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.

Martel732 wrote:

Nocturus wrote:
I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.

That was me. It would work out quite nicely, too.

Not if GW would use it the same way as the D6 now.
A D10 makes no difference if there are only 2 results for to hit in melee and to hit for ranged is limited to 2-6.

D10 would work well if GW removes charts, put the results needed into the model profile and uses the whole spectrum from 1-10.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


If it's a buff then so be it. I don't think it would really be THAT huge.

Its goes from the basic gun being unable to kill say, a rhino on front/side armor to killing it on a 6. It's like super gauss for non vehicles. And let's be honest, Eldar don't need MORE power, which in turn would create a bigger gap in the current imbalance of power. Simplicity is not always better.

I guess so, but then I still think it would be simpler to remove the vehicle penetration part of rending, give it to all those disparate weapons and then add a penetration rule to things like assault cannons. It's still 2 rules where there were once 3 or 4.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


If it's a buff then so be it. I don't think it would really be THAT huge.

Its goes from the basic gun being unable to kill say, a rhino on front/side armor to killing it on a 6. It's like super gauss for non vehicles. And let's be honest, Eldar don't need MORE power, which in turn would create a bigger gap in the current imbalance of power. Simplicity is not always better.

I guess so, but then I still think it would be simpler to remove the vehicle penetration part of rending, give it to all those disparate weapons and then add a penetration rule to things like assault cannons. It's still 2 rules where there were once 3 or 4.

Again, simplicity (or as few rules as possible) is not always the best. Otherwise, why not throw gauss into that list? It's already pseudo rending with the auto wound (sure, it also glances vehicles on a 6, but it's not that different). Then you have 2 rules where there were 5! I mean, so what if 2 armies now auto wound anything with no armor saves allowed on basic troops?

Just because you're removing/condensing rules, again, doesn't mean the game will be better for it.

I don't like the idea of forcing people to buy the wrong book, but... What would be a good "patch" for CSM now or a way to run them in a new edition is if GW released a supplement to vanilla SM that lets you add chaos corruption/weapons/marks to marines. This would mean that CSM stay on par with SM and creates more demand for one product.

I still feel bad for the CSM army I played last week. They are not even on par with SM, but I only realized this after I swept 2 biggish quads of Slaanesh marines

 kodos wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Nocturus wrote:
I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.

That was me. It would work out quite nicely, too.

Not if GW would use it the same way as the D6 now.
A D10 makes no difference if there are only 2 results for to hit in melee and to hit for ranged is limited to 2-6.

D10 would work well if GW removes charts, put the results needed into the model profile and uses the whole spectrum from 1-10.

Correct, changing to a D10 system would require an overhaul of all the tables and this is no bad thing.
We could now have the dice roll required instead of the current stat table, an Orks bs of say 8 would require that on a D10, a Marines for arguments sake would be 3. A guardsmen would be 5.
This way we could have more range on each of the different units which may prevent having to add so many special rules

Huron black heart wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Nocturus wrote:
I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.

That was me. It would work out quite nicely, too.

Not if GW would use it the same way as the D6 now.
A D10 makes no difference if there are only 2 results for to hit in melee and to hit for ranged is limited to 2-6.

D10 would work well if GW removes charts, put the results needed into the model profile and uses the whole spectrum from 1-10.

Correct, changing to a D10 system would require an overhaul of all the tables and this is no bad thing.
We could now have the dice roll required instead of the current stat table, an Orks bs of say 8 would require that on a D10, a Marines for arguments sake would be 3. A guardsmen would be 5.
This way we could have more range on each of the different units which may prevent having to add so many special rules

Correct, we could do this.
GW would just keep Marines wigh BS3, Guard with 4 and Orks with 5 and ignore all other results.
At the moment they are moving stats closer together and make units different by special rules.

Before GW start using the full possibilities of a D6 or try to get the rules ported to D10, they gonna change everything to D3.

Umm, with a D10 system, don't you usually want to score under the listed amount? I think you have it backwards.
So Marines would be BS 5 and pass on a D10 roll of 5, or lower, Guard would be 4 and orks 5.

D10? whut? do you like games that last 12 hours?

Try rolling 30 D10's (not cheap dice to buy) and sorting the results quickly.

you can do both, same with a D6.
a 2+ rolls fail if you roll a 1, no matter if D10 or D6.
But if you want the score needed in the profile and higher rolls being better, than it would be -9 with and 10 is the failing roll.

But if you are not using all possible results it doesn't matter what dice or system you use


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zerosignal wrote:
D10? whut? do you like games that last 12 hours?

Try rolling 30 D10's (not cheap dice to buy) and sorting the results quickly.

you should first play a tabletop using D10 and than start complain about it.
SST used a mix of D10 and D6, used more models and had more detailed per model rules but was still played faster than 40k.
Because the rules were written to use D10 to speed things up while the 40k rules are there to slow things down.

If youe take the advantage of the D10 you could playa standard 40k game in halve the time

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Umm, with a D10 system, don't you usually want to score under the listed amount? I think you have it backwards.
So Marines would be BS 5 and pass on a D10 roll of 5, or lower, Guard would be 4 and orks 5.

Rolling over or under the particular number doesn't really matter, once you get your head round it.
And surely a D10 system would remove the need for special rules which currently slows the game down.
And wouldn't the cost of D10's come down if they had to be mass produced for everyone that wants to use them in 40k, at least if you avoid buying them from GW. We're only talking about a marginally more complicated block of wood/plastic.

Martel732 wrote:

Franarok wrote:
Well, nerf the grav weapons is a must. The actual gravs weapons are so fething broke

Also a revision of all the psi powers. There are to may to much powerful. Also there are no control: some armies have access to near all the powers of the book in addition several exclusives and other armies only have their esclusive....no fair

The walkers should be buffed somehow

Only if MCs are nerfed first. Or rather, the "problem" MCs, as many will insist.

How about after switching to the D10 system, grav wounds on 10-toughness, so high T targets (bigger, heavier stuff) are more vulnerable to grav weapons than low T targets.

Additionally, one thing I would definitely like to see 40k take from AoS is listing the needed to-hit roll on the stat sheet. It would easier to be able to look at a unit's Datasheet and say "Oh! I need to roll a 4+ to hit". It's not like the math of 7-BS=to-hit is hard, but just one less step to have to figure out.

I'd have to think about grav a long time to get it right I think. I think that grav would be tacked on after everything else were balanced.

D10 works very well in Gates of Antares, and I don't see why it couldn't be similarly good in 40k. A lot of bloat in 40k comes from the endless poxy re-rolls, which are only there cos the writers need something to differentiate the units/weapons and couldn't think of anything better.

This is not related to the dice.
40k could be a lot less bloated with much more difference between units/fractions while keeping the D6, if the writers would want the game to be that way.

 kodos wrote:
This is not related to the dice.
40k could be a lot less bloated with much more difference between units/fractions while keeping the D6, if the writers would want the game to be that way.

It however would be easier. I.E. ork boyz are S3, same as your average guardsmen, yet most of the fluff touts ork boyz as being MUCH stronger than your average human, and sometimes as strong as a space marine.

This is because GW only use stats from 3 to 4 for common units while stats from 1-10 ( or 1-infinite if charts would have a hardcap of +/-2) would be available.

the whole game is based around Marines, so they should have average stats. So a profile of 5's while Guard has all 3's and an Orc can be a mix (WS/BS 3, S4-5, T4-5 etc).

and because everything use a chart to compare their stats a D6 will work fine.

The armor system really fails on a D6. So to me, you go do D10, or change the armor system totally. I'd rather go with a D10.

 mmzero252 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus. Obviously this one should have existed a long time ago as well. Basically Cult Mechanicus, Skitarii, and Imperial Knights rolled into one codex.

I think this idea scares me the most, because you're suggesting they remove the most common super heavy ally from the entire Imperium and give it purely to one codex.

I DEMAND THE RETURN OF THE GLORIOUS BANDBLADE TO IMPERIAL GUARD ARMIES! This walker nonsense is for the admech.

What id like to see
For csm chaos daemons grey knights and eldar to have access to the most powerful psychic abilities in the game (call my crazy but imo these armies should the armies you should be scares of psychic wise not space marines)
Chaos lords and chaos characters in general to get eternal warrior

Why give Chaos Marine characters Eternal Warrior?

1.) Str D is an abomination, it needs to be available to all armies or none, preferably none. It's a needless rules complication, with a secondary damage chart, and several different interactions with models. In short to many rules failure points for not enough value to the game.

2.) Cover rules needs to change as they've become a crutch for too many armies. They also slow down the pace of the game, and 40k needs to be a faster paced game. Cap cover at 5+, and make shrouded/camo cloaks/whatever prevent the unit from being targeted unless the attacker is within a certain range, 12 inches for instance.

3.) Less army specific special rules, I mean like a lot less. Every army should be limited to two things, that can be explained in a sentence or two. Space marines have ATSKNF and chapter tactics, necrons have gauss and repair protocols, Tau have Combined fire and improved snap shots, etc. All other rules come from a shared pool of war gear, with perhaps minor racial differences.

4.) Units balanced mathematically, not by feel or whatever is newest is most awesome.

pm713 wrote:Why give Chaos Marine characters Eternal Warrior?

Because after 10,000 years, Abaddon and Typhus and the other named characters have sure as gak learned quite a bit more about fighting than a prissy drama queen like Calgar or Lysander.

Grimgold wrote:1.) Str D is an abomination, it needs to be available to all armies or none, preferably none. It's a needless rules complication, with a secondary damage chart, and several different interactions with models. In short to many rules failure points for not enough value to the game.
.

Actually just had this idea pop into my head a second ago... D could be nerfed a bit by making it auto reduce to a STR 10 hit on any target that it is larger than. While this would still screw me over as an IK player, it would aid other parts of my army by making it so that the non-super heavies in the army aren't being rolled for on the same chart.


Also, I think that some changes to the FNP spam we've had in 7th are due. Personally, I think it would both help and hurt everyone if the prerequisite for getting a FNP roll in the first place, the player must be able to make an armor save. So WKs could be brought down easier (or, at all) by saturating it with AP3 guns. IMO, this would work best if the keyword was the armor save, as I don't think cover or invul. saves should grant a FNP save.

Obviously, for some units like Orks that have/had it, they need to be fixed and brought up to speed in order to be more survivable.

Well, I'd like to see a box set which is away from the loyal SM main stream, like CSM + Nids, Orks + DE, Eldar + Tau.

I hate the charts of to hit and to wound.
I keep trying to remember all the stats and translate it into the chart without looking, but everytime i play with my girlfriend, she tires after a while because of the time it takes.

Also, special rules, i have to look up stuff all the time.

I want games to be more about playing and having fun, and less about studying the rules during gametime.

Anyone want to play two games in two hours?

Anyone want to not be tired after a game?



Just let all vehichles drive same distance and fire all their guns.

All infantry walk same distance etc.

Lets put fewer special rules, and let them be written on the units own page.

Its like looking up an encyclopedia damn it.


Why do we have a chart for ballistic skill, when we can just have the to hit nr be their BS.


Make the game so we dont need to look stuff up.

And when we have to look stuff up, for gods sake, dont write gak like: these guys are so good at this or that, they can bring this or that easily because this or that.... Just write : furious charge = +1S on charge.

It makes us save 10 sec just skimming text to find the actual info.


Why is the name of the rule in the unit entry, then you have to remember the name, then look it up in another book?
Lets try to only use unit entries and skip the whole damn big rulebook.

I love the models and love reading and thinking about the game, but during a game, its better to play than read..

Been playing alot of games with simplfied rules and stats and having a blast - from Dragon Rampant to Wasteman.

Thats really the sort fo game I want to play.

A 40k game like this is what I woudl really like:

Even be quite happy with a AOS style stat block:

So something like:

If you are looking for something like this than you want to play Warpath.

Ironically bringing back the Movement stat, at this point, would be a nice way of removing special rules from the game. That said a guardsman should move 4'', not 6''

 Korinov wrote:
Ironically bringing back the Movement stat, at this point, would be a nice way of removing special rules from the game. That said a guardsman should move 4'', not 6''

I think this is pretty much the reason why I don't like the movement stat. because the second it gets introduce, there's going to be some army with a jumped up movement stat and that'll just throw the movement balance out the window as they dance around the field and never be able to be caught in melee or with short ranged weapons

Honestly, if the Move stats gets reintroduced it'll be Eldar, probably Marines and hopefully Slaanesh Daemons and Tryranids that end up being better with 5"-8" compared to Guard, Tau, Orks, etc with 4".

If marines are supposed to be faster, then they should be faster.