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.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

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.

Exactly, as some equipment should be standard. You don't think it's silly Iron Hands of all Chapters can't make a Predator with a TL Assault Cannon?

I HOPE that in 10th 40k is refined to its core, therefore there will only be two Codex... CODEX Space Marines (AKA every colour in the rainbow gives you a snowflake rule) and CODEX NPC faction (which even doe it joins 15 or so previous codexes has much less datasheets than the Astartes one).

All I want, is at least 25 types of Bolter. Thats all!!

The Big Book of Bolters!

That would certainly lay to rest any illusion that 40k is a functioning game instead of the deranged ramblings of an InfoWars poster.

Tiberias wrote:
I'd like 10th to be more like the new Heresy edition...not exactly like it, but a lot more like it. Bring back initiative, WS comparison, remove all the stratagems and do something like the new Heresy reactions for example.

And they need to tone down the lethality of the game, it's completely gotten out of hand.

Initiative is the single worst mechanic in warhammer. It turns CQC into Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet.

You might as well just remove CQC entirely at that point. Give each squad a 'battle number' and when two squads fight, whoever's battle number is highest wins and the other unit dies.

It's exactly how melee works in Initiative systems, just without the wasting 5 minutes rolling unnecessary dice for a foregone conclusion.

Also, Horus Heresy's reaction mechanic is just a knock-off of Sigmar's Command point system. If you're going to copy systems from other games, copy the good ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Initiative system. Not I GO YOU GO

Less rerolling, less dice

No premeasuring

No random charges

You can't get a system that doesn't have premeasuring. You can get a system that doesn't ALLOW premeasuring, but you can't get one that doesn't have it.

All denying premeasuring does is encourage people to cheat or to get really really good at comparing the length of their hands to the length of a gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

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

That's MY change to the edition:

No special snowflake space marines.

One Codex for all marines, the only difference between a Blood Angel and an Ultramarine is the paint scheme. Any chapter specific unit that can't be equipped to match a generic profile is moved to Legends.

If you want to talk about where edition bloat REALLY comes from, it comes from marine books.

I'd like the return to armor and armor pen, though definitely spruced up for modern readers (those who only read at a glance...). The old version of it reminded me of THAC0. Of course that'd mean cover has to provide a unique save again (heck, even make it either an armor boost or unique save chosen at the time it is taken)... because otherwise ork players will be even louder about GW wanting to delete them (guard too).

I think I like AV coming back for vehicles, as well as a less generous wound table overall. Not sure how I feel about facings though... some people got real gamey and cereal when facings came up (both shooting and being shot). As for wounding though... I believe you need to go to 6s to wound sooner than half STR, and some things should just be invulnerable to smaller caliber rounds. Be it by keyword (VEHICLE or having an AV) or a function of STR vs T.

I miss pie plate templates but not flamer ones. Sorry, the flamer template didn't allow for variances between different flamers. Not totally for this change, though, because templates were also abused and gamey by those guys which just led to table friction.

I think there needs to be a game-wide reduction in volume so that "more dakka" doesn't become the one size solution to all problems. Make weapons do what they're supposed to do by perhaps working better against specific keywords (like guard lasguns getting +1 to wound INFANTRY or something, for example).

While I think alternate activations is a bit of a problem to implement and will likely come with sprinkling markers all over the table, perhaps a middle ground could be found by activating by detachment (poor Drukhari - but remember, organization isn't really your thing). It'd be easier to understand without over reliance on tokens, which I think can quickly down out the spectacle of the board. Didn't 8th edition Apocalypse do this?

Divorce force altering stratagems for CP. WLTs and Relics and stratagems that pass out this candy or upgrade units needs to be handled with points. "Command" points feel like they should cover in-the-moment decisions made by a leader to affect the outcome of the battle, not bring more bling. I think the same can be said about the heroic deed ones- make them one shot abilities that can be purchased as an upgrade.

In the spirit of the above changes, reduce CP greatly. I think I like Nephalims approach, but maybe starting with something like 1, 2, or 3 depending on game size and then getting a pittance per turn would allow stratagems being used to feel a bit more heroic, could even reward timely play of them more than just "use X every turn!" type play. Could even limit stratagems and then just let CP basically be slots where you can place stratagems... but once used, they're burnt for the game. That may prevent the over-reliance on an overperforming strat while keeping literally everything else in your back pocket.

I don't agree with removing subfactions as it debilitates all of the wrong factions more than it cleans up space marine bloat. Just clean up space marines and stop making the rest of the game pay for their sins.

Do get rid of custom traits. They were a cool idea, but introduced more in the way of abuse than I think was intended. I think with 6ish subfactions per book, a "counts as" approach is a nice comprise.

Continue crusade. Expand it. Get people back to the game's roots of being something closer to D&D with miniatures instead of some real life RTS simulator or MOBA.

I could go on for awhile, but I think I've reached my posting limit for the day

Stratagems should be traded for more elaborate point upgrade choices. Instead of paying however many command points for transhuman physiology equivalents and etc., have them be a thing you can buy during the list building stage.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I'd like the return to armor and armor pen, though definitely spruced up for modern readers (those who only read at a glance...). The old version of it reminded me of THAC0. Of course that'd mean cover has to provide a unique save again (heck, even make it either an armor boost or unique save chosen at the time it is taken)... because otherwise ork players will be even louder about GW wanting to delete them (guard too).

I think I like AV coming back for vehicles, as well as a less generous wound table overall. Not sure how I feel about facings though... some people got real gamey and cereal when facings came up (both shooting and being shot). As for wounding though... I believe you need to go to 6s to wound sooner than half STR, and some things should just be invulnerable to smaller caliber rounds. Be it by keyword (VEHICLE or having an AV) or a function of STR vs T.

I miss pie plate templates but not flamer ones. Sorry, the flamer template didn't allow for variances between different flamers. Not totally for this change, though, because templates were also abused and gamey by those guys which just led to table friction.

I think there needs to be a game-wide reduction in volume so that "more dakka" doesn't become the one size solution to all problems. Make weapons do what they're supposed to do by perhaps working better against specific keywords (like guard lasguns getting +1 to wound INFANTRY or something, for example).

While I think alternate activations is a bit of a problem to implement and will likely come with sprinkling markers all over the table, perhaps a middle ground could be found by activating by detachment (poor Drukhari - but remember, organization isn't really your thing). It'd be easier to understand without over reliance on tokens, which I think can quickly down out the spectacle of the board. Didn't 8th edition Apocalypse do this?

Divorce force altering stratagems for CP. WLTs and Relics and stratagems that pass out this candy or upgrade units needs to be handled with points. "Command" points feel like they should cover in-the-moment decisions made by a leader to affect the outcome of the battle, not bring more bling. I think the same can be said about the heroic deed ones- make them one shot abilities that can be purchased as an upgrade.

In the spirit of the above changes, reduce CP greatly. I think I like Nephalims approach, but maybe starting with something like 1, 2, or 3 depending on game size and then getting a pittance per turn would allow stratagems being used to feel a bit more heroic, could even reward timely play of them more than just "use X every turn!" type play. Could even limit stratagems and then just let CP basically be slots where you can place stratagems... but once used, they're burnt for the game. That may prevent the over-reliance on an overperforming strat while keeping literally everything else in your back pocket.

I don't agree with removing subfactions as it debilitates all of the wrong factions more than it cleans up space marine bloat. Just clean up space marines and stop making the rest of the game pay for their sins.

Do get rid of custom traits. They were a cool idea, but introduced more in the way of abuse than I think was intended. I think with 6ish subfactions per book, a "counts as" approach is a nice comprise.

Continue crusade. Expand it. Get people back to the game's roots of being something closer to D&D with miniatures instead of some real life RTS simulator or MOBA.

I could go on for awhile, but I think I've reached my posting limit for the day

You just brought THAC0 into a thread where most people were learning to tie their shoes during THAC0. And thank god that math nerd of a mechanic was taken out back and old yellered.

I do agree on making "armor" saves relevant again, and removing the rediculousness that is Saves creep. We now have rules that avoid the rules to avoid the rules about what saves get made. Just make one save. That's it.

Voss wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Create a document which lays out design goals / code of conduct / standards for measuring power. Then fething use it. The intent being to keep all codex's throughout the edition similar in power and design ideaology, so we don't end up with Tyranid / D-eldar / Mechanicus / Harlies level codex' existing alongside those at Ork / Crons / D-guard.

Massively reduce lethality across the board.

Rework moral. Moral should be trigger by more than just taking losses, such as being shot without interceding cover or particularly dangerous / suppressing weapons. It should also not result in casualties but rather result in retreating, pinning, and more commonly reducing characteristics (shot in the open but don't take losses? Take a moral check, receiving a -1 BS modifier if you fail, but also a +1 to movement if you move towards the nearest cover). 30k is a step in the right direction in this regard, with ample pinning and the Shell Shock rule, but it's not enough.

Rework the armor system. 30k again has a better idea of this, with massively reducing the number of 'high penetration' weapons but also introducing effects such as breaching / scaling rending. Combining the two would be ideal; AP 4 is only heavy weapons and AP 3 / 2 is extremely rare, but a suitable number of weapons have breaching / rending / a rule to reduce armor saves by -1 or more.

Get rid of stratagems, rework them into command abilities & reactions.

Fix the melee vs shooting divide. Making shooting more effective at controlling your enemy (via the mentioned moral, suppression, ect) but significantly less lethal, where as melee is a "win or lose" state which results in higher casualties.

I agree with basically all of this. But especially the first one- a design document is mandatory and so basic to any sort of process.

Thirded. And just like Voss, especially the first one. Make a plan, stick to it. No more of this "making it up as they go along" and one-upmanship stuff.

As for my preference: just take the HH 2.0 rules and add all of the 40k factions/units. And keep the Night Lords rules the same as they are in HH.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
remove strats
bring back USRs
make the game alternating activations
lower lethality

thats my big 4

this.

Off the top of my head:

1) Alternating Activation

2) Better Line of Sight and Terrain Rules - true line of sight is awful and I prefer more abstract terrain rules. I think the last time 40k had this right was maybe 4th edition with area terrain rules and visibility through it

3) Less Lethality

4) Less Rules Bloat

5) Leadership mattering - and not just for the npc factions.

6) More Maneuver - make it harder to shoot across the entire board turn 1 or jet across the board for a turn 1/2 charge.

7) Make Transports Useful - I feel since 8th dropped that transports really got the short end of the stick - after 7th we've gotten smaller default boards, restrictions on what can leave transports, loss of fire points on most transports, etc.

8) Fewer Invulnerable Saves

9) Fewer "Rules that Ignore X Rule" - ie: this gun ignores invulnerable saves! This unit is so tough they ignore rules that ignore invulnerable saves!

10) Universal Special Rules - we can still have unique rules for certain units, but most things should simply be covered with a handful of USRs.

11) d10s or d12s - just to allow for some more design space so that the rules writers don't have to differentiate units as much with special rules.

Remove Core, AoC, HotE, Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines, faction-Stratagems, faction-secondaries and faction WL traits. Expand universal Stratagems and make selecting which ones you take into battle part of list building. Expand universal WL traits. Rework Relics to never just be +1 dagger as a replacement for the thematic rules Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines currently provide. Remove the current armies of renown, none of them need to exist.

Rename abilities to universal names. Reduce lethality by going back to 8th edition profiles or some kind of middle ground and remove stacking offensive HQ buffs, making a unit 20% harder to kill, 20% faster, 20% killier is fine but the multiplicative effect of several buffs is an unfixable balance problem.

 Eldarsif wrote:

* 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.

https://me.me/i/disgust-1-nose-wrinkling-1-2-upper-lip-raised-me-irl-15358071

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
That would certainly lay to rest any illusion that 40k is a functioning game instead of the deranged ramblings of an InfoWars poster.

The Alex Jones reactions to Total War Warhammer factions on Youtube are great.

Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

The Alex Jones reactions to Total War Warhammer factions on Youtube are great.

Sounds like something a goblin kisser would say.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Since BF has changed a lot its game mechanics in 4th edition, if 40K 10th edition basically adapted FOW 3rd edition rules it would veva dream come true!!!

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

Cutting the speed and range of everything down a bit would make tables a bit larger overall.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

Then add mechanics that make it matter: meaningful terrain effects, flanking, suppressing fire, etc. Or play with fewer models on a larger table. Cutting range limits down beyond any plausible fluff justification is not the answer.

Alternative activations
Fewer stratagems
lethality going down
More narrative mission support
No models no rules has to die, proper legends support and reintegration into the game
USRs
Improved morale mechanics
Streamlined terrain mechanics
A total overhaul of providing digital rules, it's baffling how they could make it even worse than "pay nearly the same price for that pdf that you'd pay for the actual book and no, you can't get a translated pdf".

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns..

Then you need to reduce movement values, charge ranges etc.

And preferably reduce size of models to have things make any sense.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns..

Then you need to reduce movement values, charge ranges etc.

And preferably reduce size of models to have things make any sense.

Ranges already make no sense. They never have in 40k if you want something approaching "realistic" ranges.

I think 24" is probably too short a mx range, but you could help 40k a lot by reversing some of the range increases GW have given out in the 6-18" range band. Movement needs to be curtailed too, especially if they insist on keeping IGOUGO. A significant number of armies can trivially pull off first turn charges, which is a highly frustrating feature to have to paly around as the current turn structure makes it almost foolproof.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
remove strats
bring back USRs
make the game alternating activations
lower lethality

thats my big 4

Would be fantastic.
Simplification of the game should also mean to make games shorter.

return of the original version of overwatch.
bring back AP.
no templates... they just drag things out... its touching, not its not... bleh
Bring back initiative... i don't think i agree with whoever goes first always wins.

Slipspace wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns..

Then you need to reduce movement values, charge ranges etc.

And preferably reduce size of models to have things make any sense.

Ranges already make no sense. They never have in 40k if you want something approaching "realistic" ranges.

I think 24" is probably too short a mx range, but you could help 40k a lot by reversing some of the range increases GW have given out in the 6-18" range band. Movement needs to be curtailed too, especially if they insist on keeping IGOUGO. A significant number of armies can trivially pull off first turn charges, which is a highly frustrating feature to have to paly around as the current turn structure makes it almost foolproof.

Yea but at least you shoot further than you can charge on foot with basic guys with no special rules...

12" would just make it even more silly.

Add a layer of player interaction, because alpha strike and turn 1 are boring. They always have been. Let the attacked be able to react.
- Alternate activation per PHASE (not per units)
- Reactive gameplay (see New Horus heresy)

Stratagems :
- Heavily cut back on stratagem bloat. Stratagems should be generic (no unit-specific stratagems), selected before the battle, and limited to X (few) per turn

Superpowers :
- Remove all sort of rerolls or "ignore rules" superpowers

Bring back USR :
- USR should simply be brought back, have the same name and wording in all codexes for the entirety of an edition. they can remain on unit datasheet for easier reference (altho i frankly don't get why people didn't like USR in the first place)

Trim down stats/rules bloat :
- Invulnerable saves should be a character/ HQ-only feature in ANY circumstances
- fire distance should be reduced gamewide to encourage movement tactics
- all sort of bolters should be damage 1 AP 0 as a base
- Remove ballistic skill and Hit rolls

Give vehicles different stats and profiles:
- vehicles should have parts that can be targetted, affecting their movement, firepower or efficiency (think Horizon Zero Dawn way or targetting different parts)

ERJAK wrote:


That's MY change to the edition:

No special snowflake space marines.

One Codex for all marines, the only difference between a Blood Angel and an Ultramarine is the paint scheme. Any chapter specific unit that can't be equipped to match a generic profile is moved to Legends.

If you want to talk about where edition bloat REALLY comes from, it comes from marine books.

whats your opinion on DeathGuard/ThousandSons/WorldEaters/Emperors children/Grey knights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

i disagree with you on that, i'd rather ranges matter, 30" on basic bolters is way too much, shooting from deployment to deployment should be rare IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Yea but at least you shoot further than you can charge on foot with basic guys with no special rules...

12" would just make it even more silly.

when i say reduce range, i include movement too.

I know it will never happen but I would like to see GW switch to d10's or preferably d12's (d12's roll nicer than d10's), adjusting the BS/WS stat lines appropriately and then remove most rerolls from the game.

Much more granularity with a larger numbered die & it would reduce the homogenization of the d6

For Example, BS to hit:
11+ on 1d12 - "Overwatch" shots
9+ on 1d12 - Orks/"Frateris Militia"/standard humans
7+ on 1d12 - Guardsman/Termagants/Eldar Guardians/Gretchin
6+ on 1d12 - Battle Sisters/Fire Warriors/Necron Warriors/AdM Rangers/Cabalites <- would show that they have better training than their base race but not at the superhuman level of more elite troops
5+ on 1d12 - standard Space Marine/CSM Legionnaire/Necron Immortals/Knights
4+ on 1d12 - Custodes/Phoenix Lords

For Example, WS to hit:
9+ on 1d12 - Gretchin/standard humans
8+ on 1d12 - "Frateris Militia" (higher WS reflects their zealotry)
7+ on 1d12 - Guardsman/Termagants/Eldar Guardians/Fire Warriors
6+ on 1d12 - Necron Warriors & Immortals/Battle Sisters/AdM Rangers
5+ on 1d12 - Orks/standard Space Marine/CSM Legionnaire/Knights/Inncubi/Genestealers
4+ on 1d12 - Custodes/Phoenix Lords


"Heroes" would, situationally, have a BS/WS to hit 1 higher than their base troops: Space Marine Captain BS to hit: 4+ on 1d12

Only truly exceptional units (R.G./Abaddon/Drazhar/Bloodthirsters/Swarmlord/etc..) would have a 2+ to hit on 1d12

BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
BUFFS FOR UNPAINTED MINIS!!!!

/S

Some places did "Preferred enemy Grey: A painted model gets re-roll 1's to hit against enemy units that are not painted" was pretty common for fun events back in the day.