What 9th Edition Needs

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.

**THE_LIST_MASTER**

With this system it is super easy to soup 3 different factions for 12 CP with 3 Patrols. Going mono-Knights becomes even less of an option if you can put in 140 pts of units for 6CP and why not include a Patrol from two different factions to get access to 120 Stratagems instead of 80? If you want people to take a single faction you'll want to punish taking more than one Detachment, not reward it.

Yea that is true, I forgot how cheap the cheapest Patrol detachment would be. Maybe have two types of detachments, Core and Support detachments. You can only take a Support detachment if you have a Core detachment of the same faction. Then make Battalion and Brigade the Core detachments and every other type of detachment a Support detachment. Give Knights a special rule letting them have a Superheavy detachment be a Core detachment. That would limit allies quite a big though...

**Mr Morden**

Keep most of it - just tweek stuff for blance and continue to bring new stuff out for different factions and sub factions

Better terrain rules - minimum use the optional ones from various supplements.
Adjust CPs so that you can't use ones from different sub factions on each other - a different coloured dice for each sorts that out.

Def DONT have
Armour facing / Weapon arcs - adds little to nothing and too much of a pain unless all units are on marked bases and even then...

Stop wasting space and resources on having seperate codexes for Wolves and Angels, swap to a supplement with any actual unique units in them plus relevant special rules - which will take up about 2 pages of A4.
All non unique options become generic options for all Marines. eg: chainswords, Librarian Dreads and other things that other Chapters use in the actual Lore.
So yeah they have two books like any other Marine subfaction but Lose Nothing, especisally since they have to have at least two books now with PA fake campain books.

**Slayer6**

Wyldhunt wrote:
Slayer6 wrote:Another thing that needs to come back:

Vehicle Facings!

Now the ruling for a Stormlord Super Heavy is that 75% of the vehicle must be obscured for it to benefit from cover...
No problem! Just park right next to a ruin, and stick the front tracks and hull out, whilst obscuring the actual weapons and casemate - as long as it can draw a line of fire from any point on the main hull for the tank on a target, then all guns (sponsons on either side too), can fire at the selected target...
FFS... Same thing for Valkyries, I had to plan my 90 degree turn so I could hit the targets I was going for - now? I can just fly 45" across the board, and fire the whole payload out the cargo bay door...

Sounds like you're referring to weapon arcs more than armor facings, yeah? I get the weirdness of what you're describing, but what we had before was far from perfect. You had those weird situations where tanks couldn't fire all their weapons because their own chassis blocked their sponsons. You had the confusion around just how wide an imperial knight's angle was because the arms are built to rotate. Back when the serpent shield was a weapon, you had all those different diagrams trying to figure exactly where the shield's weapon arc was supposed to be. Heck, you had a special rule on harlequin voidweavers to let it shoot a single gun backwards because it was modeled oddly.

The current rules are weird but play fast. The old rules were weird but played slow and lead to more arguments. Personally, I'll take the faster, less argument-inducing rules.

If you mean armor facings, well, I'm not a fan of huge chunks of your army (especially guns found on your more or less mandatory troops) being completely unable to interact with an opponent's tank company. So any return to armor facings would ideally have a solution to that particular fun sponge. Plus, you had weird diagrams again. Where exactly is the rear arc on a wave serpent? On a raider? How about your friend's asymmetrical kitbashed ork battlewagon? Plus, a ton (most?) of vehicles had the same front and side armor, so armor facing mostly only came up against guard vehicles, especially heavily armored tanks, and knights. Or if you were deepstriking a unit to sucker punch their butts, which could just be a strat or something these days.

Yeah, I'm talking about vehicle weapon facings, NOT the armor values system - a T10 vehicle is significantly tougher than an AV14 vehicle. Especially since some weapons were a ridiculous 72" S8 + 2D6 etc...

Wyldhunt wrote:
Slayer6 wrote:
No Orders
No Stratagems
No CP
Attachable Characters
Vehicle Facings

I'm curious, how do you feel about psychic powers? They do the same general things m any orders and strats do, just with a different cost and activation method. I'm okay with backing off on the number of strats, but I'd actually kind of like to grow the number of orders-style mechanics in the game rather than reducing it.

**Wakshaani**

Blndmage wrote:
Many factions don't have that many levels of character, or even that many HQ choices, period.

They'd need 3, plus named characters, in total. Some factions *do* fall shy of this, so you'd need to add some, but, ultimately not a big hurdle.

Off the top of my head, you could bring "Big Boss" back to the Orks (fits in to the "Liuetenant" level), and one step below a Canoness would do the same for the Sisters. I'm not certain who else is missing a Junior Commander sort. Marines have them, as does Chaos, Guard, Tyranid, Eldar … there are a few corner cases, like Sisters of Silence, but I don't know of any major holes.

But if you see something I missed, by all means, let me know!

**Blndmage**

Wakshaani wrote:
Blndmage wrote:
Many factions don't have that many levels of character, or even that many HQ choices, period.

They'd need 3, plus named characters, in total. Some factions *do* fall shy of this, so you'd need to add some, but, ultimately not a big hurdle.

Off the top of my head, you could bring "Big Boss" back to the Orks (fits in to the "Liuetenant" level), and one step below a Canoness would do the same for the Sisters. I'm not certain who else is missing a Junior Commander sort. Marines have them, as does Chaos, Guard, Tyranid, Eldar … there are a few corner cases, like Sisters of Silence, but I don't know of any major holes.

But if you see something I missed, by all means, let me know!

I know the Drukhari have virtually no HQ's especially if your playing a Coven list, and such.
Possibly Necrons as well, if your looking for a hierarchy.

**Wakshaani**

Blndmage wrote:
Wakshaani wrote:
Blndmage wrote:
Many factions don't have that many levels of character, or even that many HQ choices, period.

They'd need 3, plus named characters, in total. Some factions *do* fall shy of this, so you'd need to add some, but, ultimately not a big hurdle.

Off the top of my head, you could bring "Big Boss" back to the Orks (fits in to the "Liuetenant" level), and one step below a Canoness would do the same for the Sisters. I'm not certain who else is missing a Junior Commander sort. Marines have them, as does Chaos, Guard, Tyranid, Eldar … there are a few corner cases, like Sisters of Silence, but I don't know of any major holes.

But if you see something I missed, by all means, let me know!

I know the Drukhari have virtually no HQ's especially if your playing a Coven list, and such.
Possibly Necrons as well, if your looking for a hierarchy.

I'd have to dig in on the Dark Eldar, but the Necrons at least have a Lord (Level 0), Cryptek (Level 1), and Overlord (Level 2), then a bajillion named characters after that. Should work out decently.

Any others you can think of?

**Vaktathi**

More than anything, a 9th edition needs to actually decide what scale the game wants to play at.

If we're playing a battle where one army may be composed entirely of superheavy war machines, why on earth are we caring about what kind of blade a random sergeant's powerweapon has?

Alternativley, why are we trying to hamfist intercontinental missiles, literal demigods, multiengine strategic bombers, Kaiju sized monsters, and space capable atmospheric interceptor aircraft into a game that also wants individual Grot models to be a relevant tabletop playing piece?

The game tries to keep way too many irrelevant Skirmish/RPG level details at a unit level while wanting to basically allow for and push Apocalypse level play. In order to accomplish that in a functional manner, detail scales in complexity inversely with power and tabletop relevance, as generally power is represented by simply ignoring things, and as such the units with often the most detailed and complex rules and mechanics are the ones that represent some of the most trivial battlefield detail. Instead of it being the big heavy scary war machines and giant monsters with the complex rules (such as facings), they often ignore or mitigate so many things that they end up being very straightforward to play, while much less meaningful units often have more micromanagement or mechanics they have to deal with.

Resolving that will go a long way to resolving a lot of other issues.

**Siegfriedfr**

Vaktathi wrote:
More than anything, a 9th edition needs to actually decide what scale the game wants to play at.

If we're playing a battle where one army may be composed entirely of superheavy war machines, why on earth are we caring about what kind of blade a random sergeant's powerweapon has?

Alternativley, why are we trying to hamfist intercontinental missiles, literal demigods, multiengine strategic bombers, Kaiju sized monsters, and space capable atmospheric interceptor aircraft into a game that also wants individual Grot models to be a relevant tabletop playing piece?

The game tries to keep way too many irrelevant Skirmish/RPG level details at a unit level while wanting to basically allow for and push Apocalypse level play. In order to accomplish that in a functional manner, detail scales in complexity inversely with power and tabletop relevance, as generally power is represented by simply ignoring things, and as such the units with often the most detailed and complex rules and mechanics are the ones that represent some of the most trivial battlefield detail. Instead of it being the big heavy scary war machines and giant monsters with the complex rules (such as facings), they often ignore or mitigate so many things that they end up being very straightforward to play, while much less meaningful units often have more micromanagement or mechanics they have to deal with.

Resolving that will go a long way to resolving a lot of other issues.

True.

My take on this :
1-1000 PTS : t6+ vehicles/monsters/mecha not allowed. The game would be a big skirmish.
1001-1500 PTS : 2 t6+ allowed.
1500-2000 PTS : 4 t6+ allowed
2000+ : no limit to army composition

Also, lords of war (primarchs and other special characters) need to be toned down to be better, but not tank-destroying in melee better, than other characters.

And finally, special rules for units need to be reigned down to 1 for regular units, 2 for HQ, 3-4 for lords of war.

And many rules that are found on unit sheets need to be streamlined and allocated with a key word and be part of the main rulebook.

**Blndmage**

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
More than anything, a 9th edition needs to actually decide what scale the game wants to play at.

If we're playing a battle where one army may be composed entirely of superheavy war machines, why on earth are we caring about what kind of blade a random sergeant's powerweapon has?

Alternativley, why are we trying to hamfist intercontinental missiles, literal demigods, multiengine strategic bombers, Kaiju sized monsters, and space capable atmospheric interceptor aircraft into a game that also wants individual Grot models to be a relevant tabletop playing piece?

The game tries to keep way too many irrelevant Skirmish/RPG level details at a unit level while wanting to basically allow for and push Apocalypse level play. In order to accomplish that in a functional manner, detail scales in complexity inversely with power and tabletop relevance, as generally power is represented by simply ignoring things, and as such the units with often the most detailed and complex rules and mechanics are the ones that represent some of the most trivial battlefield detail. Instead of it being the big heavy scary war machines and giant monsters with the complex rules (such as facings), they often ignore or mitigate so many things that they end up being very straightforward to play, while much less meaningful units often have more micromanagement or mechanics they have to deal with.

Resolving that will go a long way to resolving a lot of other issues.

True.

My take on this :
1-1000 PTS : t6+ vehicles/monsters/mecha not allowed. The game would be a big skirmish.
1001-1500 PTS : 2 t6+ allowed.
1500-2000 PTS : 4 t6+ allowed
2000+ : no limit to army composition

Also, lords of war (primarchs and other special characters) need to be toned down to be better, but not tank-destroying in melee better, than other characters.

And finally, special rules for units need to be reigned down to 1 for regular units, 2 for HQ, 3-4 for lords of war.

And many rules that are found on unit sheets need to be streamlined and allocated with a key word and be part of the main rulebook.

Wouldn't that mess up whole armies?

**Brutallica**

Blndmage wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
More than anything, a 9th edition needs to actually decide what scale the game wants to play at.

If we're playing a battle where one army may be composed entirely of superheavy war machines, why on earth are we caring about what kind of blade a random sergeant's powerweapon has?

Alternativley, why are we trying to hamfist intercontinental missiles, literal demigods, multiengine strategic bombers, Kaiju sized monsters, and space capable atmospheric interceptor aircraft into a game that also wants individual Grot models to be a relevant tabletop playing piece?

The game tries to keep way too many irrelevant Skirmish/RPG level details at a unit level while wanting to basically allow for and push Apocalypse level play. In order to accomplish that in a functional manner, detail scales in complexity inversely with power and tabletop relevance, as generally power is represented by simply ignoring things, and as such the units with often the most detailed and complex rules and mechanics are the ones that represent some of the most trivial battlefield detail. Instead of it being the big heavy scary war machines and giant monsters with the complex rules (such as facings), they often ignore or mitigate so many things that they end up being very straightforward to play, while much less meaningful units often have more micromanagement or mechanics they have to deal with.

Resolving that will go a long way to resolving a lot of other issues.

True.

My take on this :
1-1000 PTS : t6+ vehicles/monsters/mecha not allowed. The game would be a big skirmish.
1001-1500 PTS : 2 t6+ allowed.
1500-2000 PTS : 4 t6+ allowed
2000+ : no limit to army composition

Also, lords of war (primarchs and other special characters) need to be toned down to be better, but not tank-destroying in melee better, than other characters.

And finally, special rules for units need to be reigned down to 1 for regular units, 2 for HQ, 3-4 for lords of war.

And many rules that are found on unit sheets need to be streamlined and allocated with a key word and be part of the main rulebook.

Wouldn't that mess up whole armies?

How about 33% rule, no units more expensive than 33% of total list allowance, like fantasy.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Character rules are fine, it just needs tweaking.
1. Create a size chart. Your character cannot be blocked by units that are X units smaller.
2. Units that have the Flyer keyword cannot block characters unless they have the Fly keyword themselves (maybe?)
3. If a unit is closer but they're not visible, please feel free to shoot at the character.

Bam, did I miss anything?

**vict0988**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Character rules are fine, it just needs tweaking.
1. Create a size chart. Your character cannot be blocked by units that are X units smaller.
2. Units that have the Flyer keyword cannot block characters unless they have the Fly keyword themselves (maybe?)
3. If a unit is closer but they're not visible, please feel free to shoot at the character.

Bam, did I miss anything?

The part where I line up two Rhinos which lets my Predator snipe a character?

**kodos**

Blndmage wrote:

Wouldn't that mess up whole armies?

any change to the core without a massive re-work of the armies is useless
so it does not matter if a change mess up anything within the faction rules as those need to be changed anyway

**Vaktathi**

Yeah, to address the issues of scale, the armies and units would need reworking.

40k is basically trying to be 3 or 4 different games in one, and this is reflected throughout the rules, army, and unit designs. This is reflected in the way that the mechanics are increasingly less tactically deep and the game shifts to a flatter attritional nature, in order to accommodate a design space that will allow for representation and interaction of Magnus the Red or a Reaver Titan and a Grot or Spore Mine, or to portray both a Volcano Cannon and a Laspistol, in a meaningful playable way. This also leads to other issues, an the upper end of scale, there's a lot of stuff that 40k tries to portray through physical units or weapons, that really are better treated as mission objectives or special abilities or event mechanics (e.g. Deathstrike missile is probably better as a narrative objective device than a playable unit). On the lower end, we've now got an innumerable variety of increasingly stat-differentiated bolter small arms.

The game needs to pick a good middle ground, leave the big things like Primarchs and tank battalions and Knight armies to Apocalypse and the ruleset built around that scale, and leave the little things like the differences between a power axe or power sword to the Kill Team scale, and focus on the middle ground.

**Slayer-Fan123**

vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Character rules are fine, it just needs tweaking.
1. Create a size chart. Your character cannot be blocked by units that are X units smaller.
2. Units that have the Flyer keyword cannot block characters unless they have the Fly keyword themselves (maybe?)
3. If a unit is closer but they're not visible, please feel free to shoot at the character.

Bam, did I miss anything?

The part where I line up two Rhinos which lets my Predator snipe a character?

Uh what

**vict0988**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Character rules are fine, it just needs tweaking.
1. Create a size chart. Your character cannot be blocked by units that are X units smaller.
2. Units that have the Flyer keyword cannot block characters unless they have the Fly keyword themselves (maybe?)
3. If a unit is closer but they're not visible, please feel free to shoot at the character.

Bam, did I miss anything?

The part where I line up two Rhinos which lets my Predator snipe a character?

Uh what

If I line up two Rhinos such that my Predator cannot see anything but your Character then I'd be able to shoot said character since it is the closest visible unit. If you want to remove some of the wonky situations with the current rules I'd say that any character more than 3" from a friendly unit can be targeted normally.

**kodos**

you can get everything into one from a Laser Pistol up to a Vulcano Cannon

but not if you try to squeeze everything into a scale of 2-9 with a D6 were a 6 is always wound

I mean it would start working if there would be a larger gap between units in the profile (so that a human veteran is not as strong as a Space Marine) and weapons with enough strength (like double T+1) would auto kill models on a successful hit

but as long as 40k keeps its restrictions on the profile and the dice, it needs to decide which kind of game it wanna be.

**Hellebore**

kodos wrote:
you can get everything into one from a Laser Pistol up to a Vulcano Cannon

but not if you try to squeeze everything into a scale of 2-9 with a D6 were a 6 is always wound

I mean it would start working if there would be a larger gap between units in the profile (so that a human veteran is not as strong as a Space Marine) and weapons with enough strength (like double T+1) would auto kill models on a successful hit

but as long as 40k keeps its restrictions on the profile and the dice, it needs to decide which kind of game it wanna be.

I think you can quite easily cover the entire game with a scale of 1 to 10, but you need to remove things like doubles of anything. the scale is too small for doubles as a rule to exist. This includes for weapon modifiers as well as comparisons (powerfists wouldn't be 2x Strength for example).

I mentioned this in a different thread, but you could do something like:

T1 grot
T2 Guard
T3 Ork
T4 marine
T5 nid warrior
T6 warboss

T5 attack bike
T6 sentinel
T7 rhino
T8 predator
T9 land raider
T10 warlord titan

And restrict the ability to wound to 2 pts higher than strength - ie S4 vs T6 =6+ to wound. any higher can't be wounded.

Death would be determined by the number of wounds caused, not by the strength of the attack.

You can fit infantry in the scale of 1-5 and vehicles into the scale of 6-10, with some overlap between strong infantry and light vehicles.

The hard limit of only wounding things 2pts higher keeps infantry weapons effective against infantry.

I have suggested weight of fire as a mechanic previously if people really need to hurt a land raider with lasguns, but it would require using different rules

**Wyldhunt**

Hellebore wrote:

The hard limit of only wounding things 2pts higher keeps infantry weapons effective against infantry.

I have suggested weight of fire as a mechanic previously if people really need to hurt a land raider with lasguns, but it would require using different rules

I'd be very against this without either weight of fire or a similar rule to allow all units to be able to interact with other units. I've played editions where the enemy army was literally impossible to kill once they'd wiped out your anti-tank (which you had to spam in droves at the cost of list diversity to avoid this situation). Not much fun marching a strength 3 army onto objectives and hoping your opponent rolls badly enough for them to stay alive into the next turn.

But that said, I'm pretty in favor of 40k committing to a game size. I like how Kill Team zooms in on individual models. I like how Apoc zooms out to make it easier to handle large forces. Now we just need to bring that home to normal 40k and let it thrive in a specific game size.

**Hellebore**

Wyldhunt wrote:
Hellebore wrote:

The hard limit of only wounding things 2pts higher keeps infantry weapons effective against infantry.

I have suggested weight of fire as a mechanic previously if people really need to hurt a land raider with lasguns, but it would require using different rules

I'd be very against this without either weight of fire or a similar rule to allow all units to be able to interact with other units. I've played editions where the enemy army was literally impossible to kill once they'd wiped out your anti-tank (which you had to spam in droves at the cost of list diversity to avoid this situation). Not much fun marching a strength 3 army onto objectives and hoping your opponent rolls badly enough for them to stay alive into the next turn.

But that said, I'm pretty in favor of 40k committing to a game size. I like how Kill Team zooms in on individual models. I like how Apoc zooms out to make it easier to handle large forces. Now we just need to bring that home to normal 40k and let it thrive in a specific game size.

Well they've technically done that with Apocalypse. It's a pretty good scale and the rules are very tight. So I'm not sure there's much more to discuss in that field.

coming back to weight of fire. I don't think there's an issue per se with the always having a chance of wounding anything, but I do think the cuurrent all 6s succeed is too higher the number of cheap shots you can bring to do that.

We've discussed a few ways of trying to alleviate this, but here are a few more.

1: Anything 3 or more pts higher in T than the attacker's S requires a 6 followed by another 6 to successfully wound. Very similar to currently, but it reduces the effectiveness quite a bit.

2: When a unit attacks with weapons that can't hurt the target, it inflicts a single hit for each set of 6s rolled equal to the table below (ie against a T8 target, 4 6s =1 hit, 8 6s =2 hits)

___T4__T5__T6__T7__T8__T9__T10
S3 5+__6+___2___3___4___5___6

This one relies entirely on actual weight of fire, rather than giving each individual gun the chance to wound something big. And unless you can activate multiple units in one go and combine their fire, it's limited to the number of attacks each unit can put out.

3: halve and quarter attacks and increase strength by 1 or 2. ie against T6, s3 can attack with half shots at S4 (therefore 6+), or against T7 quarter shots at S5 (6+).

this stretches the range a little at a cost, but it isn't limitless and won't work for single shot weapons (which are generally AT anyway).

**Slayer-Fan123**

vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Character rules are fine, it just needs tweaking.
1. Create a size chart. Your character cannot be blocked by units that are X units smaller.
2. Units that have the Flyer keyword cannot block characters unless they have the Fly keyword themselves (maybe?)
3. If a unit is closer but they're not visible, please feel free to shoot at the character.

Bam, did I miss anything?

The part where I line up two Rhinos which lets my Predator snipe a character?

Uh what

If I line up two Rhinos such that my Predator cannot see anything but your Character then I'd be able to shoot said character since it is the closest visible unit. If you want to remove some of the wonky situations with the current rules I'd say that any character more than 3" from a friendly unit can be targeted normally.

OH that's what you meant.

Nah, based on auras the 3" restriction is way too small. I think a good 12" should be fine.

**kodos**

Hellebore wrote:
kodos wrote:
you can get everything into one from a Laser Pistol up to a Vulcano Cannon

but not if you try to squeeze everything into a scale of 2-9 with a D6 were a 6 is always wound

I mean it would start working if there would be a larger gap between units in the profile (so that a human veteran is not as strong as a Space Marine) and weapons with enough strength (like double T+1) would auto kill models on a successful hit

but as long as 40k keeps its restrictions on the profile and the dice, it needs to decide which kind of game it wanna be.

I think you can quite easily cover the entire game with a scale of 1 to 10, but you need to remove things like doubles of anything. the scale is too small for doubles as a rule to exist. This includes for weapon modifiers as well as comparisons (powerfists wouldn't be 2x Strength for example).

You can, but a lot of people will say that it won't be real 40k any more if you go that way and it is missing details

making a large scale game and it will still work up to a point for smaller point levels
it is designing a skirmish game and play with armies that does not work

but people want Skirmish game details combined with large armies
as an example with a scale were T1 is a Grot and T10 a Titan, people will argue that Veterans or more tough humans will have the same profile as recruits wich will remove depth
not like you can get this done by other values (like a real moral value that has a game impact like it is used by Bolt Action of Warpath)

**Slayer6**

kodos wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
kodos wrote:
you can get everything into one from a Laser Pistol up to a Vulcano Cannon

but not if you try to squeeze everything into a scale of 2-9 with a D6 were a 6 is always wound

I mean it would start working if there would be a larger gap between units in the profile (so that a human veteran is not as strong as a Space Marine) and weapons with enough strength (like double T+1) would auto kill models on a successful hit

but as long as 40k keeps its restrictions on the profile and the dice, it needs to decide which kind of game it wanna be.

I think you can quite easily cover the entire game with a scale of 1 to 10, but you need to remove things like doubles of anything. the scale is too small for doubles as a rule to exist. This includes for weapon modifiers as well as comparisons (powerfists wouldn't be 2x Strength for example).

You can, but a lot of people will say that it won't be real 40k any more if you go that way and it is missing details

making a large scale game and it will still work up to a point for smaller point levels
it is designing a skirmish game and play with armies that does not work

but people want Skirmish game details combined with large armies
as an example with a scale were T1 is a Grot and T10 a Titan, people will argue that Veterans or more tough humans will have the same profile as recruits wich will remove depth
not like you can get this done by other values (like a real moral value that has a game impact like it is used by Bolt Action of Warpath)

This simply supports my sentiment that 40k just needs to go back to 3E...

**iGuy91**

One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

**Slayer6**

THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
I would like to see CP a bit more balanced between different factions and allies nerfed a bit. Kind of silly that a Guard brigade with 3 Knights can get 18 CP while a Space Marine battalion and a Vanguard detachment only gets 9 CP. I think players should be encouraged to take Troops with non-Troop specialized units of the SAME faction. I think the simple way to do it is just buff the small Troop detachments and nerf Brigades. Make Patrol detachments give +3 CP, Battalion detachments +6 CP, and Brigade detachments give +9 CP. Now you are heavily encouraged to replace your specialized detachments (Vanguard, Spearhead, Air Wing, etc.) with a Troop detachment of the same faction. I think the maximum unit limits in Patrol detachments are already restrictive, but if they aren't then make them all 1 (Limit of 1 Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, HQ, etc). That way replacing a specialized detachment with a Patrol isn't the best choice in almost every situation.

If Patrol Detachments give 3CP each, you can field a series of the following:

Guard Detachment (Lowest cost)
Company Commander
5 Scions
65pts
3CP

Replace Company Commander with:
Primaris Psykers
Lord Commissars
Tempestor Primes
Special Characters

Now depending on how many CP you need, you can literally buy 1CP for 22-26 points, excluding the special characters...

**Slayer6**

iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

Another issue with the current version of 40k is the sheer number of Deep Strike Soup lists...

I can field an absolute ton of dirt cheap units, such as a 16pt Commissar, then use a Daring Descent stratagem to bring in a full squad of Scions with 4 Meltaguns, a Plasma Pistol and Vox worth 136pt, 5" away from an enemy and proceed to obliterate said enemy...

The current system says 1 unit on field = 1 unit of reinforcements. So the 16pt Commissar = a 136pt Scion Squad.

So right now you have static gunlines designed to hold out for the Deep Strike Soup...

**Gadzilla666**

Slayer6 wrote:
iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

Another issue with the current version of 40k is the sheer number of Deep Strike Soup lists...

I can field an absolute ton of dirt cheap units, such as a 16pt Commissar, then use a Daring Descent stratagem to bring in a full squad of Scions with 4 Meltaguns, a Plasma Pistol and Vox worth 136pt, 5" away from an enemy and proceed to obliterate said enemy...

The current system says 1 unit on field = 1 unit of reinforcements. So the 16pt Commissar = a 136pt Scion Squad.

So right now you have static gunlines designed to hold out for the Deep Strike Soup...

Not exactly. The rules for deepstrike are that you must start half your units and half your points on the board.

**Wyldhunt**

iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

I like the sound of that, but I feel it might be hard to execute. Troops with 36" guns are typically equipped with sniper rifles, and those feel oddly short-ranged as-is. Most troops are looking at 24" or less on their basic guns. So let's say you drop those 24" guns down to 18". Then compare those to really short-ranged troop guns like fleshborers and shuriken catapults (12"). Do we really want to reduce the range of those 12" guns even more? And if so, isn't it a bit odd that we're making so many weapons fit into a 12"-18" range band.

Some "big guns could tolerate having their range reduced though. My shuriken cannons could survive going down to 18" range. Scatter lasers could drop to 18" or 24". I actually think it might be more beneficial to go the other direction though; make some of the more efficient heavy guns in the game get less effective when units are inside their Minimum Range. So basilisks and knights might take a -1 to hit when targeting units within 18", for instance.

**Slayer6**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Slayer6 wrote:
iGuy91 wrote:
One thing 40k needs badly is a blanket reduction in range for ranged weapons.

Basic troops having in some cases 36 inch guns is absurd, and further boils down games to static gunlines who always have range on each other.

Would also function to improve melee units, as they would not be under threat at such immense ranges.

Another issue with the current version of 40k is the sheer number of Deep Strike Soup lists...

I can field an absolute ton of dirt cheap units, such as a 16pt Commissar, then use a Daring Descent stratagem to bring in a full squad of Scions with 4 Meltaguns, a Plasma Pistol and Vox worth 136pt, 5" away from an enemy and proceed to obliterate said enemy...

The current system says 1 unit on field = 1 unit of reinforcements. So the 16pt Commissar = a 136pt Scion Squad.

So right now you have static gunlines designed to hold out for the Deep Strike Soup...

Not exactly. The rules for deepstrike are that you must start half your units and half your points on the board.

That's still the problem. I could take a bunch of dirt cheap units, and a singular big unit - Shadowsword for instance, just to hold the fort. It should at least be, units of similar cost.
I think the requirement should be that the Reinforcements should not comprise more than 1/3 the total units and points of the army. I also think units embarked on certain Flyers should count as Reinforcements - especially if they take advantage of specialist deployment stratagems. The new Tempestus Precision Drop ability is a good example of one of the aforementioned stratagems. Valkyrie goes Supersonic on Turn 1, then uses Precision Drop to put a Prime and 2 Melta Command Squads right next to an enemy Lord of War. If they get charged, the Valkyrie can fire Overwatch for them on a 4+... It's crap like that which needs to be reigned in.

**Martel732**

Good thing melta is still terrible.