Jump to content

10th edition wishlisting/"How do we fix this mess?" thread


Recommended Posts

yeah, not fond about the guard getting auto-wound on 6's to hit too

they need work definitely, but I don't like that path

I think he is referring to the wound table, not that rule. In my opinion that rule is just an admission of just how bad guard are. I agree it's a bad way to go, but they've made a guard a punching bag thus edition so you have to give them something crazy.

 

Personally I have complex feelings on the wound table because of how free form army construction is. With more restrictions I'm fine with it, but if they leave it so easy to spam heavies I think you need some interaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One change I'd make is to the rule that caps modifiers at +1/-1 to cap each players modifiers at +1/-1, I find it immersion breaking and irritating the 'I have a -1 hit effect spell on my guys' means my opponent can now fire heavy weapons on the move with no (extra) penalty.

+1 to this

Make it max plus one to hit but remove penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons or advancing and firing assault weapons from the equation

 

We dont want Eldar flyer spam or mass minus 3s to hit but gosh darn it an ork buggy bouncing through the streets shouldnt be at less of a penalty shooting at a jetfighter as a trained marksman

 

Overall I think core rules are good

 

I dont like the anything wounds anything ability but its interesting that something with relatively little impact (my experience) is so hated

 

Going by new nid Monster saves, armour of contempt, upcoming changes to cp generation, questionnaire questions on strats and casual matched play v competetive matched play they do cop on to issues...but midway through editions

 

I think they need to do .5 editions, most codexes stay same but updated rulebook and they can still do launch box

 

Do agree on less strats, more of them universal, and LOVE idea of all strats being one use

Edited by Dark Shepherd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really like strategems to be toned down to something like this:

 

Everyone Has Access To:

  • Re/roll a dice
  • Interrupt Combat,
  • Autopass morale, etc all the generic ones we have now. 
  • Counter another players strategem (2 CPs)

Each Army (Sororitas, Marines, Etc):

  • 1 Generic Strategem like a +1 To Sheild of Faith, or Treat This Phase as Another Phase for Doctrines, etc... that could help any unit from that army

Each Subfaction (Bloody Rose, Ultramarines, Etc):

  • 1 Specific Strategem that enhances a core unit from that Subfaction -- Bloody Rose say get's 6's to hit explode in melee, but Martyred Lady gets one that lets you gain additional Miracle Dice when a unit dies, or something.

 

That way strategems are more managable, and not so much like, I can't memorize the 22 for my army + the how-ever-many for every other army I play against. It makes playing casual games feel... rough? The "Gotchya!" moments that happen sometimes are real negative play experiences. The first time that I played with Zephyrim, I converted up some super cool sisters of battle on horseback to be them and was super excited. Deep struck in against Custodes, and when I went to charge, he dropped a strategem that made them lose d6 inches of the charge, and of course he rolled a 5 or a 6. It was like, if I knew that, why would I have done that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The first time that I played with Zephyrim, I converted up some super cool sisters of battle on horseback to be them and was super excited. Deep struck in against Custodes, and when I went to charge, he dropped a strategem that made them lose d6 inches of the charge, and of course he rolled a 5 or a 6. It was like, if I knew that, why would I have done that? 

 

My first game of 9th was similar. Played 750 pts with a Salamanders guy. He got his Flamestorm Aggressors stuck in with my guys and was like "strategem for shooting flame weapons in combat, strategem for getting maximum hits, strategem for this and that" and the unit was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im sorry but a S3 lasgun or flamer damaging a baneblade is :cussing stupid. Any weapon damaging a target with T that’s 3x it’s strength is very stupid.

I don't disagree with you, and HotE is a stupid fix.  But when a guy with a sword is 10x more powerful than field artillery, and 60-ton MBTs flee from the fingers of snotlings, there are far, far bigger problems to solve.  I don't want to return to the days of herohammer and lots of nigh-unkillable units. 

 

Baneblades should shrug off S7 AP2/3 like raindrops and be ObSec(10), be S10 (or more) on the charge with AP-5 with no invulns.  Now I show up to the game with 5 of them (well 3 because Ro3, then 2 Shadowswords, which should be D-weapons, even in 10th).  Now how much fun do you think a 10th edition game will be?

 

That "being able to wound anything" means any army has a chance against any other army, and less "well, there's no point in even playing this game".

 

And I'm the guy with the 17 LRBTs (but only 2 baneblades :sad.: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with stratagems, as phandaal and beams touch on, is the requirement to know quickly and instinctively what your opponent can do with any given unit.

Back in the day (old man yells at cloud, I know), there was maybe 2 or 3 army wide rules (ATSKNF, Shadow in the Warp, Waaagh etc) and then the A4 summary sheet would largely suffice for playing a complete stranger that had never played Orks before. Of course some units would have special rules, but they were mainly USR's and the good thing about UNIVERSAL special rules is just that. Everyone knew what tank hunters or furious charge was, so it was simple. 

 

With so many units having so many rules that can be comboed up with traits, blessings, and psychic powers as it is, the whole stratagem system wants better streamlining.

Instead of faction strats, you could have a set of 20 generic strats split into sections with a bit of a proviso attached.

As a brief example;

 

Red Stratagems

You may only use ONE stratagem from this section per game;

bring a guy back from the dead and most of the extant ones that are 3 CP

 

Blue Stratagems

You may use one stratagem from this section per turn;

things that allow units another fight or shoot action, or things that maximise random events such as number of shots or damage. 

 

Green Stratagems:

You may use up to 2/3/4/5 (size of game) stratagems from this section before the (insert appropriate step) of the pre game set up;

extra relic, extra trait, deployment type strats etc

 

Core Stratagems:

You may use any number of these stratagems per turn, but each may only be used once per turn; command reroll, overwatch, etc etc

 

That way you can still combo up with certain things, but every player knows all of the stratagems for every faction for the entire life of the edition. 

 

Also, this would be solvable by a new core book and a FAQ to expunge faction stratagems, rather than 20 new codexes.

 

The crux of the problem with this edition lies in the codexes, not the rules, but assuming 10th wouldn't be a hard reset then whatever change is made must be made at core level, not codex level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to playing third... 

 

I do feel sorry for you guys that play 40K, I didn't think 8th was a bad game with just the indexes but the rules bloat with all the additional books, rules, codex's etc. sucks - it takes all the fun out of it. I think I'll stick to playing Space Hulk. 

 

As a non-player I also don't really understand why matched play is the norm these days, wouldn't open play just be more fun? That's pretty much what we used to do back in the olden days of yore (e.g. the 80's). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to playing third...

 

I do feel sorry for you guys that play 40K, I didn't think 8th was a bad game with just the indexes but the rules bloat with all the additional books, rules, codex's etc. sucks - it takes all the fun out of it. I think I'll stick to playing Space Hulk.

 

As a non-player I also don't really understand why matched play is the norm these days, wouldn't open play just be more fun? That's pretty much what we used to do back in the olden days of yore (e.g. the 80's).

Open Play has the same problems. Strategems, broken units, etc. Just does not have skewed secondary objectives.

 

Tempest of War is actually the best version of 9th right now. Changing mission parameters keep people on their toes and do not reward skew lists quite as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Guess I'll sum up my wants from the previous threads. 

 

1. Keep Strats, make them a hand system. You buy them at the beginning of the game, you can buy only one of each Stratagem. Leftover and additional generated CP after buying initial 'hand' and other upgrades can be used on 'core' stratagems from the BRB - can be used freely. 

 

2. Combine current and previous AP systems, making AP modifiers kick in when used against appropriate models (i.e., AP4-2 - applies -2 save modifier to model saving on a 4+ or worse). Calculation order being determine max save (armour + cover + other modifiers), compare with AP value - if met, apply AP modifier, if it doesn't, save as normal. 

 

Haven't tried Tempest, but Maelstrom (?) in 8th was similar and my go-to mode of play. 

Edited by Jings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

im sorry but a S3 lasgun or flamer damaging a baneblade is :cussing stupid. Any weapon damaging a target with T that’s 3x it’s strength is very stupid.

I don't disagree with you, and HotE is a stupid fix. But when a guy with a sword is 10x more powerful than field artillery, and 60-ton MBTs flee from the fingers of snotlings, there are far, far bigger problems to solve. I don't want to return to the days of herohammer and lots of nigh-unkillable units.

 

Baneblades should shrug off S7 AP2/3 like raindrops and be ObSec(10), be S10 (or more) on the charge with AP-5 with no invulns. Now I show up to the game with 5 of them (well 3 because Ro3, then 2 Shadowswords, which should be D-weapons, even in 10th). Now how much fun do you think a 10th edition game will be?

 

That "being able to wound anything" means any army has a chance against any other army, and less "well, there's no point in even playing this game".

 

And I'm the guy with the 17 LRBTs (but only 2 baneblades :sad.: ).

Maybe the problem is somewhere along the timeline someone figured 40K should be Apocalypse?

 

Honestly so much just needs to be removed from the rules side, is absurd what they twisted the game into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

im sorry but a S3 lasgun or flamer damaging a baneblade is :cussing stupid. Any weapon damaging a target with T that’s 3x it’s strength is very stupid.

I don't disagree with you, and HotE is a stupid fix. But when a guy with a sword is 10x more powerful than field artillery, and 60-ton MBTs flee from the fingers of snotlings, there are far, far bigger problems to solve. I don't want to return to the days of herohammer and lots of nigh-unkillable units.

 

Baneblades should shrug off S7 AP2/3 like raindrops and be ObSec(10), be S10 (or more) on the charge with AP-5 with no invulns. Now I show up to the game with 5 of them (well 3 because Ro3, then 2 Shadowswords, which should be D-weapons, even in 10th). Now how much fun do you think a 10th edition game will be?

 

That "being able to wound anything" means any army has a chance against any other army, and less "well, there's no point in even playing this game".

 

And I'm the guy with the 17 LRBTs (but only 2 baneblades :sad.: ).

making a rule that certain weapons can’t wound certain units won’t make them unkillable unless you come the game with only low S anti infantry weapons.

 

If you drop the ability of S3 weapons to wound the toughest of units, every army can still kill the toughest units of every other army, just means you have to have more dedicated big guns, rather than just hosing a baneblade with 4 punishers to get more reliable damage than one or two lascannons.

Edited by Inquisitor_Lensoven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really miss third and fourth edition. Tanks felt tough, but went down pretty quickly to specialized stuff. The independent character rules were awesome IMO with making characters feel like hero's and not just a single model unit. The force organization chart kept the spam to a minimum, and having only 3 elite/heavy/fast choices made each selection matter and kept the focus on line troops like battalions and brigades try to. I really dont get the hate armor values and charts get with modern gamers but I loved the effect it had on degrading machines much better than the profile drops now. There were some universal rules and some army specific rules, but the mix made sense. Rend(6 to hit auto wounds) was the same interaction across the board for assault cannons or gene-stealer claws so a person could much more easily understand an opponents army. I missed who said it but someone said all the army and USR would fit on an A4 paper and they're right. Front and back of course for all the charts, but those were simple enough formula anyways.

 

I'm pretty meh on stratagems. They can be cool, but it seems to boil down to two or three used all the time with your own army. And often it gives a feel bad surprise when your playing an army you dont know. 40k is an abstract game but the stratagems just make it feel too gimmicky rather than strategy.

 

My big want is to be able to understand each army without having to dig through their entire codex for each faction before a game. In 3rd armies could feel a little similar, but the wide variety of new squads and tanks would of set that quite a bit now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really miss third and fourth edition. Tanks felt tough, but went down pretty quickly to specialized stuff. The independent character rules were awesome IMO with making characters feel like hero's and not just a single model unit. The force organization chart kept the spam to a minimum, and having only 3 elite/heavy/fast choices made each selection matter and kept the focus on line troops like battalions and brigades try to. I really dont get the hate armor values and charts get with modern gamers but I loved the effect it had on degrading machines much better than the profile drops now. There were some universal rules and some army specific rules, but the mix made sense. Rend(6 to hit auto wounds) was the same interaction across the board for assault cannons or gene-stealer claws so a person could much more easily understand an opponents army. I missed who said it but someone said all the army and USR would fit on an A4 paper and they're right. Front and back of course for all the charts, but those were simple enough formula anyways.

 

I'm pretty meh on stratagems. They can be cool, but it seems to boil down to two or three used all the time with your own army. And often it gives a feel bad surprise when your playing an army you dont know. 40k is an abstract game but the stratagems just make it feel too gimmicky rather than strategy.

 

My big want is to be able to understand each army without having to dig through their entire codex for each faction before a game. In 3rd armies could feel a little similar, but the wide variety of new squads and tanks would of set that quite a bit now.

That last bit I can relate with. I recall getting a good feel from any codex after just a good peruse or 2, now you need to be super intimate with each codex or play a ton of battles to get the same feeling. 

 

Not to mention the excessive amount of restrictions and qualifiers to building an army. I am always paranoid I am missing a rule in the wrong book or spot. I felt that most recently with the chaos knight codex and trying to commit to memory all the things you can and cannot do in a normal knight detachment or allied one. What things become locked or unlocked if you do this or that, its pretty excessive and easy for players to miss a component. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to playing third... 

 

I do feel sorry for you guys that play 40K, I didn't think 8th was a bad game with just the indexes but the rules bloat with all the additional books, rules, codex's etc. sucks - it takes all the fun out of it. I think I'll stick to playing Space Hulk. 

 

As a non-player I also don't really understand why matched play is the norm these days, wouldn't open play just be more fun? That's pretty much what we used to do back in the olden days of yore (e.g. the 80's). 

Open play is fun for a specific type of player the same way matched play is fun for a specific type of players. You look at matched play and think 'why not do open play, wouldn't that be more fun?' I look at open play  and say 'why not just get a bucket of those plastic army guys and make pew pew noises? Wouldn't that be cheaper?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10th releasing with Indexes again to rebalance the points would do wonders. Bring the cost of everything up again.

 

If Gretchins are meant to represent the 5 point floor, then make them the only 5 point model. Then something like:

- Cultists and Conscripts 6 points.

- Guardsmen 7 points. 

- Veterans 8 points.

- Kroot 9 points.

- Ork Boy 10 points.

- Scion and Skitarii 11 points.

 

Sure it'll make armies smaller, but that'll also speed the game up and lower the barrier for entry. 

Edited by jarms48
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I would quit if we went back to Indexes, or returned to an earlier ruleset. I don't know which idea I hate more, and which would be worse for the game. If you think the game needs fixing, offer fixes. If you want to scrap the entire thing and go back to an earlier edition, which won't make you happy because every edition was "not as good as the old edition", just go play those editions. As Kylo Ren said, "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to."

 

We don't need indexes to rebalance points - they're going to be free going forward. Just update the points, no scrapping of codexes needed.

The cost of units is irrelevant. If you want to play a smaller army just play a smaller game. There is no rule forcing you to always play 2000 point games, just like you aren't forced to play a Battalion. The detachments do need reworking as I said in my earlier post.

  • Battalion - Troops gain ObsecUnder no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec
  • Vanguard - Elites gain ObsecUnder no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec
  • Outrider - Fast Attack gain ObsecUnder no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec
  • Spearhead - Heavy Support gain ObsecUnder no circumstances may any other unit type gain ObSec

That way you are not punished for adhering to the ye old "troops are mandatory". 40k isn't realistic. If I choose to not bring infantry-based troops then I should suffer no penalty.

 

I think 10th could stand to benefit from certain changes to improve upon 9th.

  • Bring back caps on the ability to wound. HotE remains but can only affect INFANTRY and MONSTER units.
  • The ability to ignore or shut off part of an enemy datasheet should only be done via stratagem, and said strat may not cost less than 3CP. E.G ignore invulns, turn off auras, turn off ObSec
  • You should never pay CP to bring a unit in your army. You've paid the points/power cost.
  • No strat should require a roll to succeed. You pay the cost, it works. Either make it once per game, raise the cost or remove it.

9th Edition is, at it's core, a great edition. The balance issues are in each codex. Scrapping them all won't solve anything, we'll just keep ending up with power creep. There needs to be a hard set of rules for codex writers to adhere to, but that will never happen because power sells plastic.

 

If the core game is improved, it will affect the armies in a positive manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th. Tone down the lethality of the game. If the desire is for matches to go faster (hence the lethality of stuff) then just push for less points in standard matches instead of weapons that ignore stuff and do crazy damage. Get rid of most of the strats, move rules back to units. Take out faction specific secondaries. If they can't balance units or point costs half of the time, they certainly shouldn't be trying to juggle in faction specific secondaries and strats.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indexes are only a temporary measure to restore everything to parity in the new edition. Obviously we'd still have codexes. We just use the point costs from the indexes until the next round of 10th edition codexes or MFM books alter them. 

 

So you're not asking for indexes, you're just asking for a new points balance. Which is what we're getting for free come the next Chapter Approved update.

 

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th. Tone down the lethality of the game. If the desire is for matches to go faster (hence the lethality of stuff) then just push for less points in standard matches instead of weapons that ignore stuff and do crazy damage. Get rid of most of the strats, move rules back to units. Take out faction specific secondaries. If they can't balance units or point costs half of the time, they certainly shouldn't be trying to juggle in faction specific secondaries and strats.

 

Indexes worked for 8th, because the entire game was reset and required every army to be redone to match the myriad of new mechanics. They are gone, and we should never go back to them again.

 

Again, nothing is stopping you playing 1000 point games. At all. Don't say there is a "push" to play larger games. That's the community's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th. Tone down the lethality of the game. If the desire is for matches to go faster (hence the lethality of stuff) then just push for less points in standard matches instead of weapons that ignore stuff and do crazy damage. Get rid of most of the strats, move rules back to units. Take out faction specific secondaries. If they can't balance units or point costs half of the time, they certainly shouldn't be trying to juggle in faction specific secondaries and strats.

Indexes worked for 8th, because the entire game was reset and required every army to be redone to match the myriad of new mechanics. They are gone, and we should never go back to them again.

 

Again, nothing is stopping you playing 1000 point games. At all. Don't say there is a "push" to play larger games. That's the community's doing.

Okay, and I never said in my hypothetical situation that the game would not be reset. It would need to be to remove those stuff. And I like the larger 2000pts games and won't play smaller ones, seems like a waste of time. I'm just not a fan of the increasing lethality. I was saying GW seems to be pushing it to have games go faster. I'm not a fan of that.

 

Just some random opinion on a plastic toy soldier game on the internet. Don't take it so personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th. Tone down the lethality of the game. If the desire is for matches to go faster (hence the lethality of stuff) then just push for less points in standard matches instead of weapons that ignore stuff and do crazy damage. Get rid of most of the strats, move rules back to units. Take out faction specific secondaries. If they can't balance units or point costs half of the time, they certainly shouldn't be trying to juggle in faction specific secondaries and strats.

Indexes worked for 8th, because the entire game was reset and required every army to be redone to match the myriad of new mechanics. They are gone, and we should never go back to them again.

 

Again, nothing is stopping you playing 1000 point games. At all. Don't say there is a "push" to play larger games. That's the community's doing.

Okay, and I never said in my hypothetical situation that the game would not be reset. It would need to be to remove those stuff. And I like the larger 2000pts games and won't play smaller ones, seems like a waste of time. I'm just not a fan of the increasing lethality. I was saying GW seems to be pushing it to have games go faster. I'm not a fan of that.

 

Just some random opinion on a plastic toy soldier game on the internet. Don't take it so personal.

 

 

The game should not be reset. That's my point. Let's not go through that all again. 10th should improve on 9th, not burn it all to the ground to just end up in 3-5 years going "9th was actually fantastic, let's go back to that!"

 

You just proved my point too. You like 2000 point games and refuse to play smaller games. Nobody but you is forcing you to do that. 2000 point games don't need to feature smaller armies. Play 1000 points, learn how that size works and then offer how 1000 point games should be balanced. It's that simple.

 

Is there an issue if I take such discussions personally? I love 40k. I love the lore and the game in equal measure. Do I think 9th has faults? Absolutely. Do I loathe it when the only arguments are "3-7th Edition was better, let's go back!" or "9th sucks, let's scrap it all and suffer through early 8th again"? Doubly so! They aren't constructive in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Start 10th with indexes. Have all the codexes out within a year, and you know, have them be balanced instead of this terrible creep we have in 9th. Tone down the lethality of the game. If the desire is for matches to go faster (hence the lethality of stuff) then just push for less points in standard matches instead of weapons that ignore stuff and do crazy damage. Get rid of most of the strats, move rules back to units. Take out faction specific secondaries. If they can't balance units or point costs half of the time, they certainly shouldn't be trying to juggle in faction specific secondaries and strats.

Indexes worked for 8th, because the entire game was reset and required every army to be redone to match the myriad of new mechanics. They are gone, and we should never go back to them again.

 

Again, nothing is stopping you playing 1000 point games. At all. Don't say there is a "push" to play larger games. That's the community's doing.

Okay, and I never said in my hypothetical situation that the game would not be reset. It would need to be to remove those stuff. And I like the larger 2000pts games and won't play smaller ones, seems like a waste of time. I'm just not a fan of the increasing lethality. I was saying GW seems to be pushing it to have games go faster. I'm not a fan of that.

 

Just some random opinion on a plastic toy soldier game on the internet. Don't take it so personal.

The game should not be reset. That's my point. Let's not go through that all again. 10th should improve on 9th, not burn it all to the ground to just end up in 3-5 years going "9th was actually fantastic, let's go back to that!"

 

You just proved my point too. You like 2000 point games and refuse to play smaller games. Nobody but you is forcing you to do that. 2000 point games don't need to feature smaller armies. Play 1000 points, learn how that size works and then offer how 1000 point games should be balanced. It's that simple.

 

Is there an issue if I take such discussions personally? I love 40k. I love the lore and the game in equal measure. Do I think 9th has faults? Absolutely. Do I loathe it when the only arguments are "3-7th Edition was better, let's go back!" or "9th sucks, let's scrap it all and suffer through early 8th again"? Doubly so! They aren't constructive in the least.

You are making no sense to me.

 

"You like 2000 point games and refuse to play smaller games. Nobody but you is forcing you to do that. 2000 point games don't need to feature smaller armies. Play 1000 points, learn how that size works and then offer how 1000 point games should be balanced. It's that simple."

 

Why do I want to play a 1000pts game again? I never said I wanted 2000pts armies to be smaller? I like longer games. If I'm going to spend all the time and money making the army, pack them up and drive somewhere I'm not going to play a quick small match. Playing smaller points still has the same inherent imbalances that larger points games have as well in 9th (I've played them), with codex creep and faction secondaries.

 

If increasing lethality and codex creep was not a thing they would not have had to just make the armor of contempt a rule.

 

And it's all opinions. I liked 8th with indexes and no secondaries more so than this late 9th with all the codex creep and imbalance. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there is an option to play smaller games, its obvious after several smaller games the balance goes out the window. Old 40k, 1500-1750pts was the sweet spot. You saw terrible skew in smaller games. 8th-9th, is clearly also balanced around the 2,000pt game. The power levels and smaller brackets are just afterthought bolt ons with no regards to how they play or balance. 8th-9th prided itself on simplicity, yet went out of its way to layer on needlessly wordy/ complex mechanics that can be made much simpler for the same or similar outcomes in the codexes.

 

The balance is also a disgrace, its boiled down to- release new unit/codex, busted rules, check sales numbers, 3-6 months good sales, nerf unit/codex via FAQ. Then release new unit/codex. Its trash game design. If you want a busted edition, make all the armies busted. If you want a restrained one, make them like the release Necrons + SM dex in early 9th. If you can stick to a consistent design philosophy, I daresay you could get away with delayed codex release schedule, because then when one finally gets their codex they will be on the same orbit despite the wait! Stratagems and Armies of renown/ specialist detachments et al are perfect for narrative play, should be by permission for open play and forbidden in matched play. Crusher stampede etc, oppressive in matched but in narrative/ open very appropriate to use there IMO. The impression GW gives of how they handle 40k is chasing the next dollar and throwing stuff at the wall hoping something sticks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.