Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Power Level is like the Double turn in Age of Sigmar. GW are determined to keep both even though neither seems to really enhance the game experience and only really serve to highlight how GW as a company really doesn't get formal rules writing.

It's a mix of likely having no serious resources allocated to it like they do for model making and also having high level staff who have 35 years being top dog in the industry who basically are set in their ways - ways which are fairly casual rather than formal.



Heck you can see this alone in how GW chooses to lay out Codex and Battletomes with information scattered all over the place. Few standard terms with a lot of similar modifiers under their own name.
Often its not that the game is any more complex than it was in, say, 3rd edition; its that the information is so much more scattered around.

Eg points used to be on the unit profile with ugprade costs neatly shown there as well; now they are all held on various tables in the back along with weapon profiles and such. Yes those tables are helpful, but the information should be repeated on the unit card as well; but its not. Instead GW puts the power-level cost there because that's kind of what they'd really like us to use



It's the same as how its very easy to see that the double turn is a terrible mechanic for balance in an "I go, you go" game system and yet GW are determined to keep it for flavour/theming.




In the end this is our huge problem with any new edition. GW might have improved in terms of actually keeping up with rules now (no more 2 editions missed for a new codex/battletome for your army); and they do FAQ, Errata and annual balance passes too (heck I recall Tyranids getting an FAQ about a week or two before the edition ended).
These are all great things ,but if the core attitude is casual then all the addons on top won't "improve" the situation.

 Tyran wrote:
The big problem with a reset is that indexes are inherently stopgag rules of lesser quality. GW simply cannot put the same level of attention on an Index compared to a codex.

So a reset would mean everyone would suffer barebones rules while waiting a year or two for their codex.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The big problem with a reset is that indexes are inherently stopgag rules of lesser quality. GW simply cannot put the same level of attention on an Index compared to a codex.

So a reset would mean everyone would suffer barebones rules while waiting a year or two for their codex.

That is a major con to a reset. We saw it with 8th, with so many factions waiting the full 3 years of an edition to finally get their 8th edition codex.

The only way I could see GW trying to relax that sort of struggle is to move more to digital, where things can be updated and balanced faster. We've seen them finally do points updates and balance dataslates as digital, which is good (versus paying 45+ dollars for the same content) but we need more of that infrastructure and longer-lasting rules.

With digital datasheets, whole statlines can be adjusted, new weapons could be added when they become available (like in a kill team kit) and other balances could be done aside from just adjusting point values.

But, we'll see what happens.

I think ultimately a lot of people are willing to tolerate (judging by the voting so far) the flattening/blandening of the factions if it means getting a better ruleset and less of the bloat that we've seen of 9th.

drbored wrote:


That is a major con to a reset. We saw it with 8th, with so many factions waiting the full 3 years of an edition to finally get their 8th edition codex.

The only way I could see GW trying to relax that sort of struggle is to move more to digital, where things can be updated and balanced faster. We've seen them finally do points updates and balance dataslates as digital, which is good (versus paying 45+ dollars for the same content) but we need more of that infrastructure and longer-lasting rules.

With digital datasheets, whole statlines can be adjusted, new weapons could be added when they become available (like in a kill team kit) and other balances could be done aside from just adjusting point values.

But, we'll see what happens.

I think ultimately a lot of people are willing to tolerate (judging by the voting so far) the flattening/blandening of the factions if it means getting a better ruleset and less of the bloat that we've seen of 9th.

I think people really over-estimate the ability of digital for balance.
Digital does let you change things fast, but do wargames benefit from superfast changes? Whenever I see a wargame that goes all in for digital I tend to hear a lot of complaints by people who don't want to be using an app on their phone/tablet with many finding them trickier to use than books; taking away from the experience and because many people choose to tabletop game because they want a physical hobby not a digital one.

The other thing is that fast digital is only as good as the core balance team; if you've still got GW's attitude and staff as they are now, then you can speed things up all you like, but it won't actually "improve" the situation. It will just make it change faster.

Personally I also think that GW has found that rules and lore/fluff together works - in moderation. Codex/battletomes work at both and so long as GW keeps that pattern its a huge draw for a wide range of gamers. As soon as they throw down into digital only there's the risk that they end up like Privateer Press did - lots of digital rules focus to the point where the lore gets forgotten and left to one side. Lore being optional means fewer people buy into it and if fewer people "have" to buy into part of it through a codex/battletome then very quickly people will stop engaging with the lore.

Lore and fluff and all is a huge draw for the game and one reason many keep coming back; keep doing wild conversions and all. So its very much as part of the hobby as converting, painting, building, playing etc...


I'm all for digital aids, but I think aids is what they should always be. Helping and aiding and providing an alternative resource, but not replacing nor dominating how the game is controlled.






As for balance "flattening/blanding" the factions. Honestly I think this is overblown. When you've massive swings and gains between factions its super hard to balance and whilst the factions might have flavour, there's no fun if the flavour doesn't actually work. Furthermore as armies have become larger they've lost some of that anyway. Most armies can do most things, some better than others, but most have access to most things now. It's an inevitable part of having larger armies and rosters of models. Having a flatter system means that smaller gains are the flavour and difference and they feel greater in comparison. Also its much more fun when your close combat army can actually have an even match against the ranged army and you both get the feeling that your army is working and doing what it should. Instead of a big swings system where one ends up trumping the other every time (either the ranged is winning before the close combat can ever get into combat; or the game winds up with a lot of movement tricks and the close combat army is in close combat by turn 2 with the majority of the enemy and the ranged army then can't perform).
Flatter and more even balance is more exciting, more engaging, puts more emphasis on the player; takes nothing away from army composition importance but does open up a LOT more options when building your army. It increases the potential to vary your force, increases the validity of more models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW think that Open is casual. They think that casual means using the ass-backwards Power Level system to organise forces.

I would love to see them go completely PL.
Or just expand on what they're already doing with making various upgrades cost 0pts. Just a base cost for the unit & a list of options that could be taken. Like over in Age of Sigmar.

Heads would explode, people would rage quit.... and those of us left could just get on with playing.

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW think that Open is casual. They think that casual means using the ass-backwards Power Level system to organise forces.

I would love to see them go completely PL.
Or just expand on what they're already doing with making various upgrades cost 0pts. Just a base cost for the unit & a list of options that could be taken. Like over in Age of Sigmar.

Heads would explode, people would rage quit.... and those of us left could just get on with playing.

I'm not 100% sure I'm a fan of it in AoS honestly. In some ways its neat and makes it easier to get into; in another its kind of boring that your swordsmen and spearmen do the same thing so it doesn't matter which is which on the tabletop. It runs the risk of ending up going too far into the bland. I think it also ends up shutting down niches and specialist roles which in turn makes it harder to actually add models to armies. This works for AoS because a good few armies have tiny army rosters to work with right now - many armies have zero artillery options and AoS only has 4 unit types (leader, troop, monster, artillery).

40K has bigger army rosters in general, even new armies like Genestealer Cults, Custodes and the new Votaan are already bigger than a good few AoS armis with a good chance that the 40K ones will see faster additions.

I think GW is also simplifying AoS for 2 further reasons
1) To improve uptake of newbies
2) Potentially to try and give it some game distance from Old World. It will be super interesting to see how AoS and Old World compete with each other.



Horus Heresy kind of got away with competing with 40K because it started life as FW only and even as its expanded its your mirror-match marines and marines just sell at an insane rate and are a line unto themselves. So it kind of worked with a quirk. I'm honestly not sure how AoS and Old World are going to interact with each other. Sure base shape (round vs square) might be one divide, but movement trays don't care what your base shape is. So there's going to be loads of model cross over between them.

ccs wrote:
... and those of us left could just get on with playing.

... a massively inferior and hamstrung game.

 Tyran wrote:
The big problem with a reset is that indexes are inherently stopgag rules of lesser quality. GW simply cannot put the same level of attention on an Index compared to a codex.

So a reset would mean everyone would suffer barebones rules while waiting a year or two for their codex.

Ehhh, I think it's more that they "will not" than they "cannot". I remain unconvinced that more pages = better rules. Especially since so many of those pages are wasted on stratagems and bespoke rules that could be better handled as USRs in the BRB, IMO.

IMHO USRs should still be written on the datasheet. Last thing I want is being forced to cross-reference between codex and BRB.

If you are using USRs to save space then you are using them wrong. The point of USRs is standardization and facilitating rules interactions. Using them to save space only leads to their overuse and saturation.

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO USRs should still be written on the datasheet. Last thing I want is being forced to cross-reference between codex and BRB.

If you are using USRs to save space then you are using them wrong. The point of USRs is standardization and facilitating rules interactions. Using them to save space only leads to their overuse and saturation.

Fine, put them on the datasheet. Still saves space if you skip the silly bespoke names and flavor text. Save those for the unit descriptions.

Frankly, I have several issues with current codexes that would be solved by a 'flattening'.

1. Stratagems - it takes far too long to search through stratagems to find the one you want, and there are many stratagems that only work in very specific situations or with very specific units. If they're so specific, take them out or add them to the unit they belong to.

2. Overblown 'superfaction' rules - Everything from Chaos Space Marines Wanton Soup to the new Votann Judgement Tokens and Harlequin 'Remove any Luck from the game' dice, these are all things that bloat the game. They may seem fun and thematic, but I'm not a fan of these extra game mechanics that rely on tracking dice or tokens or other things in order for an army to feel unique or fluffy.

3. Ineffectual subfaction rules - Too often GW make a special rule for every chapter, every order, every warband, and yet half of them rarely ever see use. They may seem fluffy, but often times it can be very frustrating for someone that likes a particular chapter/order/warband and have to find ways to work around a subpar subfaction rule, or count 'your guys' as some other subfaction in the interim, which spits in the face of the whole idea of 'your guys'.

You rip out those three things, focus in on making UNITS and their rules interesting and you'll have a much more interesting game. Does this mean that a lot of units across multiple codexes may share statlines? Yeah, that's the trouble with a d6 system, but at the same time it'll mean that the differences that DO exist will be all the more important between weapons, statlines, and what special rules a unit gets.

It also gets rid of a ton of the wombo-combos, gotcha moments, and other things that we see so often in 40k right now, which will always be a good thing. I don't want Warhammer to become a game like Magic the Gathering where you win based on your opening hand/action.

I want a soft reset, keep the codices but have relics FAQ all starting CP are for pre game stratagems, CP you get during game are what you spend in game. Fix some of the terrain issues and clean up all the crazy layers of rules.

drbored wrote:
The fact that people didn't understand the difference was on GW for not making that language and verbiage clearer, but the flip side of it is that many players, if they're going to bother playing 'matched play' want the most balanced experience possible, and tournament play is supposed to supply that, which is why we see it used more often than not.

On the flip side, I've seen more people have more fun with Crusade than trying to do matched play or tournament play. So, I'd love to see Crusade expanded upon and continue to be supported into the future. Not via expensive campaign books, but ideally through PDF mission updates that people can access easily, jump into, and play.

When matched play fails in what it is supposed to do then it's not surprising that you see people having more fun with other forms of play. The PL hate is also overblown with how horribly pts have been handled in 9th, both systems have been complete garbage.

One thing I agree with Ash from GMG on is the idea that "GW does not make money per game played, they make money by selling models". Trying to cater to the tournament crowd and create a balanced game is something that ultimately may be a waste of time. On the other hand, things like creating ally rules, new types of detachments, different styles of missions give people more reasons to buy models. Supporting those things is what I'd like to see more of.

In a balanced game with an evolving meta melta Attack Bikes might be right one month and with a change in meta heavy bolter Devastators become the better option, but when pts are off (as they would be while GW has been focussing on printing a million Crusade supplements) people don't need heavy bolter Devastators because they are overpriced in so many scenarios and the meta only changes once every 3 months or whenever a new OP codex is released and changing your list might help you get a 40% instead of 30% win rate into that OP codex, but it'll hurt your overall win rate because the list building choices you made for what was popular and not just OP have to be taken out. Wouldn't it be amazing if nobody ever said "don't buy that unit it's overcosted and bad"? Wouldn't it be amazing if nobody was ever told after painting their army that they should rip it apart and repaint it to keep up with the meta?

 Tyran wrote:
The big problem with a reset is that indexes are inherently stopgag rules of lesser quality. GW simply cannot put the same level of attention on an Index compared to a codex.

So a reset would mean everyone would suffer barebones rules while waiting a year or two for their codex.

With codexes people have the stopgap of a previous edition and have to wait years to get the same level of attention. Codexes were just terribly handled with all the free bonus stuff they gave, the only army that actually lost power level was Daemons if I recall correctly and GW didn't release codexes in a sensible manner. Same thing in 9th, Tau and Astra Militarum were after Custodes and Drukhari, two factions that got completely shafted for many reasons had to wait longer than two factions that did great in the new edition. GW is just bad at their job.

 Overread wrote:
Personally I also think that GW has found that rules and lore/fluff together works - in moderation. Codex/battletomes work at both and so long as GW keeps that pattern its a huge draw for a wide range of gamers. As soon as they throw down into digital only there's the risk that they end up like Privateer Press did - lots of digital rules focus to the point where the lore gets forgotten and left to one side. Lore being optional means fewer people buy into it and if fewer people "have" to buy into part of it through a codex/battletome then very quickly people will stop engaging with the lore.

That's already happened with HotE and AoC.

drbored wrote:
I think ultimately a lot of people are willing to tolerate (judging by the voting so far) the flattening/blandening of the factions if it means getting a better ruleset and less of the bloat that we've seen of 9th.

Removing Chapter Tactics from Blood Angels is not flattening them, you're far more likely to see more flavourful lists when your vehicles can actually be pointed for what they are worth to you rather than what they are worth to an Iron Hands player. As much as Chapter Tactics makes Blood Angels different from Iron Hands they also make every Blood Angels list a lot more similar. If you want GW to make your list for you then look at lists used in their White Dwarf or Twitch battle reports, otherwise let me make my own Blood Angels army with the minis and rules that I like without whipping me for having the gall to not play a purely aggressive jump pack army that makes optimal use of +1 to charge +1 to wound when the charge happens and +1 attack.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I also don't trust them to reset everything.

This. 40k needs a full reset to cut the rules bloat, get rid of IGOUGO, and introduce meaningful strategic depth beyond buff stacking and adding up whose dice math is better. But as long as GW keeps employing the some of the industry's worst game designers long past the point where any sane company would have fired them there's no reason to believe a reboot of 40k would be anything other than a different dumpster fire.

 Overread wrote:

Digital does let you change things fast, but do wargames benefit from superfast changes?

Why rule out the middle ground? If GW went full digital they could have a modest increase in update frequency but, more importantly, they could have a lot more options for what kind of rules updates they do. They wouldn't need to do awkward dataslate stuff as a workaround to not wanting to make significant changes to the printed books. Instead of AoC, HotE, etc, they could properly fix the codex rules with something better designed than "lol all your lasguns can wound a titan 1/3 of the time". Instead of making endless clumsy attempts at keeping CSM relevant they could just change the datasheets to have W2 infantry in the quarterly update.

As soon as they throw down into digital only there's the risk that they end up like Privateer Press did - lots of digital rules focus to the point where the lore gets forgotten and left to one side. Lore being optional means fewer people buy into it and if fewer people "have" to buy into part of it through a codex/battletome then very quickly people will stop engaging with the lore.

Is this really that much of a factor at this point? The lore and art sections of 9th edition books are already stripped down to a pathetic level compared to older books and you have to go elsewhere if you want to really engage with it beyond that one-page summary of the faction. We're already at the point where "just use wahapedia" is the standard advice to new players because the codex contains nothing of value so IMO GW might as well at least put out a viable digital product that can be a compelling alternative to piracy.

Now, I'd definitely agree with you if GW went back to producing codices with genuine lore and art sections again but I wouldn't bet anything on it. They've established a clear trend of including less and less of that with every new edition.

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW think that Open is casual. They think that casual means using the ass-backwards Power Level system to organise forces.

I would love to see them go completely PL.
Or just expand on what they're already doing with making various upgrades cost 0pts. Just a base cost for the unit & a list of options that could be taken. Like over in Age of Sigmar.

Heads would explode, people would rage quit.... and those of us left could just get on with playing.

With your game that's balanced even more poorly? Why would you want that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ccs wrote:
... and those of us left could just get on with playing.

... a massively inferior and hamstrung game.

8th & 9th are already that wether the pts you tally up have 1/2/3/or 4 digits to them. And 10th will be no better. Different yes, better no.

I continue to believe that 8th was built upon a weak foundation and that the escilation of rules bloat in 8th and 9th is because of that. Without a complete reset to a more fleshed out and comprehensive core ruleset, the game will never be any good and will continue to have this cycle of codex creep and bloat despite GW actively trying to balance the game (something they didn't do in past editions to their own detriment).

Personally I would like to see a refinement of something closer to what was the core rules of 4th to 7th (3rd edition was a bit too bare bones from what I read) but with a focus of keeping gameplay/mechanical depth without a ton of bloat and a better psychic system. I don't trust GW to design a game from scratch given the current leadership that they have but perhaps they could pick through the stuff that worked from past editions to slap together something that at least functions with more depth than a wading pool.

Option 3: I'd prefer they stop churning out editions so fast.

For the poll I think a reset is preferrable, I find the core rules of 9th fine for the most part but the codex bloat is unwieldy and gets pretty bad when you have multiple armies. If they want to level the playing field they need to do a reset instead of another edition where a handful of armies get new rules while the other half of languishing waiting on a codex that will at least put them on par with others.

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ccs wrote:
... and those of us left could just get on with playing.

... a massively inferior and hamstrung game.

8th & 9th are already that wether the pts you tally up have 1/2/3/or 4 digits to them. And 10th will be no better. Different yes, better no.

Would you rather eat a sandwich made with moldy bread, or one made with moldy bread and full of shards of broken glass? Points are flawed because GW keeps making mistakes in evaluating units but PL has all those same unit evaluation mistakes plus inherent systemic errors which can not be eliminated. And since PL offers nothing in exchange for those additional systemic errors why would anyone want it as the only system? It only exists because GW's ego won't let them admit it was a mistake, it's long past time to dump PL and move on with the clearly better system.

Full reset dialed back to the less bloated days of 3rd-5th.

I'd have hated it 5 years back, but GW could ditch points and move fully to PL and it wouldn't bother me today. It's just an alternate points system - which means alternate loadouts are optimal. These imbalances are however no different to those thrown up with points.

I'd argue in some ways its more in line with how "casuals" play the game. Because it means you build squads as they appear on the box art, rather than constantly going "oh, you took a fancy pistol and melee weapon on your squad sergeant? You took that special weapon? In 95% of cases that's a cast iron waste of X points." You can solve that by just making such gear 0 points (which is probably what it's worth in most cases) - but that seems to cause much complaining.

To echo others - I sometimes get the feeling people on this forum (and beyond) hate rolling dice. I don't. But I don't think it adds much to the game to resolve attacks with ever increasing steps - and half a dozen or more buffs/debuffs to take account of.

Hit, wound, save, done.
Not hit, reroll, wound, reroll, save, maybe a CP reroll, FNP rolls etc. All potentially with plusses and minuses, transhuman abilities and effects proccing on 6s etc. Having to put another layer of rules "you can't reroll wounds" is just adding to this noise. In a computer game this would be fine. On the table it just becomes increasingly annoying. (Over time perhaps it becomes second nature, but I am starting to sympathise with infrequent players who found ye olde 3rd-7th to hit/wound tables incomprehensible.)

I think some degree of reliability is desirable in a game. It's not that fun to have games swing wildly based on luck rather than decisions players made. But there must be a cleaner way of getting there than this.

Giving basically everything in the game +1 AP... only to then turn round and give half the game the ability to ignore 1 AP is clearly bad design. You shouldn't have given them it in the first place. Likewise, S5 has become the new S4 - which inevitably means T4 has to become T5 to match.

Indexes will inevitably have issues - and I don't want to pretend the 8th edition ones were a halcyon balanced time. But I don't know where GW goes from here without a power reset. Do we want Intercessors armed with rapid fire 2 S5 AP-2 bolternators?

Tyel wrote:
I'd have hated it 5 years back, but GW could ditch points and move fully to PL and it wouldn't bother me today. It's just an alternate points system - which means alternate loadouts are optimal. These imbalances are however no different to those thrown up with points.

I'd argue in some ways its more in line with how "casuals" play the game. Because it means you build squads as they appear on the box art, rather than constantly going "oh, you took a fancy pistol and melee weapon on your squad sergeant? You took that special weapon? In 95% of cases that's a cast iron waste of X points." You can solve that by just making such gear 0 points (which is probably what it's worth in most cases) - but that seems to cause much complaining.

I mean you're not wrong, that is how some play the game. You can also just say "I know my guy has a bolter pistol but today its a plasma pistol" which works almost everywhere outside of competitive tournaments.


The problem with power level is it makes the imbalances even greater. When a unit with "bare bones" and no upgrades or special weapons or such costs exactly the same as one with every upgrade and every weapon choice they can take you have significant difference in performance of the two. And under power level you've no formal reason not to take every upgrade you can on every unit. The only reason you wouldn't is personal choice or agreement with your opponent. So the game becomes one where if both sides are taking everything it might even out kind of balance wise; but if one side is taking all and the other isn't then one side is way more powerful.

YES the core rules are imbalanced to start with, but this is rather like having an oil pan fire and deciding that the best thing to do is to just pour water on it.

I do agree power-level is a simpler set of numbers to add up and it is in the end just a different point based system. The problem with it is that it treats all upgrades as 0 cost which is childishly simple to work with yes and super easy to build armies with and yes you can throw models on the table super fast. BUT it relies heavily on you either not caring about the gameplay performance of armies (you just don't care who wins you want to roll dice and stuff) and that your opponent also agrees with this. Or that you both spend more pre-game time agreeing to what kind of game you'll play with power level - are you taking all upgades, are you taking some, or none - are you going to use the points system to perhaps have a rough idea how many of upgrades you should or might take each?


Power Level would work kind of better with AoS because most units don't have upgrades, they don't have extra armour or performance boosts; they don't have special weapons within teams to the extent that 40K does. Heck GW has tried simplifying in dafter ways to the point where some units technically take more command units than infantry!*


*Slaanesh Seeker Riders have 5 models to a box. 1 banner, 1 horn, 1 icon, 1 leader leaving room for 1 trooper. Technically for every 5 additional units you add you get the same, save the leader. So in theory the unit has more command than actual troops. Even though banners, horns and marks only count once whilst they are in the unit.

 bullyboy wrote:
Can do whatever but not buying into their $55 codexes anymore. Just too many too soon. You want to keep churning? Go full digital.

Well then you will pay 30+$/year to keep acccessing the rules Stop paying, stop losing access

tneva82 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Can do whatever but not buying into their $55 codexes anymore. Just too many too soon. You want to keep churning? Go full digital.

Well then you will pay 30+$/year to keep acccessing the rules Stop paying, stop losing access

Also lose access when:
Your phone/tablet stops updating its OS to the latest version
loses power
the 2 power plugs at the club that are within reach of a table are already in use
The app crashes
Your model is removed from sale and thus the rules are pulled (no model no rules).
Your edition is removed from sale (GW has already done this with rules in all their backaccess publications on Warhammer +)

 Tyran wrote:
The big problem with a reset is that indexes are inherently stopgag rules of lesser quality. GW simply cannot put the same level of attention on an Index compared to a codex.

So a reset would mean everyone would suffer barebones rules while waiting a year or two for their codex.

They could. Especially if they weren't fixated on having fixed 3 year release cycle.

 oni wrote:
I would be fine with going back to indexes, but only if it stays that way. I’m done wasting money on stopgaps and bolt-ons. I’m fed up with rapidly evolving game rules. Publish something decent enough which is complete and not cut to gak for more sales cut-content-dlc-style and feth off.

i just take that over with my green added bit.

Certainly not whatever this 9th has become.
Also, i would gladly get back equipment options for HQ etc.

I don't think it matters which route GW take. The core problem is the writers themselves, or the corporate culture they operate in.

I'd like to see a dramatic reduction in buffs and debuffs and a near-total removal of strats. In particular, any strats that are a straight up buff to a unit need to go. Not only are they nonsensical from a background POV, they're also impossible to balance properly. Why is it that one Primaris unit can decide it's going to wade through the strongest enemy fire, relying on the superiority of their transhuman physiology and that then stops the identical unit beside it from doing the same? The same is true of two Chaos Terminator units, both veterans of millennia of combat, infused with the power of the dark gods and spurred on by their twisted commanders. But if the one on the left wants to wound more easily, the one on the right has to wait their turn.

One thing 10th needs to bring is a more unified approach to the rules. They need a design document from the start, and they need to stick to it. No more sudden increase in anti-tank damage because one Codex halfway through an edition has started an arms race. Go and look at the sub-faction traits from the earlier Codices and compare them to the more recent ones. Or do the same for relics and WLTs. The difference is ridiculous and it's all because the designers don't have a plan from day one. Whoever's in charge of the rules for the edition needs to do a better job of pushing back against those types of rules when they first appear.

Completely agreed, I really dislike stratagems where only one units can benefit where clearly all of them should be able to instead of having to wait their turn till next round.

Big reset

1. remove 90% of strats
2. remove BS wombo-combos (looking at you super-buffed Emp Children Terminators)
3. switch to d10'ss or d12's
4. I'd like to see an effort at implementing Apoc's damage at the end of the turn.

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ccs wrote:
... and those of us left could just get on with playing.

... a massively inferior and hamstrung game.

8th & 9th are already that wether the pts you tally up have 1/2/3/or 4 digits to them. And 10th will be no better. Different yes, better no.

So just throw out a great mechanic like points because "feth it!"? What a useful sentiment . . .

Full reset.


For the wishlist:

All unit-specific strategems just get integrated onto the datasheets.

Add a reaction system.

Move to d12 for most rolls.

Full rules for all armies released digitally on day 1.