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.

Dai wrote:
Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.

You want to go back to 2nd Ed's close combat rules?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dai wrote:
Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.

You want to go back to 2nd Ed's close combat rules?

I have fond memories of 2nd edition. Melee is NOT one of them.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.

It's a lot less of an issue if your faction is almost exclusively made up of METAHL BAWKSES, which *checks your signature* seems to be true for you. Play any Eldar, Necron, T'au?

still not an issue since you have an easy center of mass (base connector) from which to start your facings (or GW could add a diagram on the datasheet)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd like to see the rule that said a weapon had to be able to "see" the target before it could shoot. If you can't line up the barrel of the weapon with the target you shouldn't be able to use that weapon against that target. If the vehicle is supposed to have a turret, or whatever arc of fire, but the owner glued it in place then the weapon could still fire in its intended field of fire. No more tanks firing through their own hulls or using antennae to fire from. Then, at least, the facing of the vehicle matters for the person moving the vehicle.

I wouldn't tie it to the actual LoS of the weapon, i'd rather just tie to a facing, that way it doesn't affect players doing conversions for example.

like, a quad las predator could have :

Lascannon (Left)
Lascannon (Right)
Twin lascannon (Turret)

with "turret" allowing you to shoot in any facing

Been playing since 2nd edition and I was elated when they removed vehicle facings. It was a GOOD decision to remove them.

Also, not having to draw LoS from the vehicles weapon to the target was another GOOD change.

I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.

 oni wrote:
...I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.

Could you point me to this "better game play" that you speak of?

Nothing in 9th is superior to 3rd-7th core rules.

 oni wrote:
I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.

As I said in my previous post, I've been playing with facings a lot lately. I've been playing without facings as well for a couple years. Facings as well as the armour value system do give the game a very different and imho better feel overall. For me, the better gameplay contains AV.

I see the point of facings. I never will see the point of the AV system.

Making an entirely different wounding system seems like bad rule writing.

 Tyran wrote:
I see the point of facings. I never will see the point of the AV system.

Making an entirely different wounding system seems like bad rule writing.

thats just the implementation of GW once again.

Making the ass of a tank weaker can be anything from +1 damage to +1 to wound to +1AP to anything else

I'd really like GW to break the mold and do the unthinkable. Hire an Ork player to write ork rules so that way we aren't left with rules which sound good for a SM but are utter garbage for an Ork army. I know, asking too much but hey we can hope right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dai wrote:
Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.

You want to go back to 2nd Ed's close combat rules?

not with the current model count!

Even back in the day i thought they should adopt WHFB combat system which they eventually pretty much did. 2nd edition combat is fine for necromunda/gorkamorka etc

Someone in here STOP whispering theories to Auspex tactics. Every time someone in here posts an idea, they make a video about it possibly happening.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Someone in here STOP whispering theories to Auspex tactics. Every time someone in here posts an idea, they make a video about it possibly happening.

gotta get content somehow when you're shoveling daily vids

 oni wrote:
Been playing since 2nd edition and I was elated when they removed vehicle facings. It was a GOOD decision to remove them.

Also, not having to draw LoS from the vehicles weapon to the target was another GOOD change.

I encourage everyone to consider and try to fully understand... Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your sacred cow for better game play.

I don't think anyone is going to get it.
Declaring something good without offering even a speck of reason as to why isn't particularly convincing.

On the other hand, LOS from vehicle weapons rather than the corners and attachments seems obviously superior. The vehicle feels like its dealing with terrain in a functional way rather than being easily replaced by a game chit on graph paper. The current vehicle parking lots tucked sideways against board edges and shooting the entire table is a gameplay atrocity. You're going to need a long and extremely well-reasoned argument as to why that should be considered a 'good change'

As someone who just got the CSM codex, I welcome a whole new reset if they meet the following criteria for the entirety of the edition:

- They show restraint to Power Creep (Don't give us some codexes with high swing damage and then start to make a trend with consistent damage output). Don't make an overproliferation to damage output which started us on the road to where we are now in which many lists just boil down to overproliferation of damge output Vs. Forced Wound rolls.

- Get rid of strats or make them some sort of psudo-abilities from the politics board from ASOIAF game.

- Treat Morale as an actual factor in the game rather than bloat it out of the Game with a proliferation of hard-counter Morale rules. Let players have more use for tactics beyond "shoot, buff/debuff, whack".

They meet these criteria and I'll happily welcome a new edition!

Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.

Bring back armor values, make all flyers count as skimmers, charge out of vehicles, bring back templates, no more random rolls for most things, get rid of stratagems, command points, formations, etc.

Go back to the old FOC, 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, HS, and Elites, and THAT'S IT.

No named/special characters in games under 2K points and not in tournament plays, or without opponent's permission. Keep special named characters in narrative one off stuff.

Leadership fails make people run away and bring back old school sweeping advance of catch and kill.

Remove Titans, Grey Knights, and Custodes from the main game. (But that's really just personal wish.) Except in small support units to SM, IG, Sisters, etc.

Fold demons back in with CSM and bring back the old school summoning and greater daemon popping out of champions rules.

Rules for all armies in the main rulebook, like 3rd edition did, and make it a point of emphasis to not need 10 books to run one army.

Paperback, SMALL codexes.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.

Bring back armor values, make all flyers count as skimmers, charge out of vehicles, bring back templates, no more random rolls for most things, get rid of stratagems, command points, formations, etc.

Go back to the old FOC, 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 FA, HS, and Elites, and THAT'S IT.

No named/special characters in games under 2K points and not in tournament plays, or without opponent's permission. Keep special named characters in narrative one off stuff.

Leadership fails make people run away and bring back old school sweeping advance of catch and kill.

Remove Titans, Grey Knights, and Custodes from the main game. (But that's really just personal wish.) Except in small support units to SM, IG, Sisters, etc.

Fold demons back in with CSM and bring back the old school summoning and greater daemon popping out of champions rules.

Rules for all armies in the main rulebook, like 3rd edition did, and make it a point of emphasis to not need 10 books to run one army.

Paperback, SMALL codexes.

Old FoC needs to have a way to add more slots no matter what at this point.

The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I see the point of facings. I never will see the point of the AV system.

Making an entirely different wounding system seems like bad rule writing.

thats just the implementation of GW once again.

Making the ass of a tank weaker can be anything from +1 damage to +1 to wound to +1AP to anything else

This. Warmachine's grid system on warjacks was a great way of representing both the various systems involved in a vehicle, disabling them and the varied armour over the vehicle/robot.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.

If 3rd ed was perfect for you then why wouldn't you just want a reprint and have a different game for those that want it? Is it that you want to play with Primaris in 3rd?

 Jidmah wrote:
The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

Could have a "if you have X-Y vehicles or monsters you get this bonus" "if you have X-Y flyers you get this bonus" "if you have X-Y characters you get this bonus" and so on.

Not exactly what I was envisioning, but sure, why not?
The vehicle and monster keywords aren't really granular enough for this to work though, it would need some extra effort to function properly.

I just don't see a point why you would be prevented from bringing a deff dread because your army already has 10 lootas, 5 flash gits and a battlewagon.

But maybe some stuff could cost different depending on how much you take of it. Not everything, but lets say you want to play with 5 hive tyrants or 5 bloodthirsters. Awesome, the 5th one will cost 200% pts of the first one.

Could make some troop options, or less optimal options worth taking. Maybe this vehicle is not as good as the best of the best, but its second version cost 5-10% more and not 25%.

Squadrons could have fixed costs too. You could even do it for weapon options. A single lascanon in an IG squad is worth not much. It misses 50% of the time, with no debuffs. But 10 lastalons, I am assuming here that they are something you actualy want to take, should cost something else. Ah and there should be no, gates so instead of taking one 10man squad with weapon X, you take 3 each one with 3 weapons etc.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Just revert back to 3rd ed. when they had everything fairly right on the money.
Remove Titans, Grey Knights, and Custodes from the main game. (But that's really just personal wish.) Except in small support units to SM, IG, Sisters, etc.

I'm curious (as I always am when I see this kind of opinion) how would you redistribute them? Would you roll Inquisition back into grey-knights and Sisters and have them like that? Or wipe them entirely? What about Custodes? etc.

I guess the problem is I wouldn't change much. 9th's core rules with a further balanced version of the 8th edition codexes. Basically roll things back to about May/June 2019 (i.e. before SM 2.0), and imagine everything that came after was a dream.

I certainly wouldn't bring back the old FOC, because its incredibly limiting on how you build an army. This made sort of sense 15 years ago - but the model range is far higher, the average points cost of stuff has tended to fall (although not in all circumstances I admit).

I'm unclear facings or AV add anything to the game. I could make see facings meaning something if movement was very different to how it is now. I don't think they add anything in an IGOUGO system. I feel templates, unintuitive LOS rules and so on that just fueled arguments for decades are completely unnecessary and not good for the game.

I can see the argument for making movement the core of "decision" and in turn "skill" in the game (I mean it is already but even more so). But I feel that requires changing the game from "a unit is at most going to get to make 5 moves, assuming it didn't die/get tied up in combat." Which in turn means completely redesigning the game from the ground up.

Yeah imagine primaris being unplayable, to a point of playing team meaning, you take 2 HQs, 15 scouts and fill the entire rest of the army with the good stuff, like IG, knights etc.
Nothing makes the game generate more happy buyers wanting to spend more, then that. Specialy when they are the majority of your buyers.

Tyel wrote:


I certainly wouldn't bring back the old FOC, because its incredibly limiting on how you build an army. This made sort of sense 15 years ago - but the model range is far higher, the average points cost of stuff has tended to fall (although not in all circumstances I admit).

So aside from the usual "change in a vacuum" thing these discussions always bring up, why are limitations a bad thing?

Most armies, specialy the new ones that never existed under the old FoC system, are not created to function under the 2xHQs, 6xTroops, 3xeverything else.

It wouldn't just require the rewriting of a FoC, but rewriting entire books. Which by GW standards means the non old FoC armies would be, maybe, ready for the new FoC games in 2 editions.

 Jidmah wrote:
The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

straight up remove the FoC IMO

I liked Warhammer Fantasy's Force Organization, but Core was much, much more broad than Troops.

I also like Infinity's Availability, where you can only take a certain amount of each unit, and subfactions change the Availability of units.

 Jidmah wrote:
The old FOC did not solve any problems, quite the opposite.

I'd rather see elite, fast attack and heavy support slots going away and be replaced by a new "you can't have infinite amounts of these" slot.

It's not like those slots have any meaning anymore, GW just assigns them to units at random.

So like 2nd edition's percentages? IIRC you needed like 50% of your troops (which included like Terminators and Assault Squads, so wasn't just "Troops" in the sense of today), and then I think it was 25% in support and 25% in characters, and some armies (e.g. Marines) could get 25% of allies (e.g. Guard)

I always felt that was fine. "Troops" encompassed enough to have plenty of themed armies, and the percentages meant you couldn't skew hard into some other things.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


I also like Infinity's Availability, where you can only take a certain amount of each unit, and subfactions change the Availability of units.

Yeah thats a much better system that actually allows to control how many of a spammy unit you see depending on how good it is

Instead of adding layers of rules to say you can't bring more than X of a specific unit, they could just change the availability of that unit instead.
They could make Leman Russ AVA 9 to get rid of the useless squadron rules too for example.