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.

OK, I looked a bit into myself why this bothers me so much and have to adjust my stance from above a bit:
I could well live with vehicles being immune to small arms fire. I would prefer if standard-line-troops could somehow interact with vehicles, be it planting grenades or at least slow them down without damaging them or something, but I'm not adamant on that. I believe I could still enjoy well made rules if no interaction would happen at all.

Attention: Rant begins:
BUT: questioning my emotional responses above I realize my main issue with this is the whole "that is unrealistic" argument of lasguns damaging vehicles when meanwhile Meltagunners or Lascannons getting within 10 yards or even being literally in point blank range still have very unimpressive chances of seriously damaging a vehicle or outright cannot shoot at it (see engagement range) while this exact situation should result in near 100% hit chances. And this is defended with the arguments of "it's abstraction man! Doing it realistically would feel bad man! Gamemechanics are more important!"
The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"
So the general image of "realism" and "immersion" brought up when it fits the more elite armies but ignored when it doesn't
Rant ending



On a more productive matter on hopes for 11th core rules. I personally (and you can feel free to fight me for it) think that the regeneration/reinforcement mechanics that worked at the beginning of 10th for Guard for example (I'm not completely familiar how they worked for Nids) had/have a lot of potential. It will take a heavy amount of work and experimentation to get it right, but I believe this might be a pathway to achieve the balance of elite armies getting to feel really elite (so SM boltering down dozens of grunts without much hassle) while still allowing the armies of grunts to function over 4-5 rounds because they are allowed to keep playing since their dudes grow back. And all that without needing to have 400+ bodies on the field.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"

Missing with point-blank shots is kind of weird. I usually try to head canon it as the gun actually hitting, but not hitting the "right spot." The meltagun was a little high and gave the rhino a new sunroof. The lasguns are all plinking off of the armor, but anyone who stands up from behind cover long enough to draw a bead on something fragile-looking risks catching the eye of the guy manning the storm bolter.

In a future edition, I think we could probably play around with the importance of range more. Maybe grant to-hit bonuses to some weapons if they get closer to their target (this is sort of what rapid fire is meant to represent I guess) or explore the idea of weapons hitting better against distant targets than they do up close (sniper rifles, artillery) or having stealth-related rules move towards making units untargetable beyond a certain distance while they're in cover or whatever rather than just providing an armor bonus or to-hit penalty.

On a more productive matter on hopes for 11th core rules. I personally (and you can feel free to fight me for it) think that the regeneration/reinforcement mechanics that worked at the beginning of 10th for Guard for example (I'm not completely familiar how they worked for Nids) had/have a lot of potential. It will take a heavy amount of work and experimentation to get it right, but I believe this might be a pathway to achieve the balance of elite armies getting to feel really elite (so SM boltering down dozens of grunts without much hassle) while still allowing the armies of grunts to function over 4-5 rounds because they are allowed to keep playing since their dudes grow back. And all that without needing to have 400+ bodies on the field.

Was the respawning unit thing actually causing a problem? I played against it exactly once, was surprised by it, but it ultimately didn't make a huge difference to my game. Then again, I also used my archon to make it too expensive to use more than once, so...

 Pyroalchi wrote:

Attention: Rant begins:
BUT: questioning my emotional responses above I realize my main issue with this is the whole "that is unrealistic" argument of lasguns damaging vehicles when meanwhile Meltagunners or Lascannons getting within 10 yards or even being literally in point blank range still have very unimpressive chances of seriously damaging a vehicle or outright cannot shoot at it (see engagement range) while this exact situation should result in near 100% hit chances. And this is defended with the arguments of "it's abstraction man! Doing it realistically would feel bad man! Gamemechanics are more important!"
The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"
So the general image of "realism" and "immersion" brought up when it fits the more elite armies but ignored when it doesn't
Rant ending

I am sympathetic to this, particularly how 40k handles ranges and their comparison to model size. Ranges might be the most abstracted-for-gameplay thing in 40k.

A major factor regarding "which level of abstraction to use" imo, is really what behavior do you want to encourage for both the players and the troops they "command". Units going full auto with small arms against armored vehicles at range is a behavior I'd want to drop in favor of moving against vehicles in close quarters with AT equipment, and/or flanking them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Missing with point-blank shots is kind of weird. I usually try to head canon it as the gun actually hitting, but not hitting the "right spot."

Yeah that's generally my take as well.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Attention: Rant begins:
BUT: questioning my emotional responses above I realize my main issue with this is the whole "that is unrealistic" argument of lasguns damaging vehicles when meanwhile Meltagunners or Lascannons getting within 10 yards or even being literally in point blank range still have very unimpressive chances of seriously damaging a vehicle or outright cannot shoot at it (see engagement range) while this exact situation should result in near 100% hit chances. And this is defended with the arguments of "it's abstraction man! Doing it realistically would feel bad man! Gamemechanics are more important!"
The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"
So the general image of "realism" and "immersion" brought up when it fits the more elite armies but ignored when it doesn't
Rant ending

Do people defend that mechanic as a necessary abstraction for the sake of the game? I haven't seen it in this thread, and the fixed hit values is something I've been critical of since I started playing 40K. Even the simplest wargames usually have, at the very least, some distinction between 'optimal range' and 'long range'.

I mean, while we're here airing grievances with game mechanics, those fixed hit values are a contributing factor to a number of problems:
-Weapons being difficult to design for specific roles- anti-tank weapons double as anti-aircraft, and good anti-tank weapons are often good anti-heavy-infantry weapons too
-'Speed as defense' isn't represented in the core mechanics at all, so it has to be kludged in via the same defensive mechanic as energy shields
-Negative to-hit modifiers completely break the game if they're allowed to stack, because there's no way to gain a situational bonus to offset those penalties
-Many units can shoot at full effectiveness from turn 1, making it difficult to strike a balance between the game being too lethal or too non-lethal, because lethality doesn't escalate with proximity

Really, it isn't a to-hit mechanic at all, abstract or otherwise. It's just a crude filter to adjust damage output according to shooter skill, and not a particularly effective one at that since the absolute best you can be (2+) isn't even twice as good as a conscript (4+).

So I mean, yeah, I think it's pretty silly that the differing protective capabilities of armor types or the armor penetration of different types of ammunition is something modeled in the game and yet a grot in the next zip code is exactly as hard to hit as a Titan looming over you. I was genuinely surprised that 9th didn't at least incorporate the mechanic from Kill Team of a -1 at over half range.

Edit: Weapon ranges also create some real head-scratchers when compared to model size, as does the implied timescale of movement rates relative to model sizes, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

I kind of liked hull points at the time! It gave you the AV system (with all its pros and cons) but solved the 5th edition problem of vehicles being shaken 20 times but never suffering any lasting damage because of dice rolls. That said, once they gave vehicles what were basically Wounds, it made sense for someone to scratch their head and ask why they were bothering with a whole secondary attack resolution system when they could just give vehicles Toughness and Saves instead.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
[...]
Was the respawning unit thing actually causing a problem? I played against it exactly once, was surprised by it, but it ultimately didn't make a huge difference to my game. Then again, I also used my archon to make it too expensive to use more than once, so...

It was more or less killed for Guard in the last update, as reinforcements can now only be used once. So max 20 troops can be brought back, which is quite a bummer and I doubt it was necessary. But here we are.

Psychic powers: The whole system needs a buff, as psychers just aren't working right. I don't think we need a whole psychic phase to do it though. Just have them count as an extra action for movement/shooting/assault with an appropriate statline for the moment.

Have psychers be able to cast or dispell a certain number of spells per player turn. 1 for basic psychers, three for good ones, four for exceptional ones/special characters. Usual limits apply if it counts as a weapon.

Dispelling spells? I think should have a max range from diapeller to target unit. Have certain wargear (psychic hoods and the sort) buff the range of the dispell or the chance of it succeeding. Some archane wargear could have an area of effect.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Psychic powers: The whole system needs a buff, as psychers just aren't working right. I don't think we need a whole psychic phase to do it though. Just have them count as an extra action for movement/shooting/assault with an appropriate statline for the moment.

Have psychers be able to cast or dispell a certain number of spells per player turn. 1 for basic psychers, three for good ones, four for exceptional ones/special characters. Usual limits apply if it counts as a weapon.

Dispelling spells? I think should have a max range from diapeller to target unit. Have certain wargear (psychic hoods and the sort) buff the range of the dispell or the chance of it succeeding. Some archane wargear could have an area of effect.

Nothing wrong with wanting what you want, but I never understood why people so often seem determined to let psykers stop eachother from doing cool things. You don't see librarians failing to put up kineshields or throw lightning around just because there's another psyker nearby in lore, and people aren't frequently calling for Deny the Commander rolls that let my autarch turn off your lieutenant buffs.

Is it just that people got used to being allowed to turn off powers during the warp dice minigame of 7th? Is it a desire to see psykers nerfed? Just seems strange to me.

I do miss my Tempestas discipline. :(

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Psychic powers: The whole system needs a buff, as psychers just aren't working right. I don't think we need a whole psychic phase to do it though. Just have them count as an extra action for movement/shooting/assault with an appropriate statline for the moment.

Have psychers be able to cast or dispell a certain number of spells per player turn. 1 for basic psychers, three for good ones, four for exceptional ones/special characters. Usual limits apply if it counts as a weapon.

Dispelling spells? I think should have a max range from diapeller to target unit. Have certain wargear (psychic hoods and the sort) buff the range of the dispell or the chance of it succeeding. Some archane wargear could have an area of effect.

Nothing wrong with wanting what you want, but I never understood why people so often seem determined to let psykers stop eachother from doing cool things. You don't see librarians failing to put up kineshields or throw lightning around just because there's another psyker nearby in lore, and people aren't frequently calling for Deny the Commander rolls that let my autarch turn off your lieutenant buffs.

Is it just that people got used to being allowed to turn off powers during the warp dice minigame of 7th? Is it a desire to see psykers nerfed? Just seems strange to me.

Good points. If a psychic shooting attack happens, just treat it as bullets. don't bog down the game.

Honestly, I think the psychic system from 8th and 9th was perfectly fine aside frome everything being mortal wounds. Take the effects from 10th and the mechanic from 8th, done.
Morale needs more oomph, maybe some suppression, crossfire, whatever. Right now it's not terrible and it's good it's not ignored by most factions, but it's just not very impactful.
10th main problem is unit options and points, though. Kill no models no rules and same points for everything. Allow variety and allow us to play our models.

Requiring a cast roll and being able to deny it in some way opens up a lot of design space throughout all factions. To the point were the lack of a psychic offense / defense can be defining traits for some factions. See Tau or Dark Eldar for example.

Giving bonuses to cast (and deny) rolls is a way to differentiate the power of certain psykers without making the used psychic effect directly more lethal.

Psychic hoods have been part of the game at least since 3rd edition, so I can't agree on the point that this does not occur in the background. 3rd edition predates like 99% of all 40k novels ever written and clearly (imho) takes priority when it comes to whats officially possible in the setting. Psychic hoods have been with Space Marines until today and always helped with stopping the enemies psychic abilities in one way or another.

I agree that psychic powers should skip the to hit roll and go directly to wounding. Your "hit" was your psychic test.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Honestly, I think the psychic system from 8th and 9th was perfectly fine aside frome everything being mortal wounds. Take the effects from 10th and the mechanic from 8th, done.
Morale needs more oomph, maybe some suppression, crossfire, whatever. Right now it's not terrible and it's good it's not ignored by most factions, but it's just not very impactful.
10th main problem is unit options and points, though. Kill no models no rules and same points for everything. Allow variety and allow us to play our models.

Hard disagree on psychic.
“Roll 2d6 and hope for the best” is not an engaging system.

Agreed on options and points, though.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

I kind of liked hull points at the time! It gave you the AV system (with all its pros and cons) but solved the 5th edition problem of vehicles being shaken 20 times but never suffering any lasting damage because of dice rolls. That said, once they gave vehicles what were basically Wounds, it made sense for someone to scratch their head and ask why they were bothering with a whole secondary attack resolution system when they could just give vehicles Toughness and Saves instead.

When the discussion's come up before, I've proposed that instead of using hull points to cause vehicles to suffer critical existence failure as soon as they get glanced three times, you just have each glancing or penetrating hit inflict a cumulative +1 to all future damage rolls. Then you could rework the damage table so all the vehicle destruction occurs at higher rolls. Vehicles would be much less susceptible to that first-turn instant death from a lucky lascannon, but also far less likely to tank three lascannon hits in a row with negligible damage.

Of course, that's not really about softening the armor itself, so kind of a separate tangent from the prior discussion.

JNAProductions wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Honestly, I think the psychic system from 8th and 9th was perfectly fine aside frome everything being mortal wounds. Take the effects from 10th and the mechanic from 8th, done.
Morale needs more oomph, maybe some suppression, crossfire, whatever. Right now it's not terrible and it's good it's not ignored by most factions, but it's just not very impactful.
10th main problem is unit options and points, though. Kill no models no rules and same points for everything. Allow variety and allow us to play our models.

Hard disagree on psychic.
“Roll 2d6 and hope for the best” is not an engaging system.

Agreed on options and points, though.

Agreed. Psychic tests are uninteresting, unfluffy, and just kind of feelsbad when they fail. Again, no one expects lieutenants to roll to see if they randomly fail to buff their squad. But charging points for powers and providing a list of options for each psyker would be nice.

catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

I kind of liked hull points at the time! It gave you the AV system (with all its pros and cons) but solved the 5th edition problem of vehicles being shaken 20 times but never suffering any lasting damage because of dice rolls. That said, once they gave vehicles what were basically Wounds, it made sense for someone to scratch their head and ask why they were bothering with a whole secondary attack resolution system when they could just give vehicles Toughness and Saves instead.

When the discussion's come up before, I've proposed that instead of using hull points to cause vehicles to suffer critical existence failure as soon as they get glanced three times, you just have each glancing or penetrating hit inflict a cumulative +1 to all future damage rolls. Then you could rework the damage table so all the vehicle destruction occurs at higher rolls. Vehicles would be much less susceptible to that first-turn instant death from a lucky lascannon, but also far less likely to tank three lascannon hits in a row with negligible damage.

Of course, that's not really about softening the armor itself, so kind of a separate tangent from the prior discussion.

I can get behind that. It *is* a topic for another place, but I think that would address both the feels-bads of one-shot-kills and the frustration of unkillable 5th edition vehicles. And it makes each hit feel like progress towards eventually killing the target even if you're only shaking it for now.

I think I agreed with someone that I like 10th basically as is. However upon further review I do agree with some of the points that it could be refined.

Battle Shock - They need to make the rule "test for battle shock if below half strength and/or if the unit began the command phase already battle shocked". Then in addition to what battle shock does, it should turn off your detachment and/or faction rules i.e. can't use Oath re-rolls if battle shocked. This would give it some actual use, without a bunch of stacking modifiers. Some armies, like Thousand Sons, this is already the case as battle shock prevents generating cabal points.

Psykers - I play Eldar, CSM and TS and I love Psykers, and I was really worried about the removing of the psychic phase as I played in 3-5th where psychic powers were basically an afterthought other than doom/guide (or lash if you remember that BS). However I think they implemented it very well and handled the Thousand Sons very well with the cabal points (they really feel like a psychic army). However, in a perfect world I would probably add a rule where you make like 3-6 "powers" available (only use one per turn) and let psykers sub out their "power" that is on the data sheet for it. This way you could modify your psykers a bit, and I don't think this would add to much complexity. I also don't want to return to tests for shooting style attacks. That really did tip the balance in many games with having just one bad psychic phase.

Devastating wounds - it needs to go. make it -2 ap or something. It is to much now and to wide spread. If you want to cause mortal wounds on an attack it should be like "obliterating wounds" and be EXTREMELY limited to like only this like abbadon or gillimean etc.

All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

Maybe I am in the minority, but with the size and scope of the game, I agree with GW's position of making the game simpler and easier. I mean I feel like maneuvering does matter, and the game plays faster then it ever has, at least that is my experience. Anyway that is my opinion, have at it.

 xeen wrote:
I think I agreed with someone that I like 10th basically as is. However upon further review I do agree with some of the points that it could be refined.

Battle Shock - They need to make the rule "test for battle shock if below half strength and/or if the unit began the command phase already battle shocked". Then in addition to what battle shock does, it should turn off your detachment and/or faction rules i.e. can't use Oath re-rolls if battle shocked. This would give it some actual use, without a bunch of stacking modifiers. Some armies, like Thousand Sons, this is already the case as battle shock prevents generating cabal points.

Psykers - I play Eldar, CSM and TS and I love Psykers, and I was really worried about the removing of the psychic phase as I played in 3-5th where psychic powers were basically an afterthought other than doom/guide (or lash if you remember that BS). However I think they implemented it very well and handled the Thousand Sons very well with the cabal points (they really feel like a psychic army). However, in a perfect world I would probably add a rule where you make like 3-6 "powers" available (only use one per turn) and let psykers sub out their "power" that is on the data sheet for it. This way you could modify your psykers a bit, and I don't think this would add to much complexity. I also don't want to return to tests for shooting style attacks. That really did tip the balance in many games with having just one bad psychic phase.

Devastating wounds - it needs to go. make it -2 ap or something. It is to much now and to wide spread. If you want to cause mortal wounds on an attack it should be like "obliterating wounds" and be EXTREMELY limited to like only this like abbadon or gillimean etc.

All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

Maybe I am in the minority, but with the size and scope of the game, I agree with GW's position of making the game simpler and easier. I mean I feel like maneuvering does matter, and the game plays faster then it ever has, at least that is my experience. Anyway that is my opinion, have at it.

Devastating Wounds is fine as a concept.
It being overused for some armies is a separate issue.

It'd be neat if Psykers (and, honestly, most characters) had a choice of a few options. Generally, I'd think you should get one Offense, one Defense, and one Other ability.
Like, a SM Librarian right now has Mental Fortress, which is a 4+ Invuln for their unit. Let them swap it for one of the below.
-Telekine Movement: Add 2" to models in this unit's Move Characteristic, and they can ignore terrain when moving.
-Psychic Smash: A Melee Weapon with Extra Attacks, Pyschic, and a profile of 4 WS3+ S8 AP-2 D2 attacks.

A SM Chaplain could replace Litany of Hate (+1 to-wound in melee) with one of the below.
-Litany Of Endurance: When a model in this unit is killed by a melee attack, they can still make their melee attacks this phase before being removed.
-Litany Of Faith: Models in this unit have a 6+ FNP.

These are just off the cuff examples-no promises to their balance.

Yeah. Exarch powers and Pivotal Roles in 8th and 9th were great. I was really hoping they'd move towards making something like that available to more units. Let CSM chosen choose from a list of "veteran abilities" that define what role they play. Let an archon choose between a CP manipulation power, a beatstick power, and a buff-stuff-while-still-in-the-raider power. A little customization would go a long way. A trio of exarch powers and one or two exarch weapons for each aspect squad made them feel really customizable and satisfying.

Devastating wounds - it needs to go. make it -2 ap or something. It is to much now and to wide spread. If you want to cause mortal wounds on an attack it should be like "obliterating wounds" and be EXTREMELY limited to like only this like abbadon or gillimean etc.

DW, SH, and LH are all fine, but they're also all kind of bland and seem to be getting handed out kind of thoughtlessly. Lots of characters are clearly just being given one of those three rules because GW doesn't know what else to do with them.

But DWs are mostly fine. The stuff that has them mostly has to pay for them. Like, rubricae being able to get DW on all their shooting via a strat is strong, but I wouldn't call it game breaking. Night spinners having DW is strong, but they're probably priced reasonably for that strength at this point.

All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles?

That's a fair criticism. Personally, I do feel like 40k is at its best at like, 1k-1500 points, so I like fewer models anyway. But you're right that tracking shaken, stunned, destroyed weapons, and immobilized could be a bit much.

What about monsters?

If we were to go back to some sort of AV/damage system, I'd probably just treat monsters the same as vehicles. A carnifex can have its brain rattled and its limbs blown off too, after all.

But also note that making monsters/vehicles immune to small arms doesn't necessarily mean bringing back AV. You could apply catbarf's damage proposal and still use S vs T instead of AV.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Hard disagree on psychic.
“Roll 2d6 and hope for the best” is not an engaging system.

Agreed. Psychic tests are uninteresting, unfluffy, and just kind of feelsbad when they fail. Again, no one expects lieutenants to roll to see if they randomly fail to buff their squad. But charging points for powers and providing a list of options for each psyker would be nice.

Thing is, it generally wasn't "roll 2d6 and hope for the best" - there was always at least the threat of Perils, and often, there was more play than that- so for example a piece of wargear might have augmented the roll- something which could be done in many different ways- roll 3 pick 2, +1 to the roll, rerolls- both those where if you use it you must reroll both, or the version that allows you to reroll just one, etc.

Now I'm not saying that we couldn't come up with a better system; we probably could. But at the very least, Perils needs to feel like the threat to humanity that it is- adding the hazardous keyword to a shooting attack does not feel like a psychic power that went awry, breached the veil between realspace and the warp and allowed something horrifying to claw its way through the tear.

And in some editions, it very much DID feel that way.

Deny the Witch is another layer- it isn't the psychic test itself, which may be the only thing that people find objectionable; if so, this next part won't matter much. But Deny the Witch feels better when it is an active roll by the Denier rather than a FNP vs. Mortals. And again, Deny isn't just Deny- there are systems that interact with it.

I liked the way psyker didn't used to feel like everything else... Just shooting or hitting but with a different keyword.

It used to feel like when two armies fought, they'd try to survey each other from a distance, and while every other soldier in the army was focused on relative positions of enemy and allied assets in relation to each other and mission objectives, the psykers and witches of opposing forces engage warp sight, seeing what others cannot; they plan both offensive and defensive strategies, and they know that their allies are far less able to withstand the enemy's psychic assault.

The 8th/9th systems of psychic rules weren't perfect and certainly could be improved. People on this very forum actually managed to prove to me that it could be done without having a formal psychic phase. Lots of room for improvement...

But it's damn sure better than the blandness of 10th's take on it. It does not feel like psychic warfare. Like you finish a fight, and you thin "Geeze, what's all the fuss with psykers and Black Ships? Psykers are just dudes whose guns or melee attacks are tougher than other people's. Why have an Ordo Hereticus at all- just treat psykers like dudes with better guns or knives, because that's all they are."

 xeen wrote:
All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

Flavour, man, flavour - saying that you shot a tank for n wounds is far less interesting, and makes for a for more boring story, than saying you blew the main gun off, or immobilized it out of position.

Degradation of capabilities beyond "hurr, durr, -1 to hit at 1/3 Wounds remaining" is more interesting from a gameplay perspective than Wound counter go up/down (depening on whether you count wounds taken or wounds remaining) - might it be a little more tricky to track? Maybe - but that's what tokens to place next to (or, if things are crowded, on top of) a tank are for, even if GW seem pathologically afraid of using tokens in 40k these days for some reason.

For units with Mechanic capabilities, being able to fix specific damage results rather than "heal n wounds from a Vehicle" is a more interesting action.

I'm less convinced by including Hull Points, as that just seemed far too punishing for vehicles at the time, at had a knock-on effect of getting people to pick mid-range, high-ROF weapons as tank killers rather than actual anti-tank guns. This might just mean higher Hit Point values are required, or that vehicles need a save against them - combined a Wound-equivalent with a damage table feels off to me.

As is always the case, just because GW have tried a rules system, even over multiple editions, it doesn't mean they've managed to achieve the best version of that system.

 Dysartes wrote:

 xeen wrote:
All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

I'm less convinced by including Hull Points, as that just seemed far too punishing for vehicles at the time, at had a knock-on effect of getting people to pick mid-range, high-ROF weapons as tank killers rather than actual anti-tank guns. This might just mean higher Hit Point values are required, or that vehicles need a save against them - combined a Wound-equivalent with a damage table feels off to me.

As is always the case, just because GW have tried a rules system, even over multiple editions, it doesn't mean they've managed to achieve the best version of that system.

We use Hull Points for our vehicles. For example a Rhino got 2, Predator 3, Land Raider 4.

You need to roll a 7 on the vehicle damage chart to cause -1 HP damage. An 8+ does the same and lets you roll once again on the chart. Anti-tank weapons like lascannons give you +2 on every roll on this table. Penetrating hits give an additional +2 for the first roll.

Well for one thing having any hopes for 11th edition seems foolish as GW has been committed to writing some of the most godawful wargaming rules for the past ten, fifteen or so years such that you're unlikely to get anything good out of 11th. Good GW rules only really emerge rarely from specialist games like Epic Armageddon, which bizarrely manages to be more realistic and play more realistically than 40k despite being far more abstracted at a larger scale. Watching battles of EA modified for the Horus Heresy and watching actual Horus Heresy games are night and day in difference and the tactical play at work, helps I guess when suppression, that critical element of warfare ever since the invention of guns and artillery, is actually a thing in epic yet not in any edition of 40k.

That aside, 40k the setting is pretty much damn dead to me as far as I care. Mixture of friends who worked for the studio and got burnt allowing to see the man behind the curtain, and the HH series just butchering the Priestley and King written background fluff just permanently killed 40k to me - corrected mistakes I made in the past and enjoying TOW, such, such better rules.

Now though for blindly wishlisting stuff for 11th edition though as that seems where the topic is rather than realistic speculation. And looking for a game I'd actually want to play even if the fluff is toast to me (thus in turn, upping the need for quality since 40k's rules are so bad in most of its editions that if you don't care about the lore, there's no real reason to dive in).

-Completely gut BS, replace with Stargrunt style range banding, with BS instead being the range in inches for where each band of accuracy is determined. (Basically it works like if your unit is poor skill and the band is say, 4", every 4" your to-hit rolls get progressively worse)

-In addition to gutting BS, weapons themselves should modify weapon bands, either sniper type weapons being more lenient on poor quality troops shooting at distance, or weapons having different bands depending on target.

-Complementing the above, Anti Tank and Anti Infantry weapons should have different bands for different targets, being easier to hit a tank with a guided missile than a random infantryman.

-Suppression should be an essential part of the game given its format of WWII style skirmish. Everyone should inflict suppression similar to Epic style blast templates, with compounding suppression markers pinning units down and breaking their morale, with any pinned unit being subject to a charge causing an auto-rout in melee, finally giving a tactical purpose.

-Saves are just dumb mechanics outside of perhaps energy shields, and everything should run based on Armor Value. Strength should be reworked accordingly, and in addition to AV there should be a toughness check for all weapons after scoring a penetrating hit to see if it actually did something.

-One of the few things Nu40K did good was degrading statlines which should be implemented for absolutely everyone. Infantry units in kind should no longer be considered individual models in a group but stands, with the individual basing just a choice of ease of movement or look. Outside of Kill Team scale games, keeping track of individuals at that level save maybe officers is ridiculous. Instead of removing models, an infantry unit's capabilities should degrade as it sustains damage or morale loss, eventually either being forced to retreat from the field or being catastrophically smoked.

-In addition to wounds (or hull points), all units should have a separate "wound" system for morale, with morale instead being degraded over time, but unlike wounds in most situations, regenerating when it is no longer taking blast tokens. Ideally this should encourage actual realistic tactical play in battles, and remove the need to totally exterminate the enemy (which should in turn, be far harder to do vs pinning the whole army). Tanks of course should also have morale which is one of the underlooked parts of 40k. Crews panic, and should be at risk of bailing from wrecked vehicles and quitting the field. Or just reversing off the field.

-Speaking of shields, all shields should be made in addition to armor value checks, because the separation of invuls and armor saves in 40k is mind boggingly stupid and makes no goddamn sense and never has. Moreover an energy shield should be the thing tested first, not last, since you need to get past the shield generator before you strike the armor. (Crappy) Void shields for everyone who has invuls.

-All units should have front arcs and rear arcs, for infantry decided on the axis of the officer's facing, and for vehicles and monsters in the 'no gak sherlock' department, with flank AV values needed as apparent. But rear fire should always get a bonus to its check against AV, including against infantry because usually people are supposed to be actually at risk from flanking fire, not treated indifferently as they are in 40k for its entire existence. Enfilade and defilade fire should also be relevant, and perhaps why individually basing infantry models matters at all. Infantry units using shields should also have at least different front and rear AV outside of flanking bonuses.

-Remove flyers entirely, their inclusion is dumb. Flyer related effects should be applicable to the game as point-purchased "stratagems" as perhaps the only way I would tolerate the idea of such in the game. If players really want to, they can use old flyer models and make zooming noises as a Thunderhawk drops a happy little 2k kg missile on somebody's head. It's just too small of a format for anything save maybe skimmers and hovercraft to be relevant on the board.

-In accordance with called in air support or artillery, templates, templates should definitely return. Templates of all sizes too, including 2e style smoke grenades for obscurement on demand. Vortex templates should also make a comeback because if we talk purely fun factor, the slowly moving circle of nope is the best thing either warhammer had.

-Cover should be dived into in great depth to make up for a mixture of heavy armor being more vulnerable to anti tank weapons. All vehicles should either get hull down fire rules, increased bonuses to AV from cover, and LOS infringing cover should inflict penalties to range band assessments. Eldar bullgak should have better rules for holofields more befitting their holographic nature than being a glorified energy shield with how invuls work. Tyranid style blips perhaps? In general though cover should provide benefits to AV, making armor harder to penetrate as there is more material to blow through, and LOS blocking should make everything harder to hit. Cover itself though should be subject to potential destruction through template weapons and the like. Flamers should have a purpose in not just ignoring LOS problems but actually destroying cover such as forests, wooden barriers, etc.

-Points costs for weapons should be harsh and more akin to oldhammer. You shouldn't be forced to slap as many upgrades on every unit as possible, and attempting to max out weapon upgrades should eat into your budget harshly for more effective, or rare wargear.

-FOC should not only return, but the main theme of armies should be based on lists, not ridiculous bonus rules. You're a Salamander army because your dudes get flamers for free as a base option to tactical squads, or you're an Ulthwe list because you have guardian squads out the wazoo in your troops slot with limited access to Aspects. Lists are how armies are supposed to be special, the idea of buffs makes no sense in the scale of game at hand, but is downright asinine. You don't play historicals and your Irish list is "thematic" because they get a bonus to javelins which somehow become deadlier. You're an Irish list because you're broke and field medium foot skirmishers.

-Everyone except Tyranids and Daemons should get access to mercenaries taken from other army lists at 25% cost, and following tables for mercs similar to many editions of WHFB. It's thematic for the fun of the game, but also allows realistic flexibility of lists to make up for holes in their arsenal.

This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

Dudeface wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

unless they're complaining about the melee powerhouse that is ratling snipers, with their 5+ to hit and 2 strength in melee, they're talking about the Hellhound's chem-cannon, which is 2 strength, but has anti-infantry 2+ and torrent (which is comparable to its 7th edition stats, where it was a template weapon with Poisoned (2+). i see no issue with a specialized anti-infantry weapon like this being so efficient against terminators and other elite infantry

It might be meant in a way that if IG had an S2 weapon on a regiments unit with BS4+ it would mathematically come down as if that weapon would wound on a 4+

Since BS4+, S2, lethal hits wounds an S4 Terminator 22% of the shots which is more or less the same as wounding on a 4+ without lethal hits (25%)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

unless they're complaining about the melee powerhouse that is ratling snipers, with their 5+ to hit and 2 strength in melee, they're talking about the Hellhound's chem-cannon, which is 2 strength, but has anti-infantry 2+ and torrent (which is comparable to its 7th edition stats, where it was a template weapon with Poisoned (2+). i see no issue with a specialized anti-infantry weapon like this being so efficient against terminators and other elite infantry

Same, if that's worth complaining about, what is the expected outcome for drukhari for people I guess. Poison has always worked like that and has always been another "wtf" in terms of what it does or does not do.

Dudeface wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

it was a land raider crusader

And the Chem cannon it’s anti-infantry 2+ but only S2. On top of that it’s a torrent weapon AP-2 damage 2