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.

I'll be getting 10th edition anyway if it is true that Tyranids are going to be the focus, but something I'd like to see is the addition of solo-coop play. Not necessarily in the big rule book itself, but as a one-off companion book for those of us who'd like to give that a try.

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?

They can be better represented through encouraging thematic list building rather than blanket army-wide rules.

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?

I could see it. Removing subfactions strips out a lot of the bloat. Its really arguable if various flavors of X (space marines, guard regiments, hive fleets, whatever) really need to be differentiated at that level. Its like playing a superhero RPG where you get a basic power set but then additional, separate power sets for being a 'chosen one.' Is it really adding anything? Isn't being superhuman enough already?

Especially the way warhammer does it based on color-coding.

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?

probably because right now they give too many things for free and are unbalanced.

IMO subfactions could stay but i'd have them give you something very simple, like a USR only and apply a tax on your units depending on what the buff is. No more list of warlord trait / relics/ strats (pls delete those). Then players would have a slight buff to their units that hopefully would encourage taking certain units that fit with the legion

For example :
White scars : Advance and charge (Fleet USR?) (+5pts per model)
Night Lords : -1 Morale aura (Fearsome USR?) (+1pts per model)

obviously those arent the exact things, i'm just giving an example of how to value traits

As a DE player, I hate Subfactions now.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a DE player, I hate Subfactions now.

what subfactions? Do you not just cherry pick whatever buffs you want for your units ?

(feth i hate how bland the drukhari dex is)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?

probably because right now they give too many things for free and are unbalanced.

IMO subfactions could stay but i'd have them give you something very simple, like a USR only and apply a tax on your units depending on what the buff is. No more list of warlord trait / relics/ strats (pls delete those). Then players would have a slight buff to their units that hopefully would encourage taking certain units that fit with the legion

For example :
White scars : Advance and charge (Fleet USR?) (+5pts per model)
Night Lords : -1 Morale aura (Fearsome USR?) (+1pts per model)

obviously those arent the exact things, i'm just giving an example of how to value traits

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.

If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.

Actually add warlord traits to the things I'd get rid of. Relics can stay but only if they go back to a "build your own hero" style where you can mix and match and they cost points.

Edit: Just give me a weird mix of 5th Ed, 8th Ed and WHFB 8th Ed and I'm good.

The changes I can kind of expect to see(if a hard reset is in the work) are things I kind of want to see:

* Reduction of stratagems considerably. I imagine going to something like Death Guard had in 8th, if not less.
* Add universal reaction commands. They are super nice in AoS 3.0 and I've heard good things about the Horus Heresy version.
* I imagine GW might put 40k into a universal point system like AoS 3.0 has. That means all upgrades are tied into the cost of a unit which means every weapon and upgrade has to be addressed so as not to create obvious superior weapon choice. If a hard reset holds true I imagine this would be the main reason why it would happen as it is the only way to scale weapons to fit that type of system.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a DE player, I hate Subfactions now.

what subfactions? Do you not just cherry pick whatever buffs you want for your units ?

(feth i hate how bland the drukhari dex is)

Its that GW wants Kabals to be their own, Coven to be their own, and Wych to be their own. Then you have to make hoops to jump through just for DE to list build. If I want some Kabal with a splash of coven i have to ether 1) Lose obsessions on the Coven or 2) Take another Patrol (it is free CP at least), so in order to splash you need a troop and HQ even if all you wanted was a Heavy.

The army doesn't feel like an army at all, it feels like Im gaming the system to get the best units out of 3 mini armies. Half the time the Obsession doesn't even matter (see wych units splashing into Coven bc who cares about their obsession they dont do enough) so If i am losing them anyways why even both with all these loop holes and jank?

Did you know DE can have 2 versions of their Masters bc of that? Yeah I can take a Subfaction with a Master Haemonculus, take another detachment, say a Wych one, add in Urien R, now I can have 2 special units called Haemoxytes and 2 master, but wait, that coven detachmen can have Lelith, so now I can have 2 Bloodbrides and 2 Master Succubi! See what I mean about jank....

I miss the days of just taking what I want and not picking 3 patrols and fiddling with all this crap, if I wanted RsR then i lose out on a lot of other things so I dont want that either.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.

If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.

They don't NEED to be super imbalanced though. You know why Night Lord morale shenanigans suck? Because morale doesn't matter, and people have been wanting it to matter.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.

If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.

They don't NEED to be super imbalanced though. You know why Night Lord morale shenanigans suck? Because morale doesn't matter, and people have been wanting it to matter.

I know they don't need to be imbalanced, still, the easiest way to balance them is for them to not be free.

If a trait is too strong, make it cost more.

The other solution would be to give a mix of abilities that together would have a relatively close powerlevel, which is more complicated and GW would surely feth up.

Either subfactions traits are removed (in favor of players bringing fluffy army composition)
Or theyre simplified and taxed.

And i picked two existing trait with obvious power discrepancies to demonstrate my point. (Night lords trait should refund pts in the current game tbh).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Spoiler:

Its that GW wants Kabals to be their own, Coven to be their own, and Wych to be their own. Then you have to make hoops to jump through just for DE to list build. If I want some Kabal with a splash of coven i have to ether 1) Lose obsessions on the Coven or 2) Take another Patrol (it is free CP at least), so in order to splash you need a troop and HQ even if all you wanted was a Heavy.

The army doesn't feel like an army at all, it feels like Im gaming the system to get the best units out of 3 mini armies. Half the time the Obsession doesn't even matter (see wych units splashing into Coven bc who cares about their obsession they dont do enough) so If i am losing them anyways why even both with all these loop holes and jank?

Did you know DE can have 2 versions of their Masters bc of that? Yeah I can take a Subfaction with a Master Haemonculus, take another detachment, say a Wych one, add in Urien R, now I can have 2 special units called Haemoxytes and 2 master, but wait, that coven detachmen can have Lelith, so now I can have 2 Bloodbrides and 2 Master Succubi! See what I mean about jank....

I miss the days of just taking what I want and not picking 3 patrols and fiddling with all this crap, if I wanted RsR then i lose out on a lot of other things so I dont want that either.

yeah i know, i've stopped playing them completely this edition, thats what i mean by boring, theres barely any flavor in there and it feels GW decided that breaking all the list building rules was a better solution than making the army interesting

Ditch stratagems/secondaries. Maybe keep a small subset but not bloating codexes with them. Ditch TLOS which is and always has been awful.

 Sim-Life wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
- no subfactions

I'm curious... Why are you against subfactions?

They can be better represented through encouraging thematic list building rather than blanket army-wide rules.

I might change my mind once I actually saw it, but I think what I'd like to see is this: Don't have "subfaction" benefits. Have "army themes" that are subfaction agnostic. And then have the benefits of themes be horizontal changes to the way the army plays rather than vertical buffs. So instead of having rules for "White Scars," you have rules for "mounted companies" or whatever. And instead of giving them pure benefits, you let them trade-out the default marine special rules for alternative ones and/or give them access to a submechanic that has built-in trade-offs.

So using the "mounted company" example, maybe you gain the option to field bikes as troops and can charge after falling back, but you lose bolter discipline and shock assault. Maybe you gain a "velocity" submechanic that makes units moving fast enough hit harder on the charge or makes them harder to hit, but you can only rotate up to 90* before moving forward (like a flyer) when traveling at speed. Not a perfect pitch, but the idea is that:
A.) Every subfaction can potentially benefit from the army theme. Subfaction becomes just a paint scheme and lore again.
B.) The benefits should only be about as powerful as what you give up. Maybe a bike-heavy army is better off using the mounted company rules than not, but a mounted company army shouldn't be significantly stronger than a vanilla army.
C.) The main point of the themes should be to give you meaningfully different ways to play your army that evoke your army's fluff. The guy using a mounted company will be thinking about where he wants to move a turn in advance and picking out targets that are a bit farther away so he can get his benefits for traveling at speed. Which should feel very different from the sneaky marine army that uses GSC blips and has to figure out how to get the most out of his his ambush mechanics, which should feel very different from glory seeker army that wants to take out the enemy's characters and most expensive units to gain "glory buffs". My hope is that, by making these armies play so differently and reducing the vertical benefits they provide, you avoid having one or two defacto "best" benefits that always get taken while all the others are ignored. Where chapter tactics are an optimization puzzle, army themes should be a matter of what playstyle you want to enjoy that day.

-------------------
My 10th edition wishlist:

1. Get rid of (or at least overhaul) stratagems. Replace them with something like AoS orders.
2. Warlord traits and wargear strats go back to just being wargear you purchase with points. Relics also become wargear you purchase with points, possibly with a "1 per army" restriction.
3. Overhaul mission design to be less book-keepy. Tracking secondaries is probably the number one thing that has me a little burned out on 40k right now.
4. Get rid of doctrines and their equivalents. There are some cool ideas in there that I'd like to keep (see above about army themes), but their current incarnation just creates too much book keeping and too many stackable vertical buffs.
5. More emphasis on movement and positioning. Make rules like the GSC book's crossfire a core part of the game.
6. I'd kind of like to see Weapon Skill return to an opposed value comparison. I know it's less newbie friendly, but it did a lot to make more skilled units feel like they had an edge over less skillful ones. As-is, the lack of skill comparison kind of makes it feel like you're just slinging damage-optimized haymakers at each other.
7. I like the idea of introducing an Evasion stat that Ballistics Skill gets compared against. Orkz, humans, and marines would probably all have the same Evasion. Eldar would probably be a bit higher. Especially bulky and cumbersome units would be a bit lower. This could also potentially replace a lot of the to-hit modifier rules floating around and let them stack in a way that doesn't result in eldar having -2 to hit on everything.
8. Hot take: get rid of psychic tests. You can make psychic powers less impressive if you need to, but it's pretty unfluffy for most psykers in the game to just randomly fail to make magic happen. How often do you read about librarians or warlocks raising their hands and then looking surprised when no lightning shoots out? Also, go back to charging points for psychic powers so that we don't have to make all psychic powers equally potent.
9. Keep Crusade in some fashion. Expand on it even. Give me rules to tell different kinds of campaign stories. Maybe my drukhari aren't expanding their empire; maybe they're trying to keep it from falling apart. Maybe I can only use certain units while I control certain types of territory. Etc.

Long Shots:
1. Alternating Activation really seems like it ought to be a thing. It's just tricky to make work in 40k without somehow forcing armies to have comparable numbers of units.
2. Find a way to make knights not automatically be skew lists. It's not much fun knowing your small arms fire is going to be basically useless because of the faction your opponent chose. Honestly, knights are really cool, but they are just such an awkward game design duck.
3. No more of this nonsense of selling subfaction-specific books (the chapter-specific marine splats), and certainly no more spreading that nonsense to other factions.
4. In fact, you really ought to make your rules cheaper and more accessible in general, GW. Drivethrurpg gives me soooo much more content per dollar.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Then......make them balanced. As far as subfactions for army rules themselves, GW has been doing better in 9th, but they still screw up elsewhere via the Warlord Traits and Relics and Strats.

If you had read the rest of my post, you would've seen that i proposed a solution as to how to balance them best. There will always be imbalance for free upgrades, make them cost points.

They don't NEED to be super imbalanced though. You know why Night Lord morale shenanigans suck? Because morale doesn't matter, and people have been wanting it to matter.

I know they don't need to be imbalanced, still, the easiest way to balance them is for them to not be free.

If a trait is too strong, make it cost more.

The other solution would be to give a mix of abilities that together would have a relatively close powerlevel, which is more complicated and GW would surely feth up.

Either subfactions traits are removed (in favor of players bringing fluffy army composition)
Or theyre simplified and taxed.

And i picked two existing trait with obvious power discrepancies to demonstrate my point. (Night lords trait should refund pts in the current game tbh).

Very few people would argue there have been more traits that are too strong compared to just bad traits in general. I mean, look at CSM in 8th. Word Bearers weren't going to be played even if the trait was free compared to everyone else LOL

While they're not a slam dunk each time, I'm giving GW credit this one time for better internal balance on terms of the Faction rules. I can see cases of use for each SM founding Chapters and CSM Legions.
Units is a whole other story of course.

1) Cut the rules bloat. Subfactions are gone. Stratagems are gone. WLTs are gone or incorporated into character rules. Relics are gone or incorporated into unit rules. And USRs are back. We don't need a million different versions of "deep strike" or "this unit can re-roll 1s".

2) IGOUGO is replaced by a modern alternating activation system. IGOUGO can GDIAF and will not be missed.

3) Improve the depth of the core rules. Morale should matter, facing should matter, suppressing fire should matter, etc. With the codex bloat cleared away there will be more room to make the core mechanics interesting and less need for an awkward pseudo-CCG to add the illusion of depth as a replacement.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
1) Cut the rules bloat. Subfactions are gone. Stratagems are gone. WLTs are gone or incorporated into character rules. Relics are gone or incorporated into unit rules. And USRs are back. We don't need a million different versions of "deep strike" or "this unit can re-roll 1s".

2) IGOUGO is replaced by a modern alternating activation system. IGOUGO can GDIAF and will not be missed.

3) Improve the depth of the core rules. Morale should matter, facing should matter, suppressing fire should matter, etc. With the codex bloat cleared away there will be more room to make the core mechanics interesting and less need for an awkward pseudo-CCG to add the illusion of depth as a replacement.

I actually 100% agree with you on that one, feels strange considering the recent days lol

I'd be fine with either alternating activations or an Action/Reaction system. I honestly just don't want to spend an hour between doing things.

Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges

 Stevefamine wrote:
Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges

No Premeasuring is terrible lol.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges

No Premeasuring is terrible lol.

yeah, some people just have no depth perception and i feel that not allowing premeasuring actually slows down the game because people try and mentally evaluate if they are within range or not instead of taking 2 seconds to measure it

 Stevefamine wrote:
No premeasuring

No. Banning measuring only leads to a whole bunch of cheating and "accidentally" waving tape measures in the place you want to measure. Let's not go back to that stupidity.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
No premeasuring

No. Banning measuring only leads to a whole bunch of cheating and "accidentally" waving tape measures in the place you want to measure. Let's not go back to that stupidity.

Ahh I forgot about Warmachine and the old WHFB Cannons and Guess

Makes sense, I'll replace that idea with flamer templates being added

 Stevefamine wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
No premeasuring

No. Banning measuring only leads to a whole bunch of cheating and "accidentally" waving tape measures in the place you want to measure. Let's not go back to that stupidity.

Ahh I forgot about Warmachine and the old WHFB Cannons and Guess

Makes sense, I'll replace that idea with flamer templates being added

Flamer templates mostly just punish melee armies (especially hordes) for trying to get models into engagement range.

If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models? The Baal PRed and the Furioso Dread come to mind. Or do we not count chaos factions as "sub factions"? Like, do we get rid of the Chaos factions like Death Guard or Grey Knights? Or are those stand alone?
Removing sub factions sounds good shouted, but then we have to pick and choose what gets the Legends treatment.

It's like saying, PRIMARIS IS HERE, DEAL WITH IT, NO MORE OLD MARINES.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models?

They can either be standard equipment or they can be aesthetic alternatives for standard units. Or, in the case of the awful marine flyers, they can be removed from the game.

The Stormraven rocks.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models? The Baal PRed and the Furioso Dread come to mind. Or do we not count chaos factions as "sub factions"? Like, do we get rid of the Chaos factions like Death Guard or Grey Knights? Or are those stand alone?
Removing sub factions sounds good shouted, but then we have to pick and choose what gets the Legends treatment.

It's like saying, PRIMARIS IS HERE, DEAL WITH IT, NO MORE OLD MARINES.

i assume people mean the factions that don't have their own codexes

so Blood Angels / Deathguard & co would be still there

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they remove sub factions, what happens to all the sub faction specific models? The Baal PRed and the Furioso Dread come to mind. Or do we not count chaos factions as "sub factions"? Like, do we get rid of the Chaos factions like Death Guard or Grey Knights? Or are those stand alone?
Removing sub factions sounds good shouted, but then we have to pick and choose what gets the Legends treatment.

It's like saying, PRIMARIS IS HERE, DEAL WITH IT, NO MORE OLD MARINES.

I was picturing us getting rid of the subfaction keywords and basically going back to the pre-keyword method of army creation. So White Scars and Ultramarines would functionally be the same faction, and you could have the Khan hanging out with Marneus Calgar. But anything with its own book would still exist and be supported. So Thousand Sons would still exist, but maybe we get rid of the Deception/Magic/Time/etc. cults; or at least don't treat them as mechanically distinct from each other.

That said, I'm not opposed to rolling most of the marines together into a handful of books, but that's a can of worms and not the case I'm making in this thread.