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.

Why are you trying to make 2d6 work anyway? The solutions that would allow it to work will have to increase abstraction, rolling 2d6+BS+Shots fired works, but is very different from what 40k is right now. While you add something to the game, youre also taking something away just to achieve that.

Rolling a d12 per shot would simply add a Ton of Design Space without taking anything away. Yes, you cant use your existing D6 anymore, but thats really it, isnt it?

On top of that the results from a 2d6 are a lot less spread out than a d12 is due to probabilities, so youre again reducing the effective Design Space as 2 and 12 are each sitting at 1/36 instead of 1/12

This works for battletech as 2 and 12 are the most desirable results on the Hit distribution table, but its also a lot more "sim-like" as a System and takes its sweet time to resolve a single shot

 catbarf wrote:

Okay, here's a basic concept I just made up. I'm sure it could be refined further.

Roll 2D6, add your ballistic skill, add the number of shots being fired. Compare to the target's modified Defense (including cover). If the total equals the target's Defense, inflict a hit, and then an additional hit for every 2 points the target's Defense is exceeded by, up to the number of shots fired.

Your squad of five BS4 Terminators, with two shots apiece, fires on a squad of Ork Boyz in cover with a modified Defense of 12. You roll 2D6 and score a 7, so add it to your combined BS+shots of 14, and total 21. You've beaten the Orks' Defense so score a hit, and beat it by 9, so dividing in half and rounding down gives you an extra 4 hits. 5 hits total and you're done.

No offense meant, but this system sounds horrible. It's giving me flashbacks of Shadowrun after second edition(best version barring the Matrix system) as you kind of need a gamemaster to arbitrate things for you and give you final target numbers and options.

Which is why 2d6 system will never work for Warhammer. Warhammer is a mass market product that wants to be accessible - even if shoot itself in the foot with the hundreds of stratagems it has introduced.

Necrons are robots, and at least the warriors are incapable of feeling fear, or acting upon it. The fact that they have to deal with morale at all is odd. But losing more is always a bad way to do morale. I really like how it's done in Warhammer Fantasy 6th, as panicking armies feel like they're losing ground, feel like they're running away, while things that ignore Panic or Fear or even just any Psychology, or have Frenzy, they don't run away unless things get really dire.

The closest things to Necrons in WHFB 6th is the Tomb Kings. Their skeletons do not run away, but they do lose more. Why does it work in this army, but if it were the entire game, I'd be annoyed?
Because a few factions trading being completely immune to fear with being partially destroyed because of it feels more thematic than Empire Knights dying of a stroke due to the enemy winning combat by 1, rather than just fleeing.

I should mention that we play with a modified sweeping advance, where all attacks auto hit, and they count as having charged in the next combat phase. But even if I changed that back, we'd still have a functioning morale system, and your Necrons would be just fine, as they'd use the same rules regarding breaking.

nemesis464 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

5th/7th edition was a nice system for a standard medieval sci-fi wargame, with armor facings, challenges, blast templates, pinning and so on.

Too bad that as soon as someone remembered that they were playing 40K and not Horus Heresy, and wanted to know how to make a croissant shaped vehicle and a big bug fit in all that... the system simply crumbled to dust.

It isn't a case that the worst xeno dexes were made in that era. Seriously, raveners suffering from deepstrike failures???

8th/9th edition created a system with a lot less standard wargame rules and simply a sandbox level of rules on which to build bespoke rules for the strangest things the galaxy has to offer. 8th/9th edition system is vastly superior to 5th/7th in the scope of Warhammer 40K, because it isn't tailor cut on the concept of human modern warfare. This makes it an inferior system for Horus Heresy and similar more "Standard" wargames, which in fact kept going on with 7th edition rules.

Faster to play, less to remember (especially about the enemy), more on table tactical play (tricky with current model density and smaller tables). But at this point this comment and many others here kinda reveals we should be playing a different game...

 Blndmage wrote:


You're really being aggressive.
Knock it off with the attacks.

Nonono, you see THEY'RE the ones being attacked. /s




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

Because we know they can be implemented. The people that dislike USR have also been quiet for this thread, but they do exist. I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.

People that dislike USRs actually dislike GW's implementation of them. That was obvious in the many many many threads about bringing back USRs

Spoletta wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

5th/7th edition was a nice system for a standard medieval sci-fi wargame, with armor facings, challenges, blast templates, pinning and so on.

Too bad that as soon as someone remembered that they were playing 40K and not Horus Heresy, and wanted to know how to make a croissant shaped vehicle and a big bug fit in all that... the system simply crumbled to dust.

It isn't a case that the worst xeno dexes were made in that era. Seriously, raveners suffering from deepstrike failures???

8th/9th edition created a system with a lot less standard wargame rules and simply a sandbox level of rules on which to build bespoke rules for the strangest things the galaxy has to offer. 8th/9th edition system is vastly superior to 5th/7th in the scope of Warhammer 40K, because it isn't tailor cut on the concept of human modern warfare. This makes it an inferior system for Horus Heresy and similar more "Standard" wargames, which in fact kept going on with 7th edition rules.

Disagree completely. Both versions are great and work fine, 8th/9th has just as much problems as 5th and 7th (not 6th, 6th was insanely bad) and both are playing the game so differently you can't say 1 is better within bias, the person that likes blasts, facing, usrs, and many of the things older editions brought will much prefer it over 8th style. And bc 8/9 th are so simple you have insane rules bloat anyways bc they have to keep adding more and more rules to already rules (see remain stations, see teleporting, see etc... many rules literally have 8-12 extra rules to them bc they didnt address them in other steps of the game correctly). Personally I want a mix style of 9th, 5th, and 7th. Bring back USRs, Fast skimmer (with modifiers) for flyers, actually write rules instead of clips of rules and 100+ amendments later, remove stratagems, make relics cost points not CP to actually balance them, have unit types in rules again to balance MC/Vehicles better vs str 2 attacking a Land raider, can only kill what you can see would really help. But i dont want remove pre measuring, no challenges, gun can only shoot forward crap (its a dynamic setting being played stationary, I like how we can shoot any direction now bc it shows the game state is on a dynamic battlefield).

Also xenos was the strongest armies in 7th, wtf do you mean they were the worst, I guess TauDar wasn't a think lol? In 5th sure CWE was weaker but Necrons at the last bit was insanely strong, Orks and DE was pretty good too, GKs were the only "marine" army that was over the top, as well as CSM was pretty good.

I never said "weakest", I said "Worst".

Spoletta wrote:
I never said "weakest", I said "Worst".

5th DE was amazing, 7th CWE was good, 7th Corsairs is IMO one of the best books ever made. 7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to, Necrons 5th was insanely good. Sure some like 5th CWE and old Tau were meh but over all Xenos were not in the worst state from 5th-7th.

Spoletta wrote:
Please don't let it be a reset.
The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

A 10th edition should just adjust a bit the terrain rules and reshape (again) morale rules. That's it, don't touch anything else please.

Transports, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to

No one in their right mind would claim that 7th was the best for orks. Anyone who does so can safely be discarded as a troll.

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Please don't let it be a reset.
The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

A 10th edition should just adjust a bit the terrain rules and reshape (again) morale rules. That's it, don't touch anything else please.

Transports, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to

No one in their right mind would claim that 7th was the best for orks. Anyone who does so can safely be discarded as a troll.

Greentide made a lot of people very happy. And some of the builds were really fun. A couple Doubles events I went to had a lot of happy ork players. Yes it was for sure controversial why I said it depends who you talk to

I wouldn’t mind seeing things slimmed down overall.

But, as someone getting into Heresy properly, I must say I prefer 40k’s unit entries, where their weapons are listed in the unit entry. As you’re learning the options open to to you it’s easier to contrast and compare, so I’d like to see that retained.

I think the game would survive without Stratagems myself, but perhaps see it more reigned in as whilst the execution is flawed, I’m not entirely convinced the concept is flawed.

But more than anything? Put the damned background back in the damned Codecies. I want to know the curious quirks that send a Necron gone all Destroyer to a particular wing of the Destroyer Cult. Amongst other things.

Rules be damned. 40K stands on its background.

nemesis464 wrote:


Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.

Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

It did have its own share of crippling issues, like a very blatant and yet inconsistent codex creep. Like forget about changing the codex paradigm mid edition, authors changed their own codex design from book to book. I mean, look at the 5th ed IG codex and then look at the 5th ed Tyranid codex, made by the same author and the nid codex even came later, yet the nid codex has none of the tricks people loved the IG one for (and obviously none of the power). This is also back when GW utterly refused to FAQ even the most blatant writing errors or revalue point costs: the Vendetta was broken at 130pts, and then became even more broken when it became aircraft in 6th, GW didn't change its point cost until the next codex.

That isn't to say there aren't great things in 5th, its core rules are in general quite good, but at the balance level the current 9th edition is definitely better.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wouldn’t mind seeing things slimmed down overall.

But, as someone getting into Heresy properly, I must say I prefer 40k’s unit entries, where their weapons are listed in the unit entry. As you’re learning the options open to to you it’s easier to contrast and compare, so I’d like to see that retained.

I think the game would survive without Stratagems myself, but perhaps see it more reigned in as whilst the execution is flawed, I’m not entirely convinced the concept is flawed.

But more than anything? Put the damned background back in the damned Codecies. I want to know the curious quirks that send a Necron gone all Destroyer to a particular wing of the Destroyer Cult. Amongst other things.

Rules be damned. 40K stands on its background.

hard disagree on padding codexes with lore.

release one small, cheap book with the rules only
release another one with the lore only

Spoletta wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

5th/7th edition was a nice system for a standard medieval sci-fi wargame, with armor facings, challenges, blast templates, pinning and so on.

Too bad that as soon as someone remembered that they were playing 40K and not Horus Heresy, and wanted to know how to make a croissant shaped vehicle and a big bug fit in all that... the system simply crumbled to dust.

It isn't a case that the worst xeno dexes were made in that era. Seriously, raveners suffering from deepstrike failures???

8th/9th edition created a system with a lot less standard wargame rules and simply a sandbox level of rules on which to build bespoke rules for the strangest things the galaxy has to offer. 8th/9th edition system is vastly superior to 5th/7th in the scope of Warhammer 40K, because it isn't tailor cut on the concept of human modern warfare. This makes it an inferior system for Horus Heresy and similar more "Standard" wargames, which in fact kept going on with 7th edition rules.

The only thing inferior to 7th as a ruleset is 6th, I don't care what you're using it for.

Also, half of the mechanics you described were just stupid. They didn't actually make the game more 'simulation like'. They didn't make it 'more like actual warfare' and they certainly didn't add any gameplay depth.

Challenges aren't a 'wargaming' thing, they're an idiot thing. Challenges are one of the dumbest mechanics warhammer has ever included and you can tell that because they had to rewrite them every edition because they always broke something while never managing to add anything to the game. It wasn't 'tactical' to declare a challenge with your combat character so your opponent's sergeant with power fist is guaranteed not to attack, it's just a 'win more' rule that discourages taking any equipment on a sergeant at all.

Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.

ERJAK wrote:


Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.

lol, the implementation might have been stupid but vehicle facing are definitely not a stupid mechanic

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I never said "weakest", I said "Worst".

5th DE was amazing, 7th CWE was good, 7th Corsairs is IMO one of the best books ever made. 7th Orks was either the best or the worst depending on who you talk to, Necrons 5th was insanely good. Sure some like 5th CWE and old Tau were meh but over all Xenos were not in the worst state from 5th-7th.

7th CWE was good because they were so busted over the top powerful that you could play a literal 50% handicap against MOST armies at the time and still win (on release, codexes after that time crept enough that eventually CWE were only TIED for best faction in the game with Chaos Daemons/Soup at the end of the edition). That codex is responsible for anti-eldar sentiment we still see today.

7th Orkz was awful. 7th anything that wasn't Marines, Chaos soup, or CWE was awful. Even Tau wasn't GOOD, people just hated Riptide wing.

 catbarf wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.

Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.

Okay, here's a basic concept I just made up. I'm sure it could be refined further.

Roll 2D6, add your ballistic skill, add the number of shots being fired. Compare to the target's modified Defense (including cover). If the total equals the target's Defense, inflict a hit, and then an additional hit for every 2 points the target's Defense is exceeded by, up to the number of shots fired.

Your squad of five BS4 Terminators, with two shots apiece, fires on a squad of Ork Boyz in cover with a modified Defense of 12. You roll 2D6 and score a 7, so add it to your combined BS+shots of 14, and total 21. You've beaten the Orks' Defense so score a hit, and beat it by 9, so dividing in half and rounding down gives you an extra 4 hits. 5 hits total and you're done.

So you roll exactly two dice and perform elementary school arithmetic and come out with 5 hits. Is the outcome statistically identical to treating each shot as an isolated process like 40K currently does? No. Is that a requirement for a good game? Also no. Moving on.

Blanket statements about what dice types work for what scale of game are silly- it's all about implementation. You can use D20s in a mass battle game (Starship Troopers) or D6s in a crunchy simulationist wargame (anything by Avalon Hill) or mixed dice pools of different types and colors (Fireball Forward) or even D3s for everything (Dust). Mechanics matter, not how many faces are on the polyhedral shapes you're throwing or how many are used at once.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.
Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.

Seen the Blast rule recently?

Yeah and the blast rules need a giant rework.

Also can't believe you posted that as an idea LOL. That's pretty bad and doesn't scale well.

Y'all need to stop trying to make 2d6 happen, it's not going to happen nor should it.

 Tyran wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:


Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.

Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

It did have its own share of crippling issues, like a very blatant and yet inconsistent codex creep. Like forget about changing the codex paradigm mid edition, authors changed their own codex design from book to book. I mean, look at the 5th ed IG codex and then look at the 5th ed Tyranid codex, made by the same author and the nid codex even came later, yet the nid codex has none of the tricks people loved the IG one for (and obviously none of the power). This is also back when GW utterly refused to FAQ even the most blatant writing errors or revalue point costs: the Vendetta was broken at 130pts, and then became even more broken when it became aircraft in 6th, GW didn't change its point cost until the next codex.

That isn't to say there aren't great things in 5th, its core rules are in general quite good, but at the balance level the current 9th edition is definitely better.

I liked it more also bc my DE codex was fuller and felt better. Yeah had some imbalances like really over costed Scourges for one, but it was also 8 more units. Also Combat Patrol was insanely good compare to any other edition.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wouldn’t mind seeing things slimmed down overall.

But, as someone getting into Heresy properly, I must say I prefer 40k’s unit entries, where their weapons are listed in the unit entry. As you’re learning the options open to to you it’s easier to contrast and compare, so I’d like to see that retained.

I think the game would survive without Stratagems myself, but perhaps see it more reigned in as whilst the execution is flawed, I’m not entirely convinced the concept is flawed.

But more than anything? Put the damned background back in the damned Codecies. I want to know the curious quirks that send a Necron gone all Destroyer to a particular wing of the Destroyer Cult. Amongst other things.

Rules be damned. 40K stands on its background.

hard disagree on padding codexes with lore.

release one small, cheap book with the rules only
release another one with the lore only

Fair opinion, but I’d argue that 40K is nothing without the Lore, and it’s all indivisible. I’m not demanding 90% fluff, 10% rules. Just a page or so for each unit or Cult type thing, to give some flavour and possibly spark inspiration. Because a Codex is not and should never be simply a rulebook. Each has to sell its faction and the setting.

I genuinely look back at the gutting of 40K that was 3rd Ed and shudder. Yes 2nd Ed needed a big old diet, but baby went out with the bath water. Though I will say that opinion is possibly magnified because Dark Eldar were entirely new, second out of the gate, and had precious little background for people to key into or even read up on in older volumes. Add in Pretty Crappy Models, even for the era (especially compared to the Tactical Squad set which has seen only minimal tweaking since) and it was a bad scene man.

 Tyran wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:


Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.

No, the nostalgic argument doesn’t work when you see how hated 6th Ed was just a year or two later.

That isn't to say there aren't great things in 5th, its core rules are in general quite good, but at the balance level the current 9th edition is definitely better.

I agree with this though, the Codex balance at the end of 5th Ed was a mess. IG were a particular outlier though, early and mid 5th Ed had decent balance imo if you put IG to one side. It was the later years of the edition with Grey Knights etc that the balance completely collapsed.

nemesis464 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:


Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.

No, the nostalgic argument doesn’t work when you see how hated 6th Ed was just a year or two later.

My area at the time loved 6th. Not sure where this notion came from.
7th now... 6.1 errata edition deserves all its hate and then some for the minuscule changes, the broken magic phase imported without real change from the worst period in Fantasy, plus army books and formations.

Yeah, the edition that was only around for 2 years because it was SOOOO good was beloved by all.

Further thoughts on “no background in the Codex”. Apologies in advance to VladimirHerzog as whilst I’m addressing their post, I’m not having a go at them specifically.

If you take out the background, you lose vital context about the army. And that can lead to people complaining Tau can’t really do HTH, Dark Eldar fold like a cheap suit if they fight on equal terms, why aren’t my Guardsmen as good as X etc.

The background is vital to the game. What looks like a tactical deficiency that needs covering is explained, in-universe.

The background invites greatest personal investment, well beyond simple financial investment.

The insane depth of the background is what keeps 40k afloat edition after edition after edition. The background provides in-universe framing for what’s what and what isn’t. Look at literally any online discussion, and it’s the background that’s used to explain and/or justify suggestions for new units or rule improvements.

And it always has been. Always. A given range’s rules or models might be cack. But if the background is there, it can sustain interest until the other problem is fixed. People get super passionate about their favourite 40K army less because of rules or models, but because there’s something in that army’s background that seriously tickles their pickle.

40K without the background is Diet Irn Bru. It might look the part. It might, superficially, have the same fizz and sparkle. But one swig and you’re straight into Flavourless Street via Disappointment Alley. It’s not the same. Sure the sugar doesn’t seem necessarily, but leave it out and it’s just so not the same it’s not even funny.

Voss wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:


Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Because nostalgia, or because they are IG players and want parking lot planet back.

No, the nostalgic argument doesn’t work when you see how hated 6th Ed was just a year or two later.

My area at the time loved 6th. Not sure where this notion came from.
7th now... 6.1 errata edition deserves all its hate and then some for the minuscule changes, the broken magic phase imported without real change from the worst period in Fantasy, plus army books and formations.

Bc 6th was terrible lol, maybe you didnt really get a chance to see it all with it only being out for 2yrs and 7th was just a better version of it till they f'ed it up.

Jink was worst and ignore cover stopped it, you could kill guys inside vehicles (Yeah for DE vehicles literally not being playable), speaking of vehicles the new HP system wasn't dialed in yet and was just bad, 2++ and FnP units like no other bc Powers were broken (even compare to 7th), Unlimited OW (yes it was unlimited) while still having to pull casualties from the front still on top of Disorderly charges, Allies where really broken even compare to 7th, Flyers were beyond broken, you had to Snap shoot them (only hit on 6's) and there really wasn't anti-air guns yet, so you had Flyer spam (6 Flyrants, 3 Heldrakes, etc...).

Basically melee and many vehicles were 100% dead, just bring support death stars with powers and flyers.

What about a digital codex? GW can still print physical copies, and require physical copies at events, but a digital copy for all the dirty casuals that will never accidentally step over into Competitive 40k, and just want to have fun with friends?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What about a digital codex? GW can still print physical copies, and require physical copies at events, but a digital copy for all the dirty casuals that will never accidentally step over into Competitive 40k, and just want to have fun with friends?

I kind of wish they'd bring the pdfs or ebooks back. If they really want to have this quick release cadence for every year I'd rather not buy physical product just to throw it away in a year or two.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What about a digital codex? GW can still print physical copies, and require physical copies at events, but a digital copy for all the dirty casuals that will never accidentally step over into Competitive 40k, and just want to have fun with friends?

I'd go with this but change the bindings on the codex books. Rules including codex books should be fully digital, and updates, errata, FAQs should be applied directly to the digital books, but hard copies should still be available, but rather than as a book, as a ring binger. This way Erratas, FAQs and updates can be issued as downloadable pdfs that can be printed out and inserted into the ring binder, replacing the obsolete page completely.

If GW were smart they would include digital codexes with their Warhammer+ crap.

 Tyran wrote:
If GW were smart they would include digital codexes with their Warhammer+ crap.

If GW was smart they'd probably be the Disney of tabletop games and we'd all only be playing Asmodee or GW games so thank god thats not the case.