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.

 warhead01 wrote:
I want them to throw out points cost for good.

Having played both points and PL I can see the pros/cons to both. Both can be abused. I prefer points, but that’s the gritty wargamer in me. PL has it’s charm, but i think would need much better internal balance to stand alone. Why not just take ALL the upgrades and the best options? Points give a little more granularity to help balance. Although GW still messes that up most of the time.

The only way I would like points to be replaced wholly with power if they leant into it as a mechanic.

- all upgrades were roughly equal in usefulness, but with a distinct niche. Chainswords are for hordes of weak enemies, powerfists are for smashing individual powerful targets, power weapons are the middle road.
- Before a game, after seeing your opponent's army and units, you can select which options your models have. See your up against Nids? Take a flamer. Space Marines? Swap it out for a plasmagun.

I would like this system because it reduces how "skewy" armies can be.
Armies in 40k generally skew one way or another inherently. You'll never see horde infantry in a Custodes list, for example.
This is what creates the drive for weapons like plasma to be able to pivot and deal with any type of target, because often you'll be up against armies that simply don't have your chosen weapon's ideal target.
If you were able to choose your weapons based on your opponent, that wouldn't be a problem.

It'd have it's own problems. Magnets would become really important, or otherwise buying extra models to have swap-outs.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The only way I would like points to be replaced wholly with power if they leant into it as a mechanic.

- all upgrades were roughly equal in usefulness, but with a distinct niche. Chainswords are for hordes of weak enemies, powerfists are for smashing individual powerful targets, power weapons are the middle road.
- Before a game, after seeing your opponent's army and units, you can select which options your models have. See your up against Nids? Take a flamer. Space Marines? Swap it out for a plasmagun.

I would like this system because it reduces how "skewy" armies can be.
Armies in 40k generally skew one way or another inherently. You'll never see horde infantry in a Custodes list, for example.
This is what creates the drive for weapons like plasma to be able to pivot and deal with any type of target, because often you'll be up against armies that simply don't have your chosen weapon's ideal target.
If you were able to choose your weapons based on your opponent, that wouldn't be a problem.

It'd have it's own problems. Magnets would become really important, or otherwise buying extra models to have swap-outs.

Or armies without significant upgrades.

Daemons and Necrons, for instance, don't have a ton of customization.

 Nevelon wrote:
What do I want from 10th:

The new Autarch dataslate.

GW listened to valid complaints and took action.
Removal of no model, no rules.
Clean, not a mess of if/and/or/thans.
Points neatly in the sidebar for easy reference.

This over all the codexes.

now they only need to change it for

plague marines
blightlords
skitarii
etc.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
What do I want from 10th:

The new Autarch dataslate.

GW listened to valid complaints and took action.
Removal of no model, no rules.
Clean, not a mess of if/and/or/thans.
Points neatly in the sidebar for easy reference.

This over all the codexes.

now they only need to change it for

plague marines
blightlords
skitarii
etc.

No arguments here. Bring back the freedom to model. Make your guys yours. Equipment and options based on game balance and lore, not what’s in the box.

I think this is the first win against NMNR, and probably due to WHC upselling cross compatibility, and the guy on the cover of the codex being an illegal build.

Hopefully the first of many common sense changes.

But I’m not going to hold my breath…

my issue with points is exclusive to 9th. Far too often I spend them on upgrades which are never used or really never had the chance to be used so I simply stop throwing points away on things I will never get to use. So what's the point of paying extra for them if I/we/you never get to even use them? Especially when there is already a mechanism for bringing those upgrades with out micro managing my wasted points. I hope this makes sense. Unless we move to a far more granular points system with half point and quarter points, I just see it as a waste of time and energy. If we're using a purely digital army building platform then we could easily move to a fractional system.
In 9th I have just never seen any unit upgrade make enough difference to think it would swing a game for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes someone could pile on all the good stuff, obviously. Some wysiwyg stuff for that should be in some way enforce in such a system. Or some other mechanic for a new system.

A return to the 3rd edition rules, which were the most fun.

What I want to see in 10th Edition Core Rules:

All the FAQs incorporated directly into the updated rules along with improved clarity and wording

Use of rules Keywords to clean up the repetitive use of text in too many unit rules

Rules that reward large squads than more than compensates for the rules that punish them

Army construction rules that reward bringing an army that more closely matches the core background force rather than the farce we see in too many tournament list

Alternating unit activate (yes, a pipe dream)

Well the first step to the large squad thing is to make it so what constitutes a "horde" starts at 11 models, not 6.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well the first step to the large squad thing is to make it so what constitutes a "horde" starts at 11 models, not 6.

Pretty sure the whole 6 thing has more to do with the number of models you can cram under a small blast template on average over it defining a "horde". Though I agree that it should start at 11 models as well, but on the flip-side large units should get some kind of incentive for people to want to take them despite the increased damage from blasts. And no, strat efficiency doesn't really do it when you can still get good results at 10 as well with no additional risk.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well the first step to the large squad thing is to make it so what constitutes a "horde" starts at 11 models, not 6.

I'm amused that one of the hive fleet traits is 'count as half the number of models when determining the number of attacks due to blast' Sucks if they still roll a 6 though.
Though, honestly that's their adaptive trait, so you trade it away for something useful instead.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Pretty sure the whole 6 thing has more to do with the number of models you can cram under a small blast template on average over it defining a "horde". Though I agree that it should start at 11 models as well, but on the flip-side large units should get some kind of incentive for people to want to take them despite the increased damage from blasts. And no, strat efficiency doesn't really do it when you can still get good results at 10 as well with no additional risk.

I've said this in the past, but any number you choose as the start point for hordes will be arbitrary. It doesn't matter if it's 6 models, or 11 models, or 21 models, or whatever. You're always going to end up with that weird situation where, assuming 11+, 10 models is not a horde and right next to them 11 models are. This is unavoidable.

My reason for saying that it should be 11+ (or at least 11+) is that units of 10 are the basic building block for most races in the game. So many races cap out at 10, or start at 10. It's the core (not 'Core') of their unit structure, and I don't think units should be punished simply for being taken in either their minimum state (Ork Boyz, Termagants, Cultists, etc.) or their 'Codex' standard state (a 10-man Tac Squad, a 10-woman Sisters unit, a squad of Guard that is always 10 strong).

That leads into the other issue, being the Coherency issue. With 6 strong being that start points for needing two models within 2", you get messed up situations where 5 Jetbikes or Destroyers can stretch out to max coherency in a big long line, but you add a 6th, and suddenly they all have to huddle together because their bases are so big.

11+ is an imperfect compromise. It is arbitrary, but it resolves the two problems above.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Pretty sure the whole 6 thing has more to do with the number of models you can cram under a small blast template on average over it defining a "horde". Though I agree that it should start at 11 models as well, but on the flip-side large units should get some kind of incentive for people to want to take them despite the increased damage from blasts. And no, strat efficiency doesn't really do it when you can still get good results at 10 as well with no additional risk.

I've said this in the past, but any number you choose as the start point for hordes will be arbitrary. It doesn't matter if it's 6 models, or 11 models, or 21 models, or whatever. You're always going to end up with that weird situation where, assuming 11+, 10 models is not a horde and right next to them 11 models are. This is unavoidable.

My reason for saying that it should be 11+ (or at least 11+) is that units of 10 are the basic building block for most races in the game. So many races cap out at 10, or start at 10. It's the core (not 'Core') of their unit structure, and I don't think units should be punished simply for being taken in either their minimum state (Ork Boyz, Termagants, Cultists, etc.) or their 'Codex' standard state (a 10-man Tac Squad, a 10-woman Sisters unit, a squad of Guard that is always 10 strong).

That leads into the other issue, being the Coherency issue. With 6 strong being that start points for needing two models within 2", you get messed up situations where 5 Jetbikes or Destroyers can stretch out to max coherency in a big long line, but you add a 6th, and suddenly they all have to huddle together because their bases are so big.

11+ is an imperfect compromise. It is arbitrary, but it resolves the two problems above.

I was agreeing that it should start at 11, I was just saying why I think they chose 6 (and really they should have made "Small Blast" and "Large Blast" separate rules with Small Blast triggering at 6 and Large Blast triggering at 11), and saying that there needs to be some kind of incentive structure in place to encourage people to run units over the cut off point or else people will just avoid taking those larger units.

Just as people avoid taking 6 models when they can take 5 now. It's frustrating, especially as a Tyranid player where base-6 has been a building block for so long (Gaunt broods should top out at 36, not 30! ).

We've seen that - if this unit has X models it gains Y rule. I perhaps wouldn't tie it to models so much as "Whilst this unit is a Horde it gains X, Y, Z!", and then define what a Horde is. That way we avoid the temptation of more bespoke nonsense - when this unit has 20 models it's a horde, but when this unit has 15 models its a horde, and so on.

Yeah, defining hordes would have likely helped a lot.

As much as I like the move away from the fiddly problems of templates on the table, I do tho k GW should have spent some more time on ths rule in question because it causes a push to MSU playstyle that saps some of the flavor out of the game.

And then for Harlequins they gated weapon options based on choosing 11+ models... something they never do for Astartes. Convenient.

The Blast thresholds should be 11+ and 21+ rather than the current 6+ and 11+.

Currently there's no point in fielding 20+ man squads unless a faction has an extremely powerful stratagem, or an alternative tool, to significantly enhance that squad. Orks for example don't have anything like that so 20 man squads (or even 11+ ones) simply don't exist.

 Blackie wrote:
The Blast thresholds should be 11+ and 21+ rather than the current 6+ and 11+.

Currently there's no point in fielding 20+ man squads unless a faction has an extremely powerful stratagem, or an alternative tool, to significantly enhance that squad. Orks for example don't have anything like that so 20 man squads (or even 11+ ones) simply don't exist.

20 strong Necron Warrior squads, to maximize their potential to get back up.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The Blast thresholds should be 11+ and 21+ rather than the current 6+ and 11+.

Currently there's no point in fielding 20+ man squads unless a faction has an extremely powerful stratagem, or an alternative tool, to significantly enhance that squad. Orks for example don't have anything like that so 20 man squads (or even 11+ ones) simply don't exist.

20 strong Necron Warrior squads, to maximize their potential to get back up.

They have a powerful built-in ability that is massively more rewarding on a large squad. Pretty rare thing I'd say.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well the first step to the large squad thing is to make it so what constitutes a "horde" starts at 11 models, not 6.

Pretty sure the whole 6 thing has more to do with the number of models you can cram under a small blast template on average over it defining a "horde". Though I agree that it should start at 11 models as well, but on the flip-side large units should get some kind of incentive for people to want to take them despite the increased damage from blasts. And no, strat efficiency doesn't really do it when you can still get good results at 10 as well with no additional risk.

Does AoS still give discounts for large units? That would be a way to do it, tho you might have to do points slightly differently. Aka 10 hormogaunts for 80 points, may add another 10 for 60 points.

Not anymore. Now you are limited on how many times you can up the unit size and how many units you can up instead. Ie for unit size 5 you can in 2k either make 4 units 10 strong(rest minimum sized) or if battleline(the required minimum) can triple the size but takes 2 points out of the 4 from cap.

Point wise no difference.

Tbh rather than debating angels on the head of a pin I'd just ditch blast as a rule.

Take every single D6, D3, 5D3+3^2 shot weapon and just give them a flat number of shots. I'm not convinced it adds anything to the game.

 Ordana wrote:
Does AoS still give discounts for large units? That would be a way to do it, tho you might have to do points slightly differently. Aka 10 hormogaunts for 80 points, may add another 10 for 60 points.

Horus Heresy actually has a good system for this imo.

It might be 150pts for the base squad of 10 (a nominal 15pts apiece), then you can add up to another 10 at 10pts apiece.
That means you're getting a discount and are encouraged to run larger squads.

tneva82 wrote:
Not anymore. Now you are limited on how many times you can up the unit size and how many units you can up instead. Ie for unit size 5 you can in 2k either make 4 units 10 strong(rest minimum sized) or if battleline(the required minimum) can triple the size but takes 2 points out of the 4 from cap.

Point wise no difference.

Not true, you still have to pay points for those models, it's just in chunks of 5 or 10 or whatever the minimum size of the unit is for each of those enhancements because you're still buying models.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

- Before a game, after seeing your opponent's army and units, you can select which options your models have. See your up against Nids? Take a flamer. Space Marines? Swap it out for a plasmagun.
It'd have it's own problems. Magnets would become really important, or otherwise buying extra models to have swap-outs.

Something which has come up periodically, and its a simple tourney rule, is why GW hasn't said in its GT rules that you bring 2000/2500 point forces and get to swap in and out 500 point blocks for a 1500 point game. (So in effect you have a 1000 points core and 2-3 500 point options.)

They want to sell more models, they want games to be relatively quick, they are having problems with on table survivability when trying to achieve reasonably quick games. Even gives the illusion of strategy and people get to obsess over lists more which is a big bit of the game for some people.

Allow every trooper in a squad to throw a grenade in the same turn (Frag, Krak, etc.). If this turns out to be too powerful then you can add a "Cooldown" (ability not available in the next X turns) rule of one turn to it. This obviously means you need to use unit cards for all models on the table and indicate the status of units with tokens.

I played a while ago a scenario of 2nd and it added to the gameplay. Only allowing a single member to throw a grenade feels gamey/awkward.

PenitentJake wrote:

A lot of folks say that 9th doesn't have strategy or tactics; what they mean by that is that strategies and tactics don't fit their definition of what strategies and tactics are. Doing this kind of thing- teasing a transhuman out of someone- IS a strategy or a tactic.

(I already know the answer- it's because one feels like it SHOULD be associated with a miniature game and the other feels like it should be associated with a card game- but it's crazy to me that people don't actually mind GOTCHA, as long as it's their particular flavour of GOTCHA)

Yes that's it exactly. I used to in 8th explain all my strats and orders to the oppo before a game to ensure nothing I id was a surprise. In a tourney you would (unreasonably) expect the oppo to know them all. Now there are so many that is impossible for the majority of us, so there is always going to be an element of 'surprise!' when something gets done. And because the game is in theory open to both sides with assumed perfect knowledge that doesn't come across as fun.

Now in a sprawling card game like magic you might expect that. In a wargame as we play with transparency on both sides we don't expect it. And we are primed to accept some surprises as fair as the concept generally exists (e.g. flank march from the side of the table or terminators deep striking in). I don't know how players would react to genuinely surprising military events (hmm, maybe you set up your army on table 1 only to find the enemy is attacking on table 5 ), but this type of surprise isn't 'fun'.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Allow every trooper in a squad to throw a grenade in the same turn (Frag, Krak, etc.). If this turns out to be too powerful then you can add a "Cooldown" (ability not available in the next X turns) rule of one turn to it. This obviously means you need to use unit cards for all models on the table and indicate the status of units with tokens.

I played a while ago a scenario of 2nd and it added to the gameplay. Only allowing a single member to throw a grenade feels gamey/awkward.

I mean previous editions didn't even let you throw grenades instead having them confer specific rules instead.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Allow every trooper in a squad to throw a grenade in the same turn (Frag, Krak, etc.). If this turns out to be too powerful then you can add a "Cooldown" (ability not available in the next X turns) rule of one turn to it. This obviously means you need to use unit cards for all models on the table and indicate the status of units with tokens.

I played a while ago a scenario of 2nd and it added to the gameplay. Only allowing a single member to throw a grenade feels gamey/awkward.

I think the problem there is some armies literally don't have grenades, so to make it work they would in some cases need to increase cost of some grenade equipped models slightly or decrease others without grenades. i guess alternatively they could just give everybody grenades some bio grenades for tyranids and scarab grenades for necrons to name a few.

Also in theory with grenades not sure every member of the unit would have enough to throw them every turn, a universal stratagem might be cool though to just have whole squads throw them

I’d rather have one guy per squad throw grenades than spend 1ppm for frags and 2ppm for kracks.

I would like to see them being used in melee again. Melta bombs and krack grenades should be able to be used on the big guys knives can’t scratch.