9th Edition wishlist by army

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**

leopard wrote:
For the game in general...

allow 1+, 0+ and -1+ type saves, and remove "a 1 always fails", now and actual tank can be immune to side arms, you also have a roll for 'anti tank' guns to have AP-6 or more, such will splat infantry but likely be one or two shots.

or give vehicles and actual anti vehicle weapons more damage

Automatically Appended Next Post:
failing this.. find a copy of V1 Space Marine, change cm for inches and then make no the changes other than 28mm scale

Nurgle Daemons have 3 Unique Characters and 4 generic models that have AP-3 on their weapons.

Other than one 7" ranged weapon, they're all melee.

A -1+ armor save, with 1s not failing, is basically saying that this army cannot hurt them.

**Wakshaani**

Tyrannid are one of my other armies and, at the core of that one, one big thing I want?

Split the Hive Tyrant into two things.

Flying Hive Tyrant, similar to now but with a 4+

Walking Tyrant, similar to now, but with a 2+ save.

This gives you a choice between a faster, but more fragile, unit or a slower, but much tougher, version.

As it stands, there's no reason to be walking at *all* and there needs to be some compensation.

**Hellebore**

shuriken catapults really need to go back to 2nd ed profiles.

All the arguments around why they couldn't be 24" range went out the window when they made assault bolters for intercessors.

Just ridiculous.

Even if they were just 24" assault 2 they'd still be Mediocre against things like bolt rifles and assault bolters.

They seem intent on stripping the Eldar of their unique flavours to give to marines, is it any wonder marines remain popular when you can play a saim Hann army with t4 and 2 wounds sv3+ across the board. Or a fast moving assault army with assault bolters rather than the backflips Eldar need to make to get their stuff to work at all.

When unique play styles get eaten up by the marine machine of course other armies get left in the dust.

If the Eldar aren't being picked up by casual gamers it's because GW have gone out of their way to make their army hard to play, both by allowing similar play styles in simpler armies that disincentivise people from bothering and by hamstringing the Eldar with ever increasingly biased core mechanics towards toughness and armour over speed.

**Argive**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
...And frankly, I don't care if it "would just be irritating". This is wishlisting. If I had my way, I'd burn the whole Guard book down around its ears and start over from scratch--and I'd just say "Guilliman says the Imperial Army is now a thing again"...

Oooh, if Guilliman is resurrecting the Imperial Army could we have plastic Solar Auxilia?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Argive wrote:
...If we can trust what wa saaid there is a high chance we might be able to put our wraithknights in DS which is SOMETHING.

Its certainly not on the same plane as IK or chaos knights in terms of rules, traits,relics.. But its somrthing.. I would like a reason to buy and paint a scatatch wraith knight knight...I would alos like a reason to build my normal wraithknight lol.

Having tried to make a Skathach (FW variant that can Deep Strike) work in 8e I can tell you that just adding Deep Strike to the Wraithknight really wouldn't be enough. The fundamental problem is that a Wraithknight has about half the firepower of an equivalently-costed Imperial Knight and has to give up a chunk of that firepower to have an Invulnerable save.

I'll take what I can get!! I know he's no imperial knight model so not expecting much..

**AnomanderRake**

Argive wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
...Having tried to make a Skathach (FW variant that can Deep Strike) work in 8e I can tell you that just adding Deep Strike to the Wraithknight really wouldn't be enough. The fundamental problem is that a Wraithknight has about half the firepower of an equivalently-costed Imperial Knight and has to give up a chunk of that firepower to have an Invulnerable save.

I'll take what I can get!! I know he's no imperial knight model so not expecting much..

As an experiment try just straight-up doubling all shots fired by weapons on a Wraithknight. Don't adjust the points or anything, just give it the 2x shots. See what happens. You may discover it suddenly doesn't feel as pillowfisted.

**Eipi10**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Drukhari easy

1) Let us mix and match Wych/Kabal/Coven again
2) Bring back a few of the characters, Vect, Baron, Duke
3) Don't take away anymore units/gear

I literally don't care about anything else for DE, those 2 changes from 5th to 8th were the worst 2.

Unlikely for any of them. GW is getting rid of soup in 9th, so I wouldn't hold out hope for more intrafraction soup, and not supporting models and equipment choices they don't make.

**AnomanderRake**

Eipi10 wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Drukhari easy

1) Let us mix and match Wych/Kabal/Coven again
2) Bring back a few of the characters, Vect, Baron, Duke
3) Don't take away anymore units/gear

I literally don't care about anything else for DE, those 2 changes from 5th to 8th were the worst 2.

Unlikely for any of them. GW is getting rid of soup in 9th, so I wouldn't hold out hope for more intrafraction soup, and not supporting models and equipment choices they don't make.

So make Vect/Baron/Duke models. It's not hard.

And I really hope they can figure out how to let the Dark Eldar play their Codex instead of turning it into another Daemon Codex made of sub-Codexes that don't talk to each other and punishing you for using too many different units from your OWN CODEX. Thbbt. Primaris Vanguard are allowed to be taken in the same detachment as standard Marines without losing faction benefits...

**H.B.M.C.**

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think GW fully grasps the concept of *ancient race*. A wraithknight should be capable of downing human titans. That's how tech works.

If that were the case, why would they have their own titans? To show off?

Martel732 wrote:
Backslides are temporary, or else we would have the internet. I don't think GW gets just how long millions of years is. Imperium would be ants to such a species.

The fact that they're not kinda disproves what you're saying.

**Amishprn86**

Eipi10 wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Drukhari easy

1) Let us mix and match Wych/Kabal/Coven again
2) Bring back a few of the characters, Vect, Baron, Duke
3) Don't take away anymore units/gear

I literally don't care about anything else for DE, those 2 changes from 5th to 8th were the worst 2.

Unlikely for any of them. GW is getting rid of soup in 9th, so I wouldn't hold out hope for more intrafraction soup, and not supporting models and equipment choices they don't make.

DE being 1 faction ISNT SOUP its what its been for 18yrs!

AnomanderRake wrote:
Eipi10 wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Drukhari easy

1) Let us mix and match Wych/Kabal/Coven again
2) Bring back a few of the characters, Vect, Baron, Duke
3) Don't take away anymore units/gear

I literally don't care about anything else for DE, those 2 changes from 5th to 8th were the worst 2.

Unlikely for any of them. GW is getting rid of soup in 9th, so I wouldn't hold out hope for more intrafraction soup, and not supporting models and equipment choices they don't make.

So make Vect/Baron/Duke models. It's not hard.

And I really hope they can figure out how to let the Dark Eldar play their Codex instead of turning it into another Daemon Codex made of sub-Codexes that don't talk to each other and punishing you for using too many different units from your OWN CODEX. Thbbt. Primaris Vanguard are allowed to be taken in the same detachment as standard Marines without losing faction benefits...

It worked from day 1 till end of 7th, why wouldn't it work again in 9th?

**H.B.M.C.**

Kanluwen wrote:
Every single army gets a one per detachment unit.

That means fewer opportunities to sell minaitures. 0-X limitations are virtually gone from the game for that reason.

**AnomanderRake**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Every single army gets a one per detachment unit.
That means fewer opportunities to sell minaitures. 0-X limitations are virtually gone from the game for that reason.

Not to mention armies without enough units. Adeptus Custodes: Buy FW units or you get one Troops unit per detachment!

**Wakshaani**

Kanluwen wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
...Guard...-Heavy Weapon Squads become a unit consisting of Heavy Weapons Teams that are deployed as one, but then are separate units for the remainder of the game. HWTs come standard with Vox-Casters...

This would be awful. Any and all Orders and Stratagems would be incredibly inefficient applied to heavy weapon teams, and needing to estimate how to best split up your fire to deal with a huge number of single-model two-wound units wouldn't add anything to the game and would just be irritating.

Yeah, there's a reason why I said "...how long you got?".

I've gone into detail in the past about how I would do "Orders". They would be layered things, not simply "dErP, a SiNgLe UnIt DoEs ThE tHiNg!1!!". That method is trash and it's long since past its time.

Senior Officers would get a set of 'Orders' they could give...and it doesn't matter how many SOs you have, only one can be active at a time. These would be things like changing Rapid Fire weapons to Assault for a turn if targeting a unit that is holding an Objective, turning Heavy weapons to Rapid Fire if the Guard player's units are holding an Objective, etc. They would last until the Guard player's next turn...and would affect all <Regiment> Infantry. Conscripts, naturally, become Militarum Auxilia so they cannot ever benefit.
Tank Officers would get their own set of Orders, applying just to Leman Russes.
Junior Officers would get their own set of 'Orders', wherein they have to choose a specific Guard unit keyword(Heavy Weapon Team, Infantry Squad, Special Weapon Squad, etc)--and then those units within the current Orders range get to benefit from the Junior Officer's Order. This might be something like a benefit vs Vehicle keyworded enemies, a benefit vs enemies in cover, etc.
Tempestor Primes get their own set of Orders, and the Tempestors I suggested as an Elite choice gain the "Junior Officer" keyword.

And frankly, I don't care if it "would just be irritating". This is wishlisting. If I had my way, I'd burn the whole Guard book down around its ears and start over from scratch--and I'd just say "Guilliman says the Imperial Army is now a thing again".

Oh and while we're at it?
Every single army gets a one per detachment unit.
For Marines(and Marine Equivalents)? Captains, Librarians, and Chaplains. Not "one per fancy datasheet"--just one per Detachment.
Aeldari? Autarchs and Farseers.
Guard? Senior Officers and Lord Commissars.
Tau? Add Ethereals to the list alongside of Commanders.
Drukhari? I don't think this would help them--unless it's accompanied by new Underling HQs!
Tyranids? Hive. Tyrants. Get. This. Treatment. Make the Warrior HQ slot matter more!
Necrons? Overlords, I guess? They look to be getting LT equivalents so that's cool.

I'd probably go less "One per detachment": and more "One per army" but, in general, I'm in.

Just one Tau Commander, just one Space Marine Captain, just one Farseer, just one Ork Warboss ….

Every force should have a single "I'm the highest-rank, period" guy and only get one per army.

Want a big battle where the Chapter Master of the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves team up? Great narrative play, but leave it off the matched play.

I'd go a step further and restrict some to the biggest point level games even. Robbie G doesn't show up to thousand point scouting engagements... he shows up for major battles that decide the war.

**H.B.M.C.**

That seems arbitrary though. I don't think it's realistic for Marine Captains to have restraining orders out against the rest of the Captain's in their Chapter, limiting them to stay one battlefield away at all times.

**AnomanderRake**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
That seems arbitrary though. I don't think it's realistic for Marine Captains to have restraining orders out against the rest of the Captain's in their Chapter, limiting them to stay one battlefield away at all times.

How many Companies are deployed in whatever system we're in? The rest of the Captains in their Chapter could easily be hundreds of light-years away, and even if you do have two or three Companies deployed on the field at the same time why are all three Captains sitting around together in the same fifty-man detachment? What about the other 250 Marines who now have to go into battle with no Captain reroll auras?

**H.B.M.C.**

AnomanderRake wrote:
How many Companies are deployed in whatever system we're in?

How long is a piece of string?

Or, to put it another way, such a question isn't relevant because you're creating an arbitrary obstacle. I could just as easily say that Chapter X routinely uses the reserve companies to bulk out their forces, and the CNC from those companies come along for the ride both to command their troops and support the commander of higher status.

You can justify anything with the fluff, so restricting leaders to 1 per army makes no real sense.

And then there's the real world implications of such a thing: Does GW want you to be restricted to one of their Captain models, or as many as you like. I think we both know the answer to that.

**AnomanderRake**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
How many Companies are deployed in whatever system we're in?
How long is a piece of string?

Or, to put it another way, such a question isn't relevant because you're creating an arbitrary obstacle. I could just as easily say that Chapter X routinely uses the reserve companies to bulk out their forces, and the CNC from those companies come along for the ride both to command their troops and support the commander of higher status.

You can justify anything with the fluff, so restricting leaders to 1 per army makes no real sense.

And then there's the real world implications of such a thing: Does GW want you to be restricted to one of their Captain models, or as many as you like. I think we both know the answer to that.

Oh, definitely, just pointing out that it makes more sense to me that individual Captains will be leading their own companies rather than hanging out with their buddies and leaving their companies to fend for themselves.

**Kanluwen**

AnomanderRake wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Every single army gets a one per detachment unit.
That means fewer opportunities to sell minaitures. 0-X limitations are virtually gone from the game for that reason.

Not to mention armies without enough units. Adeptus Custodes: Buy FW units or you get one Troops unit per detachment!

Gee, if only someone had suggested adding new HQs.

And really, who cares about Custodes? They're a faction that people complained about being included but now we have to kowtow to including them? Nah bruh. We good. They can get a 'Lieutenant' or a 'Warden' or some nonsense to get a cheaper HQ, but it's not like they are going to get hurt by not having a bajillion different Troops choice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Oh, definitely, just pointing out that it makes more sense to me that individual Captains will be leading their own companies rather than hanging out with their buddies and leaving their companies to fend for themselves.

This is the whole reason why they brought Lieutenants back but they kinda cowarded out by not making the Captains a 0-1 per army.

And it's really not like "0-X units" is a problem with AoS. We have limits on Behemoths and Artillery--and it's not a huge deal. We also have specific subfactions that make some of those things become more available...if only we could do something similar with 40k! IF ONLY!

**H.B.M.C.**

Kanluwen wrote:
And really, who cares about Custodes?

I'd wager Custodes players care quite a bit. I could be wrong though. I mean, I'm not. But I could be.

I mean, could you be any more arrogant with statements like that Kan?

**AnomanderRake**

Kanluwen wrote:
...And really, who cares about Custodes? They're a faction that people complained about being included but now we have to kowtow to including them? Nah bruh. We good. They can get a 'Lieutenant' or a 'Warden' or some nonsense to get a cheaper HQ, but it's not like they are going to get hurt by not having a bajillion different Troops choice...

Yes. Delete your faction, nobody cares about it. I like my broad sweeping change to the core rules so much that I can't be bothered to work out whether it'll actually work for everyone, so the people I haven't thought of can f*** off. Yay. Best solution. Everything's better for everyone. [/sarcasm]

**SamusDrake**

Kanluwen wrote:

And really, who cares about Custodes?

Henry Cavill just asked someone to hold his beer...

**leopard**

JNAProductions wrote:
leopard wrote:
For the game in general...

allow 1+, 0+ and -1+ type saves, and remove "a 1 always fails", now and actual tank can be immune to side arms, you also have a roll for 'anti tank' guns to have AP-6 or more, such will splat infantry but likely be one or two shots.

or give vehicles and actual anti vehicle weapons more damage

Automatically Appended Next Post:
failing this.. find a copy of V1 Space Marine, change cm for inches and then make no the changes other than 28mm scale
Nurgle Daemons have 3 Unique Characters and 4 generic models that have AP-3 on their weapons.

Other than one 7" ranged weapon, they're all melee.

A -1+ armor save, with 1s not failing, is basically saying that this army cannot hurt them.

would humbly suggest however that taking such a rule change and assuming that nothing else is changed in line with it is a false argument, note I also specifically noted you now have a role for specific anti tank weapons.

indeed I would given such a negative to hit vs infantry, in effect go back to having stuff you hurt infantry with and stuff you hurt big stuff with, and remove the "good enough against everything!" middle ground weapons we have now

Nurgle would be one that would certainly need more anti armour stuff, and not just in melee

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I quite like Custards, only have, well had about 2k of them, given they drop too easily to massed anti elite infantry stuff, thats also massed anti vehicle and good enough anti horde weapons I seldom bother with them though

they do a lot better fighting in dense terrain though

**Martel732**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think GW fully grasps the concept of *ancient race*. A wraithknight should be capable of downing human titans. That's how tech works.
If that were the case, why would they have their own titans? To show off?

Martel732 wrote:
Backslides are temporary, or else we would have the internet. I don't think GW gets just how long millions of years is. Imperium would be ants to such a species.
The fact that they're not kinda disproves what you're saying.

No, it proves GW that writes awful stories.

**Kanluwen**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
...And really, who cares about Custodes? They're a faction that people complained about being included but now we have to kowtow to including them? Nah bruh. We good. They can get a 'Lieutenant' or a 'Warden' or some nonsense to get a cheaper HQ, but it's not like they are going to get hurt by not having a bajillion different Troops choice...

Yes. Delete your faction, nobody cares about it. I like my broad sweeping change to the core rules so much that I can't be bothered to work out whether it'll actually work for everyone, so the people I haven't thought of can f*** off. Yay. Best solution. Everything's better for everyone. [/sarcasm]

Never said "delete your faction". I made a snarky comment after you commented on unit variety and specifically used Troops as the example(not sure why, even under Rule of 3 Troops are exempt).

I did say to add new HQ choices to the game as well specifically to allow for the mechanism to work, but frankly? With things like Custodes or Assassins or Sisters of Silence--there's no reason to act like they need some special accommodations. Until we know exactly how the new Detachments setups will work, it's hard to say exactly what will happen pr whether or not there would be a huge downside to a mechanism like what I suggested.

**Tiberias**

Kanluwen wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
...And really, who cares about Custodes? They're a faction that people complained about being included but now we have to kowtow to including them? Nah bruh. We good. They can get a 'Lieutenant' or a 'Warden' or some nonsense to get a cheaper HQ, but it's not like they are going to get hurt by not having a bajillion different Troops choice...

Yes. Delete your faction, nobody cares about it. I like my broad sweeping change to the core rules so much that I can't be bothered to work out whether it'll actually work for everyone, so the people I haven't thought of can f*** off. Yay. Best solution. Everything's better for everyone. [/sarcasm]

Never said "delete your faction". I made a snarky comment after you commented on unit variety and specifically used Troops as the example(not sure why, even under Rule of 3 Troops are exempt).

I did say to add new HQ choices to the game as well specifically to allow for the mechanism to work, but frankly? With things like Custodes or Assassins or Sisters of Silence--there's no reason to act like they need some special accommodations. Until we know exactly how the new Detachments setups will work, it's hard to say exactly what will happen pr whether or not there would be a huge downside to a mechanism like what I suggested.

Still, effectively telling people that their faction does not, or should not really matter when discussing broad game design changes, kinda makes you look like and arrogant douchebag. Not saying you are, but you came across that way.

**Kanluwen**

Meh. Given the crap flung my way over wanting the addition of a simple frigging Skitarii HQ by some of these same people?

I think they can get over it.

**Wakshaani**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
How many Companies are deployed in whatever system we're in?
How long is a piece of string?

Or, to put it another way, such a question isn't relevant because you're creating an arbitrary obstacle. I could just as easily say that Chapter X routinely uses the reserve companies to bulk out their forces, and the CNC from those companies come along for the ride both to command their troops and support the commander of higher status.

You can justify anything with the fluff, so restricting leaders to 1 per army makes no real sense.

And then there's the real world implications of such a thing: Does GW want you to be restricted to one of their Captain models, or as many as you like. I think we both know the answer to that.

It isn't logical for there to be multiple captains in a single battle most of the time. Getting two or more companies in a single engagement is crazy rare. These rare occasions are, again, best handled in a narrative game. In a matched play game, where there are standards to follow, it'd just make more sense.

As for sales? You sell less captains but that number, and more, of lieutenants, so it works out in GW's favor. (Each missing captain is replaced by at least 1 LT, or a Librarian, or a Chaplain, or some other model, or whole units. GW doesn't lose money and, in fact, might gain!)

Regardless, multi-caps, narrative, single cap, matched play.

I'm 100% down for this.

**H.B.M.C.**

Kanluwen wrote:
Meh. Given the crap flung my way over wanting the addition of a simple frigging Skitarii HQ by some of these same people?

I think they can get over it.

Not even close to the same thing Kan. You basically told Custodes players to go jump 'cause their faction doesn't matter.

**Galas**

I don't believe anybody has ever claimed that there should not be a Skitarii HQ. People just said that your idea that skitarii were shafted because they were combined with admech is bananas.

Admech should have always been the same codex. That doesn't mean they should not be able to make more thematic forces for their different parts.

**Eipi10**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Eipi10 wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Drukhari easy

1) Let us mix and match Wych/Kabal/Coven again
2) Bring back a few of the characters, Vect, Baron, Duke
3) Don't take away anymore units/gear

I literally don't care about anything else for DE, those 2 changes from 5th to 8th were the worst 2.

Unlikely for any of them. GW is getting rid of soup in 9th, so I wouldn't hold out hope for more intrafraction soup, and not supporting models and equipment choices they don't make.

DE being 1 faction ISNT SOUP its what its been for 18yrs!

Tell that to whoever wrote their 8e codex.

**Amishprn86**

Eipi10 wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Eipi10 wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Drukhari easy

1) Let us mix and match Wych/Kabal/Coven again
2) Bring back a few of the characters, Vect, Baron, Duke
3) Don't take away anymore units/gear

I literally don't care about anything else for DE, those 2 changes from 5th to 8th were the worst 2.

Unlikely for any of them. GW is getting rid of soup in 9th, so I wouldn't hold out hope for more intrafraction soup, and not supporting models and equipment choices they don't make.

DE being 1 faction ISNT SOUP its what its been for 18yrs!

Tell that to whoever wrote their 8e codex.

Oh trust me, me and a lot of the DE community told them.