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.

 Blackie wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 dreadblade wrote:
I want to see 10th not arrive for a good long while!

This. I'm ok with the current game and another un-needed edition would give me headache. Just slow down the codex release cycle instead.

Edit: I've see the "leaked" balance document.

I do wishlist something: 0-1 and 0-2 limitations. 0-3 only to troops and dedicated transports. 0-2 for uncommon stuff (basically the cheapest FA, HS and Elite units) and 0-1 to the most rare units (aka all the expensive stuff and all the characters). Such limitations should of course be arbitrary since some armies have tons of datasheets and others don't, and points costs and efficiency might be completely different between the units' "counterparts" across the codexes.

No limitations on troops, none on dedicated transports with the caveat of you only get transports from troop slots, not all the other ones, and I can get behind that, as long as there’s some stuff to count certain things as troop options. So just old force org chart lmao.

Or make troops what is the common choice for an army and use troops to unlock other choices.

You want that bad ass elite? Gotta take a troop along with it.

A list building system that’s based on ratios of units (accounting for size of units) would be awesome, gotta field a lot of guys to have 3 commanders. Too bad gw would feth it up before even getting to variations due to subfaction.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I really don't want those sorts of limitations.

It's such a back handed cludge to fix broken units.
Unless you're pinning 0-1 on rare units like Cataphractii Terminators or something.

I'd make 0-1 things like eradicators, bladeguard veterans, meganobz, flash gitz, all kinds of termies, talos, pretty much every heavy vehicle, etc... .

0-2 would be cheaper specialists and light vehicles such as scouts, dreads and lighter walkers of all types, bikes of all types, speeders/equivalents, regular veterans of all kinds, kommandos, burnaboyz, etc...

Basically what they already did with flyers (like all other light vehicles) and ork buggies (those would be 0-2 typically but 0-1 for orks is ok since they have 5 datasheets of the same thing).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:


No limitations on troops, none on dedicated transports with the caveat of you only get transports from troop slots, not all the other ones, and I can get behind that, as long as there’s some stuff to count certain things as troop options. So just old force org chart lmao.

I'm against the old force chart instead. With limitations players could still field a bit of everything, they just can't spam stuff. And armies with squadrons of expensive stuff such as dreads or tanks wouldn't mock the FOC limitations. I can't accept that 9 deff dreads (9 boxes) or 9 buggies of the same type (also 9 boxes) respect the FOC while a buggy, 3 koptas, 5 stormboyz and 3 bikes (4 boxes in total) or a dread, 3 killa kanz, a wagon and 5 lootas (also 4 boxes) don't, therefore are illegal under the FOC. Or that an army can bring 9 tanks just because it can squadron them and another one can't bring 4 of their counterparts.

It entirely made sense you could squadron russes but not a rhino, that’s just kinda how things work. I think the Horus heresy force org system is my favorite, with the addition of rites of war.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
They should release the Guard codex as the first one, alongside a mass of new models. It can rule supreme for about 6 months, then be nerfed and eclipsed by every other new codex, resulting in a glut of said new models onto secondary market.

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.

AV system return, and USRs as a standard.

Focus less on using codecies to drive the meta and model sales and more on bring them out as a timely set of coherent rules with the edition. Use balance updates to do the periodic meta spicing and model promotions. The key intent being not leaving armies playing as prior editions (guard) languishing for years while everyone else gets to play the new edition.

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.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I really don't want those sorts of limitations.

It's such a back handed cludge to fix broken units.
Unless you're pinning 0-1 on rare units like Cataphractii Terminators or something.

IMO its the best way to balance specific models that become problematic when spammed.

1) Better terrain / line of sight rules. The terrain/los rules have been getting worse since the high point of 4th.
2) Alternate Activation, or at the least something like I hear Apocalypse did with taking casualties at the end of a turn.
3)Bring back USR. 15-30 tightly worded ones should really give enough life to things. Instead of 10 different bodyguard rules, just do "Bodyguard X+" where they take a hit for a character on whatever X is in that rule. Same with the multitude of "-1 damage" abilities and the like that show up. Each codex can still have its own special rules, and even some specific units can have unique ones, but having a core of universal special rules to fall back on makes things much simpler.
4) Make all named characters specific builds of a generic character. Give characters lots of fun rule options they can purchase so you can say run the unit cheap, bling them out with gear, or buy up some special rules or buffs to them. Reduce auras (they can live on, just not be as prevalent as they are), make it so characters can say impart a USR onto one or two units. Hell, let characters actually take fun options. A guard Company Commander can take a power fist or a plasma pistol, but cannot take a meltagun that is in the same kit? Why not, its not like it would be gamebreaking.
5) Stratagems. They are getting tiring figuring out just what is what, and wargear being tied to stratagems, etc. I'd say get rid of them entirely, but even just cutting down the number severely would help.
6) Make leadership matter. Self explanatory, with each edition it has meant less and less. Give it some importance. I'm not saying go back to 4ths way of only being able to shoot closest enemy without passing a roll, but bringing suppression into the mix could help.

Personally, I’m tired of seeing the smallest figures on the table hit as often as the largest?

I’d like a BS vs Size mechanic, similar to the S vs T for wounding. eg, BS 4 vs Human Size (4) hits on 4; vs Swarm Size (2) hits on 6; vs Titan Size (8) hits on 2.

Happy to lose the ‘Leadership’ stat for ‘Size’.

Moriarty wrote:
Personally, I’m tired of seeing the smallest figures on the table hit as often as the largest?

I’d like a BS vs Size mechanic, similar to the S vs T for wounding. eg, BS 4 vs Human Size (4) hits on 4; vs Swarm Size (2) hits on 6; vs Titan Size (8) hits on 2.

Happy to lose the ‘Leadership’ stat for ‘Size’.

I suggested something similar to that a while ago. Bring back the Initiative stat and make competitive stats. WS vs WS and BS vs Initiative.

4) Make all named characters specific builds of a generic character.

Meh. Even if you don't count the unique wargear - I'm kind of fond of the Nameds being wonky with a bespoke or two that match their history. Sicarius giving a USR to a squad for example because he's a Marine's Marine Captain. Uriel Ventris getting Unorthodox Strategist. I'm also fond of centerpiece characters getting centerpiece rules - Guilliman, Morty, Ghaz - or going completely off track with stuff like Old One Eye an HQ Character Carnifex.

I'd like to see More Troops, and better Blast.

Make Troops units cheaper than Elites etc. 10 Intercessors are 100 points(ish), 10 Hellblasters are 200(ish)

Maybe Blast1/10 Blast2/5 Blast 1/6etc. So you get one attack per (number) of models in the unit up to the second number.. i.e. most Blast are D6 Heavy sorts of things, so that'd be Blast 1 you get one hit ROLL per model in the unit up to 6. Plasma is usually D3 so you get one hit roll per 2 models in the unit. Rarely you might see something like:

Earthshaker
Ground burst: Blast 1/6 with higher S/T/AP/D
Airburst: Blast 1/10 with lower S/T/AP/D

I'd also spread out the multiple profiles. LRBT (and other battlecanons) would get a HEAT profile with a small blast similar to Plasma, or a Sabot that doesn't have a blast but does well against other tanks etc. Thunderfire Canons getting similar to the Earthshaker like when they were first introduced.

I'm not sure about initiative for shooting. It did seem to make sense for deciding who fights first though.

Thinking that the BS vs IN would be to simulate ‘ducking’?

Breton wrote:


I'd like to see More Troops, and better Blast.

Make Troops units cheaper than Elites etc. 10 Intercessors are 100 points(ish), 10 Hellblasters are 200(ish)

Make 10 intercessors 200ish and 10 hellblasters 300ish .

Incentivizing troops is awesome as long as the rules give them purpose other than being a tax to unlock something (like CPs) or make something better (like chaper specialists).

Otherwise armies with good troops would benefit a lot from this, while others could suffer terribly. I remember in 8th the only way to play orks even in semi-competitive metas was to bring 6-9 troops, which meant either fielding an horde of cheap gretchins just to make the toys work or bringing the green tide, no middle ground and no flexibility. I even missed 7th edition orks thanks to that nonsense and I was extremely relieved when 8th finally ended.

A solid fix to troops could be allowing troops to do stuff that only troops can do. Some actions for example or some unique ways to score. This way people would bring troops for what they can offer in terms of tactics but they wouldn't be completely screwed if their troops are awful, giving them a plan B.

In Horus Heresy only Troops can score, at all. Other units can deny the enemy scoring, but they cannot score that objective.
Some units - namely Terminators and Veterans, have a special rule allowing them to score anyway.

That really encourages people to take a core of scoring units, otherwise it's easy to go all-in on Dreadnoughts and fancy bodyguards and such.

I still think it's important that even troops represent a useful battlefield component though - they need to be more than objective scorers there to die.

 kurhanik wrote:

4) Make all named characters specific builds of a generic character. Give characters lots of fun rule options they can purchase so you can say run the unit cheap, bling them out with gear, or buy up some special rules or buffs to them. Reduce auras (they can live on, just not be as prevalent as they are), make it so characters can say impart a USR onto one or two units. Hell, let characters actually take fun options. A guard Company Commander can take a power fist or a plasma pistol, but cannot take a meltagun that is in the same kit? Why not, its not like it would be gamebreaking.

Yes please.

What I Want to see won't happen, a rule set without so much bloat it crushes my enjoyment, costs that won't make me throw up in my mouth a little when I see the codex and an end to the ceaseless burn and churn now set in seasonal doses of pain.

I won't see any of that, instead I'll get empty promises of better and ceaseless crowing how no matter how bad it gets it's the best its ever been.

A complete removal of stratagems, including command rerolls - some unit specific stratagems could be converted into once-per-battle/once-per-round abilities on the datasheets.

Cover system back to a standalone type of a save like it used to be, to make it more useful for lightly armored enemies and less useful for marines. The current system is terrible and directly leads to AP inflation.

And with less inflated armor saves it would be possible to reduce AP modifiers across the board.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
In Horus Heresy only Troops can score, at all. Other units can deny the enemy scoring, but they cannot score that objective.
Some units - namely Terminators and Veterans, have a special rule allowing them to score anyway.

That really encourages people to take a core of scoring units, otherwise it's easy to go all-in on Dreadnoughts and fancy bodyguards and such.

I still think it's important that even troops represent a useful battlefield component though - they need to be more than objective scorers there to die.

Well part of it is Grenades suck. One model makes 1 attack. Why bother? Its hard to have versatile troops when they don't have versatile offense/defense. Give all the "troops" - which may not be limited to troops i.e elites etc - an attack that works on vehicles, and an attack that works on infantry - SM are an easy example because they already have them- frag and krak grenades. 10 Tacticals throwing 10 S6 -3 D2 grenades that can only target vehicles or monsters makes that much better - and yeah I'm just pulling that out of the air not balancing the thing. Most troops need a boost to do everything the "toys" can do just not as well. The "toys" should only be attractive as an emphasis to what your army already does well (Blood Angels with Vanguard Vets, Sanguinary Guard, Death Company, etc) or to patch a hole your army doesn't do well - Kroot in a Tau army.

I'd like to see a return of Leadership from Characters - i.e. within X inches of a captain you can use his leadership.

I'd like to see Orks get a Ld bonus -especially during morale. I'd borrow the mechanic Bretonians used Boys can only lead Grots, Nobs/etc can lead boys or Grots, and so on until Warbosses can lead everyone. And Orks get a LD modifer of 1/2/3 depending on unit size. This modifier goes different ways for different LD tests. It gets added to Morale, nullifies other mods on Attrition, gets subtracted from "Shoot the other guys!" (see below)



I'd like to see a return to shoot the closest either/or Vehicle or Infantry(for everyone but the example is Orks), take a LD test to shoot something else. Possibly also can only charge what you shoot (unless it's dead)

So the 20 Orks (ld 7) next to the Warboss (ld 9) being told to shoot the Devastators 20" away instead of the Tactical Squad 9" away or the Land Raider 6" away (-2 to LD) have to pass a LD7 test.

Tau can shoot the 9" distant Tacticals, the 6" distant Land Raider, or if they pass a Ld8 test the 20" Devastators.

Some units would get a USR "ignore this" like snipers(eliminators, Ratlings), Heavy Weapon infantry (Lootas, Devastators) Indirect Fire Artillery(Basilisks, Biovores)

I quite like that not every unit has firepower to deal with every target.

The real problem is that basic small arms don't cut the mustard. The humble Bolter is pretty ineffective against enemy Astartes - a 10 Man Tactical Squad is likely to only kill one of their contemporaries.
Lasguns are so massively ineffective it's literally not even worth rolling the dice if you have any sort of time constraint.
That's horrible game design.

Stuff like 2W Astartes or T5 Orks was/is a mistake, it makes small arms so ineffective you need special weaponary to achieve anything.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I quite like that not every unit has firepower to deal with every target.

Most of the Troops Units should have the ability to deal with almost every target. The specialist toys should do it BETTER, certainly.

10 Krak Grenades, even as improved as I made them is not as effective as 10 Melta Rifle Shots.
The real problem is that basic small arms don't cut the mustard. The humble Bolter is pretty ineffective against enemy Astartes - a 10 Man Tactical Squad is likely to only kill one of their contemporaries.
Lasguns are so massively ineffective it's literally not even worth rolling the dice if you have any sort of time constraint.
That's horrible game design.

Stuff like 2W Astartes or T5 Orks was/is a mistake, it makes small arms so ineffective you need special weaponary to achieve anything.

The Lasgun sees no difference between a T4 Ork and a T5 Ork. And yes, the basic bolter/etc. on the troops probably needs an upgrade. I'm still laughing at Bolters going AP- so that Bolt Rifles could be AP-1. With that said, they're closer to right than they are closer to broken.

I don't agree
I think there should be a little rock/paper/scissors. If you leave your Tactical Marines unsupported by AT they should get rolled over by a battle tank.

I agree that Bolters are what they should be imo, problem is everything else is way above what I think they should be.
So regardless of where I would put the ideal level - there's a major difference between bolters and pulse rifles for example.
Pulse Rifles are more level with on-going durabilities in the game.

Pulse rifles are I think quite busted.

Have Montka, a markerlight and a nearby commander (not exactly the biggest hardship).
Into basic 20 point Primaris.
2*2/3*7/6*2/3*7/6*2/3=0.806. *10 points=8~ points return. From an 8 point unit. So average dice, 100% return. More if you roll hot. Say you have to spend a few points on marker lights and its still ludicrous.

You really don't need "special weapons" to deal with Orks or basic Marines with this sort of stuff around.

The competitive community are claiming Guardians are overcosted - because I mean with say Black Guardians and a nearby Archon, they *only* get a 66% points return into Intercessors. I mean how can you even get out of bed with such rookie numbers?

Regular Guardsmen are bad - but that's because they haven't got the 150%~ damage buff you get for being a 9th edition codex. When a Guardsman gets 4 shots with +1 to hit and AP-1 because someone in a big hat is standing vaguely nearby, and they are in "remember Cadia doctrine" they'll mysteriously suddenly do just fine.

Or at least they will be, until Marines get "ignore all AP" and bolters become 3 shots, S5 AP-3 because there are no brakes on this train.

I think the fundamental way they release things is broken. They start an edition with one idea, and by the time they get to the end of the edition they've changed AND the codexes aren't all out. By the time 10th comes out the first codex of 9th will be so weak and pathetic since the design ideas are different.

I guarantee we wont even get all the armies codexes out before they reset. They're that incompetent. Or maybe the never complete edition is their plan, which is pure evil.

My wishful thinking is more focus on casual narrative play than tournament scene. Most of the mechanics and restrictions I dont like are direct responses to people abusing something in a tournament scene.

I'm sure we will get every codex out.

But I'm sure, like 9th edition, the ink won't even be cold on the last codex before 10th is rolling out.

They'll cover it with "the new codex was written with the design paradigms of 10th in mind" but we'll all know that was a total lie as soon as we actually see 10th edition.

It is interesting, because twice now the 'written with the next edition in mind' books for AoS very much have been, and work quite well in the new edition. They haven't been able to nail down the same thing in 40k.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is interesting, because twice now the 'written with the next edition in mind' books for AoS very much have been, and work quite well in the new edition. They haven't been able to nail down the same thing in 40k.

I mean AoS has Phil Kelly on the team, and had Jervis Johnson as well until his retirement. Those two are talented games designers who brought a lot of experiance into that team, even if Phil is doing lore and Jervis wasn't really taking a front seat on the design front.

Breton wrote:

I'd like to see Orks get a Ld bonus -especially during morale. I'd borrow the mechanic Bretonians used Boys can only lead Grots, Nobs/etc can lead boys or Grots, and so on until Warbosses can lead everyone. And Orks get a LD modifer of 1/2/3 depending on unit size. This modifier goes different ways for different LD tests. It gets added to Morale, nullifies other mods on Attrition, gets subtracted from "Shoot the other guys!" (see below)
I'd like to see a return to shoot the closest either/or Vehicle or Infantry(for everyone but the example is Orks), take a LD test to shoot something else. Possibly also can only charge what you shoot (unless it's dead)

So the 20 Orks (ld 7) next to the Warboss (ld 9) being told to shoot the Devastators 20" away instead of the Tactical Squad 9" away or the Land Raider 6" away (-2 to LD) have to pass a LD7 test.

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.

I'd like Guard not to suck