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'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists. Blocks on 100 "points' and so on for unit costs or keep it single and double digits, what ever.
I no longer see the point to points as we knew them.

The only thing I'm hoping for is a return to 1500 as the standard not 2000.

We play 1.5k currently. I notice my lists are about the same size as 2k from 7th.


Anyway my quick wishlist for 10th:

Reduce heavy weapon spam.
Reduce invulns and availability.
Limit invulns to 4++.
Nerf storm shields similarly and limit access.
Reduce mortal wound access.
Cap cover saves for heavily armoured model (no 1+ save equivalents).
Make anti infantry weapons more meaningful (which some of the above might do).
Basically dial back the polar ends of lethality and durability.
And don't fuk it up again.
Thats my list.

dominuschao wrote:
Limit invulns to 4++.

GW have largely already done this, I'd actually like GW to revert some of the changes, like to storm shields and Canoptek Wraiths, why don't you like 3++?

 oni wrote:

Ditch this points per model nonsense that allows for weird unit sizes. For example a SM Tactical quad should only ever be 5 or 10 models. Pay X points for 5, pay another X points for 5 more.

Because Marine units never take casualties in groups of less than five. And never break squads to crew Landspeeders etc...

Also every other race organises their units along the same lines as Marines. 'Well no, Timmy, you can't take twelve Ork Boyz. Because that's not divisible by five!'

 warhead01 wrote:
I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists. Blocks on 100 "points' and so on for unit costs or keep it single and double digits, what ever.
I no longer see the point to points as we knew them.

I would like to see this as well, and have suggested it in other places.
It really is where GW seems to want to go, and even half says it with how you just put down what you think is best for the game.
It’s actually weird how often they seem to get close and not get it!
May actually force them to work out what flamers and such are often dead upgrades outside of specific things.
But I do think special and heavy should be a upgrade, you pay to have a side board of options.
Since I actually like my all bolter marine units, they are neat!
And it’s supposed to be a competent weapon choice for a unit, we should try and keep that.

 warhead01 wrote:
I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.

When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.

Apple fox wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.

When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.

What you mean to say is that players without every option magnetised from previous editions would have their collections instantly become much worse because they wouldn't get any benefit. Feth that.

 vict0988 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.

When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.

What you mean to say is that players without every option magnetised from previous editions would have their collections instantly become much worse because they wouldn't get any benefit. Feth that.

So normal, and we still have issues with GW invalidated collections outside of casual play all the time!

But, we don’t have to abide strict model to rules. Special weapon can just be special weapon, heavy can represent as well.
Other games manage this just fine, tournament and strict play can be a exception.
We do have to concede a little that this hobby does have a bit of a progressive costs, and expanding a collection a little shouldn’t be outside of the hobby.

 vict0988 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.

When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.

What you mean to say is that players without every option magnetised from previous editions would have their collections instantly become much worse because they wouldn't get any benefit. Feth that.

No, I think that's an overreaction. A sideboard like that as either counts as or physical models should give new players a slightly better game experience against stronger players or tougher armies. But I am assuming that having a fighting chance will give a new player the warm and fuzzies and less anxiety about building their models "the wrong way".
So I feel like this is a small leg up at best for new players but less meaning full as it gets into competitive play circles. Top level players who win on skill alone would probably still win over a poorly played tailored list. But you're of course free to disagree.

The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.

You can also do different side boarding rules if needed.
Demons are already a weird case, but they could expand heralds design space on the battlefield.
And the demons troops need upgrades anyway, give em some cool stuff!

 warhead01 wrote:


No, I think that's an overreaction. A sideboard like that as either counts as or physical models should give new players a slightly better game experience against stronger players or tougher armies. But I am assuming that having a fighting chance will give a new player the warm and fuzzies and less anxiety about building their models "the wrong way".
So I feel like this is a small leg up at best for new players but less meaning full as it gets into competitive play circles. Top level players who win on skill alone would probably still win over a poorly played tailored list. But you're of course free to disagree.

It is not much a leg up unless GW decides to give you side board options you want to take. If GW designs the codex to be played in one specific way, but you like other models, then you get double tapped. Once by GW for not playing the army the right way and the other, with not really having a sideboard options, when your opponent may very much have. This way even without an optimised build he will be able to tailor against you, while you can't do a thing about it. And for armies without actual unit options or unit options worth taking this becomes a downgrade straight out.

Karol wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:


No, I think that's an overreaction. A sideboard like that as either counts as or physical models should give new players a slightly better game experience against stronger players or tougher armies. But I am assuming that having a fighting chance will give a new player the warm and fuzzies and less anxiety about building their models "the wrong way".
So I feel like this is a small leg up at best for new players but less meaning full as it gets into competitive play circles. Top level players who win on skill alone would probably still win over a poorly played tailored list. But you're of course free to disagree.

It is not much a leg up unless GW decides to give you side board options you want to take. If GW designs the codex to be played in one specific way, but you like other models, then you get double tapped. Once by GW for not playing the army the right way and the other, with not really having a sideboard options, when your opponent may very much have. This way even without an optimised build he will be able to tailor against you, while you can't do a thing about it. And for armies without actual unit options or unit options worth taking this becomes a downgrade straight out.

It's not much of a leg up is right. It's more about having the choice as much as deciding to use it. And there will be layers to that based on the player, their collection size and their faction.
But the goal is less about winning and more about having a better time and or a better showing. A player who just shows up and gets their face wrecked every time is not likely to keep playing. I guess in a way this would create an illusion of a fighting chance but who can really say. And it will vary from player to player how they use such an option. Sideboards could be governed and not a free for all if need be but that might be largely irrelevant based on how it's presented. As you say the game tells you what you should be doing and in some editions it basically tells you which units to field.
On your other point about unit options and which factions have them to choose or choose from, well that's a fair point and several people have said the same. That said I also think it's more of an opportunity for GW to make more models with more options for those factions. More daemons with new and more exotic daemon weapon stuffs and unit champions ect.
I realize GW is fairly lazy now days so I would keep my expectation low but they could surprise us with something very cool. Never know.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Upping points values to increase granularity is fine in theory, but it sort of assumes that GW is good enough at assigning points values for the extra granularity to matter. I'm pretty bad at painting harlequin diamonds. Regardless of whether you give me a Walmart brush or a teeny tiny high-end detail brush, my harlequins' "diamond" pattern isn't going to look very geometric in nature.

A few wishlist items from me:
* Get rid of some of the "layers" of rules. Juggling purity bonuses, subfaction bonuses, stratagems, unit rules, and psychic powers all at once is a bit draining.
* Fewer "kill better" rules; more rules to allow and reward maneuvering.
* I want subfaction/army style rules that make your army play *differently* instead of just making it more killy.
* Reduce the number of objectives at play in a given mission. A primary and 3 secondaries per player is 7 objectives to keep in mind at once. That's too many for my poor brain to juggle, and too many to build much of a narrative around.
* Kind of want a to-wound table closer to the old one. The current one is quirky in a bad way.
* Generally, I'd like the game to encourage play with fewer units at a time. The current 2,000 point games are too big for my taste. Give me something closer to 1,000 or 1,500.
* Kind of done with stratagems, to be honest. I'd be fine with them going away entirely and/or replacing them with something closer to Sigmar command abilities.
* I miss the variety of cool wargear options we used to have. Bring back customizable characters.
* Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.
* Probably ditch relics. Just give us back cool wargear (with a 0-1 limit as necessary).
* Support for thematic/narrative-centric games. Crusade was great, but it could be improved.
* Get rid of the force org chart/detachments (seems like they are?).
* Some sort of cumulative penalty for taking difficult shots. Doesn't necessarily have to be a stacking modifier to the to-hit roll; could be reduced range if the target is too hard to hit, a penalty to the to-hit roll reflect the difficulty of placing a significant shot, a reduction in the number of shots you get, etc. Just something so that a devastator has a reason to hold still if he's shooting at something wearing camouflage.

^Pretty much what he said.

 vict0988 wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
Limit invulns to 4++.

GW have largely already done this, I'd actually like GW to revert some of the changes, like to storm shields and Canoptek Wraiths, why don't you like 3++?

I believe that type of save is bad for balance and promotes mortal wounds which are also bad in a similar way. 3++ limited to hammernators though ya maybe.
And then there is the fact that CSM won't ever get them.

Honestly after playing with pretty much every chapter for so many years I finally moved on for good. My opinion is marines are bad for the game. Vital in some sense maybe but still bad. Our best metas have been without any loyalists.

And no offense to anyone just my experiences..

I can get behind most of Wyldhunt's list, but there are a few points worth discussing.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Reduce the number of objectives at play in a given mission. A primary and 3 secondaries per player is 7 objectives to keep in mind at once. That's too many for my poor brain to juggle, and too many to build much of a narrative around.

As a Crusader, I've never bothered looking at Secondaries, though I'm sure Agendas are somewhat similar. In Crusade, they're decoupled from victory conditions, so choosing to pursue them rather than the victory conditions is VERY narrative. And some of the Agendas are quite fluffy. Some of the BRB secondaries that I looked at early in the game where fluffy too. I think the problem with linking them to victory is that you pick the ones that are easy to achieve in order to win, so even if there are cool ones, you never pick them.

Also, remember secondaries are based on game size, so if you drop below 2k, it becomes two secondaries.... But again, you have to play in an environment where this is possible.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

The current 2,000 point games are too big for my taste. Give me something closer to 1,000 or 1,500.

Why is this a wishlist item? Even Matched Play missions are designed to work at 1k - 2k, and Boarding Patrol is 500?

If your store insists on only running 2k, or your friends only play 2k, GW can give it to you in the next edition, but if you didn't play it this edition, you probably won't play it next edition either.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.

GW is messing with psychic powers in the new ed in a big way, and it's got me nervous. In some ways it's likely to be more boring- much of what has been said about it leads me to believe psychic abilities are on the datacard, which would mean they're assigned to the unit rather than chosen by the player. At the same time, some elements of the new system sound more dynamic- there is no psychic phase, so different abilities are used in different phases.

To address your suggestions though:

Psychic tests carry with them the potential for Perils. Now I know, usually Perils is just mortal wounds, but I think there are other abilities that key off Perils or modify it. We use it in narrative ways- against GK if the Nemesis Daemon unit was excluded from the game, we let the player reroll every time there's a perils roll to see if it gates in. We've also had players add Daemon units to their Crusades post battle after Perils Attacks to represent the Manifested Daemon remaining behind.

As for Deny the Witch, it's a big part of the game for Sisters, Inquisition scenarios, SoS.

And keep in mind that for some factions, Ksons, GK, some Eldar builds.... Psychic abilities ARE their fluff.... Their ability to play their army the way they want.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Probably ditch relics. Just give us back cool wargear (with a 0-1 limit as necessary).

Relics too are great narrative hooks. They don't cost points, so we sometimes key relics to take-and-hold mission primary objectives: control it in the last turn, and the relic is won. In Crusade, relics are even cooler because they are keyed to experience levels. Finding a Legendary relic with a fresh Crusade is a sick narrative hook- in Chaos armies, champions compete to be worthy of it, leading to a nice twist for the Leadership Challenge Mechanics. In other armies, you'd struggle to maintain possession of the item without the ability to wield it- especially good for map based campaigns.

Many relics also have histories too, which provides insight for designing historical battles.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Get rid of the force org chart/detachments (seems like they are?).

Detachments too are excellent narrative tools. An army's detachment structure is like a unit's battlefield role (something else that may be going). These things are meant to provide an identity, and the various detachments are designed for specific purposes. In a raid our pursuit scenario, I'm taking Outriders every time. If I'm laying siege to something, it's going to be a Spearhead.

I've seen people praise earlier editions because Planet Strike gave attackers an extra elite choice and defenders an extra heavy choice or whatever... When we've got detachments sitting right there and people don't use them to their full potential.

Other thing narrative hooks include matching the commander to the detachment- not an option for every faction, but the Chaplain on the Bike is getting Outriders every time, while a spearhead might take Gravis armour. In my sisters army, Celestine hasn't shown up yet- I tend to not use named characters except in very special circumstances- but there will be a time when she drops with an entire detachment composed entirely of Seraphim and Zephyrim.

Also, in large armies, detachments offer even more. My supreme command unit is always in a Patrol or Battalion or Brigade, whereas other detachment types are lead by more niche HQ's, and some are simply formed from the larger roster for specific missions- which is a story in itself. And finally, in allied forces, detachments are great tools.

I don't play AoS, but I've seen people talk about how picking characters determines your subfaction, Lots of people like this, but it sounds like that as a core mechanic limits the capacity for allied forces. Matched players may be used to sub-faction purity, but Crusaders continue to be free to mix subfactions. In our campaign's star system, each of the Schola Progenium Facilities have been defended and maintained by a Mission of the Order of the Sacred Rose for millennia. But on the system's Shrine world, there is a Chapel dedicated to Saint Katherine, and it is defended by an OoOML Commandery. Combining those two armies with each Order in its own detachment works in a way that picking the faction based on the warlord doesn't seem to work.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Support for thematic/narrative-centric games. Crusade was great, but it could be improved.

While I am a frequent and outspoken defender and promoter of Crusade, I agree that there's plenty of room for improvement... But it does seem like you're advocating for the removal of a whole lot of core rules that interact with Crusade in very narrative ways. I think maybe GW could have provided better frameworks for people to understand how some of these moving parts support Crusade and are augmented by it... But for me it kinda jumped off the page.

 alextroy wrote:
I hope:

They start assigning points to units rather than models

They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades

Gross, dude!

That is like the complete opposite of what should happen!

1. The strats, buffs, and rules layering combos that can for example triple the dmg output of units need to be gone. I would like to be able to look at data sheet and be able to tell from the information on the data sheet on how much dmg a unit can take and how much it can do.
At the start of 8th when GW got rid of the armor values on vehicles and made a LR have T 8 and 16 wound with a 2+ save it was almost impossible to kill it with a normal weapon on a troops unit like a bolt gun on rubric marine. Now in 9th two units of 10 rubric marines can be buffed so much that they can kill it in one round of shooting.

2. I want a reset of the statsline, to where we have a statsline like we used to have at the start of 8th like this




3. The deadliness of the game needs to be toned down, now often one player gets tabled and the other one has a 1/8 to 1/4 is army left. Games regularly ending with people getting tabled should not be a thing IMO.

4. MW should be a rare thing.

This is all I can think of at the moment but there is probably more.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.

GW is messing with psychic powers in the new ed in a big way, and it's got me nervous. In some ways it's likely to be more boring- much of what has been said about it leads me to believe psychic abilities are on the datacard, which would mean they're assigned to the unit rather than chosen by the player. At the same time, some elements of the new system sound more dynamic- there is no psychic phase, so different abilities are used in different phases.

To address your suggestions though:

Psychic tests carry with them the potential for Perils. Now I know, usually Perils is just mortal wounds, but I think there are other abilities that key off Perils or modify it. We use it in narrative ways- against GK if the Nemesis Daemon unit was excluded from the game, we let the player reroll every time there's a perils roll to see if it gates in. We've also had players add Daemon units to their Crusades post battle after Perils Attacks to represent the Manifested Daemon remaining behind.

As for Deny the Witch, it's a big part of the game for Sisters, Inquisition scenarios, SoS.

And keep in mind that for some factions, Ksons, GK, some Eldar builds.... Psychic abilities ARE their fluff.... Their ability to play their army the way they want.

Without wishing to speak for Wyldhunt, I suspect his point is that the current psychic phase is just throwing dice for the sake of it. Generally, there's no way to modify the dice roll (you can't throw more dice at a particular power, like you could in 7th), nor to change the casting value. Likewise, there's generally no way to modify Deny the Witch.

Put simply, it's a phase that gives the illusion of control and involvement, but since it's all an illusion. To all intents and purposes, you might as well pause the game and play Yahtzee for 10 minutes. It amounts to the same thing.

 vipoid wrote:
Without wishing to speak for Wyldhunt, I suspect his point is that the current psychic phase is just throwing dice for the sake of it. Generally, there's no way to modify the dice roll (you can't throw more dice at a particular power, like you could in 7th), nor to change the casting value. Likewise, there's generally no way to modify Deny the Witch.

Put simply, it's a phase that gives the illusion of control and involvement, but since it's all an illusion. To all intents and purposes, you might as well pause the game and play Yahtzee for 10 minutes. It amounts to the same thing.

Hmmm. There are ways to modify the phase though - lots of relics, WLTs, stratagems etc.
To a degree I think getting rid of the dice wouldn't exactly hurt. It could be rebalanced/redesigned so you just go "I'm doing this" - "okay". But GW seem to dislike that. In a game where almost every action beyond basic movement comes down to dice, why shouldn't Psychic Powers? If I have to roll to shoot a gun, shouldn't I have to roll to fire mind bullets etc?

There's a lot of stuff in the list that I just don't feel helps much.

I guess at its core I don't think there can be that much manoeuvring in an IGOUGO game where you have 5 turns. (Obviously you could argue there's more to it due to charges, pile ins, consolidations etc).

It just feels like "I want a game all about movement" - okay. But in practice that means "I move down a flank". "They counter-move my move down a flank". "I counter-counter their move down the flank". "Oh wait, its turn 5, the game is almost over and we've just been running around rather than fighting". In practice what seems to happen is just "positioning for advantage" - which is a thing to learn rather than something you really execute.

It would be interesting for example if shooting was generally nerfed hard - but then to compensate everyone got the GSC Crossfire rules. I.E. +1 to hit if they have a Crossfire token, +1 to wound and no cover bonuses if Exposed. Theoretically this would mean positioning was more important.

But in practice you still have the above view that this is just about positioning rather than movement. It just brings to mind the whole 7th edition "I'm a tactical genius because I deepstrike in melta and shoot the rear of your tank - or more likely the side because the tank's rear is against a terrain piece". You haven't carefully lured me into an ambush over 2 turns so you can have a flanking shot - you've just gone "yeah, my model is here now, give bonuses." Just as say using fast units to set up Crossfire/Exposed in your movement phase, so you immediately benefit from it in your shooting phase, doesn't seem overly skillful. But it might be more fun, I guess it would require testing etc.

Tyel wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Without wishing to speak for Wyldhunt, I suspect his point is that the current psychic phase is just throwing dice for the sake of it. Generally, there's no way to modify the dice roll (you can't throw more dice at a particular power, like you could in 7th), nor to change the casting value. Likewise, there's generally no way to modify Deny the Witch.

Put simply, it's a phase that gives the illusion of control and involvement, but since it's all an illusion. To all intents and purposes, you might as well pause the game and play Yahtzee for 10 minutes. It amounts to the same thing.

Hmmm. There are ways to modify the phase though - lots of relics, WLTs, stratagems etc.
To a degree I think getting rid of the dice wouldn't exactly hurt. It could be rebalanced/redesigned so you just go "I'm doing this" - "okay". But GW seem to dislike that. In a game where almost every action beyond basic movement comes down to dice, why shouldn't Psychic Powers? If I have to roll to shoot a gun, shouldn't I have to roll to fire mind bullets etc?

There's a lot of stuff in the list that I just don't feel helps much.

I guess at its core I don't think there can be that much manoeuvring in an IGOUGO game where you have 5 turns. (Obviously you could argue there's more to it due to charges, pile ins, consolidations etc).

It just feels like "I want a game all about movement" - okay. But in practice that means "I move down a flank". "They counter-move my move down a flank". "I counter-counter their move down the flank". "Oh wait, its turn 5, the game is almost over and we've just been running around rather than fighting". In practice what seems to happen is just "positioning for advantage" - which is a thing to learn rather than something you really execute.

It would be interesting for example if shooting was generally nerfed hard - but then to compensate everyone got the GSC Crossfire rules. I.E. +1 to hit if they have a Crossfire token, +1 to wound and no cover bonuses if Exposed. Theoretically this would mean positioning was more important.

But in practice you still have the above view that this is just about positioning rather than movement. It just brings to mind the whole 7th edition "I'm a tactical genius because I deepstrike in melta and shoot the rear of your tank - or more likely the side because the tank's rear is against a terrain piece". You haven't carefully lured me into an ambush over 2 turns so you can have a flanking shot - you've just gone "yeah, my model is here now, give bonuses." Just as say using fast units to set up Crossfire/Exposed in your movement phase, so you immediately benefit from it in your shooting phase, doesn't seem overly skillful. But it might be more fun, I guess it would require testing etc.

I mean a lot of this comes off as “in a better game, this is what we could have!” A bit mean, but reading though it’s a bit like that.
But I think one issue with psychic in 40k is often the risk vs reward is all over the place. You often have safe choices that you do, or need a huge reward for a huge risk.

Something like warmachine used a more tier system, buffing your stuff was often easy(with some expectations) targeting enemy needed a roll often, then defences to magic was a active thing that needed player choice to both use and position for best defence, and then dispelling could be simple removing or even harming the caster.
You also rarely had a caster who could use every choice they had a turn without putting more risk in, or very specific circumstances.
With a lot of spells on top being utility or specific.
Someone like Morvahna was actively encouraged to hurt herself, and her units to get a edge from her powerful magic.
In a game where her death means you lose, the player agency goes a long way to make even a fairly simple system interesting to utilise.

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. There are ways to modify the phase though - lots of relics, WLTs, stratagems etc.

To my mind, this is exactly the problem. And one of the reasons 8th/9th turned into such a bloated mess.

The core rules are paper-thin. The phase itself is just throwing dice for the sake of throwing dice, with as much strategy and depth as a game of Ludo.

Thus, you have to add bloat in the form of stratagems, relics, WLTs, army rules etc. if you want to add any sort of interactivity to the psychic phase (and even this is extremely generous, given that many of these are just flat buffs, which don't address the fundamental flaws).

The point I'm making is that the core mechanics of the phase need to have tactics/options built into them.

 alextroy wrote:
I hope:

They start assigning points to units rather than models

They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades

No, and this is why,

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.

exactly this. Most armies aren't as rich in options as space Marines. A single Tac Marine squad can choose between around 25 different weapon upgrades (Sgt, Heavy/Special)

A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
Grots...they don't get upgrades.

Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard. Another flaw is that if you are going to bake weapon upgrades into the unit cost than you are running into a situation where a unit is penalized for not taking a weapon upgrade, either because they don't have the model or because its just not something they want to take. A great example would be a Marine player running multiple Lascannon models and meeting an Ork Horde list in a battle where those lascannons are free but functionally no better than a Bolter.

I know someone suggested the sideboard thing but at the same time I'm not a fan of that because again, if your army doesn't have as many tools as Marines your sideboard isn't going to be as useful as theirs, and being able to swap from Anti-Vehicle to Anti-Horde in the blink of an eye while the opponents options aren't as beneficial is a bit of a downer. Realistically the Sideboard would allow for more skew lists against opponents. Game 1 you run into an Ork Horde, swap out those Meltas/lascannons for flamers and Heavy bolters. Game 2 you run into a Knights list, better bring those Meltas and lascannons back!

Where is the challenge? where is the skill in list building? You go from TAC lists to variations of skew lists.

PenitentJake wrote:
Why is this a wishlist item? Even Matched Play missions are designed to work at 1k - 2k, and Boarding Patrol is 500?

If your store insists on only running 2k, or your friends only play 2k, GW can give it to you in the next edition, but if you didn't play it this edition, you probably won't play it next edition either.

You are correct, but I assume they meant "as tournament standard" since if 1500 was the norm for tournaments it would be the norm everywhere.

People only focus on playing 2k because that's what is used in the majority of tournaments (yes 1k point exists as a GT option but it's barely used). So I'm guessing the wishlist part, which I agree with, is that 1500 becomes the recommended tournament size once again.

I'll add, despite them doing the opposite by essentially making Unbound/AOO the default, the wish for emphasizing balanced TAC armies over skew list.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.

exactly this. Most armies aren't as rich in options as space Marines. A single Tac Marine squad can choose between around 25 different weapon upgrades (Sgt, Heavy/Special)

A single Tac Marine Squad starting at 5 models gets to take the Sgt and a single Heavy OR Special. That isn't new.

And why are we still using Tac Marines as the "baseline"? Look at Intercessors of the normal and Heavy variety. It's 1 special pick per 5, same as Ork Boyz with their 1 per 10.

A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
Grots...they don't get upgrades.

Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

Now go look at Kommandos, Nobs, and Meganobs.

You're cherrypicking. Ork Boyz have box locked loadouts. Congrats, you're screwed like everyone else.

Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard.

The problem is that what JNA cherrypicked out is factions that have specialized units. Plaguebearers don't have alternate profiles because Daemons, as a faction, have multiple units that can just be swapped out for Plaguebearers.
Aeldari Aspect Warriors were a crazy disingenuous bit to throw out as an example. They're specialized units where the unit leader tends to be the one that has options and the remainder of the squad has their signature weapon.

Complaining that they don't get to change out their weapon is like complaining that you can't run a Terminator Squad in Scout Armour.

I like if it will finally be more balance but if so for how long. They will once again start increasing things.

The biggest issue is that ALL of the Chapter/Legion Traits will be changed. And what will it be?

SemperMortis wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I hope:

They start assigning points to units rather than models

They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades

No, and this is why,

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.

exactly this. Most armies aren't as rich in options as space Marines. A single Tac Marine squad can choose between around 25 different weapon upgrades (Sgt, Heavy/Special)

A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
Grots...they don't get upgrades.

Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard. Another flaw is that if you are going to bake weapon upgrades into the unit cost than you are running into a situation where a unit is penalized for not taking a weapon upgrade, either because they don't have the model or because its just not something they want to take. A great example would be a Marine player running multiple Lascannon models and meeting an Ork Horde list in a battle where those lascannons are free but functionally no better than a Bolter.

This is all interesting, but not really relevant to my thoughts.

First, charging point for units instead of models allows GW to better adjust the cost of units between each other. You don't have the problem of trying to decide if a single model is 15 or 16 points if you have the option of making the 5-model unit worth anywhere from 75 to 90 points. And while it might be APITA to deal with proscripted unit sizes, you once again lose that same issue of optimal per/model cost and optimal unit model count. You ever notice that Troops squads are normally always minimal strength, but people will carefully calibrate just how many models their good units should have? Wipe that balancing problem away if the unit is either size X, Y, or Z as far as points are concerned.

On the side of unit upgrades, I don't know about you, but I want to see that lovely lore compliant army across the field from me. Why don't you get that? Because the rules actively discourage that in favor of the most efficient choices. Don't upgrade that unit at all because the upgrades aren't worth the points. Don't use that upgrade because the other one is a more efficient choice. The way to battle these problems are:

Ensure the upgrade options are roughly equal across different targets to encourage diversity

Encourage upgrades in general by baking many into the cost of the unit

Note that free upgrades doesn't make unit Tactical Marines magically better than Ork Boyz because the Tacticals have more upgrade options. Some options should still have an upgrade cost associated with them and there is no reason that can't be adjusted base on unit size.

For example:
Tactical Squad (5 Models) 90 Points

Heavy Weapon +5 points, +10 if Multi-Melta

Grav Pistol or Plasma Pistol +2 points

Power Fist or Thunder Hammer + 4 points

Tactical Squad (10 Models) 185 Points

+5 Multi-Melta

Grav Pistol or Plasma Pistol +2 points

Power Fist or Thunder Hammer + 4 points

Ork Boyz (10/20/30 Models) 70/140/210 points

Kombi-Rocket, Kombi-skorcha +3 points

Big Choppa, Power Stabba +2 Points

Killsaw, Power klaw +5 points

Note that making this work requires GW to first even out the in-game value of the no cost upgrade options. It is meaningless for Ork Boyz to be able to take a free Big Shoota or Rokkit launcha if they are not equally useful to each other and actually desirable over another shoota or slugga boy.

I know someone suggested the sideboard thing but at the same time I'm not a fan of that because again, if your army doesn't have as many tools as Marines your sideboard isn't going to be as useful as theirs, and being able to swap from Anti-Vehicle to Anti-Horde in the blink of an eye while the opponents options aren't as beneficial is a bit of a downer. Realistically the Sideboard would allow for more skew lists against opponents. Game 1 you run into an Ork Horde, swap out those Meltas/lascannons for flamers and Heavy bolters. Game 2 you run into a Knights list, better bring those Meltas and lascannons back!

Where is the challenge? where is the skill in list building? You go from TAC lists to variations of skew lists.

I said nothing about a sideboard just for swapping out specific weapons. As you noted, many armies lack that ability in any meaningful sense if not completely. Tournament sideboarding would have to reflect that fact by allowing complete unit swaps, which can be very messing indeed.

That being said, if upgrade sideboards are to be a thing, that needs to be baked into the cost of the unit. Tactical Maines have more sideboard options than Ork Boyz? I guess Tactical Squads have to cost more to pay for the utility.

Alex....just no.

Having the flexibility in list building to make your squads actually YOUR squads is part of what makes 40k fun.

LIST BUILDING!

Being able to take odd numbers in squads is great when you have a small amount of points left over, or fitting in a squad plus a character in a transport. Having to actual decide and think about which types of upgrades to give your units as they all have pros and cons is great.

It makes you think about your list and how you want to run it.

What you are proposing and just as bland is age of sigmar!

In the words of the great Michael Jordan:
Stop it, Get some help!