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.

There's been a lot of talk about 10th missing a "certain something" from the previous editions.

So, if it was up to you, what CORE, Codex, or special rule would you bring back?

And as much as I'd like to bring back Phase Out for all the fun I had playing, "is that 75%?" I'm looking for honest replies of what would bring back a little of the joy that's been stripped away.

Probably some form of psychic system between 4th and 9th ed.

reducing psychic to a keyword that only has a downside (anti psychic) and no upside is really boring.

 Hellebore wrote:
Probably some form of psychic system between 4th and 9th ed.

reducing psychic to a keyword that only has a downside (anti psychic) and no upside is really boring.

Absolutely!

People have proved to me that you don't necessarily need a psychic phase... But you do need actual psychic powers, and you should be able to choose them. The fact that every psychic model of the same type has the same assigned psychic power is almost as bad as reducing powers to weapon profiles.

Look what it did to the poor psychic assassin and the sisters of silence...

They used to be immune to psychic attacks, now not so much.

I don't think there needs to a psychic phase. But there needs to be more than what we have now.

Rules?
Nah, we’re good.

Design philosophy?
Customization. Please.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules?
Nah, we’re good.

Design philosophy?
Customization. Please.

Would you elucidate on that topic?

Is this model customization, or the Tau battlesuit issue where you can only use certain weapon configurations now?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules?
Nah, we’re good.

Design philosophy?
Customization. Please.

Would you elucidate on that topic?

Is this model customization, or the Tau battlesuit issue where you can only use certain weapon configurations now?

Both.

I actually don’t mind the Battlesuit changes specifically-it would be nice to slap a fusion blaster into an otherwise anti-infantry squad, but I’m personally okay with having different suits with different roles.

But there should be actual options within units, not just “Pick every one of the best options.”
And a lot of units that are one-note should be opened up, to let them cover different roles.

For my own army, what if Plaguebearers could take a shield for an extra wound or improved invulnerable?
Or two-handed weapons, for more damage?
Both of which are better than one plaguesword, so that option should be cheaper than the other two. But that doesn’t merit its own datasheet.

Missions and scenarios. Let's say the ones from late 8th edition, as I remember those being my favorite, but I also enjoyed 4th Edition. Really, anything other than the "Primary/Secondary/Objective markers laid out on a grid" that has been the norm for the past two editions.

The option for All bikes, vehicles, monster etc to enter building etc.

Customisation:

Tyranid custom options - and yeah other races could have them too

Vehicle Design Rules

Every codex to have at least one crazy rule that doesn't break the bank(red wunz go fasta)

Units may take equipment from the armory, paying the appropriate point cost.

I'd take Character rules from literally any other edition.

Anything's better than this "Your character needs to join a squad. NO, NOT THAT SQUAD! They smell, or something. And once you've joined, you're not allowed to leave or join another squad. Ever. Even if your original squad has been completely destroyed. Also, your abilities that work on yourself stop working if your squad is killed."

Also, not a rule per se, but agreed with the above posters in terms of bringing back customisation.

Morale.

Units could be affected by fire without being wiped out entirely, a fleeing unit was temporarily incapacitated (but could come back later) forcing tough decisions about where to prioritize fire, and melee was decisive. It added a 'soft damage' aspect that kept overall lethality much lower and gave elite units an advantage that wasn't just firepower or armor.

Beyond that, there were some other mechanics I liked from older editions, but mostly I wish GW would take some more cues from non-GW games.

2nd Ed style vehicle explodey tables.

I really don’t mind, and in fact quite like, vehicles have T and W like everyone else. But I still miss blowing bits off them.

And I think we can have both. As well as degradation, as each threshold is breached, have a wee table to roll on. Results could include immobilised, sponsondestroyed, turret destroyed, flashback to hull (does more wounds).

There's not a lot I'd want back. 10th is the first edition I really like. Even things like Psychic feel okay when against things like 1kSons, but Librarians having more active powers would be a nice change. Weirdboyz having Da'Jump is a great example of it done right. Granting a unit a FNP is pretty lame by comparison.

Reckon top of my list is Customisation. In that, I mean points for power.

Used to be I could pick a unit and leave them barebones to save points. Now, every squad is rocking the expensive stuff. Back in 4thish, IIRC if you gave tour marines special weapons it could drop the squad coutn by 1 or 2 compared with barebones. Also used to be I could have a unit of 12 trukkboys, but that's now 10 as the points arbitrarily increase at 11. Also meant I could shave 12 points off by dropping to 10 boys in the trukk.

Time was it was a decision whether to add heavy weaponry to a unit. Will they survive long enough to use it? Would it be better to put the points into something else? for the price of 4 rokkits I can buy a trukk to carry some boys. Now it's everything has everything, and there's less tactical decision making in the list building stage.

From an older one - vehicle armour facings & weapon facings. Not too worried about the old armour rules, but the armour facings made vehicle warfare more interesting. You didn't wade a leman russ in, you tried to keep the front armour facign forwards. Now, I wouldn't have the front-side-rear, but I would consider having rear armour as a straight line across the back of a vehicle - if you're behind that, you get less armour to deal with. Whether that's +1AP or if it's lower toughness, just having the choice would be good.

Finally, boarding planks for orks. 'Nuff said.

Even though it could be implemented better, I really liked the Initiative System from Horus Heresy and 7th Edition.

embarking inside buildings/bunkers that are terrain pieces. No, I don't mean hiding behind a wall. It used to be treated EXACTLY like getting into a transport.

I would fix the Souless rules.

Hey, I'm immune to Psychic Powers, because I'm a Siater of Silence and a Null.

Ouch, that Psker just attacked me. Oops, I'm no longer immune to Psychic attacks for some reason... and now I'm dead.

I would get rid of being able to automatically pass anything, even if its just once per turn or once per game or whatever. Leadership and morale should mean something and it shouldn't just be something that is ignored most of the time because of succeeding or passing all the time.

Squads being able to use lots of grenades in combat with vehicles.

There's a whole lot more but that's one that floats to the top at the moment.

One thing I would bring back, because it's fun, is the scatter die.

Deep Striking shouldn't be perfect.

Madboy rules from 1st edition.

Vehicle armor facings & weapon arcs.

Especially the weapons arcs.
Its reasonable to grant that infantry, many monster/walker types, turret/pintle mounted weapons, & even some non-turret/pintle weapons (seeker missiles & such) would be able to fire 360.
It stretches things a bit to grant 360 to things like bikes & aircraft in this scale of the game.

But it's completely ridiculous for 99% of non-turret/pintle mounted vehicle weapons to be firing 360.
I'm sorry, but the left side sponson of a Leman Russ does not fire out of the right hand side. Likewise that forward pointing, hull mounted cannon on the Vindicator? It does not fire out it's rear....

ccs wrote:
Vehicle armor facings & weapon arcs.

Especially the weapons arcs.
Its reasonable to grant that infantry, many monster/walker types, turret/pintle mounted weapons, & even some non-turret/pintle weapons (seeker missiles & such) would be able to fire 360.
It stretches things a bit to grant 360 to things like bikes & aircraft in this scale of the game.

But it's completely ridiculous for 99% of non-turret/pintle mounted vehicle weapons to be firing 360.
I'm sorry, but the left side sponson of a Leman Russ does not fire out of the right hand side. Likewise that forward pointing, hull mounted cannon on the Vindicator? It does not fire out it's rear....

I totally forgot that this used to be a thing.

I agree that Walkers (like Knights and Dreadnoughts) should have 360⁰ arcs, but I was looking at some of the Baneblade variants earlier, thinking, this thing has to have an awesome traverse in order to swing around and have every weapon be able to target me.

Tanks can spin on the spot well enough, probably more smoothly than walkers.

I'd go for templates, myself, big guns going boom and wiping out clustered infantry was fun.

I'm of two minds about tanks having firearcs (and big monsters). On the one hand I get it; on the other 40K now has Baneblades and Knights; it has pretty large armies too.

I get the feeling that the 40K scale and models wouldn't work with it so well now. You've got models that are so big you'd never want to move them forward into the battle area because they'd be flanked in seconds; meanwhile you'd also have armies like Tyranids running so many big things that it becomes quite a complex affair to manage them all when they've all got different weapon arcs and so forth.

I think it had a sweet spot in 2nd, 3rd and those earlier versions where armies were a LOT smaller in general and you had room to move around and time to focus on the tanks.
Today I feel like it would be a neat feature in Epic scale games (if only for skirmish epic); but for 40K I think the size of models and game would make it an un-fun experience.



There's a good few things that 10th took away that I'd like back so its hard to say just one, but I think points.

The game and models were built around points for 40years. Points allowed you to equip units differently; to go all out heavy or low. It gave different weapons another layer of granularity outside of their pure performance.
As noted earlier by another, today in 10th you've no reason to not take every upgrade and weapon option the squad has. It costs the same to put in the army so why not take your elite army at its best.
It removes a layer of granularity for weapons too and means that any sub-par weapon can't even be justified in a "cheaper unit" its just ignored. Why take a penalty taking it .



The other thing - the Psychic powers and attacks. Again another user noted that in todays' 10th its a negative to have a psy attack. It does nothing more for you save reduce potential targets because anti-psy shields are a thing.
Because it does nothing it doesn't even feel flavourful on a model either. It might as well just be an attack name like any other.
The game also feels like its missing something losing the phase - or losing the concept of it.

 Overread wrote:
I'm of two minds about tanks having firearcs (and big monsters). On the one hand I get it; on the other 40K now has Baneblades and Knights; it has pretty large armies too.

I get the feeling that the 40K scale and models wouldn't work with it so well now. You've got models that are so big you'd never want to move them forward into the battle area because they'd be flanked in seconds; meanwhile you'd also have armies like Tyranids running so many big things that it becomes quite a complex affair to manage them all when they've all got different weapon arcs and so forth.

I think it had a sweet spot in 2nd, 3rd and those earlier versions where armies were a LOT smaller in general and you had room to move around and time to focus on the tanks.
Today I feel like it would be a neat feature in Epic scale games (if only for skirmish epic); but for 40K I think the size of models and game would make it an un-fun experience.

You do realize that:
We've had Baneblades etc since the days of 2e, right? 1st came the officially licensed Armorcast/Epicasts, then GWs ForgeWorld, then the GW plastics in 6th(?).
That since 3e+ we Guard players have been able to run entire Armored Companies.
That Russ's, Landraiders, Predators, Hammerheads, Falcons, any big Tyranid, etc haven't gotten bigger.
That working fire arcs existed 7e & prior and still do in current HH. Not to mention virtually every other minis game.

ccs wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'm of two minds about tanks having firearcs (and big monsters). On the one hand I get it; on the other 40K now has Baneblades and Knights; it has pretty large armies too.

I get the feeling that the 40K scale and models wouldn't work with it so well now. You've got models that are so big you'd never want to move them forward into the battle area because they'd be flanked in seconds; meanwhile you'd also have armies like Tyranids running so many big things that it becomes quite a complex affair to manage them all when they've all got different weapon arcs and so forth.

I think it had a sweet spot in 2nd, 3rd and those earlier versions where armies were a LOT smaller in general and you had room to move around and time to focus on the tanks.
Today I feel like it would be a neat feature in Epic scale games (if only for skirmish epic); but for 40K I think the size of models and game would make it an un-fun experience.

You do realize that:
We've had Baneblades etc since the days of 2e, right? 1st came the officially licensed Armorcast/Epicasts, then GWs ForgeWorld, then the GW plastics in 6th(?).
That since 3e+ we Guard players have been able to run entire Armored Companies.
That Russ's, Landraiders, Predators, Hammerheads, Falcons, any big Tyranid, etc haven't gotten bigger.
That working fire arcs existed 7e & prior and still do in current HH. Not to mention virtually every other minis game.

Baneblades in 2nd and 3rd were, as I recall, pretty much your "FW super expensive model no one actually had" for many people. Plus those were the "with opponents permission" era of FW models. They were about but superrare and not as common place as they are now with the plastic kit and vastly reduced price.

It's not that its impossible to run, just that I question if the larger armies that the game has grown into makes it as fun an element to include as perhaps not having it.

And Tyranids have CERTAINLY got bigger over the years. Screamer killers of 2nded are tiny compared to the plastic 3rd edition Carnifex and those are tiny compared to Toxicrines, Exocrines and such that have followed.
Not to mention we've gone through some pretty big jumps in troop size. We've actually come down a bit, at one time Gaunt units could be 40 bodies strong.

You had a baneblade in first edition too, you just had to build it yourself. It was ace.