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.

SemperMortis wrote:


This is wrong/silly in relation to the ork rules for a host of reasons. Number 1 being orkz can't shoot ANYTHING 20' away because GW gave us 18 guns and only on the ranged troop choice which is functionally useless for how piss poor it is compared to ANY other troop choice in the game!....sorry, except for Grots who are somehow even worse. 2 being, nothing about what you are proposing would buff already piss poor ork shooting, in fact its a straight nerf and reduces tactical flexability. So congrats on coming up with a way to nerf orkz more.

because gun stats never change and an example is set hard and fast in stone. The Land Raiders will ALWAYS be 6" away from every Ork unit, and so on.

One thing I'd like to see in 10th is for extra relics and warlord traits not to be locked in when list building. Have those be kind of a "sideboard" for your list. It would make some of the relic options in the various books more useful, as they could be your flex picks in certain matchups (e.g. some relics are good into a psyker-heavy list and useless against anything else). Your main Warlord's trait and your free relic should be locked in, but the others could be matchup specific.

The other thing I'd like to see is a way to make vehicles more relevant. It sucks that so many people's awesome tanks are doing shelf duty these days.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
One thing I'd like to see in 10th is for extra relics and warlord traits not to be locked in when list building. Have those be kind of a "sideboard" for your list. It would make some of the relic options in the various books more useful, as they could be your flex picks in certain matchups (e.g. some relics are good into a psyker-heavy list and useless against anything else). Your main Warlord's trait and your free relic should be locked in, but the others could be matchup specific.

That's treating the symptom not the disease. These things should always be useful - First every army should be encouraged to take a little of everything so everyone who has a psyker takes a psyker but maybe not 20 of them. (and the McGuffin - be it a relic, or a secondary or a bespoke rule - is good enough for just the one psyker) Edit to add what I forgot: Second, the macguffin can be thematically based on Hatred:Tyranids etc but applies all the time i.e. Tyrranic War Veterans when facing Monsters or Walker Vehicles (they'd have to readd the Walker keyword to Dreads,Wraith*, etc) then Tyrranic War Vets can (do whatever they do - attack in close combat with grenades, reroll the hit/wound etc) Tycho's Abhor the Beast might turn into "Driven by his hatred, and years of savage fighting against the orks has given this model +1S and +1A in the fight phase. Something thematic that would apply against every army - or at least some part of it based on a thematic keyword(s) more universal than a Faction keyword like Orks or Tyranids.

The other thing I'd like to see is a way to make vehicles more relevant. It sucks that so many people's awesome tanks are doing shelf duty these days.

This is more symptom of the same disease. Between the rules already being bad for most vehicles, and terrain being even worse for them - I'd rather see them fix the datasheets so taking a little of everything is USUALLY the way to go. I still like the fluffy Ravenwing/Deathwing/WIldHost/SpiritHost/SpearOfMacragge etc lists. But I'd like to see: Primary Objectives score more than Secondary score more than a new set of Tertiary - And I'd make the tertiary very easy to score as long as you built to make it possible.in list building by including some of everything

So you get say... five categories of Secondaries based off of Keywords - Character, Fly, Vehicle/Monster combined, Transport, Aircraft, whatever. - these are just examples and shouldn't be taken as HARD AND FAST details just as a theme to give the gist of the idea.
If you're within 6" of Objective A with (Keyword) score 3VP
If you're within 6" of Objective B with (Different Keyword) Gain 3 VP.
If your Aircraft starts with 6" of one Objective and ends within 6" of another gain 3 VP
Perform a Deny The Witch against Objective Y within X" of Objective Y
And so on - You pick or even better randomly generate one Tertiary from each category.

Potentially I might even make them as ridiculously easy as within 6" of ANY objective, or giving them an action that can't really be stopped, and can be done while doing another action or shooting or fighting, and so on. The point is to give a significant enough points chunk to "reward" taking a wide variety list within the constraints of the Faction/Subfaction, The Deathwing/Ravenwing list gets to choose between Terminators/Gravis, Characters, Bikers, Fly, and Vehicles for example - in some cases one unit may double up - for example Belial is a Character and a Terminator, Sammael is a Character and FLY so maybe you allow it, maybe you have to pick one column for them to count as, I don't know - playtesting would be necessary for that but I hope you get the general idea. We're already giving VP stuff like painted models, and CP for Battleforged lists.. lets give some goodies for "fluffy" lists.

Bugger to tertiary objectives, three sets of secondaries already do my head in, let alone another set on top!

Amen to that, Brother.

Who the hell looks at 9th edition and thinks "what this needs is more stuff stacked on top of all this stuff"?

tertiary objectives? seriously?
40k needs less bloat, not more.

Less strats.
USR instead of 20 almost identical rules with tiny variations in wording to make them more confusing.
less faction, sub-faction and detachment rules.

I should be able to look at a unit stat and weapon profile and maybe a special rule and know 90% of what that unit does.

 Ordana wrote:
Who the hell looks at 9th edition and thinks "what this needs is more stuff stacked on top of all this stuff"?

tertiary objectives? seriously?
40k needs less bloat, not more.

Less strats.
USR instead of 20 almost identical rules with tiny variations in wording to make them more confusing.
less faction, sub-faction and detachment rules.

I should be able to look at a unit stat and weapon profile and maybe a special rule and know 90% of what that unit does.

I don't think 5 "objectives" you could probably complete on Turn 1 because most of the work was done by listbuilding is going to add that much bloat. But sure. I do enjoy the cycling complaints though - I remember when we had USR and everyone complained about that too. But really, don't worry GW is nothing if not equally cyclical. They'll bring them back soon, and get rid of something else.

The reasons people were complaining about USRs were, ironically, everything that GW doubled down on by making them a million separate rules.
People were saying there too many special rules that did arbitrarily different things - eg Stealth, Shrouded, and Shrouded and Stealth.
How did GW solve it? Every unit gets their bespoke version of the rule!
Or "this Soulblaze rule is utterly pointless and a faff to resolve". How did GW solve that? "this buggy has a special rule allowing it to shoot a grot pistol" IE even more utterly pointless and a waste of time to resolve.
(Horus Heresy 2.0 seems to be solving this correctly, with numerical values like Shrouded (2)).

I want to reduce the amount of the game that's solved in list building. That's boring.
An extra 5 objectives I need to plan for and execute turn 1 is firstly a whole bunch of homework pre-game I don't want to have to deal with, and also means the PvP aspect of the game becomes less and less relevant. We'll just be two guys occupying the same board doing our own pre-planned thing.

I'd like to see approximately half or more situations in the game have their rules creatively rewritten, so that their outcome relies on players' decisions and choices instead of a dumb dice roll. In other words, I'd like "WH40K: the Upkeep Phase" changed into "WH40K: an Actual Game".

Breton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Who the hell looks at 9th edition and thinks "what this needs is more stuff stacked on top of all this stuff"?

tertiary objectives? seriously?
40k needs less bloat, not more.

Less strats.
USR instead of 20 almost identical rules with tiny variations in wording to make them more confusing.
less faction, sub-faction and detachment rules.

I should be able to look at a unit stat and weapon profile and maybe a special rule and know 90% of what that unit does.

I don't think 5 "objectives" you could probably complete on Turn 1 because most of the work was done by listbuilding is going to add that much bloat. But sure. I do enjoy the cycling complaints though - I remember when we had USR and everyone complained about that too. But really, don't worry GW is nothing if not equally cyclical. They'll bring them back soon, and get rid of something else.

People complained about IC giving units special rules through USR and dumb USR that said "see 2 other USR to actually know what this USR does"
The game doesn't need 6 version of Infiltrate, 20 versions of Deepstrike and 8 Fight Last, all with slightly different wording that doesn't actually change what they do.

Breton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Who the hell looks at 9th edition and thinks "what this needs is more stuff stacked on top of all this stuff"?

tertiary objectives? seriously?
40k needs less bloat, not more.

Less strats.
USR instead of 20 almost identical rules with tiny variations in wording to make them more confusing.
less faction, sub-faction and detachment rules.

I should be able to look at a unit stat and weapon profile and maybe a special rule and know 90% of what that unit does.

I don't think 5 "objectives" you could probably complete on Turn 1 because most of the work was done by listbuilding is going to add that much bloat. But sure. I do enjoy the cycling complaints though - I remember when we had USR and everyone complained about that too. But really, don't worry GW is nothing if not equally cyclical. They'll bring them back soon, and get rid of something else.

Adding objectives that are then pretty much automatically done isn't good. No good reason to add then in the first place.

If you want to encourage variety better idea to fix balance. But gw doesn't want balance nor want variety. Gw wants you to spam broken stuff, then change list spamming other.

GW designers have shown they don't "want" spam with their reactions to the tournament scene. The problem is they never found a good incentive structure that encourages people to not spam multiples of something that fits said people's playstyle.

Closest we got was makind weapon diversity important via the wider range of damage profiles but that always seems to result in people hunting for the singular most efficient option they have over making some kind of Highlander list.

I want

Digital rules, i have no interest in books which cost 50€ and are recycling paper after 6 months because of frequent rules changes
A working 40k app which gets updated with new FAQs and errata, working army builder
D10 based hit/wound system
Overall less dice rolls
Turn based activations
Overall less complexity, less CP, less stratagems
Invs and MW should be the exception, not a standard for everyone
USRs
Less terrain rules

But i know most of that is not going to happen.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reasons people were complaining about USRs were, ironically, everything that GW doubled down on by making them a million separate rules.

Nope. The only complaint I ever had with USRs was that they weren't in dexes. It's the most common complaint about USRs I've seen.

Love strats or hate them, they did solve that problem.

Oh, sorry... There was one other thing I hated about USRs- the ones where a USR was just two other USRs combined.

Strats solved that problem too- though there are some abilities that confer virtual access to strats or change their cost, there are, as (of yet) no strats which are simply a combination of other strats.

Strats and USRs are very different things though.
I do agree that USRs being just combinations of other USRs was a problem.
The only reason we technically don't have that anymore is because every special is different. There are some SRs that do essentially the same thing as two other SRs elsewhere though.
Although surely equipment that doesn't do anything except give you access to a strategem is exactly the same problem though? Even worse because the equipment doesn't explicitly tell you it gives you access to the Strategem, it just says you gain a keyword and you've got to go scrambling for where that keyword might be relevant.

PenitentJake wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reasons people were complaining about USRs were, ironically, everything that GW doubled down on by making them a million separate rules.

Oh, sorry... There was one other thing I hated about USRs- the ones where a USR was just two other USRs combined.

Why are you saying that like it was common. Wasn't it basically just Zealot?

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reasons people were complaining about USRs were, ironically, everything that GW doubled down on by making them a million separate rules.

Oh, sorry... There was one other thing I hated about USRs- the ones where a USR was just two other USRs combined.

Why are you saying that like it was common. Wasn't it basically just Zealot?

And some unit types.

But yeah, USRs are vastly better than the current mess.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW designers have shown they don't "want" spam with their reactions to the tournament scene. The problem is they never found a good incentive structure that encourages people to not spam multiples of something that fits said people's playstyle.

Closest we got was makind weapon diversity important via the wider range of damage profiles but that always seems to result in people hunting for the singular most efficient option they have over making some kind of Highlander list.

As is tradition, I expect to see GW ransack T'au Empire mechanics and distribute them among the masses in 10th edition, for the greater good of all (and often, alas, a blandening of Tau mechanics).

In particularly, I'm wondering if GW will implement for Units to have a similar escalating point structure that Crisis Suit weapons have - The first is the cheapest, the second is a bit (or a lot) more expensive, and the third is more expensive still.

You wouldn't really need a Rule of Three anymore, frankly, since any unit that people take 4 or more of under that escalating structure is either broken good (and can be swiftly nudged back to reasonable efficiency) or inefficient for the units taken after the 2nd.

It strongly encourages build diversity, too. Finding efficient use of a diverse array of units helps.

Troops would need to be excluded from this increase, of course (because Troops are the only thing GW wants you to spam, and it would be silly to limit them in the same way). Some armies have a shallow depth of datasheets(Custodes, Harlies, Knights, probably others), and that's a wrinkle that would need solving somehow. Space Marines have a depth of datasheets that makes the Marianna Trench look like a plow furrow, and that might also cause issues. Further, GW would probably need to shift the point changes based on the size of the battle - escalation that's appropriate for 2000 points might not be meaningful at 500, and might be too punishing at 3000 (not that GW has ever been particularly good at balancing different point levels).

I would like to see a return to a more traditional product. I want a proper rulebook again with USRs. I also want to see stratagems toned down considerably. A codex doesn't need three pages of strats. These should be fun additions, not something to build lists around. It was a good idea, but it's gotten out of hand when guys are taking detachments just to get CP to power a Deathstar combo. I think a better way to add flavour would be to do something like Rites of War in 30K where you have some generic ones available and then maybe each codex could have one or two. Of course this would mean you'd have to do something about the FO chart, which imo is a mess right now with detachments. These need cleaned up big time. It's nuts that we have all these stackable FO charts, which is basically what they are. There should be one or two FO charts for everyone to use and then again, one or two in the codices to provide faction flavour. Like why don't Dark Eldar have an option to have an all Fast Attack army or something like that?

I think 8th and 9th gave us a lot of good ideas, but I'm tired of playing aura blobs and trying to make every turn a gotcha moment with fiddly stratagem tricks. I'm also tired of being told how unique everything is with a hundred different names for the same USR.

I'll also add that I would love it if GW grabbed a brain about Primaris and fixed their lore so that Belisarius Cawl just spent the last 10k years making better weapons and armour. That will never happen I know, but then again they did hard reset Fantasy Battles and they still sell AoS models so anything is possible.

Hairesy wrote:
Like why don't Dark Eldar have an option to have an all Fast Attack army or something like that?

You can do that with the Force Org system. There are detachment types that allow for full armies of whatever Force Org slots you want plus 1 HQ, you just don't get the Command Points refunded as they aren't core detachments (ones similar to 1 HQ, 2 Troops kind of deal). I prefer it over the 8th version where taking more detachments got you extra CP so armies that were dirt cheap could easily rack up silly amounts of CP. It's possible the idea behind the 9th version was to prevent certain types of skewed lists but obviously that didn't work.
For Drukhari specifically, though, their Raiding Force and Realspace Raid detachments are brilliant and allow for really fun ways to play the army that also accurately follow the army background.

I'm probably alone in this, but I'd like:

1. Alternating activations
2. Smaller armies.
3. Less deadly weapons.

I just really dislike how 3/4 of my army is always dead by the end of the game. I'd much rather have smaller armies and games that are fundamentally about maneuvering and objectives rather than just kill kill kill.

I want strats to be tied to game size (Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, Onslaught) so depending on the size of the game you get Core Strats + X Strats from your own book.

Cut down the actual strats by 2/3rds (including removing all equipment strats by making them equipment again, and any gotcha 'suddenly this unit is more durable for no reason!' strats), and then you choose what of your remaining strats you add to your basic 'Core' strats.

And yes, I fully realise that a very "deck building" style mechanic, but I'll take it over "39 strats in 7 broad categories" being the norm. Combat Patrol? 2 strats + Core. It's an Incursion game? Ok. You get 4 strats + Core. And so on.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I want strats to be tied to game size (Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, Onslaught) so depending on the size of the game you get Core Strats + X Strats from your own book.

Cut down the actual strats by 2/3rds (including removing all equipment strats by making them equipment again, and any gotcha 'suddenly this unit is more durable for no reason!' strats), and then you choose what of your remaining strats you add to your basic 'Core' strats.

And yes, I fully realise that a very "deck building" style mechanic, but I'll take it over "39 strats in 7 broad categories" being the norm. Combat Patrol? 2 strats + Core. It's an Incursion game? Ok. You get 4 strats + Core. And so on.

I'd take deck building over playing monoblue unlimited hand size nonsense for every army.

Here’s the things I want:

Cut rules bloat. Mainly by dialing back on things not on data-sheets. I don’t really like pure build bonuses (doctrines,protocols, whatever) Stratagems need to be dialed back significantly. Cutting sub-faction relics and warlord traits would be nice.

I’d just get rid of CORE as well. The theory behind it was sorta ok, but all’s it done in practice is make non-core units not usable.

Also either change it so either infantry can’t go through walls without problems, or make it so other units can go through walls. Maybe a tank can run though a wall but takes 3 MW when failing a 4+ save. Both of this and CORE changes are here to make vehicles, beasts, and Calvary more takable

For thing that I want, but will never happen. Far-less staggered releases. It’s never going to happen because GW knows rules sells models. Specifically, better rules than what came before them. You can’t codex creep, when all codex’s come out at once, leaving GW with little effective ways to shift old product without creep.
As an example, there’s no way custodes or Tau would sell as well if GW did non-staggered codex schedule.

For things I don’t want, many of the suggestions on this thread.

If I’d trusted GW with universal rules, I’d say that. Problem is GW can’t help themselves to make needless specific versions of U rules for new books.

AV just like Core was a good in theory rule, bad in practice. The “tourney players are ruining 40k” crowd has a slight point that blasts got removed because of us, but I still saw arguments even in casual settings.

Salt donkey wrote:
Here’s the things I want:

Cut rules bloat. Mainly by dialing back on things not on data-sheets. I don’t really like pure build bonuses (doctrines,protocols, whatever) Stratagems need to be dialed back significantly. Cutting sub-faction relics and warlord traits would be nice.

Have you thought of taking your models to one of those giant chessboards in a strip mall? Use some apocalype moving trays? Intercessors can be the pawns, Repulsors can be the rooks, Outriders can be the Knights, Justiciar's can be bishops, the Chaplain the queen, the Captain the King...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Things I'd like to see:

1) Deep Dive on all the codex and supplements to fix the stupid things, oversights, and non-standard builds: I know Marines best so I'll use examples from there:

Add a Phobos Chaplain - With Reiver and Incursor Build

Make Lieutenant in Phobos Armor Infiltrate, make the Lieutenant in Reiver Armor Deep Strike.

Give the Phobos Captain a Reiver Alt Build

Let Reivers(etc) with both Graps and Gravs 12" FLY like Assault/Vanguard.

Gravis Lieutenant

Gravis Deathwing.

Get rid of the 3 and only 3 or 3-6 unit sizes for 5-10.

Give Bladeguard Veterans the bodyguard ability - People playing all Primaris but not Ultras needs a bodyguard squad - Retune Victrix with this in mind - mastercraft the sword, and heavy boltpistol.

Change Impulsors/Repulsors to Transport:12 (i.e. squad of 10 + 2 Characters) instead of 6.

A lot of the above can be boiled down to finish/fix/retcon the Primaris roll out.

After that: go back to the forgotten units - this can mean squat the firstborn or fix them.

End the Segretation on transports.

Make the Thunderfire Canon fun again.

Drastically retune the Firestrike turrets.

Then do the same with the other codex and supplements. For the Orks I'd probably even start from scratch on their doctrines.Especially with a new name that doesn't sound like a subtle shout out to a certain group from US History.


"Revive" Hive Fleets that have been "defeated" - and make it more clear that even though the Hive Fleet might be defeated in one location, there are other groups of that Hive Fleet elsewhere. I'd feel kind of stupid making a Hive Fleet Behemoth today when it was supposedly destroyed and what little was left created non-Behemoth Splinter Fleets in the fluff. It would be like creating a Firehawks Chapter then finding out they were lost in the warp before becoming the Legion Of the Damned in the current era.

In that same theme, do something with Tycho finally - resurrect or Legend and Replace the guy. Move Cassius to the Deathwatch again/permanently and create a new UM Chaplain Master of Sanctity.

Create some specialty Dets for Ravenwing, Deathwing, Wild Hunt, Speedkult, etc that either moves their signature units to Troops, or otherwise makes their units count as troops for everything - Objectives, Strats, whatever where the wording SHOULD allow/prevent something but doesn't on a technicality.

l]

Salt donkey wrote:


Have you thought of taking your models to one of those giant chessboards in a strip mall? Use some apocalype moving trays? Intercessors can be the pawns, Repulsors can be the rooks, Outriders can be the Knights, Justiciar's can be bishops, the Chaplain the queen, the Captain the King...

Strawman is not a valid argument.

Reducing the number of dumb rules doesn't dumb the game down, it's quite the opposite. If a rule doesn't ask players to make an interesting and relevant decision it should be cut, plain and simple.

Breton wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Here’s the things I want:

Cut rules bloat. Mainly by dialing back on things not on data-sheets. I don’t really like pure build bonuses (doctrines,protocols, whatever) Stratagems need to be dialed back significantly. Cutting sub-faction relics and warlord traits would be nice.

Have you thought of taking your models to one of those giant chessboards in a strip mall? Use some apocalype moving trays? Intercessors can be the pawns, Repulsors can be the rooks, Outriders can be the Knights, Justiciar's can be bishops, the Chaplain the queen, the Captain the King...

What a ridiculous argument. All the things listed there are relatively new, some as new as 8th edition. There were multiple editions of 40k that included none of those things, or very heavily curtailed versions of them and they worked just fine.

1) I want to see someone who actually cares about orks writes 10th edition's codex.
2) I want the game to be less deadly. A lot less. If the game worked like it does now, but everything just did half as much damage it would be a pretty cool game. I don't even care how they do it.
3) Less stratagems. There are like five stratagems any given list regularly uses, but players unfamiliar with the army still have to read the other 30 to find them.
4) No more than two layers of rules on anything, for no reason. Having an interesting army rule (waaagh, PfP, contagions, custodes kung-fu, miracle dice) and sub-faction rules (clans, chapters, legions, septs) is more than enough to make army choices matter. If an army needs those buffs to function now, just improve their datasheets.
5) Quality of life improvements on crusade. Crusade with all the parts GW has added to it is a great toolbox for narrative play, but it could use some FAQ'ing and adjustments here and there. Matched play and codices have been polished and adjusted over and over again, however crusade rules have remained unchanged since the start of 9th no matter how good or bad they work.

That's all really. Make the game less deadly, cut down on complexity and go the extra mile to make orks and crusade great instead of just ok. Everything else is just nice to have.

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Here’s the things I want:

Cut rules bloat. Mainly by dialing back on things not on data-sheets. I don’t really like pure build bonuses (doctrines,protocols, whatever) Stratagems need to be dialed back significantly. Cutting sub-faction relics and warlord traits would be nice.

Have you thought of taking your models to one of those giant chessboards in a strip mall? Use some apocalype moving trays? Intercessors can be the pawns, Repulsors can be the rooks, Outriders can be the Knights, Justiciar's can be bishops, the Chaplain the queen, the Captain the King...

What a ridiculous argument. All the things listed there are relatively new, some as new as 8th edition. There were multiple editions of 40k that included none of those things, or very heavily curtailed versions of them and they worked just fine.

Also love how he is implying that 40k moving closer to chess is the worst thing ever. I don’t want 40k to become chess, but there is clear middle group between chess and the bloated mess that 40k is now.

I want

- a wargame using my favourite models and background

What I will get

- MtG using my favourite models and background.

At this point it is painful switching from playing a game of EpicA to 40k and I am increasingly baffled at friends that like the game as it moves ever further away from being a 'traditional' wargame. It is telling though how many at the GW fanatics club I go to are playing Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Epic, BFG and Warmaster instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 waefre_1 wrote:

I'm sure you said that as a joke, but feth me if the thought of the next IG 'dex following exactly the same path as every other codex prior doesn't fill me with despair. I thought we'd had enough of that by the end of 7th.

At this point I can only see 2 options - it is underpowered or like the rest overpowered. But only for a few months, then the next edition rolls out... (assuming it comes out before that edition of course).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RegularGuy wrote:

The only thing I'd add is there's something unfortunate about making my opponent wait while I roll 120 shots of rapid fire frfsrf from conscripts that only results in a total of 4 wounds to a marine squad. Kind of fluffy but also cumbersome.

it is Psyops. Do that enough and they lose the will to win. And probably live.