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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:


Overall I just want to actually enjoy playing thematic, more casual games. I'm so sick of "your mission is to hold this objective on this perfectly flat, perfectly symmetrical city consisting of L-shaped ruins".

That's a you problem.....
Because outside tourney play nothings requiring you to play that way.

The mission variety isn't the best.

So? Again, outside the tourney environment you aren't required to use any particular source of missions.
This edition alone you have two packs of cards, two Crusade books, the super generic mission in the core rules, & assorted missions in WD.
After that? There's 9 whole previous editions of stuff + two edition of Heresy.
Beyond that? There's any # of other games (GW or otherwise) that have printed missions you could crib & adapt.
And of course you've always got the option to do whatever the hell you & your opponent think up.

cuda1179 wrote:Here's another vote for point granularity. Is it really that hard to multiply number of models by a point value? Also, running a squad with all bolters (for reasons) should cost less than one totally kitted out with upgrades.

They wouldn't even have to go back to model-by-model upgrades to reintroduce a decent amount of granularity: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/812887.page

JNAProductions wrote:Also, maybe not a Core Rule thing, but something to address Shadow Of Chaos and similar abilities that rely on having objective markers, in missions without objective markers.
The current ruling of "You don't get anything," is kinda annoying.

Yeah. Seems like it would be easy to add a single paragraph/diagram saying, "If the mission doesn't use objective markers for scoring purposes, stick 5 markers on the table as indicated in this picture. These don't grant victory points but can be used for purposes of special rules, determining who controls more objectives in no man's land, etc." Obviously cleaning up the wording somewhat.

sambojin wrote:
And having more than "everything is a ruin", can add more versatility to unit types in tactical play, or strategic list making. Or even mission objectives. It's not a "I want these components for free" wishlisting, it would actually make them take a look at terrain and movement rules, so that they're better. 3 small/medium corner ruins, 3 barricades/walls, maybe a 2d difficult terrain swamp/ crater, and a statue (chuck a mini from the set on top a cardboard diaz), is pretty easy to fit into a even a starter set sized box as die-punched cardboard. Double side print them, so no matter what faction you play in the box, it's relevant. And would make the game better, if the terrain rules were better. And it's really cheap for GW to do.

Sitting in a crater? Sure, have cover. Sitting in a swamp? Maybe -1BS to the enemy, instead. Barricades? Sure, cover, but no charge bonuses or something. Statue? Bonus! Not too far off 10th's rules, but having terrain baked into the core boxes would make for a better game.

World championship stuff going "everything is a ruin", has warped the game significantly, and is a bad ruleset to follow.

Idk. I like the idea of more diverse terrain, but in practice it feels like they've sort of designed themselves into a corner. Area terrain is easy enough (and currently exists.) But to-hit penalties get weird fast because they don't currently stack. Barricades are mostly fine as-is. Making statues hand out various bonuses is a fun idea, but if you're doing that with every bit of scatter terrain, you quickly start stacking up a bunch of miscellaneous rules that just kind of become a chore to remember.

Maybe instead of a bunch of different terrain rules scattered around the table, we just have a handful of terrain types (like now) and modify them based on the planet you're on (could be a random roll) or based on special abilities of units/detachments (Jungle Worlds grant Stealth outside of X", sneaky detachments lay landmines, tyranid detachments have spawning pools instead of normal craters, etc.) That would cut down on the number of special rules you'd have to memorize at a time and would (theoretically) give the battlefield a more cohesive feel.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
What is it that you want Blast to do?

A single, powerful shot that might injure more than that one dude the shell actually hit.

Giving a Battle cannon a random amount of shots feels wrong from an immersive POV, as multiple hit dice was traditionally reserved for weapons with a higher amount of shots/bullets before GW removed templates.

Adding a roll in front of the actual attack sequence (for how many hits you are allowed to roll) is another thing I'm not fond of.

I guess I see where you're coming from. I just see the number of shots combined with the to-hit roll as the modern version of the scatter roll. Roll high on number of attacks and to-hit roll, and you've clearly dropped your shot on-target. Roll a low number of attacks or hits, and you've clearly scattered off target. And then against single-model targets like enemy vehicles/monsters, rolling well means your single shot has hit a relatively weak part of the target's anatomy.

Consider the vindicator. Hitting multiple enemy models in a squad and doing lots of damage to each feels about right. Hitting a single enemy vehicle multiple times and doing a high amount of damage as a result feels weird when resolving the attack, but gets you the expected end result.

I guess as an alternative you could just give all blast weapons meant to be used against monsters/vehicles two different profiles: one for when you're attacking a large target and going for a direct hit and another for when you're just lobbing a shell into the middle of an ork mob and counting on the explosion to do the work. So turn all such weapons into variations on the frag/krak missile launcher profiles, basically. That would make it easier to tune the profiles' effectiveness against various target types and would make you feel like you're rolling for the direct contact from a shell when targeting vehicles.

Give up on 40k and just write xenos books for Heresy, it'd be a much better game.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I'm sure that was a factor in making Greater Daemons loci for Shadows of Chaos.

That's fair, but what about the Power Grid detachment for Necrons? (I think that's the one.)

I think the difference is that for the Necrons, it's a detachment ability that has a persistent effect which is enhanced by being within the control zone, as opposed to Daemons having it as their faction ability and not working at all outside of their control zone.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Give up on 40k and just write xenos books for Heresy, it'd be a much better game.

It has it's own baggage and problems - don't forget HH was born from the worst 40k edition.

1. I think the modern competitive obsession for GW now has largely ruined the game.

It has ruined the game for you.

Some from my personal wish-list (though I know most are improbable at the least); in no particular order:

1. Move away from d6's for stat rolls (WS, BS, Armor Saves, etc...) - I feel d8's, d10's or even d12's would help the expand the game immensely.

BS Examples:
5+: Baseline Human, Ork
4+: Guardsman, Gretchin
3+: Cadian Castellan, SoB, SM Intercessor
2+: SM/CSM Captain, Vindicare, Custodian Warden, Roboute, Magnus, Void Dragon

Yes, you can still roll a 1 to hit, but at what point do you question how your SM Captain is shooting as well as a Vindicare Assassin, a Primarch or a 60 million year old star god? For example: changing over to d12's would let you differentiate the different levels of skill without inherently affecting game play.

2. Make Armor Saves before your opponent rolls to Wound - It would be much more realistic without changing the mechanic what-so-ever. The weapon needs to penetrate your armor before it has a chance to wound your model...

3. Along with point 2: take all saves the model has (Invulnerable & Armor), while making Invulnerable Saves more rare.

Remove Invulnerable Saves from nearly everything; with the exception of some characters, priceless relics/tech (Terminator Armor) & extra-planar/demi-god monsters (demons, C'tan, etc.).

Other than to speed up the game there is no physical reason why Invulnerable Saves shouldn't be taken in addition to Armor Saves, especially if they were rarer to begin with. It's usually some sort of "field" save in front of or on top of the models armor (Rosarius, Refractor Field, Demonic Save...); why is it automatically "penetrated" in favor of making a simple armor save?

I just want options back. I want my characters to feel like my characters, with their own unique combinations of equipment and abilities,rather than Generic Lord Of Virulence #87. 40k doesn't feel like armybuilding anymore, it feels like deckbuilding.

Some more representation for off-table assets would be cool too, more things like artillery barrages or strafing runs or strategic assets. Each 40k game is usually supposed to be a small part of some massive larger conflict, make it feel like it is.

Oh, and get rid of aircraft. The vast majority of them shouldn't be operating low enough or slow enough to show up in a game of 40k,abstract them out. Not gonna happen cos we have to sell the shiny models, but ever since they were introduced Flyers have been the worst rules 40k has

I hope that the core rules of 11th are well thought out, tested, and not invalidated by the complexities of the English Language. I also hope that everyone is very happy with the rules, and there are no more arguments about rules interactions.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Some from my personal wish-list (though I know most are improbable at the least); in no particular order:

1. Move away from d6's for stat rolls (WS, BS, Armor Saves, etc...) - I feel d8's, d10's or even d12's would help the expand the game immensely.

BS Examples:
5+: Baseline Human, Ork
4+: Guardsman, Gretchin
3+: Cadian Castellan, SoB, SM Intercessor
2+: SM/CSM Captain, Vindicare, Custodian Warden, Roboute, Magnus, Void Dragon

Yes, you can still roll a 1 to hit, but at what point do you question how your SM Captain is shooting as well as a Vindicare Assassin, a Primarch or a 60 million year old star god? For example: changing over to d12's would let you differentiate the different levels of skill without inherently affecting game play.

2. Make Armor Saves before your opponent rolls to Wound - It would be much more realistic without changing the mechanic what-so-ever. The weapon needs to penetrate your armor before it has a chance to wound your model...

3. Along with point 2: take all saves the model has (Invulnerable & Armor), while making Invulnerable Saves more rare.

Remove Invulnerable Saves from nearly everything; with the exception of some characters, priceless relics/tech (Terminator Armor) & extra-planar/demi-god monsters (demons, C'tan, etc.).

Other than to speed up the game there is no physical reason why Invulnerable Saves shouldn't be taken in addition to Armor Saves, especially if they were rarer to begin with. It's usually some sort of "field" save in front of or on top of the models armor (Rosarius, Refractor Field, Demonic Save...); why is it automatically "penetrated" in favor of making a simple armor save?

What dice is applicable in the above example? If it's a D12 you've literally got more than half a dice of useless results. If it's a D8 then it's still a half a dice if we ignore orks.

Is a sniper assassin really only 8.3% more likely to hit than a line intercessor?

Regards the saves thing I strongly dislike that personally, I understand the logic but it just doesn't feel right to me.

Lord Clinto wrote:Some from my personal wish-list (though I know most are improbable at the least); in no particular order:

1. Move away from d6's for stat rolls (WS, BS, Armor Saves, etc...) - I feel d8's, d10's or even d12's would help the expand the game immensely.
...
Yes, you can still roll a 1 to hit, but at what point do you question how your SM Captain is shooting as well as a Vindicare Assassin, a Primarch or a 60 million year old star god? For example: changing over to d12's would let you differentiate the different levels of skill without inherently affecting game play.

Going to nit pick this a bit. You're welcome to want a die size change. However, I want to point out that switching from a d6 to a d12 doesn't innately "expand" the game. If you make a guardsman hit on a 7+ (equivalent of a 4+ now) and marines hit on a 5+ (equivalent of a 3+ now) and then give sororitas BS 6+, you're only impacting the accuracy of sororitas by about 8%. So unless you think that 8% was a problem to begin with, it's more of a cute fluff nod than an improvement to gameplay.

That said, expanding the die size *could* open up more significant changes like bringing back stacking to-hit mods as each individual to-hit modifier would be less impactful on a d12 than on a d6.

2. Make Armor Saves before your opponent rolls to Wound - It would be much more realistic without changing the mechanic what-so-ever. The weapon needs to penetrate your armor before it has a chance to wound your model...

This suggestion is a pet peeve of mine because it stems from people struggling with a fairly minor abstraction. Doing it the way we do now just saves people the trouble of having to collect a fresh dice pool an extra time. Currently, you just scoop up your successful hits and do your to-wound roll, at which point you tell your opponent how many dice they need to collect for saves. That collection process takes very little time and effort, but it does take a non-zero amount of time and effort.

Doing saves before wounds means that you roll to hit > opponent collects dice > they roll saves > you collect dice > roll to-wound > possibly additional dice collecting for FNPs and such. It's not a big deal either way, but all the change really accomplishes is to make it mildly less ergonomic (did I use that word correctly?) to resolve the attack process.

3. Along with point 2: take all saves the model has (Invulnerable & Armor), while making Invulnerable Saves more rare.

Remove Invulnerable Saves from nearly everything; with the exception of some characters, priceless relics/tech (Terminator Armor) & extra-planar/demi-god monsters (demons, C'tan, etc.).

Other than to speed up the game there is no physical reason why Invulnerable Saves shouldn't be taken in addition to Armor Saves, especially if they were rarer to begin with. It's usually some sort of "field" save in front of or on top of the models armor (Rosarius, Refractor Field, Demonic Save...); why is it automatically "penetrated" in favor of making a simple armor save?

Invuln saves are currently also used to represent holograms, dodging, dueling skill, etc. You'd have to overhaul the harlequin faction as well as things like wyches and wraiths who depend heavily on their invulnerable saves. And stacking an invuln with armor means something like a star weaver (basic harlequin transport) goes from saving 50% of the AP0 wounds it takes to ignoring 75%.

So it's a massive change that would have a ton of knock-on effects, but the results could be interesting if anyone feels like doing the work to overhaul all that.

Charax wrote:I just want options back. I want my characters to feel like my characters, with their own unique combinations of equipment and abilities,rather than Generic Lord Of Virulence #87. 40k doesn't feel like armybuilding anymore, it feels like deckbuilding.

Some more representation for off-table assets would be cool too, more things like artillery barrages or strafing runs or strategic assets. Each 40k game is usually supposed to be a small part of some massive larger conflict, make it feel like it is.

Oh, and get rid of aircraft. The vast majority of them shouldn't be operating low enough or slow enough to show up in a game of 40k,abstract them out. Not gonna happen cos we have to sell the shiny models, but ever since they were introduced Flyers have been the worst rules 40k has

Fully agree with all of this.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I hope that the core rules of 11th are well thought out, tested, and not invalidated by the complexities of the English Language. I also hope that everyone is very happy with the rules, and there are no more arguments about rules interactions.

But then how would I engage in my favorite pillar of the hobby: complaining?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Lord Clinto wrote:Some from my personal wish-list (though I know most are improbable at the least); in no particular order:

1. Move away from d6's for stat rolls (WS, BS, Armor Saves, etc...) - I feel d8's, d10's or even d12's would help the expand the game immensely.
...
Yes, you can still roll a 1 to hit, but at what point do you question how your SM Captain is shooting as well as a Vindicare Assassin, a Primarch or a 60 million year old star god? For example: changing over to d12's would let you differentiate the different levels of skill without inherently affecting game play.

Going to nit pick this a bit. You're welcome to want a die size change. However, I want to point out that switching from a d6 to a d12 doesn't innately "expand" the game. If you make a guardsman hit on a 7+ (equivalent of a 4+ now) and marines hit on a 5+ (equivalent of a 3+ now) and then give sororitas BS 6+, you're only impacting the accuracy of sororitas by about 8%. So unless you think that 8% was a problem to begin with, it's more of a cute fluff nod than an improvement to gameplay.

That said, expanding the die size *could* open up more significant changes like bringing back stacking to-hit mods as each individual to-hit modifier would be less impactful on a d12 than on a d6.

2. Make Armor Saves before your opponent rolls to Wound - It would be much more realistic without changing the mechanic what-so-ever. The weapon needs to penetrate your armor before it has a chance to wound your model...

This suggestion is a pet peeve of mine because it stems from people struggling with a fairly minor abstraction. Doing it the way we do now just saves people the trouble of having to collect a fresh dice pool an extra time. Currently, you just scoop up your successful hits and do your to-wound roll, at which point you tell your opponent how many dice they need to collect for saves. That collection process takes very little time and effort, but it does take a non-zero amount of time and effort.

Doing saves before wounds means that you roll to hit > opponent collects dice > they roll saves > you collect dice > roll to-wound > possibly additional dice collecting for FNPs and such. It's not a big deal either way, but all the change really accomplishes is to make it mildly less ergonomic (did I use that word correctly?) to resolve the attack process.

3. Along with point 2: take all saves the model has (Invulnerable & Armor), while making Invulnerable Saves more rare.

Remove Invulnerable Saves from nearly everything; with the exception of some characters, priceless relics/tech (Terminator Armor) & extra-planar/demi-god monsters (demons, C'tan, etc.).

Other than to speed up the game there is no physical reason why Invulnerable Saves shouldn't be taken in addition to Armor Saves, especially if they were rarer to begin with. It's usually some sort of "field" save in front of or on top of the models armor (Rosarius, Refractor Field, Demonic Save...); why is it automatically "penetrated" in favor of making a simple armor save?

Invuln saves are currently also used to represent holograms, dodging, dueling skill, etc. You'd have to overhaul the harlequin faction as well as things like wyches and wraiths who depend heavily on their invulnerable saves. And stacking an invuln with armor means something like a star weaver (basic harlequin transport) goes from saving 50% of the AP0 wounds it takes to ignoring 75%.

So it's a massive change that would have a ton of knock-on effects, but the results could be interesting if anyone feels like doing the work to overhaul all that.

Charax wrote:I just want options back. I want my characters to feel like my characters, with their own unique combinations of equipment and abilities,rather than Generic Lord Of Virulence #87. 40k doesn't feel like armybuilding anymore, it feels like deckbuilding.

Some more representation for off-table assets would be cool too, more things like artillery barrages or strafing runs or strategic assets. Each 40k game is usually supposed to be a small part of some massive larger conflict, make it feel like it is.

Oh, and get rid of aircraft. The vast majority of them shouldn't be operating low enough or slow enough to show up in a game of 40k,abstract them out. Not gonna happen cos we have to sell the shiny models, but ever since they were introduced Flyers have been the worst rules 40k has

Fully agree with all of this.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I hope that the core rules of 11th are well thought out, tested, and not invalidated by the complexities of the English Language. I also hope that everyone is very happy with the rules, and there are no more arguments about rules interactions.

But then how would I engage in my favorite pillar of the hobby: complaining?

OK, OK, Addendum. "I want infantry models, but just those with PRimaris Keyword, to change base sizes, again." Thus causing YMDC open for another 2-3 years.

I would love for 11th to be a reversal of course and GW went in a wargame direction as opposed to E-Sport. I would love it if they hired a balance team for playtesting. Instead they hire for attitude (which is code for, doesn't know what they're doing but really believes in themselves.) It won't happen though as the enshitifaction of everything continues in the search for "this media is for everyone" thereby rendering it ideal for no one.

Artillery should start the game off table and hit on 4+ unless there's a local spotter. then by turn 3-5 they finally catch up to the advancing line emerge on the table and can direct fire too. You could do a variation of this for aircraft. Every other turn they get to unleash their volleys on a unit on the table. Unless you have AA or a flyer yourself specifically, you cant interact with the flyer; so no more will flamers be the best AA in the game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I hope that the core rules of 11th are well thought out, tested, and not invalidated by the complexities of the English Language. I also hope that everyone is very happy with the rules, and there are no more arguments about rules interactions.

That's all less likely than moving away from the d6 system.

 Gibblets wrote:

Artillery should start the game off table and hit on 4+ unless there's a local spotter. then by turn 3-5 they finally catch up to the advancing line emerge on the table and can direct fire too.

Why would the artillery be trying to catch up though? If they can fire effectively in 100% safety from off the table, I think I, as a commander, would rather they stay that way rather than exposing themselves to risk. I also probably don't need the +1 to hit that late into the game. The tide of battle is generally decided by turn 3.

You could do a variation of this for aircraft. Every other turn they get to unleash their volleys on a unit on the table. Unless you have AA or a flyer yourself specifically, you cant interact with the flyer; so no more will flamers be the best AA in the game.

So the planes are immune from retaliation until turn 3, at which point they're 99% immune to retaliation (with only flyers and a handful of weapons in the game being allowed to possibly hurt them)? Why would they choose to stop being invulnerable on turn 3? Also, that sounds extremely frustrating for anyone who doesn't want to pay the flyer tax just like it was in 6th and 7th.

If you're going to make flyers that non-interactive, just make them limited use model-less attacks that you pay points for per strafing run. Maybe do a little Death From the Skies type mini-game if you want to add off-table strategic concepts like air defense, opposed flyers, etc. Hmm. Could maybe even do that with units currently in reserve. Have swooping hawks and striking scorpions mess with the off-screen artillery until the hawks/scorpions arrive...

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:

Artillery should start the game off table and hit on 4+ unless there's a local spotter. then by turn 3-5 they finally catch up to the advancing line emerge on the table and can direct fire too.

Why would the artillery be trying to catch up though? If they can fire effectively in 100% safety from off the table, I think I, as a commander, would rather they stay that way rather than exposing themselves to risk. I also probably don't need the +1 to hit that late into the game. The tide of battle is generally decided by turn 3.

You could do a variation of this for aircraft. Every other turn they get to unleash their volleys on a unit on the table. Unless you have AA or a flyer yourself specifically, you cant interact with the flyer; so no more will flamers be the best AA in the game.

So the planes are immune from retaliation until turn 3, at which point they're 99% immune to retaliation (with only flyers and a handful of weapons in the game being allowed to possibly hurt them)? Why would they choose to stop being invulnerable on turn 3? Also, that sounds extremely frustrating for anyone who doesn't want to pay the flyer tax just like it was in 6th and 7th.

If you're going to make flyers that non-interactive, just make them limited use model-less attacks that you pay points for per strafing run. Maybe do a little Death From the Skies type mini-game if you want to add off-table strategic concepts like air defense, opposed flyers, etc. Hmm. Could maybe even do that with units currently in reserve. Have swooping hawks and striking scorpions mess with the off-screen artillery until the hawks/scorpions arrive...

Not going to Lie, but if we want GW to fix the sweaty poop, they have to cut out the petty poop first. Get rid of Aircraft. Leave Flyers under very basic flyer rules, like Jump pack marines and stuff. But Take Planes an toss em. Same with Anything over 20 wounds. Gargants, Stompas, Baneblades, and LOW throw the entire Balance out of whack. Can't balance a game around multiple 1w infantry blobs if for the same price you can plop down the Prostrate Examaris 9000 with double mega bolters, and free krak launchers. Custodes are the main culprit here. The Heavy Dreadnaught they field can 1v1 some knights. But it costs the same as a full troop of their basic Infantry. That isn't balance.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:

Artillery should start the game off table and hit on 4+ unless there's a local spotter. then by turn 3-5 they finally catch up to the advancing line emerge on the table and can direct fire too.

Why would the artillery be trying to catch up though? If they can fire effectively in 100% safety from off the table, I think I, as a commander, would rather they stay that way rather than exposing themselves to risk. I also probably don't need the +1 to hit that late into the game. The tide of battle is generally decided by turn 3.

You could do a variation of this for aircraft. Every other turn they get to unleash their volleys on a unit on the table. Unless you have AA or a flyer yourself specifically, you cant interact with the flyer; so no more will flamers be the best AA in the game.

So the planes are immune from retaliation until turn 3, at which point they're 99% immune to retaliation (with only flyers and a handful of weapons in the game being allowed to possibly hurt them)? Why would they choose to stop being invulnerable on turn 3? Also, that sounds extremely frustrating for anyone who doesn't want to pay the flyer tax just like it was in 6th and 7th.

If you're going to make flyers that non-interactive, just make them limited use model-less attacks that you pay points for per strafing run. Maybe do a little Death From the Skies type mini-game if you want to add off-table strategic concepts like air defense, opposed flyers, etc. Hmm. Could maybe even do that with units currently in reserve. Have swooping hawks and striking scorpions mess with the off-screen artillery until the hawks/scorpions arrive...

My thinking with the artillery is that, in the Imperial Guard at least, the army is often advancing as a mass. Infantry/tanks in front and support in back. So assuming the IG aren't laying in ambush eventually the support elements will catch up to the stalled front line. More importantly, it allows the models to actually make an appearance on the table and as is often the case (in the current edition) the game is decided by turn 3. It lets a winning opponent get a chance to destroy the artillery units; especially because if artillery is around in the end game their effect is magnified as units are approaching depletion. Whereas if you're winning it allows your opponent a chance to get a moral victory by killing an artillery piece that removed your opponents favourite squad, etc.

Flyers would ideally cost 40-100pts depending on type of support offered and not need a model. Because in reality the local commander is calling in support and is not in direct control over the plane asset. A flyer could strike turns 1,3,5 or 2,4,6(?) Imagine needing a model to use the Orbital Bombardment stratagem...

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Not going to Lie, but if we want GW to fix the sweaty poop, they have to cut out the petty poop first. Get rid of Aircraft. Leave Flyers under very basic flyer rules, like Jump pack marines and stuff. But Take Planes an toss em. Same with Anything over 20 wounds. Gargants, Stompas, Baneblades, and LOW throw the entire Balance out of whack. Can't balance a game around multiple 1w infantry blobs if for the same price you can plop down the Prostrate Examaris 9000 with double mega bolters, and free krak launchers. Custodes are the main culprit here. The Heavy Dreadnaught they field can 1v1 some knights. But it costs the same as a full troop of their basic Infantry. That isn't balance.

The Telemon?? Your kidding.
Unless you meant that it could solo an Armiger of some sort with the right combos of dice rolls on both sides.....
But there's alot of things in alot of armies that can accomplish that feat.

My hope for 11th edition starts with every single 10th edition rulebook - digital and physical - and every prototype, backup etc. of such spontaneously combusting.

And then every single person at GW who has advocated for no-model, no-rules follows suit.

Charax wrote:
I just want options back. I want my characters to feel like my characters, with their own unique combinations of equipment and abilities,rather than Generic Lord Of Virulence #87. 40k doesn't feel like armybuilding anymore, it feels like deckbuilding.

Also this.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not going to Lie, but if we want GW to fix the sweaty poop, they have to cut out the petty poop first. Get rid of Aircraft. Leave Flyers under very basic flyer rules, like Jump pack marines and stuff. But Take Planes an toss em. Same with Anything over 20 wounds. Gargants, Stompas, Baneblades, and LOW throw the entire Balance out of whack. Can't balance a game around multiple 1w infantry blobs if for the same price you can plop down the Prostrate Examaris 9000 with double mega bolters, and free krak launchers. Custodes are the main culprit here. The Heavy Dreadnaught they field can 1v1 some knights. But it costs the same as a full troop of their basic Infantry. That isn't balance.

Not sure I agree with all of that, but I do agree that the game would be better off without airplanes and superheavies being on the table. At the risk of yelling at clouds, the charm of the game to me was always a handful of squads and a couple of their vehicle buddies trading shots near some blown out cathedral. That's the size and scope of the game I enjoy the most. Large models and models that need more space to move around just seem like they belong in a different game. Something like IMperial Legion or Titanicus.

Gibblets wrote:
My thinking with the artillery is that, in the Imperial Guard at least, the army is often advancing as a mass. Infantry/tanks in front and support in back. So assuming the IG aren't laying in ambush eventually the support elements will catch up to the stalled front line. More importantly, it allows the models to actually make an appearance on the table and as is often the case (in the current edition) the game is decided by turn 3. It lets a winning opponent get a chance to destroy the artillery units; especially because if artillery is around in the end game their effect is magnified as units are approaching depletion. Whereas if you're winning it allows your opponent a chance to get a moral victory by killing an artillery piece that removed your opponents favourite squad, etc.

Flyers would ideally cost 40-100pts depending on type of support offered and not need a model. Because in reality the local commander is calling in support and is not in direct control over the plane asset. A flyer could strike turns 1,3,5 or 2,4,6(?) Imagine needing a model to use the Orbital Bombardment stratagem...

I'm not sold on the artillery thing, but it sounds like we're on the same page in regards to planes.

 vipoid wrote:
My hope for 11th edition starts with every single 10th edition rulebook - digital and physical - and every prototype, backup etc. of such spontaneously combusting.

And then every single person at GW who has advocated for no-model, no-rules follows suit.

Can we switch the spontaneous combustion out for simply vanishing?

Because the collateral damage from the resulting fires would be really costly & inconvenient.

ccs wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
My hope for 11th edition starts with every single 10th edition rulebook - digital and physical - and every prototype, backup etc. of such spontaneously combusting.

And then every single person at GW who has advocated for no-model, no-rules follows suit.

Can we switch the spontaneous combustion out for simply vanishing?

Because the collateral damage from the resulting fires would be really costly & inconvenient.

Look, vip doesn't make the rules. Tzeentch does. You want massive change? You deal with the lord of flames and revolution. Now do you want a better tabletop game or don't you?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
My hope for 11th edition starts with every single 10th edition rulebook - digital and physical - and every prototype, backup etc. of such spontaneously combusting.

And then every single person at GW who has advocated for no-model, no-rules follows suit.

Can we switch the spontaneous combustion out for simply vanishing?

Because the collateral damage from the resulting fires would be really costly & inconvenient.

Look, vip doesn't make the rules. Tzeentch does. You want massive change? You deal with the lord of flames and revolution. Now do you want a better tabletop game or don't you?

I've already got about a dozen better (well, better than 40k 10e at least) tabletop games on my shelves. Some even made by GW!

So, in the interest of not having a super costly house fire, a BBQd dog, the local shops not burning down, etc?
I'll pass on the spontaneous combustion.

Besides, the spontaneous combustion didn't even come with a guarantee of 40k 11e being better!

ccs wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
My hope for 11th edition starts with every single 10th edition rulebook - digital and physical - and every prototype, backup etc. of such spontaneously combusting.

And then every single person at GW who has advocated for no-model, no-rules follows suit.

Can we switch the spontaneous combustion out for simply vanishing?

Because the collateral damage from the resulting fires would be really costly & inconvenient.

Look, vip doesn't make the rules. Tzeentch does. You want massive change? You deal with the lord of flames and revolution. Now do you want a better tabletop game or don't you?

I've already got about a dozen better (well, better than 40k 10e at least) tabletop games on my shelves. Some even made by GW!

So, in the interest of not having a super costly house fire, a BBQd dog, the local shops not burning down, etc?
I'll pass on the spontaneous combustion.

Besides, the spontaneous combustion didn't even come with a guarantee of 40k 11e being better!

Tzeentch is the embodiment of hope, not satisfaction.

Something I forgot about.

A comparative WS mechanic instead of a flat X+ to hit.

This would represent not just a model’s skill in attacking but defending as well.
Would even give a reason to bring the combat shield back, it could give +1WS.

Doesn’t need to be as complicated as old world’s to hit chart, but work the same way as the the S/T interaction for the wound roll.


A WS6 v WS3 match up would have 6 hitting on 2+ and 3 hitting on 6+

Gotta say a guardsmen hitting an orc and a drukhari with the same likelihood is kinda silly.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Something I forgot about.

A comparative WS mechanic instead of a flat X+ to hit.

This would represent not just a model’s skill in attacking but defending as well.
Would even give a reason to bring the combat shield back, it could give +1WS.

Doesn’t need to be as complicated as old world’s to hit chart, but work the same way as the the S/T interaction for the wound roll.


A WS6 v WS3 match up would have 6 hitting on 2+ and 3 hitting on 6+

Gotta say a guardsmen hitting an orc and a drukhari with the same likelihood is kinda silly.

There's an issue with that, though-just because a Dark Eldar is harder to hit shouldn't automatically them better at hitting too.

A Guardsman hitting an Eldar on a 5+, 6+ for the more skilled ones, sure.
But an Ork only hitting them on a 5+, that don't feel right.

I'd be onboard with a return to something like the old WS chart. Models being skillful at landing hits meaning that they're also skillful at parrying, dodging, etc. seems like a decent rule of thumb. Significant outliers could get a special rule to represent as much if it's really needed.

Probably wouldn't use the current S/T comparison though. Either the old chart or Tiberias's (?) revised chart in the Proposed Rules section would work pretty well.

Or if you really wanted to, you could just give all units a different stat for melee defense and melee offense represented by a + or - value that indicates what they add to their to-hit rolls and what the enemy subtracts form their to-hit rolls. So orks might be Offense +1 (good at hitting stuff) but Defense +0 or even +1 (leave themselves open to return attacks.) Guardsmen would probably be Offense +0 and Defense +0. Dire Avengers with their Defensive Tactics might be Offense +1, Defense -1 or something. Generally you'd want these values to stay low (between -1 and +1 with rare outliers). But maybe that's all a little overwrought.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Something I forgot about.

A comparative WS mechanic instead of a flat X+ to hit.

This would represent not just a model’s skill in attacking but defending as well.
Would even give a reason to bring the combat shield back, it could give +1WS.

Doesn’t need to be as complicated as old world’s to hit chart, but work the same way as the the S/T interaction for the wound roll.


A WS6 v WS3 match up would have 6 hitting on 2+ and 3 hitting on 6+

Gotta say a guardsmen hitting an orc and a drukhari with the same likelihood is kinda silly.

There's an issue with that, though-just because a Dark Eldar is harder to hit shouldn't automatically them better at hitting too.

A Guardsman hitting an Eldar on a 5+, 6+ for the more skilled ones, sure.
But an Ork only hitting them on a 5+, that don't feel right.

1. With a comparative WS mechanic WS no longer needs to be on a 1-6 scale, so a guardsman can be a 4 an ork a 5 a marine a 6 and an eldar a 7 for their standard troops.
2. Orks are brutes their ‘skill’ in combat is simply being strong, tough, and ferocious. As someone who has spent their lives in martial arts and combat sports ork vs eldar to me is like angry body builder vs lyoto machida.
3. You can use other stats to keep melee relatively even. Orks could have a lot of attacks to represent how ferocious they are. So where a standard eldar might get A2 , a boy might get A4, then strength, so where and eldar might be S3-4 a boy would be S5. How likely you are to hit is only one aspect of how good a unit is in melee.

If you want things to be so complicated, go play a RPG? We don't need all this nonsense to address issues.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Something I forgot about.

A comparative WS mechanic instead of a flat X+ to hit.

This would represent not just a model’s skill in attacking but defending as well.
Would even give a reason to bring the combat shield back, it could give +1WS.

Doesn’t need to be as complicated as old world’s to hit chart, but work the same way as the the S/T interaction for the wound roll.


A WS6 v WS3 match up would have 6 hitting on 2+ and 3 hitting on 6+

Gotta say a guardsmen hitting an orc and a drukhari with the same likelihood is kinda silly.

There's an issue with that, though-just because a Dark Eldar is harder to hit shouldn't automatically them better at hitting too.

A Guardsman hitting an Eldar on a 5+, 6+ for the more skilled ones, sure.
But an Ork only hitting them on a 5+, that don't feel right.

1. With a comparative WS mechanic WS no longer needs to be on a 1-6 scale, so a guardsman can be a 4 an ork a 5 a marine a 6 and an eldar a 7 for their standard troops.
2. Orks are brutes their ‘skill’ in combat is simply being strong, tough, and ferocious. As someone who has spent their lives in martial arts and combat sports ork vs eldar to me is like angry body builder vs lyoto machida.
3. You can use other stats to keep melee relatively even. Orks could have a lot of attacks to represent how ferocious they are. So where a standard eldar might get A2 , a boy might get A4, then strength, so where and eldar might be S3-4 a boy would be S5. How likely you are to hit is only one aspect of how good a unit is in melee.

You're on a forum where people can't accept les than a 3+ to hit for a carnifex because it's "a melee specialist unit", they used to have at best average WS and I for the reasons you state above, but that mentality is gone largely.

People expect a unit only capable at a thing to be flatly good at that thing.