guess TauDar wasn't a think lol? In 5th sure CWE was weaker but Necrons at the last bit was insanely strong, Orks and DE was pretty good too, GKs were the only "marine" army that was over the top, as well as CSM was pretty good.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 13:22:39


    Post by: Spoletta


    I never said "weakest", I said "Worst".


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 13:55:33


    Post by: Amishprn86


    Spoletta wrote:
    I never said "weakest", I said "Worst".


    5th DE was amazing, 7th CWE was good, 7th Corsairs is IMO one of the best books ever made. 7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to, Necrons 5th was insanely good. Sure some like 5th CWE and old Tau were meh but over all Xenos were not in the worst state from 5th-7th.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 14:00:30


    Post by: Jidmah


    Spoletta wrote:
    Please don't let it be a reset.
    The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

    A 10th edition should just adjust a bit the terrain rules and reshape (again) morale rules. That's it, don't touch anything else please.


    Transports, please.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
    7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to


    No one in their right mind would claim that 7th was the best for orks. Anyone who does so can safely be discarded as a troll.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 16:40:16


    Post by: Amishprn86


     Jidmah wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    Please don't let it be a reset.
    The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

    A 10th edition should just adjust a bit the terrain rules and reshape (again) morale rules. That's it, don't touch anything else please.


    Transports, please.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
    7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to


    No one in their right mind would claim that 7th was the best for orks. Anyone who does so can safely be discarded as a troll.


    Greentide made a lot of people very happy. And some of the builds were really fun. A couple Doubles events I went to had a lot of happy ork players. Yes it was for sure controversial why I said it depends who you talk to


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 16:47:57


    Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


    I wouldn’t mind seeing things slimmed down overall.

    But, as someone getting into Heresy properly, I must say I prefer 40k’s unit entries, where their weapons are listed in the unit entry. As you’re learning the options open to to you it’s easier to contrast and compare, so I’d like to see that retained.

    I think the game would survive without Stratagems myself, but perhaps see it more reigned in as whilst the execution is flawed, I’m not entirely convinced the concept is flawed.

    But more than anything? Put the damned background back in the damned Codecies. I want to know the curious quirks that send a Necron gone all Destroyer to a particular wing of the Destroyer Cult. Amongst other things.

    Rules be damned. 40K stands on its background.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 16:57:42


    Post by: Tyran


    nemesis464 wrote:


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

    Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.


    Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.


    It did have its own share of crippling issues, like a very blatant and yet inconsistent codex creep. Like forget about changing the codex paradigm mid edition, authors changed their own codex design from book to book. I mean, look at the 5th ed IG codex and then look at the 5th ed Tyranid codex, made by the same author and the nid codex even came later, yet the nid codex has none of the tricks people loved the IG one for (and obviously none of the power). This is also back when GW utterly refused to FAQ even the most blatant writing errors or revalue point costs: the Vendetta was broken at 130pts, and then became even more broken when it became aircraft in 6th, GW didn't change its point cost until the next codex.

    That isn't to say there aren't great things in 5th, its core rules are in general quite good, but at the balance level the current 9th edition is definitely better.



    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 16:58:48


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
    I wouldn’t mind seeing things slimmed down overall.

    But, as someone getting into Heresy properly, I must say I prefer 40k’s unit entries, where their weapons are listed in the unit entry. As you’re learning the options open to to you it’s easier to contrast and compare, so I’d like to see that retained.

    I think the game would survive without Stratagems myself, but perhaps see it more reigned in as whilst the execution is flawed, I’m not entirely convinced the concept is flawed.

    But more than anything? Put the damned background back in the damned Codecies. I want to know the curious quirks that send a Necron gone all Destroyer to a particular wing of the Destroyer Cult. Amongst other things.

    Rules be damned. 40K stands on its background.


    hard disagree on padding codexes with lore.

    release one small, cheap book with the rules only
    release another one with the lore only


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:19:57


    Post by: ERJAK


    Spoletta wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:

    The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

    Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.


    5th/7th edition was a nice system for a standard medieval sci-fi wargame, with armor facings, challenges, blast templates, pinning and so on.

    Too bad that as soon as someone remembered that they were playing 40K and not Horus Heresy, and wanted to know how to make a croissant shaped vehicle and a big bug fit in all that... the system simply crumbled to dust.

    It isn't a case that the worst xeno dexes were made in that era. Seriously, raveners suffering from deepstrike failures???

    8th/9th edition created a system with a lot less standard wargame rules and simply a sandbox level of rules on which to build bespoke rules for the strangest things the galaxy has to offer. 8th/9th edition system is vastly superior to 5th/7th in the scope of Warhammer 40K, because it isn't tailor cut on the concept of human modern warfare. This makes it an inferior system for Horus Heresy and similar more "Standard" wargames, which in fact kept going on with 7th edition rules.


    The only thing inferior to 7th as a ruleset is 6th, I don't care what you're using it for.

    Also, half of the mechanics you described were just stupid. They didn't actually make the game more 'simulation like'. They didn't make it 'more like actual warfare' and they certainly didn't add any gameplay depth.

    Challenges aren't a 'wargaming' thing, they're an idiot thing. Challenges are one of the dumbest mechanics warhammer has ever included and you can tell that because they had to rewrite them every edition because they always broke something while never managing to add anything to the game. It wasn't 'tactical' to declare a challenge with your combat character so your opponent's sergeant with power fist is guaranteed not to attack, it's just a 'win more' rule that discourages taking any equipment on a sergeant at all.

    Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:24:01


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    ERJAK wrote:


    Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.


    lol, the implementation might have been stupid but vehicle facing are definitely not a stupid mechanic


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:24:30


    Post by: ERJAK


     Amishprn86 wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    I never said "weakest", I said "Worst".


    5th DE was amazing, 7th CWE was good, 7th Corsairs is IMO one of the best books ever made. 7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to, Necrons 5th was insanely good. Sure some like 5th CWE and old Tau were meh but over all Xenos were not in the worst state from 5th-7th.


    7th CWE was good because they were so busted over the top powerful that you could play a literal 50% handicap against MOST armies at the time and still win (on release, codexes after that time crept enough that eventually CWE were only TIED for best faction in the game with Chaos Daemons/Soup at the end of the edition). That codex is responsible for anti-eldar sentiment we still see today.

    7th Orkz was awful. 7th anything that wasn't Marines, Chaos soup, or CWE was awful. Even Tau wasn't GOOD, people just hated Riptide wing.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:28:56


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     catbarf wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     catbarf wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
    2D6 sucks, just get over it.


    You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

    Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.

    Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.


    Okay, here's a basic concept I just made up. I'm sure it could be refined further.

    Roll 2D6, add your ballistic skill, add the number of shots being fired. Compare to the target's modified Defense (including cover). If the total equals the target's Defense, inflict a hit, and then an additional hit for every 2 points the target's Defense is exceeded by, up to the number of shots fired.

    Your squad of five BS4 Terminators, with two shots apiece, fires on a squad of Ork Boyz in cover with a modified Defense of 12. You roll 2D6 and score a 7, so add it to your combined BS+shots of 14, and total 21. You've beaten the Orks' Defense so score a hit, and beat it by 9, so dividing in half and rounding down gives you an extra 4 hits. 5 hits total and you're done.

    So you roll exactly two dice and perform elementary school arithmetic and come out with 5 hits. Is the outcome statistically identical to treating each shot as an isolated process like 40K currently does? No. Is that a requirement for a good game? Also no. Moving on.

    Blanket statements about what dice types work for what scale of game are silly- it's all about implementation. You can use D20s in a mass battle game (Starship Troopers) or D6s in a crunchy simulationist wargame (anything by Avalon Hill) or mixed dice pools of different types and colors (Fireball Forward) or even D3s for everything (Dust). Mechanics matter, not how many faces are on the polyhedral shapes you're throwing or how many are used at once.

    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.
    Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.


    Seen the Blast rule recently?

    Yeah and the blast rules need a giant rework.

    Also can't believe you posted that as an idea LOL. That's pretty bad and doesn't scale well.

    Y'all need to stop trying to make 2d6 happen, it's not going to happen nor should it.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:36:20


    Post by: Amishprn86


     Tyran wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

    Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.


    Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.


    It did have its own share of crippling issues, like a very blatant and yet inconsistent codex creep. Like forget about changing the codex paradigm mid edition, authors changed their own codex design from book to book. I mean, look at the 5th ed IG codex and then look at the 5th ed Tyranid codex, made by the same author and the nid codex even came later, yet the nid codex has none of the tricks people loved the IG one for (and obviously none of the power). This is also back when GW utterly refused to FAQ even the most blatant writing errors or revalue point costs: the Vendetta was broken at 130pts, and then became even more broken when it became aircraft in 6th, GW didn't change its point cost until the next codex.

    That isn't to say there aren't great things in 5th, its core rules are in general quite good, but at the balance level the current 9th edition is definitely better.



    I liked it more also bc my DE codex was fuller and felt better. Yeah had some imbalances like really over costed Scourges for one, but it was also 8 more units. Also Combat Patrol was insanely good compare to any other edition.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:38:46


    Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
    I wouldn’t mind seeing things slimmed down overall.

    But, as someone getting into Heresy properly, I must say I prefer 40k’s unit entries, where their weapons are listed in the unit entry. As you’re learning the options open to to you it’s easier to contrast and compare, so I’d like to see that retained.

    I think the game would survive without Stratagems myself, but perhaps see it more reigned in as whilst the execution is flawed, I’m not entirely convinced the concept is flawed.

    But more than anything? Put the damned background back in the damned Codecies. I want to know the curious quirks that send a Necron gone all Destroyer to a particular wing of the Destroyer Cult. Amongst other things.

    Rules be damned. 40K stands on its background.


    hard disagree on padding codexes with lore.

    release one small, cheap book with the rules only
    release another one with the lore only


    Fair opinion, but I’d argue that 40K is nothing without the Lore, and it’s all indivisible. I’m not demanding 90% fluff, 10% rules. Just a page or so for each unit or Cult type thing, to give some flavour and possibly spark inspiration. Because a Codex is not and should never be simply a rulebook. Each has to sell its faction and the setting.

    I genuinely look back at the gutting of 40K that was 3rd Ed and shudder. Yes 2nd Ed needed a big old diet, but baby went out with the bath water. Though I will say that opinion is possibly magnified because Dark Eldar were entirely new, second out of the gate, and had precious little background for people to key into or even read up on in older volumes. Add in Pretty Crappy Models, even for the era (especially compared to the Tactical Squad set which has seen only minimal tweaking since) and it was a bad scene man.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:44:33


    Post by: nemesis464


     Tyran wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.


    Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.


    No, the nostalgic argument doesn’t work when you see how hated 6th Ed was just a year or two later.



    That isn't to say there aren't great things in 5th, its core rules are in general quite good, but at the balance level the current 9th edition is definitely better.


    I agree with this though, the Codex balance at the end of 5th Ed was a mess. IG were a particular outlier though, early and mid 5th Ed had decent balance imo if you put IG to one side. It was the later years of the edition with Grey Knights etc that the balance completely collapsed.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:48:21


    Post by: Voss


    nemesis464 wrote:
     Tyran wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.


    Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.


    No, the nostalgic argument doesn’t work when you see how hated 6th Ed was just a year or two later.


    My area at the time loved 6th. Not sure where this notion came from.
    7th now... 6.1 errata edition deserves all its hate and then some for the minuscule changes, the broken magic phase imported without real change from the worst period in Fantasy, plus army books and formations.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:55:12


    Post by: Sim-Life


    Yeah, the edition that was only around for 2 years because it was SOOOO good was beloved by all.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 17:55:43


    Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


    Further thoughts on “no background in the Codex”. Apologies in advance to VladimirHerzog as whilst I’m addressing their post, I’m not having a go at them specifically.

    If you take out the background, you lose vital context about the army. And that can lead to people complaining Tau can’t really do HTH, Dark Eldar fold like a cheap suit if they fight on equal terms, why aren’t my Guardsmen as good as X etc.

    The background is vital to the game. What looks like a tactical deficiency that needs covering is explained, in-universe.

    The background invites greatest personal investment, well beyond simple financial investment.

    The insane depth of the background is what keeps 40k afloat edition after edition after edition. The background provides in-universe framing for what’s what and what isn’t. Look at literally any online discussion, and it’s the background that’s used to explain and/or justify suggestions for new units or rule improvements.

    And it always has been. Always. A given range’s rules or models might be cack. But if the background is there, it can sustain interest until the other problem is fixed. People get super passionate about their favourite 40K army less because of rules or models, but because there’s something in that army’s background that seriously tickles their pickle.

    40K without the background is Diet Irn Bru. It might look the part. It might, superficially, have the same fizz and sparkle. But one swig and you’re straight into Flavourless Street via Disappointment Alley. It’s not the same. Sure the sugar doesn’t seem necessarily, but leave it out and it’s just so not the same it’s not even funny.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 18:03:46


    Post by: Amishprn86


    Voss wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:
     Tyran wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:


    Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.


    Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.


    No, the nostalgic argument doesn’t work when you see how hated 6th Ed was just a year or two later.


    My area at the time loved 6th. Not sure where this notion came from.
    7th now... 6.1 errata edition deserves all its hate and then some for the minuscule changes, the broken magic phase imported without real change from the worst period in Fantasy, plus army books and formations.


    Bc 6th was terrible lol, maybe you didnt really get a chance to see it all with it only being out for 2yrs and 7th was just a better version of it till they f'ed it up.

    Jink was worst and ignore cover stopped it, you could kill guys inside vehicles (Yeah for DE vehicles literally not being playable), speaking of vehicles the new HP system wasn't dialed in yet and was just bad, 2++ and FnP units like no other bc Powers were broken (even compare to 7th), Unlimited OW (yes it was unlimited) while still having to pull casualties from the front still on top of Disorderly charges, Allies where really broken even compare to 7th, Flyers were beyond broken, you had to Snap shoot them (only hit on 6's) and there really wasn't anti-air guns yet, so you had Flyer spam (6 Flyrants, 3 Heldrakes, etc...).

    Basically melee and many vehicles were 100% dead, just bring support death stars with powers and flyers.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 18:08:18


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    What about a digital codex? GW can still print physical copies, and require physical copies at events, but a digital copy for all the dirty casuals that will never accidentally step over into Competitive 40k, and just want to have fun with friends?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 18:24:28


    Post by: Eldarsif


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    What about a digital codex? GW can still print physical copies, and require physical copies at events, but a digital copy for all the dirty casuals that will never accidentally step over into Competitive 40k, and just want to have fun with friends?


    I kind of wish they'd bring the pdfs or ebooks back. If they really want to have this quick release cadence for every year I'd rather not buy physical product just to throw it away in a year or two.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 18:25:21


    Post by: Aash


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    What about a digital codex? GW can still print physical copies, and require physical copies at events, but a digital copy for all the dirty casuals that will never accidentally step over into Competitive 40k, and just want to have fun with friends?


    I'd go with this but change the bindings on the codex books. Rules including codex books should be fully digital, and updates, errata, FAQs should be applied directly to the digital books, but hard copies should still be available, but rather than as a book, as a ring binger. This way Erratas, FAQs and updates can be issued as downloadable pdfs that can be printed out and inserted into the ring binder, replacing the obsolete page completely.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 18:25:28


    Post by: Tyran


    If GW were smart they would include digital codexes with their Warhammer+ crap.




    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 18:54:39


    Post by: Sim-Life


     Tyran wrote:
    If GW were smart they would include digital codexes with their Warhammer+ crap.




    If GW was smart they'd probably be the Disney of tabletop games and we'd all only be playing Asmodee or GW games so thank god thats not the case.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 19:03:44


    Post by: Karol


    For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 19:06:13


    Post by: Jidmah


     Amishprn86 wrote:
    Greentide made a lot of people very happy. And some of the builds were really fun. A couple Doubles events I went to had a lot of happy ork players. Yes it was for sure controversial why I said it depends who you talk to


    Nope, that's nonsense.

    Greentide just gave back what was taken away from orks after 5th, so per definition it couldn't be the best.

    Oh, and it was removed from the supplement mid-edition.

    There is no controversy about it at all. The only reason for an ork player to even remotely think well of 7th if it's the edition you started with, and even then it is strictly inferior to everything that came after it.

    7th was, without doubt and room for discussion, the worst edition ever for orks.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 20:46:53


    Post by: Manfred von Drakken


     Sim-Life wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


    Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


    Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.




    This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 20:50:45


    Post by: nemesis464


     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


    Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


    Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.





    This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.


    What was your biggest complaint? I quit ‘fantasy’ Warhammer the moment WHFB ended. I liked the careful manoeuvring of ranked up battlelines too much, I didn’t want to play yet another mediocre skirmish game.

    I would like movement to feel like it matters a bit more though. Sure, there’s the element of movement when it comes to objective grabbing, but nothing to do with moving into firing positions etc. I love light vehicles like Sentinels, Vypers, Piranhas etc, but when their guns are such long ranges and cover most of the table anyway, the highly manoeuvrable aspect of them seems to take a backseat. Perhaps I don’t play with enough LoS blocking terrain.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/04 23:06:44


    Post by: Manfred von Drakken


    nemesis464 wrote:
     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


    Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


    Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.





    This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.


    What was your biggest complaint? I quit ‘fantasy’ Warhammer the moment WHFB ended. I liked the careful manoeuvring of ranked up battlelines too much, I didn’t want to play yet another mediocre skirmish game.

    I would like movement to feel like it matters a bit more though. Sure, there’s the element of movement when it comes to objective grabbing, but nothing to do with moving into firing positions etc. I love light vehicles like Sentinels, Vypers, Piranhas etc, but when their guns are such long ranges and cover most of the table anyway, the highly manoeuvrable aspect of them seems to take a backseat. Perhaps I don’t play with enough LoS blocking terrain.


    The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.

    And for the record, my number three is the lore and setting. I was heavily invested in the Old World. The Mortal Realms still feel very empty and un-lived in, and the story doesn't spend enough time in any one place for things to matter. I'm also still a little bitter that Malekith hasn't really stepped on the stage yet, but Teclis gets to be a god despite literally exploding in the End Times (which, really, was all his fault, anyway).


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 01:25:42


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
    The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.
    I can't get a read on that. Every time I see a post like yours, I see several people jumping in going on about how the double turn is fine, and those that think it's bad either don't understand or don't play AoS.

    Meanwhile, most of tneva82's AoS game reports in this thread mention the double turn if not outright state its the reason why he won/lost.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 01:45:58


    Post by: ERJAK


     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


    Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


    Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.




    This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.


    The movement phase is the most important phase in the game if you're actually good at 40k.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
    The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.
    I can't get a read on that. Every time I see a post like yours, I see several people jumping in going on about how the double turn is fine, and those that think it's bad either don't understand or don't play AoS.

    Meanwhile, most of tneva82's AoS game reports in this thread mention the double turn if not outright state its the reason why he won/lost.


    Little of column A, little of column B. One of the first things you learn as a competitive AoS player is how NOT to automatically lose if you get double turned.

    Denying a double turn, forcing your opponent to pass by giving them terrible options and needing to avoid getting double turned themselves, or eating a double turn and then still winning after are immensely satisfying successes on a tactical/master planning level; which is a big part of why the faction of AoS that doesn't mind or really loves the double turn, DOES love it.

    That said, it absolutely does win games on the spot sometimes, even at very high levels. Some shooting armies were only meta because they could basically guarantee a T1-T2 double turn and wipe half an army off the board.

    It also allows for dramatic come-from-behind victories in a way 40k could never.

    Good and the bad.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 02:05:48


    Post by: Gadzilla666


     vict0988 wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:
    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

    Because we know they can be implemented. The people that dislike USR have also been quiet for this thread, but they do exist. I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.

    Even if the older morale system was put back in place, it wouldn't necessarily mean that everything would be affected by it the same. In HH 2.0, if a Daemon or Corrupted unit fails a Morale Check, it doesn't fallback, but instead automatically takes D3 wounds that can't be saved (so basically MWs). Necrons could have something like that, so the squad itself holds its ground, as it should, but it takes some wounds to represent some of the squad members "phasing out". Would something like that work for you?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 03:07:34


    Post by: Hecaton


    Removed - rule #1


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 04:13:33


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Hecaton wrote:

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Karol wrote:
    For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.


    Removed - rule #1

    Guess I'm the one to defend Karol again.

    Do you know how fething hard it is to get a community going for a game when those potential players aren't even sure their investment will result in more players? It takes a feth ton of effort and time.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 04:41:46


    Post by: Amishprn86


     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


    Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


    Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.




    This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.


    But.... Movement is extremely important in AoS....


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 05:56:50


    Post by: nemesis464


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Karol wrote:
    For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.


    Removed - rule #1

    Guess I'm the one to defend Karol again.

    Do you know how fething hard it is to get a community going for a game when those potential players aren't even sure their investment will result in more players? It takes a feth ton of effort and time.


    Couldn’t agree more. It’s so much easier said that done.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 07:10:12


    Post by: Sim-Life


    ERJAK wrote:
     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


    Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


    Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.




    This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.


    The movement phase is the most important phase in the game if you're actually good at 40k.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
    The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.
    I can't get a read on that. Every time I see a post like yours, I see several people jumping in going on about how the double turn is fine, and those that think it's bad either don't understand or don't play AoS.

    Meanwhile, most of tneva82's AoS game reports in this thread mention the double turn if not outright state its the reason why he won/lost.


    Little of column A, little of column B. One of the first things you learn as a competitive AoS player is how NOT to automatically lose if you get double turned.

    Denying a double turn, forcing your opponent to pass by giving them terrible options and needing to avoid getting double turned themselves, or eating a double turn and then still winning after are immensely satisfying successes on a tactical/master planning level; which is a big part of why the faction of AoS that doesn't mind or really loves the double turn, DOES love it.

    That said, it absolutely does win games on the spot sometimes, even at very high levels. Some shooting armies were only meta because they could basically guarantee a T1-T2 double turn and wipe half an army off the board.

    It also allows for dramatic come-from-behind victories in a way 40k could never.

    Good and the bad.


    oh here we go with the "it's not the game that's bad, it's YOU that's bad" stuff. Next we'll be told we're not using enough terrain and 98 strats per army is okay because most of them suck anyway so you only actually need to remember 5.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 07:27:22


    Post by: tneva82


    ERJAK wrote:

    Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.


    Ummm...so you basically say every tank designer in ou world are stupid. Seeing armour strongest at front is normal. Funny that seeing either armour needs to be so thin it provides no protection anywhere or tank is so heavy it barely moves and runs out of energy soon. 1" m valun and stops moving after t3?-)

    There's reason tanks don't have uniform armour...but armchair generals with zero idea how tanks work dont see it. "make armour equally strong everywhere!"


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 07:38:15


    Post by: vict0988


    tneva82 wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:

    Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.


    Ummm...so you basically say every tank designer in ou world are stupid. Seeing armour strongest at front is normal. Funny that seeing either armour needs to be so thin it provides no protection anywhere or tank is so heavy it barely moves and runs out of energy soon. 1" m valun and stops moving after t3?-)

    There's reason tanks don't have uniform armour...but armchair generals with zero idea how tanks work dont see it. "make armour equally strong everywhere!"

    I don't have tanks, I have alien hovercraft. Make it Astra Militarum's Combat Doctrine to be tougher to kill in the front arc for the tanker aficionados and let me ignore it otherwise.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 07:41:54


    Post by: jeff white


    Change from inches to centimeters while keeping numbers the same, so range 12 means range 12cms, and make the table bigger at the same time, e.g. back to 8x4, remove turn limits...

    Mostly, i agree with most other posters on most points e.g. strats disappear, USRs return, etc.

    Overall, it is exciting to see so many relatively new members of Dakka posting such sensible solutions such as those.

    Great thread.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 07:41:57


    Post by: Akor Doomflayer


     vict0988 wrote:
    I don't have tanks, I have alien hovercraft. Make it Astra Militarum's Combat Doctrine to be tougher to kill in the front arc for the tanker aficionados and let me ignore it otherwise.


    What is the front arc on those alien hovercraft even? People defending armor facings always seem to omit the part where they only worked for Imperial boxes and "draw the lines between the corners" doesn't work when the model in question doesn't have corners. And sure, you could house rule it for each game, but at that point you're conceding that the rule doesn't function and it's time to discard it.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     jeff white wrote:
    Change from inches to centimeters while keeping numbers the same, so range 12 means range 12cms, and make the table bigger at the same time, e.g. back to 8x4, remove turn limits...


    Let's not. 40k already has enough realism issues without having infantry that can't shoot from one end of a tank to the other.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 08:07:04


    Post by: Vatsetis


    CAnt You sholve the Alien Hovercraft problem just by giving them a uniform armour value??

    Same for a Monolith...

    ... But certainly AM and many Astartes vehicules look as if they have an armour distribution similar to that of RL tanks.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 08:07:56


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 08:10:12


    Post by: Eldarsif


     Amishprn86 wrote:
     Manfred von Drakken wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
     Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


    Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.


    Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.




    This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.


    But.... Movement is extremely important in AoS....


    Yep, people who downplay movement in AoS have never played AoS. People forget that the Coherency rule in AoS is much more brutal than the 40k one and how the pile-in rules work.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 08:34:21


    Post by: Dysartes


     TheBestBucketHead wrote:
    For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.

    If they brought facings back for 10th as part of a reset - which I doubt they'll do, unfortunately, but let's run with it as a thought experiment - a QOL improvement to the process would be that each vehicle datasheet could be accompanied by a top-down illustration of the stock vehicle showing which arc covers where.

    I'd like for that material to also be available as a printable PDF - and I mean just the illustrations, there - but that's a minor point.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 08:35:44


    Post by: Karol


    Hecaton 806314 11412626 wrote:Removed - rule #1

    Sure just give people around here incomes high enough, so they can't just start a game, paint the models and then find out that no one wants to play it. People strugle supporting the building of a w40k and AoS army with a secondary and recast market that actualy exists.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 08:36:47


    Post by: Akor Doomflayer


    Karol wrote:
    You don't need gangs, if in your town or group of towns people play at a store and not at home, and the store owner lets people play only the games he sells or supports, he is not going to allow you to clog up the tables with games he is not selling, while at the same time not having tables for people who actualy buy stuff at the store and not online. At best you are going to get a slot to play on monday mornings and Good Luck finding people that can play in those hours, even durning summer.


    But this is dystopian fantasy Poland. Why are you letting the store owner decide what happens? Kill him and take his store, your gang deserves it more than he does. And then you can tell all the 40k players to either join you in playing Warmachine or die.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     TheBestBucketHead wrote:
    For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.


    This would at least solve the issue of knowing where the lines go on things that aren't Imperial boxes, it still wouldn't deal with the endless arguments over which facing you're in. The small amount of added strategic depth just wasn't worth all the conflict, especially in a game where non-vehicles completely ignore facings/crossfire/etc.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 08:58:21


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


     Dysartes wrote:
     TheBestBucketHead wrote:
    For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.

    If they brought facings back for 10th as part of a reset - which I doubt they'll do, unfortunately, but let's run with it as a thought experiment - a QOL improvement to the process would be that each vehicle datasheet could be accompanied by a top-down illustration of the stock vehicle showing which arc covers where.

    I'd like for that material to also be available as a printable PDF - and I mean just the illustrations, there - but that's a minor point.


    Yeah. Free pdfs of vehicle facings would be great.

    And, if they went the front/back route, they could have bases split down the middle to show exactly where the line is.

    But the issue of where you are for facings? If you're in a facing, you can attack that facing. Being in a facing would mean that, if any part of your base is in a facing's arc, you can shoot that facing. To determine the arcs, place the template over the model and use a ruler or straight line to determine where they are.

    Obviously it's cumbersome, which is why I prefer the front/back idea, but it's not like Games Workshop couldn't have fixed the bigger problems in a couple months, rather than waiting years, and then dropping the idea in its entirety.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 09:02:54


    Post by: Karol


     Akor Doomflayer wrote:


    But this is dystopian fantasy Poland. Why are you letting the store owner decide what happens? Kill him and take his store, your gang deserves it more than he does. And then you can tell all the 40k players to either join you in playing Warmachine or die.

    .

    Because this is Poland not the US. If you kill a person, you go to prison. The question is stupid, you can't inherit stuff for other people, which is another differnce comparing to the US.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 13:31:33


    Post by: Slipspace


    Karol wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:
    Removed - rule #1
    Given the Mad Max-ian alternate dimension that Karol (somehow) posts from, setting such a thing up could lead to a full scale post-apocalyptic multi-gang war. Perhaps better to stick with 40k.



    You don't need gangs, if in your town or group of towns people play at a store and not at home, and the store owner lets people play only the games he sells or supports, he is not going to allow you to clog up the tables with games he is not selling, while at the same time not having tables for people who actualy buy stuff at the store and not online. At best you are going to get a slot to play on monday mornings and Good Luck finding people that can play in those hours, even durning summer.

    A competent business owner would ask themself why they aren't supporting a game that a lot of local people clearly want to play.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 13:43:00


    Post by: Voss


     Akor Doomflayer wrote:
    Karol wrote:
    You don't need gangs, if in your town or group of towns people play at a store and not at home, and the store owner lets people play only the games he sells or supports, he is not going to allow you to clog up the tables with games he is not selling, while at the same time not having tables for people who actualy buy stuff at the store and not online. At best you are going to get a slot to play on monday mornings and Good Luck finding people that can play in those hours, even durning summer.


    But this is dystopian fantasy Poland. Why are you letting the store owner decide what happens? Kill him and take his store, your gang deserves it more than he does. And then you can tell all the 40k players to either join you in playing Warmachine or die.


    Can we not encourage actual murder? From prior posts, there is a non-zero chance of this happening.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 13:44:38


    Post by: Karol


    How do you know that there are many local people wanting to play those games ?
    Stuff which is popular is already played, and any time taken away from those games, would drive away paying customers in favour of those potential ones. Potential ones which may just buy their stuff online, if the store doesn't have the entire model line they want. And then they would play at the store, taking up tables, from customers of games the stores sells.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 13:58:24


    Post by: Akor Doomflayer


    Voss wrote:
    Can we not encourage actual murder? From prior posts, there is a non-zero chance of this happening.


    Shrug. We know Karol has already killed hundreds of people in the post-apocalyptic wasteland. Wrestling tournaments there are fought to the death, and we know that bludgeoning your opponent to death with a dreadsock is a common strategy in 40k. For him to have lived this long he has to have a body count in at least three digits.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 13:59:15


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Karol wrote:
    For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.


    Removed - rule #1

    Guess I'm the one to defend Karol again.

    Do you know how fething hard it is to get a community going for a game when those potential players aren't even sure their investment will result in more players? It takes a feth ton of effort and time.


    so play games with no investment? Not every game requires that you buy their minis


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Akor Doomflayer wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    I don't have tanks, I have alien hovercraft. Make it Astra Militarum's Combat Doctrine to be tougher to kill in the front arc for the tanker aficionados and let me ignore it otherwise.


    What is the front arc on those alien hovercraft even? People defending armor facings always seem to omit the part where they only worked for Imperial boxes and "draw the lines between the corners" doesn't work when the model in question doesn't have corners. And sure, you could house rule it for each game, but at that point you're conceding that the rule doesn't function and it's time to discard it.



    it's pretty simple tbh, GW just has to write proper rules.

    Take the point of connection to the base, then draw lines at a 90" angle that extend infinitely, if youre in a quarter, youre shooting the corresponding facing.

    imagine that kind of base


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Karol wrote:
    Hecaton 806314 11412626 wrote:Removed - rule #1

    Sure just give people around here incomes high enough, so they can't just start a game, paint the models and then find out that no one wants to play it. People strugle supporting the building of a w40k and AoS army with a secondary and recast market that actualy exists.


    again, many games don't require you to buy new models since theyre model agnostic


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 14:07:22


    Post by: Wayniac


    Honestly in the US especially the game stores essentially control what's allowed to be played. If they don't outright tell you you can't play a game they don't stock then the players will ostracize you because they really do treat the game store like their turf. I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there. I've seen people berated simply for saying hey this other store is having a tournament in 2 weeks, the store owner called the guy out and said it was disrespectful to talk about another game store in his establishment

    I have almost seen what amounted to a gang war between two stores because one of them accused the other of trying to steal their customers by saying that they were also having 40k nights.

    It may be extreme but it's not unrealistic to have groups that have no common interest or association other than the fact that they all shop and play at the same store. These people don't want to have an actual community they want to gather around the game store and that's it


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 14:09:31


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Karol wrote:

    Because this is Poland not the US. If you kill a person, you go to prison. The question is stupid, you can't inherit stuff for other people, which is another differnce comparing to the US.


    Bruh you cannot be serious lmao.

    They were obviously being sarcastic, and you do go to prison if you kill someone in the US


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 14:12:23


    Post by: Akor Doomflayer


    Wayniac wrote:
    I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there.


    How is it not disrespectful? It's a store, not a private club, free gaming space is provided with the intent that you have a place to use the stuff you buy at the store (or at least provide opponents for the people who do buy their games there). Expecting to use the store's space to play a game they don't sell is like walking into a restaurant with a to-go bag from the local McDonalds and expecting them to let you use one of their tables to eat it.

    (Granted, this would be different if the store was charging money for the use of the space, but at least in the US hardly any stores do.)


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 14:24:21


    Post by: Vatsetis


    Wayniac wrote:
    Honestly in the US especially the game stores essentially control what's allowed to be played. If they don't outright tell you you can't play a game they don't stock then the players will ostracize you because they really do treat the game store like their turf. I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there. I've seen people berated simply for saying hey this other store is having a tournament in 2 weeks, the store owner called the guy out and said it was disrespectful to talk about another game store in his establishment

    I have almost seen what amounted to a gang war between two stores because one of them accused the other of trying to steal their customers by saying that they were also having 40k nights.

    It may be extreme but it's not unrealistic to have groups that have no common interest or association other than the fact that they all shop and play at the same store. These people don't want to have an actual community they want to gather around the game store and that's it


    I guess Im fortunate to live in Spain rather than in the gangwarfare wastelands of "Poland" and the "US", here when you go to a gamming night to the LGS the only thing we risk are bragging rights rather than our lives!!!


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Karol wrote:

    Because this is Poland not the US. If you kill a person, you go to prison. The question is stupid, you can't inherit stuff for other people, which is another differnce comparing to the US.


    Bruh you cannot be serious lmao.

    They were obviously being sarcastic, and you do go to prison if you kill someone in the US


    Only if proven guilty in a convoluted trial.... And if your bikers gang buddies dont rescue you on the way to prison.

    According to the movies (documentaries?) Ive been watching lately killing someone and going to jail in the US is a rare occurence.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 14:54:23


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Akor Doomflayer wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there.


    How is it not disrespectful? It's a store, not a private club, free gaming space is provided with the intent that you have a place to use the stuff you buy at the store (or at least provide opponents for the people who do buy their games there). Expecting to use the store's space to play a game they don't sell is like walking into a restaurant with a to-go bag from the local McDonalds and expecting them to let you use one of their tables to eat it.

    (Granted, this would be different if the store was charging money for the use of the space, but at least in the US hardly any stores do.)


    Hard disagree on that way of thinking, every single store i know of encourages any game being played on their tables. A table with people playing on it is better than a table with nobody on it, a full store attracts more people, lets you post more pictures on facebook to show the community is booming. Let's say i go to my LGS that doesnt sell Malifaux and start playing Malifaux, they gain interest in it, ask about how the game is and it becomes a possible product they would sell if they see quite a few people playing it.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 15:09:51


    Post by: Karol


     VladimirHerzog wrote:


    Bruh you cannot be serious lmao.

    They were obviously being sarcastic, and


    I have a degree of problem in understanding sarcasm. And as far as anything coming from most western countries I assume everything is the way people write it, because there is enough wierd and ununderstandable stuff I read about those places, to assume anything is not possible.


    you do go to prison if you kill someone in the US

    But not always. I am no telepath, and I watched enough US streamers on twitch to assume that for some, the actual physical elimination of store owners, is something they accept. I know my grand aunt had such problems with her tenants in Chicago.


    It's a store, not a private club, free gaming space is provided with the intent that you have a place to use the stuff you buy at the store (or at least provide opponents for the people who do buy their games there).

    Where I live to use the table, you either have to buy stuff on a monthly basis or pay for the table, so it ain't free. But I assume it doesn't have to be like that everywhere.

    A table with people playing on it is better than a table with nobody on it, a full store attracts more people, lets you post more pictures on facebook to show the community is booming.

    I have played since the very start of 8th ed. In two stores. I can't remember a single time, where there would be people at the store and all three tables in them were not reserved or with people playing on them. Maybe in US, where the houses are the size of warehouse, and stores are probably the size of small auditoriums it is different. But not everyone lives in the US, and not all stores are gigantic.



     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Let's say i go to my LGS that doesnt sell Malifaux and start playing Malifaux, they gain interest in it, ask about how the game is and it becomes a possible product they would sell if they see quite a few people playing it.


    There is now an extra game, and am assuming the game found traction and people didn't just stay with games they could find opponents for without spending extra money, for the same number of table. This blows up the schedul and days on which specific games are played, the old customers will be unhappy, because they will have less chance to play on the days that are best to play. On top of that a ton of people will start thinking, why am I playing the full store price for stuff, when I could start buying my w40k stuff online for 10% cheaper. It is a good way to kill your store.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 15:15:24


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Whelp, setting aside the fact that "someone" has a new account obviously, there is quite a lot of truly odd language getting tossed around here.

    1. Why are we discussing murder?
    2. Why are we discussing disrespect to GW? GW is not a person that deserves respect. Humans deserve respect, not companies.
    3. Why is it every time we start a thread on 10th, it gets derailed by a very specific person into trolling?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 15:19:49


    Post by: Akor Doomflayer


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    1. Why are we discussing murder?


    Because in fantasy Poland murder is the only way to get to play a new game. You have to assemble a gang and kill the rival gang that owns the store and bans anything but their favorite game from being played there.

    (Fortunately it is easier in the real world, but we should acknowledge that Karol lives in a dystopian alternate universe where ruthless Darwinism is the only law and give him appropriate advice for his situation.)

    2. Why are we discussing disrespect to GW? GW is not a person that deserves respect. Humans deserve respect, not companies.


    We aren't, the comment was about disrespect to the store, a store which is owned by people.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 18:41:12


    Post by: usmcmidn


    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 18:49:57


    Post by: Amishprn86


    usmcmidn wrote:
    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 18:52:48


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Amishprn86 wrote:
    usmcmidn wrote:
    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.


    not really, just one dice per squad


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 18:56:22


    Post by: Amishprn86


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
    usmcmidn wrote:
    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.


    not really, just one dice per squad


    Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 18:57:04


    Post by: Karol


    It would create a whole after phase sub phase, where all the units that do or fight or shot after death have an additional turn, and I guess the kills they would generate would sometimes spill over and sometimes not, knowing GW.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 19:13:42


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Amishprn86 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
    usmcmidn wrote:
    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.


    not really, just one dice per squad


    Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.


    put the dead dudes on their side


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 19:20:10


    Post by: Tallonian4th


    usmcmidn wrote:
    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    Really like this idea. If you are not going to move to alternating activations (which has it's own issues) this could really help with a lot of the issues of the current structure. Yes you may still be alpha striked in that next turn you are obliterated but at least you don't have half your units that did nothing.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 19:20:25


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Karol wrote:
    It would create a whole after phase sub phase, where all the units that do or fight or shot after death have an additional turn, and I guess the kills they would generate would sometimes spill over and sometimes not, knowing GW.


    just delete fight/shoot on death from the game


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 19:33:26


    Post by: Blndmage


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
    usmcmidn wrote:
    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.


    not really, just one dice per squad


    Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.


    put the dead dudes on their side


    My 4th Ed Necrons miss this.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/05 21:46:23


    Post by: Amishprn86


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Amishprn86 wrote:
    usmcmidn wrote:
    Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.


    I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.


    not really, just one dice per squad


    Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.


    put the dead dudes on their side


    Thats not how Apoc works, all dead still gets the rest of the turn to play. All wounds are done at the end of the turn, removing models changes the movements, charge, los, etc.. of each unit that way.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 02:33:09


    Post by: catbarf


    Damage resolution at the end of a battle round would be weird, because that means only one player has to deal with their opponent being able to shoot back before their models are removed.

    It works in Apocalypse because the game is alternating activation. And I think AA on its own would do a lot to address the 'use your cool toys before they get blown away' issue; it certainly does in Grimdark Future.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 03:06:29


    Post by: dominuschao


     Sim-Life wrote:
    Hard to believe honestly but I'd welcome it if it means GW have sorted out their lack of design philosophy on the game

    But sure, here's my wishlist:
    - no strats
    - no subfactions
    - no doctrines
    - no super doctrines
    - USRs
    - HQ units lets you change the classification of specific units (so a Trygon Prime makes Ravaners troops for example)
    - more interesting rules that reroll auras and +/-1 modifiers on everything
    - more out of turn movement actions like falling back, counter-charges, going to ground etc
    - just more emphasis in manuvering in general


    I'd be okay with keeping secondaries if all of the above happened honestly. My big issue with 40k 9th Ed s the book keeping and mental load honestly.

    I'd go for this. No bespoke rules.

    In fact just give me a polished up 6th again and I'd be happy. Until 10th I'm done 9th is too much of a shitshow and the CSM Dex was the last straw. Hoping for the traitor legions treatment.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 13:17:36


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 13:37:42


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Amishprn86 wrote:

    Thats not how Apoc works, all dead still gets the rest of the turn to play. All wounds are done at the end of the turn, removing models changes the movements, charge, los, etc.. of each unit that way.


    no i mean litterally put the model laying down where they were to represent that theyre dead, and keep a wounds counter for the ones that arent




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?



    Its pretty simple, other games have it figured out already.


    2 options :

    A : from the connection point of the base/center of mass, you trace two lines that are perpendicular to each other, creating 4 quarters around the model. If the firing model is within one of these quarters, thats the facing theyre shooting.

    B: GW provides custom diagrams for every vehicle and places them on the datasheet


    Basically, recreate these bases for every vehicle in the game



    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 14:54:27


    Post by: Voss


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?


    You act like clearly defined facings and firing arcs are hard, rather than 'in the past, GW only did a mediocre job,' and it wasn't a real problem for anyone but the pedants.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 15:23:20


    Post by: Unusual Suspect


    "Hi, folks! We here at GW are hard at work bringing back old mechanics, but we know how fiddly actual facings could be... so we figured out a great way to make it nice and easy! All you have to do is buy dozens of new bases - one for each and every one of your formerly baseless vehicles - before you ever play a game of 10th! Don't forget to paint and base them, but be careful! You have to do in a way that preserves this very simple pattern on the bottom, so you can see the facings. Oh man, they're neato... and you'll love them, no doubts! Waaagh, or something! You guys like that, right?"

    I foresee that going over really well.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 15:29:00


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    GW has gotten away with much more, including deleting units and options from codexes. But you don't need the new bases if they just have a diagram per vehicle on a printable pdf that you can put over your vehicle if needed. Even then, needing new bases is something that happens occasionally, like when models change base sizes. It's not my ideal solution to have a bunch of bases being made for it, but there's a lot of answers for this.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 15:46:28


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    So what about non-based vehicles? I'm only asking about Facings because I forsee a lot of people using this as a way to cheat by either slow playing (Measuring and re-measuring multiple times during opponents turn, or wasting time debating "imaginary lines"), or fast playing (Assuming they are in the quadrant for optimal results without actually verifying, think fast pickup of dice)

    Basically anything where the rules state "Draw imaginary anything" leaves me feeling hinky. If there were actual templates or blast templates that would be one thing.

    My unknowledgable assumption:

    My Vertus Praetor with Melta Missiles and spear CAN be built in such a way that the spear peaks out father than the model is supposed to be. So I could position my bikes so that the spears can see the rear of the vehicle. I now get Melta shots at the rear of the target. This is not fair or sportsmanlike, but it is allowed under my current understanding of facing rules and shooting rules. It's also not at ALL difficult to achieve when building my models.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 16:00:32


    Post by: Gadzilla666


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    So what about non-based vehicles? I'm only asking about Facings because I forsee a lot of people using this as a way to cheat by either slow playing (Measuring and re-measuring multiple times during opponents turn, or wasting time debating "imaginary lines"), or fast playing (Assuming they are in the quadrant for optimal results without actually verifying, think fast pickup of dice)

    Basically anything where the rules state "Draw imaginary anything" leaves me feeling hinky. If there were actual templates or blast templates that would be one thing.

    My unknowledgable assumption:

    My Vertus Praetor with Melta Missiles and spear CAN be built in such a way that the spear peaks out father than the model is supposed to be. So I could position my bikes so that the spears can see the rear of the vehicle. I now get Melta shots at the rear of the target. This is not fair or sportsmanlike, but it is allowed under my current understanding of facing rules and shooting rules. It's also not at ALL difficult to achieve when building my models.

    Models can only shoot a facing that they have Line of Sight on, and Line of Sight is drawn from the body of the model, not the tip of its spear. For models with bases you could always make Line of Sight be traced from the base.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 16:04:30


    Post by: Unusual Suspect


    There are answers, but every answer has a cost. The real question, then, is whether the costs are worth the rewards of slightly more nuance in facings for a particular subset of units in a mish-mashed-levels-of-abstraction game mechanic.

    Any specific layer of fiddly extra stuff you have to do is not a knife to the throat on its own, it's just a little extra fiddly stuff. But fiddly extra stuff doesn't just get added to make [subsection of units] slightly different, it ends up getting applied to a whole bunch of stuff. And a bunch of little stuff can add up to a lot of stuff.

    And one of the biggest complaints about 9th right now is bloat. Rules bloat, stratagem bloat.

    More fiddly stuff is a tough sell, for a relatively low benefit of making it sometimes make a difference for certain units if you fire behind, to the side, and/or in front of them.

    Personally, I don't want to have to look at the diagram of every codex's vehicle I face, figure out the facings of each individually different type of model, and work that into every battle. It's not an impossible task, it's just another layer of Things I Need To Memorize, and the payout seems... weak.

    If this relatively abstract game really needs flanking, IMO it doesn't need multiple bespoke flanking mechanics for different types of units. Pick something that's distinguishable at-a-glance, with universally applied benefits, so that the Aeldari Pathfinders putting rounds in the backs of unsuspecting Astartes engaged with Guardians on the other side gain as much advantage as a Fusion-equipped Stealth Suit putting heat on the tailpipe of the unsuspecting Leman Russ firing at the Hammerhead towards its front.

    And again, the simpler and easier the determination the better, IMO, if we're adding this layer of flanking fiddly. Implementing simple and easy determinations for flanking that don't lead to arguments? Hoo boy, that's probably a harder ask than most folks realize.


    Edit 1:...A real spit-ball, 3 minute thought, but here's my As Simple As I Can Imagine flanking mechanic concept, possibly poorly worded since this is on the fly:

    If two friendly units with LoS to an enemy unit have at least one enemy model between at least one friendly model in each friendly unit, that enemy unit does not gain the benefits of cover (if any) and/or the friendly models gain [small boost to shooting ... perhaps reroll 1s to hit? 1 better AP, if that's still around? extra morale penalty?].

    Edit 2: Honestly, it probably doesn't even need to be a second unit. If you have an enemy model between two friendly models, it is Flanked, and gets Punished.



    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 16:12:26


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    I think flanking benefits for flanking vehicles and flanking infantry is a good distinction for bonuses. The cost of the flanking for vehicles seems to be that people might cheat, it will take longer, and you might need to rebase, depending on which route is taken. But, to me, people trying to cheat will always happen, the second is a suitable cost, and with the predrawn templates for each vehicle, the third won't happen. If we cut down on a lot of rules bloat, this tiny droplet of rules won't matter. What would matter is if this only affected one or two factions.

    And, if we just do front/back, there's no real issue. If you're in front of the model, use the front armor. If you're behind, use the rear armor. If you're somewhere in the middle, as long as you're in the arc, you can use either.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 16:33:18


    Post by: Unusual Suspect


    I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

    I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

    Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

    Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 16:40:53


    Post by: Spoletta


    The only sensible way to implement "Facing" is by making the crossfire rule a general rule.

    Being caught in crossfire removes cover.

    Against vehicles and monsters it grants +1 to wound, but only weapons with a strenght equal to the vehicle/monster thoughness can apply the crossfire marker to it.

    Something like this could potentially work.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 16:45:21


    Post by: Unusual Suspect


    And hey, it's a long-standing tradition to take Xenos mechanics and make them universal during a new edition.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 16:48:04


    Post by: Karol


    Voss wrote:
    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?


    You act like clearly defined facings and firing arcs are hard, rather than 'in the past, GW only did a mediocre job,' and it wasn't a real problem for anyone but the pedants.


    Truth be told, if people went by the logic GW can make stuff worse, then they are right now. Then the best thing, for people playing the game and not GW, would be for rules to freeze and never ever added anything new. Even stuff like the new sesons thing create bonkers stuff, like necron soliter. There is a proverbial milion and one things that can end up real bad, if GW decides it could rise their sales short term.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 17:16:39


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    Flanking is already not worth anything, and losing cover barely means anything as well. We need more rules that make movement matter, and my first few changes wouldn't be to vehicles. Vehicle facings are one of many changes I'd like for 40k. I would be fine with a facing mechanic for infantry if people couldn't just turn their models in different directions to ignore it. In WHFB there's front, flank, and rear. But this wouldn't work in 40k, because it's much more of a model by model system. Individual models having facing causes issues. So, if we went by the unit, there's another big issue. How to we determine its facing? At all? We could have the person declare their facing during movement, but that's prone to issues. We could put units on square bases in formations, but that doesn't work for 40k. Maybe a few units, but not to the point where it's worth implementing.

    Instead, if we give vehicles square bases, or make outlines, or any solution we can, we can provide bonuses for flanking, without needing to add tons of rules for infantry. I think vehicles should have distinct rules, different from creatures. In addition, they're often one model in a unit, or act independently. This means that individual facings actually work for them.

    Certainly, if 40k could handle it, Infinity style bases with a front side on the base would be nice to have. But, we don't have the luxury of it being a skirmish style game. We're stuck with units, and the easiest way to differentiate vehicles would be a front/back armor facing, and would allow for the movement phase to have more impact.

    But, this is one of many changes I'd make, and my ideal 40k is a skirmish game, so I might not be the best person to reference when it comes to larger scale gameplay.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 17:25:27


    Post by: Karol


    So in the end it boils down to, besides certain decision made by GW durning rules writing, a problem with a gaming system being run as a quasi skirmish one, but with a wargame/historical number of units etc. w40k, and AoS too from my expiriance, starts to break apart when there starts to be 150+ models on the table .


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 17:29:42


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    I'll be honest, I'm not sure it's a problem. Just a preference. I'd prefer a different style of game, one with more importance on individual models, or more importance on a unit, rather than a weird mix of both. I'm not well versed enough in wargames to give a good answer.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 17:45:18


    Post by: Karol


    It is a problem, because with how damage scales in w40k 2000pts of proper build army anihilates a large chunk of the opposing army without any chance to stop it.
    1 void weaver isn't just 3 times weaker then 3, and only 9 times weaker then 9.
    It turns the game in to a race for most people, and for a few rare armies, it turns in to a soliter where they play the game not really carrying what the other side does. For tournaments it maybe isn't even that bad. But for casual games, the fact that we can get new players come on to a forum and start asking how they can legaly stop their friend from using a model is very bad.
    I have very little expiriance with other table top or historical systems, but in non I know or have seen played, have the problems GW games have. Which also tells a lot how strong being the monopol in table top makes you.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 17:50:50


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    That's more a problem of lethality and improper balancing. Lethality is a huge problem in 40k, because turns last so long, and there's very little you can do to counteract it besides just hiding entire units. I tended towards Infinity, which is much more lethal, but you have ways to react to and counter their lethality without needing to hide everything, though hiding stuff is still important.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 17:55:45


    Post by: Souleater


    USRs to return but stop calling them different names in each codex.

    If a unit has Objective Secured...just call it Objective Secured, for example.

    Make a glossary of rules terms that both designers and players have access to. Make the designers *stick to it and understand it*.

    Fewer stratagems. At most limit each book to one double page of stratagems.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 17:58:35


    Post by: a_typical_hero


    I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

    It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 20:59:57


    Post by: Wayniac


    Plot Twist: GW buys one page rules Grimdark Future and uses it as 10th edition lol


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 21:03:23


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    a_typical_hero wrote:
    I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

    It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.


    its people that never played other games where facings are properly implemented and thinking that GW did the best possible implementation. So in their heads: if GW did it poorly, its impossible to do properly.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/06 23:03:25


    Post by: Sim-Life


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    a_typical_hero wrote:
    I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

    It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.


    its people that never played other games where facings are properly implemented and thinking that GW did the best possible implementation. So in their heads: if GW did it poorly, its impossible to do properly.


    This applies to A LOT of suggested changes that GW defenders don't like.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 03:54:38


    Post by: Unusual Suspect


    a_typical_hero wrote:
    I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

    It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.


    It's a lot less of an issue if your faction is almost exclusively made up of METAHL BAWKSES, which *checks your signature* seems to be true for you. Play any Eldar, Necron, T'au?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 07:37:30


    Post by: a_typical_hero


    Not myself, but my opponents had them.

    Dark Eldar had their Reavers or Ravagers...their transports and a bomber.

    Necrons had their War of the worlds striders. Tau I haven't played yet in that system.
    One IG player had Sentinels and Vendettas, if that makes any difference.

    All worked alright without causing a big fuss during gaming.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 08:32:08


    Post by: tneva82


     Unusual Suspect wrote:
    I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

    I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

    Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

    Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].


    Yeahno point rewardingmovement. Game should be just like up and he who got most op army wins. Manouveing is for pansies'


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 12:24:53


    Post by: Inquisitor Kallus


     vict0988 wrote:
    nemesis464 wrote:
    There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

    I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.


    It's probably possible to allow Necrons to retain this kind of rule whilst other armies have something different. An army rule that better shows how they fight


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 13:36:54


    Post by: Unusual Suspect


    tneva82 wrote:
     Unusual Suspect wrote:
    I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

    I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

    Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

    Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].


    Yeahno point rewardingmovement. Game should be just like up and he who got most op army wins. Manouveing is for pansies'


    Fascinating take, when my edit seemed pretty clear that my issue isn't with rewarding movement, but rewarding movement ONLY AGAINST A SUBSET OF A SUBSET OF A UNIT TYPE.

    Edit: Seriously, I want to know how you got that take when my preference is explicitly "integrating a Universal, appropriate abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies is Good.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 15:20:40


    Post by: Leo_the_Rat


    I'd like to see the rule that said a weapon had to be able to "see" the target before it could shoot. If you can't line up the barrel of the weapon with the target you shouldn't be able to use that weapon against that target. If the vehicle is supposed to have a turret, or whatever arc of fire, but the owner glued it in place then the weapon could still fire in its intended field of fire. No more tanks firing through their own hulls or using antennae to fire from. Then, at least, the facing of the vehicle matters for the person moving the vehicle.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 17:49:34


    Post by: Gadzilla666


    Unusual Suspect wrote:
    a_typical_hero wrote:
    I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

    It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.


    It's a lot less of an issue if your faction is almost exclusively made up of METAHL BAWKSES, which *checks your signature* seems to be true for you. Play any Eldar, Necron, T'au?

    Yeah, Xenos vehicles have a tendency to be shaped a bit different from Chaos/Loyalist vehicles, but that's usually been taken into account in their rules, though sometimes not ideally. Here's how gw has handled them in previous editions:

    Eldar: Definitely not "METAHL BAWKESES", but that was taken into account by either:

    Making them the same AV "all around": Crimson Hunters-10/10/10, War Walkers-10/10/10, Raiders-10/10/10.

    Making the front + side AV the same, with only the rear AV being different: Wave Serpent/Fire Prism/Falcon-12/12/10, Cobra/Scorpion-12/12/11, Ravagers-11/11/10. So the only thing that matters is determining the rear facing. Not difficult, IMO. But if it's something that people are going to quibble over, it can easily be solved by gw providing a clear picture showing just where to measure from to determine the rear facing for those vehicles

    Necrons: Also not "METAHL BAWKESES", but I can't remember any Necron vehicle that wasn't the same AV all around. Everything was 11/11/11, or 14/14/14, or similar. The only issue was Quantam Shielding, which only covered the front + side facings. So, just make Quantam Shielding cover all facings. Easy fix.

    Tau: Yeah, Hammerheads/Devilfish/Skyrays aren't "METAHL BAWKESES", but their designs mean that their facings can be found in the same way. Their engines + forward "airfoils" form a rectangular shape. One line goes from the "outside back" of the right engine to the "outside front" of the left airfoil, another goes from the "outside back" of the left engine to the "outside front" of the right airfoil. There's your facings.

    Unusual Suspect wrote:
    Spoiler:
    tneva82 wrote:
     Unusual Suspect wrote:
    I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

    I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

    Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

    Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].


    Yeahno point rewardingmovement. Game should be just like up and he who got most op army wins. Manouveing is for pansies'


    Fascinating take, when my edit seemed pretty clear that my issue isn't with rewarding movement, but rewarding movement ONLY AGAINST A SUBSET OF A SUBSET OF A UNIT TYPE.

    Edit: Seriously, I want to know how you got that take when my preference is explicitly "integrating a Universal, appropriate abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies is Good.

    You already get a "bonus" for sorrounding a unit. It's called "All of my units now get to shoot/charge your unit and delete it". Pretty sure that's enough. The games already deadly enough as it is.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 20:16:48


    Post by: Cyel


    A game that I can actually play and not one that plays me. With 40k nowadays I feel most things I do at the table is what the rules tell me I have to do, boring upkeep ( "now roll a bunch of dice, now reroll them, now roll some of them, now watch the opponent roll theirs, now watch them remove models, now do this again and again" "game, and when will I get to be more active, you know, make some decisions etc?" "Sorry, market research has shown that it's not what customers want in a Warhammer game")


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/07 20:45:10


    Post by: vict0988


    Cyel wrote:
    A game that I can actually play and not one that plays me. With 40k nowadays I feel most things I do at the table is what the rules tell me I have to do, boring upkeep ( "now roll a bunch of dice, now reroll them, now roll some of them, now watch the opponent roll theirs, now watch them remove models, now do this again and again" "game, and when will I get to be more active, you know, make some decisions etc?" "Sorry, market research has shown that it's not what customers want in a Warhammer game")

    Nonsense. Casualties taken from anywhere. Re-rolls curbed since 8th, 'member Lootas? No melee artificial stupidity. No random game length. No random relics, traits or powers. The only thing driven by market research in 9th is the quarterly balance updates I think.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 01:56:03


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Does anyone see the 9th Guard Codex as being a really good look at how 10th will be, or just me?

    I.E. No price for gear, all included in base cost for unit. PL for all basically.

    Also, and expansion of the Toughness tables. Now with T9 platforms, T8 weapons don't have the usefulness they did before, so a LC might be more valuable than a Melta to throw into a basic infantry squad.
    And Plasma no longer needs to be overcharged. against vehicles.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 01:59:39


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    I.E. No price for gear, all included in base cost for unit. PL for all basically.
    I really hope this isn't the case. It's an awful way to write rules.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 02:37:14


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    Burn it down. Replace with Xenos books for new 30k.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 02:40:42


    Post by: Gadzilla666


     AnomanderRake wrote:
    Burn it down. Replace with Xenos books for new 30k.

    Or just import the new 30k rules into 40k wholesale. Either/or.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 02:41:21


    Post by: Voss


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    Does anyone see the 9th Guard Codex as being a really good look at how 10th will be, or just me?

    I.E. No price for gear, all included in base cost for unit. PL for all basically.

    I can't see into the future, so no, I don't think the guard codex is a good look at 10th.
    The we-can't-be-bothered to fix Guard dataslate rules are likely just going to be tossed in a bin.


    Also, and expansion of the Toughness tables. Now with T9 platforms, T8 weapons don't have the usefulness they did before, so a LC might be more valuable than a Melta to throw into a basic infantry squad.
    And Plasma no longer needs to be overcharged. against vehicles.


    'Expansion' isn't an issue with the wounding chart. Just un-breaking it.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 09:14:15


    Post by: Vankraken


    Biggest thing is shifting the game mechanics back to the core rules. This whole thing main rulebook idea was a failure when they have to layer so many "unique" rules onto the unit profiles instead of having USRs and core game mechanics that are more complex. It's absolutely terrible for consistency and it's ended up with a game with just as much (if not more) rules bloat than the end times of 7th. The game lost a lot of it's soul and the lack of interaction with unit rules across codexes is a big problem with that. A game should be able to allow hypothetical units with generic statlines and still have some degree of decision making and gameplay options instead beyond just the bare bones move, shoot, chop, die.

    Return back to a game system complexity more akin to the 4th to 7th BRB except better organize the rules, cut some of the book keeping stuff that rarely had much of an impact, make a solid but smaller set of USRs (stuff like relentless, FNP, scout, deep strike, melta, fearless, plus unit type rules). Even a game like 7th could be played mostly with just using the user made 4 page reference sheet so format a reference sheet to handle the bulk of the core rules lookups and leave the codexes to showing what stats/USRs a unit has and any codex unique rules that it might have. Shouldn't need 10 versions of move and shoot without penalty.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 09:28:52


    Post by: Dai


    Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 13:21:33


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


    A foolish hope - if you get a 'black book' of all the armies, subsequent codex should expand their tactical options, not simply 'be better'.

    A forlorn hope more like.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 13:54:43


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Dai wrote:
    Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.
    You want to go back to 2nd Ed's close combat rules?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 14:36:50


    Post by: oni


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Dai wrote:
    Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.
    You want to go back to 2nd Ed's close combat rules?


    I have fond memories of 2nd edition. Melee is NOT one of them.




    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 14:38:33


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Unusual Suspect wrote:
    a_typical_hero wrote:
    I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

    It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.


    It's a lot less of an issue if your faction is almost exclusively made up of METAHL BAWKSES, which *checks your signature* seems to be true for you. Play any Eldar, Necron, T'au?


    still not an issue since you have an easy center of mass (base connector) from which to start your facings (or GW could add a diagram on the datasheet)


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Leo_the_Rat wrote:
    I'd like to see the rule that said a weapon had to be able to "see" the target before it could shoot. If you can't line up the barrel of the weapon with the target you shouldn't be able to use that weapon against that target. If the vehicle is supposed to have a turret, or whatever arc of fire, but the owner glued it in place then the weapon could still fire in its intended field of fire. No more tanks firing through their own hulls or using antennae to fire from. Then, at least, the facing of the vehicle matters for the person moving the vehicle.


    I wouldn't tie it to the actual LoS of the weapon, i'd rather just tie to a facing, that way it doesn't affect players doing conversions for example.

    like, a quad las predator could have :

    Lascannon (Left)
    Lascannon (Right)
    Twin lascannon (Turret)

    with "turret" allowing you to shoot in any facing


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 14:42:53


    Post by: oni


    Been playing since 2nd edition and I was elated when they removed vehicle facings. It was a GOOD decision to remove them.

    Also, not having to draw LoS from the vehicles weapon to the target was another GOOD change.

    I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 15:14:36


    Post by: Tittliewinks22


     oni wrote:
    ...I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.


    Could you point me to this "better game play" that you speak of?

    Nothing in 9th is superior to 3rd-7th core rules.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 15:26:01


    Post by: a_typical_hero


     oni wrote:
    I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.

    As I said in my previous post, I've been playing with facings a lot lately. I've been playing without facings as well for a couple years. Facings as well as the armour value system do give the game a very different and imho better feel overall. For me, the better gameplay contains AV.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 15:41:21


    Post by: Tyran


    I see the point of facings. I never will see the point of the AV system.

    Making an entirely different wounding system seems like bad rule writing.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 15:44:26


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Tyran wrote:
    I see the point of facings. I never will see the point of the AV system.

    Making an entirely different wounding system seems like bad rule writing.


    thats just the implementation of GW once again.

    Making the ass of a tank weaker can be anything from +1 damage to +1 to wound to +1AP to anything else


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 16:13:01


    Post by: SemperMortis


    I'd really like GW to break the mold and do the unthinkable. Hire an Ork player to write ork rules so that way we aren't left with rules which sound good for a SM but are utter garbage for an Ork army. I know, asking too much but hey we can hope right?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 16:45:52


    Post by: Dai


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Dai wrote:
    Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.
    You want to go back to 2nd Ed's close combat rules?
    not with the current model count!

    Even back in the day i thought they should adopt WHFB combat system which they eventually pretty much did. 2nd edition combat is fine for necromunda/gorkamorka etc


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 18:48:15


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    Someone in here STOP whispering theories to Auspex tactics. Every time someone in here posts an idea, they make a video about it possibly happening.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 18:57:52


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    Someone in here STOP whispering theories to Auspex tactics. Every time someone in here posts an idea, they make a video about it possibly happening.


    gotta get content somehow when you're shoveling daily vids


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/08 18:58:04


    Post by: Voss


     oni wrote:
    Been playing since 2nd edition and I was elated when they removed vehicle facings. It was a GOOD decision to remove them.

    Also, not having to draw LoS from the vehicles weapon to the target was another GOOD change.

    I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.


    I don't think anyone is going to get it.
    Declaring something good without offering even a speck of reason as to why isn't particularly convincing.

    On the other hand, LOS from vehicle weapons rather than the corners and attachments seems obviously superior. The vehicle feels like its dealing with terrain in a functional way rather than being easily replaced by a game chit on graph paper. The current vehicle parking lots tucked sideways against board edges and shooting the entire table is a gameplay atrocity. You're going to need a long and extremely well-reasoned argument as to why that should be considered a 'good change'


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 00:07:07


    Post by: The Warp Forge


    As someone who just got the CSM codex, I welcome a whole new reset if they meet the following criteria for the entirety of the edition:

    - They show restraint to Power Creep (Don't give us some codexes with high swing damage and then start to make a trend with consistent damage output). Don't make an overproliferation to damage output which started us on the road to where we are now in which many lists just boil down to overproliferation of damge output Vs. Forced Wound rolls.

    - Get rid of strats or make them some sort of psudo-abilities from the politics board from ASOIAF game.

    - Treat Morale as an actual factor in the game rather than bloat it out of the Game with a proliferation of hard-counter Morale rules. Let players have more use for tactics beyond "shoot, buff/debuff, whack".

    They meet these criteria and I'll happily welcome a new edition!


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 03:59:48


    Post by: KingmanHighborn


    Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.

    Bring back armor values, make all flyers count as skimmers, charge out of vehicles, bring back templates, no more random rolls for most things, get rid of stratagems, command points, formations, etc.

    Go back to the old FOC, 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, HS, and Elites, and THAT'S IT.

    No named/special characters in games under 2K points and not in tournament plays, or without opponent's permission. Keep special named characters in narrative one off stuff.

    Leadership fails make people run away and bring back old school sweeping advance of catch and kill.

    Remove Titans, Grey Knights, and Custodes from the main game. (But that's really just personal wish.) Except in small support units to SM, IG, Sisters, etc.

    Fold demons back in with CSM and bring back the old school summoning and greater daemon popping out of champions rules.

    Rules for all armies in the main rulebook, like 3rd edition did, and make it a point of emphasis to not need 10 books to run one army.

    Paperback, SMALL codexes.





    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 05:52:41


    Post by: Amishprn86


     KingmanHighborn wrote:
    Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.

    Bring back armor values, make all flyers count as skimmers, charge out of vehicles, bring back templates, no more random rolls for most things, get rid of stratagems, command points, formations, etc.

    Go back to the old FOC, 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, HS, and Elites, and THAT'S IT.

    No named/special characters in games under 2K points and not in tournament plays, or without opponent's permission. Keep special named characters in narrative one off stuff.

    Leadership fails make people run away and bring back old school sweeping advance of catch and kill.

    Remove Titans, Grey Knights, and Custodes from the main game. (But that's really just personal wish.) Except in small support units to SM, IG, Sisters, etc.

    Fold demons back in with CSM and bring back the old school summoning and greater daemon popping out of champions rules.

    Rules for all armies in the main rulebook, like 3rd edition did, and make it a point of emphasis to not need 10 books to run one army.

    Paperback, SMALL codexes.





    Old FoC needs to have a way to add more slots no matter what at this point.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 06:37:40


    Post by: Jidmah


    The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

    I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

    It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 06:41:31


    Post by: Sim-Life


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Tyran wrote:
    I see the point of facings. I never will see the point of the AV system.

    Making an entirely different wounding system seems like bad rule writing.


    thats just the implementation of GW once again.

    Making the ass of a tank weaker can be anything from +1 damage to +1 to wound to +1AP to anything else


    This. Warmachine's grid system on warjacks was a great way of representing both the various systems involved in a vehicle, disabling them and the varied armour over the vehicle/robot.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 06:45:30


    Post by: vict0988


     KingmanHighborn wrote:
    Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.

    If 3rd ed was perfect for you then why wouldn't you just want a reprint and have a different game for those that want it? Is it that you want to play with Primaris in 3rd?
     Jidmah wrote:
    The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

    I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

    It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

    Could have a "if you have X-Y vehicles or monsters you get this bonus" "if you have X-Y flyers you get this bonus" "if you have X-Y characters you get this bonus" and so on.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 09:06:50


    Post by: Jidmah


    Not exactly what I was envisioning, but sure, why not?
    The vehicle and monster keywords aren't really granular enough for this to work though, it would need some extra effort to function properly.

    I just don't see a point why you would be prevented from bringing a deff dread because your army already has 10 lootas, 5 flash gits and a battlewagon.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 09:33:25


    Post by: Karol


    But maybe some stuff could cost different depending on how much you take of it. Not everything, but lets say you want to play with 5 hive tyrants or 5 bloodthirsters. Awesome, the 5th one will cost 200% pts of the first one.

    Could make some troop options, or less optimal options worth taking. Maybe this vehicle is not as good as the best of the best, but its second version cost 5-10% more and not 25%.

    Squadrons could have fixed costs too. You could even do it for weapon options. A single lascanon in an IG squad is worth not much. It misses 50% of the time, with no debuffs. But 10 lastalons, I am assuming here that they are something you actualy want to take, should cost something else. Ah and there should be no, gates so instead of taking one 10man squad with weapon X, you take 3 each one with 3 weapons etc.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 10:19:10


    Post by: ProfSrlojohn


     KingmanHighborn wrote:
    Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.
    Remove Titans, Grey Knights, and Custodes from the main game. (But that's really just personal wish.) Except in small support units to SM, IG, Sisters, etc.


    I'm curious (as I always am when I see this kind of opinion) how would you redistribute them? Would you roll Inquisition back into grey-knights and Sisters and have them like that? Or wipe them entirely? What about Custodes? etc.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 11:18:06


    Post by: Tyel


    I guess the problem is I wouldn't change much. 9th's core rules with a further balanced version of the 8th edition codexes. Basically roll things back to about May/June 2019 (i.e. before SM 2.0), and imagine everything that came after was a dream.

    I certainly wouldn't bring back the old FOC, because its incredibly limiting on how you build an army. This made sort of sense 15 years ago - but the model range is far higher, the average points cost of stuff has tended to fall (although not in all circumstances I admit).

    I'm unclear facings or AV add anything to the game. I could make see facings meaning something if movement was very different to how it is now. I don't think they add anything in an IGOUGO system. I feel templates, unintuitive LOS rules and so on that just fueled arguments for decades are completely unnecessary and not good for the game.

    I can see the argument for making movement the core of "decision" and in turn "skill" in the game (I mean it is already but even more so). But I feel that requires changing the game from "a unit is at most going to get to make 5 moves, assuming it didn't die/get tied up in combat." Which in turn means completely redesigning the game from the ground up.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 12:12:43


    Post by: Karol


    Yeah imagine primaris being unplayable, to a point of playing team meaning, you take 2 HQs, 15 scouts and fill the entire rest of the army with the good stuff, like IG, knights etc.
    Nothing makes the game generate more happy buyers wanting to spend more, then that. Specialy when they are the majority of your buyers.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 12:27:09


    Post by: Sim-Life


    Tyel wrote:


    I certainly wouldn't bring back the old FOC, because its incredibly limiting on how you build an army. This made sort of sense 15 years ago - but the model range is far higher, the average points cost of stuff has tended to fall (although not in all circumstances I admit).


    So aside from the usual "change in a vacuum" thing these discussions always bring up, why are limitations a bad thing?


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 12:39:33


    Post by: Karol


    Most armies, specialy the new ones that never existed under the old FoC system, are not created to function under the 2xHQs, 6xTroops, 3xeverything else.

    It wouldn't just require the rewriting of a FoC, but rewriting entire books. Which by GW standards means the non old FoC armies would be, maybe, ready for the new FoC games in 2 editions.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 12:51:47


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Jidmah wrote:
    The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

    I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

    It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.


    straight up remove the FoC IMO


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 12:53:43


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    I liked Warhammer Fantasy's Force Organization, but Core was much, much more broad than Troops.

    I also like Infinity's Availability, where you can only take a certain amount of each unit, and subfactions change the Availability of units.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 13:03:04


    Post by: Wayniac


     Jidmah wrote:
    The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

    I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

    It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.


    So like 2nd edition's percentages? IIRC you needed like 50% of your troops (which included like Terminators and Assault Squads, so wasn't just "Troops" in the sense of today), and then I think it was 25% in support and 25% in characters, and some armies (e.g. Marines) could get 25% of allies (e.g. Guard)

    I always felt that was fine. "Troops" encompassed enough to have plenty of themed armies, and the percentages meant you couldn't skew hard into some other things.


    Rumors are that 10th ed will be a hard reset. What changes would you like to see? @ 2022/08/09 13:05:37


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     TheBestBucketHead wrote:


    I also like Infinity's Availability, where you can only take a certain amount of each unit, and subfactions change the Availability of units.


    Yeah thats a much better system that actually allows to control how many of a spammy unit you see depending on how good it is

    Instead of adding layers of rules to say you can't bring more than X of a specific unit, they could just change the availability of that unit instead.
    They could make Leman Russ AVA 9 to get rid of the useless squadron rules too for example.