What should 11th look like?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

One thing I think for sure is that rerolls should generally be gone or very hard to come by, whether that’s as a 2CP strat and limiting CP even more, or faction epic heros being the only sources, or just completely gone.

 

next I think weapon design should look something thing like this 

S1-3 0AP S4-7 AP-1max S8-10 AP-2 max S11-12 AP-3 max S13+ AP-4 max

 

lethal hits, dev wounds etc gone.

 

some armies have historically played as gun lines, so finding some way to make it so remaining stationary (at least for certain units) is beneficial, maybe make placement secondaries have a flip side something like “get OC into your opponent’s DZ until your next command phase and get that many VP, but for every model you opponent destroys before then, they get as many VP as those models had in OC.”

or something similar. Give armies a reason to take their thunderfire cannons, or their servo turrets, or their heavy weapons squads, etc.

such a secondary rewards both movement, placement for an attacker, while rewarding placement for the defender, and rewards them for well…defending.

 

anyone else have any ideas that would significantly shake up the game?

[Scribe]

Go back to 5th.

 

USR.

Warlord Traits.

Standard Missions.

Points for Upgrades/Models again.

 

No Strats.

No Formations.

No Power Level.

 

Get the Apocalypse out of 40K, and reduce the size of the game.

[HeadlessCross]

11th would need granular points for unit sizes. Free upgrades (and based on what's in the box at that) is bad enough, but forcing units into 5 or 10 models because that's the box is bad. If I had that, I'd at least make peace with the upgrades, as much as GW pretends they can make all options equal. 

 

They also need to play with unit stats more. It's amazing they come up with a solution for capturing objectives like the OC stat, and basically ALL the values for everyone are 1 or 2. It's like in 8th and 9th when they didn't use any S or T values outside what we've seen already despite coming up with a system that wasn't supposed to be limited by that. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

11th should be 10th but with real points values again. That's all I'd change. Hell, doesn't even need new codices (save perhaps reprints with errata/FAQs updates). Just release a MFM with all the new points.

[crimsondave]

12 hours ago, Scribe said:

Go back to 5th.

 

USR.

Warlord Traits.

Standard Missions.

Points for Upgrades/Models again.

 

No Strats.

No Formations.

No Power Level.

 

Get the Apocalypse out of 40K, and reduce the size of the game.

I could get behind this if you kept the 8th plus damage system and would prefer to keep the raised strength and toughness of 10th.  I really want WS vs WS back for melee.

 

I can’t stand and don’t play with cards.  I wish they’d put a little emphasis on what I think 8th called Eternal War.

 

As far as smaller size, can’t you just play less points or do you mean for tournaments?

Edited July 9 by crimsondave

[Cleon]

Bring back org charts - it was the limits on certain roles and then the mandatory line units you needed to then leverage well was a core interesting part of list building, it also gives more room for units to be cool if we know there will be line units for them to be effective against.

 

Also, please stop the continual edition churn, let the rules stabalise and last as long as 3rd/5th did.

 

Personally I'd like more complex vehicle rules, armour facings, fire arcs (like in HH) back, but I recognise that's more complexity than GW wants to handle in 40k these days.

[Evil Eye]

13 hours ago, Scribe said:

Go back to 5th.

 

USR.

Warlord Traits.

Standard Missions.

Points for Upgrades/Models again.

 

No Strats.

No Formations.

No Power Level.

 

Get the Apocalypse out of 40K, and reduce the size of the game.

Whilst I personally thought 5th as a complete game was a bit of a mess (I'd argue it was the beginning of the Apocalypsification and scope creep of the main game) and would prefer a return to 3.5/early 4th, I agree with the overall sentiment. The basic rule system worked and honestly 8th was a major case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater- yes, 7th was a bloated unwieldy mess but that was a result of tacking too much extra crap on top to sell models that didn't belong in the game to begin with.

 

My personal approach would be something like this:

Classic statline, but movement value is retained as that is something I think actually works quite well.

Return to granularity for upgrades and unit size.

Limited selection of stratagems where they make sense; stuff like artillery, air strikes etc, not MOBA ability nonsense or stuff that should be wargear.

Limit the use of really big units. Have a hard cap of 1 super-heavy (including Knights) for games under 3000 points, and even then only with opponent's permission.

SOME kind of FOC. Doesn't matter if it's role based (ala old 40K) or rarity based (like WHFB), there needs to be some structure/expectation of what an army looks like.

Severely reduce the average size of a game. 1500 should be the normal size for a game.

Bring back dedicated rules for vehicles.

Bring back templates.

Have aircraft be used more like stratagems; they fly across the board, do whatever they're meant to and assuming they don't get shot down, fly off again.

Bring back terrain rules (difficult, dangerous etc).

Make Morale actually matter again.

Combine and consolidate a lot of units that really don't need to be separate datasheets. So having one Chaplain datasheet with multiple options rather than having like 7 differently equipped datasheets for example.

Bring back universal armouries again- a bolter is a bolter regardless of who's holding it, rather than every single unit having to have its own weapon profiles.

 

Of course, given how the latest edition of AOS is probably one of the stupidest, most excessively abstracted and videogame-y systems GW has ever put out I won't get my hopes up...

[Scribe]

44 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Of course, given how the latest edition of AOS is probably one of the stupidest, most excessively abstracted and videogame-y systems GW has ever put out I won't get my hopes up...

 

I was afraid so. Looks like the end of GW's rules being decent, just use a third party I guess.

[Cpt_Reaper]

The speed at which new topics turn to "everything is terrible. Go back to old edition and take away X, Y and Z" is getting tiresome. I know you get tired of me posting how 10th is fine, and those older editions were not the great beacon of gaming you think they were.

[Emperor Ming]

An edition where guard get a codex within a reasonable timeframe?

 

 

I ask too much. 

[Redcomet]

I would argue that how the rules are, is less important than how said rules are developed. They gotta stop the constant tinkering and updates. Stop with the meta watch focus. A yearly review of the rules and points at the most, or a half life cycle update. 
 

And the 3 year cycle has to stop.

[sonsoftaurus]

Don’t playtest, don’t seriously edit, put out books that are obsolete as soon as they are released, overcorrect any problems so you can make new ones, keep rinsing and repeating. 
 

That’s what I expect it’ll look like.

 

What would I like? A tight, clear rule set, slower better thought out and tested releases with better internal and external balances. 
 

But the former is more likely.

[crimsondave]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

The speed at which new topics turn to "everything is terrible. Go back to old edition and take away X, Y and Z" is getting tiresome. I know you get tired of me posting how 10th is fine, and those older editions were not the great beacon of gaming you think they were.

I’m glad you like it.

[Xenith]

4-5 year edition cycles, but with a new expansion each year in year 3-5, like cityfight, boarding actions, daemon world etc. 

 

Move WS charts back to comparison, so you only hit on a 2+ if you double the opposing WS. No way should abaddon be landing 100% of hits on guilliman.

 

Too much stuff really. Keep things constructive and civil folks! 

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I know you get tired of me posting how 10th is fine, and those older editions were not the great beacon of gaming you think they were.

 

And I know it's painful for some, but 10th is as bad as we have been saying since release, and those older editions were better.

 

It may be fine to you, that's great, but I don't care to pay for the privilege to beta test for a company making millions in profit.

[CL_Mission]

Centimetres, D10s

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

The speed at which new topics turn to "everything is terrible. Go back to old edition and take away X, Y and Z" is getting tiresome. I know you get tired of me posting how 10th is fine, and those older editions were not the great beacon of gaming you think they were.

10th as a ruleset, besides not being AA vs IGOUGO, is fine. GW has at least started experimenting with statlines which is good vs the old "noooo I want W1 A1 Marines because classic rules!!!1!". It just needs some cleaning up (as always).

 

EDIT: Oh, and that bizarre attachment to the old vehicle rules is bizarre. Thank God they're gone. 

Edited July 9 by HeadlessCross

[HeadlessCross]

45 minutes ago, Xenith said:

4-5 year edition cycles, but with a new expansion each year in year 3-5, like cityfight, boarding actions, daemon world etc. 

 

Move WS charts back to comparison, so you only hit on a 2+ if you double the opposing WS. No way should abaddon be landing 100% of hits on guilliman.

 

Too much stuff really. Keep things constructive and civil folks! 

Fixed WS works just as fine as fixed BS as long as modifiers are used appropriately. For example, attacking a unit in cover might nab a negative modifier. 

 

What is really needed is units attacking each other at once. Taking turns is absurdly silly and units attacking first should only do so in specific circumstances, like landing the charge etc.

Edited July 9 by HeadlessCross

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

11th would need granular points for unit sizes. Free upgrades (and based on what's in the box at that) is bad enough, but forcing units into 5 or 10 models because that's the box is bad. If I had that, I'd at least make peace with the upgrades, as much as GW pretends they can make all options equal. 

 

They also need to play with unit stats more. It's amazing they come up with a solution for capturing objectives like the OC stat, and basically ALL the values for everyone are 1 or 2. It's like in 8th and 9th when they didn't use any S or T values outside what we've seen already despite coming up with a system that wasn't supposed to be limited by that. 

I mean I think they could make all options roughly equal value for their respective uses. A flamer could be of equal value against hordes that a lascannon is against armor/monsters.

 

the flexibility of missile/grenade launchers could provide equal value if their raw stats don’t.

[HeadlessCross]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I mean I think they could make all options roughly equal value for their respective uses. A flamer could be of equal value against hordes that a lascannon is against armor/monsters.

 

the flexibility of missile/grenade launchers could provide equal value if their raw stats don’t.

In theory that's great, but anti-infantry special weapons are always going to be of lower value simply because all your own infantry have anti-infantry standard. MLs and GLs can at least be given a rule to fulfill a niche (like granting the ML a third profile, or the GL can shoot out of LoS and have a pinning effect). Things of that nature. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

In theory that's great, but anti-infantry special weapons are always going to be of lower value simply because all your own infantry have anti-infantry standard. MLs and GLs can at least be given a rule to fulfill a niche (like granting the ML a third profile, or the GL can shoot out of LoS and have a pinning effect). Things of that nature. 

I disagree, there’s a difference between anti-infantry weapons, and anti-horde weapons.

a flamer that’s Ad6+3 S3 AP0 D1 would make it a high value weapon.

heavy flamer Ad6+3 S4 AP-1 D2 again a pretty high value weapon.

 

in 40K there’s also so many different profiles infantry can have. A lasgun isn’t an anti-terminator or custodes weapon, even if the unit has 10, but dropping 1 lasgun shot for 4-9 flamer shots would be much better against elite infantry (though krak grenades/missiles should be better for that role imo)

 

 

[conscriptboris]

It should look like 2028 minimum. Other than that. Skinned out 5th Ed with smaller sized armies.

[Ahzek451]

Echoing others:

 I would just be happy if they did 2 things:

1. Slow down edition cycles and above all, give it a couple years AT LEAST after the last codex release so we can stop seeing these codex books that launch at the end that are only valid for a few months. I've never owned an army that was in this position, but I would totally get why anyone put in this position would be upset. Super bad faith practice.

2. Allocate a respectable amount of resources to polishing off core/army rules and balance. The beans have been spilled for some time now, GW does not put in the effort they should, but to be fair why should they? The model continues to sell. Rules and balance that work just enough, and let the fans figure out the problems for them for free. But even if this one miraculously gets fixed, it only has worth if #1 also gets resolved. 

Frankly, I consider the 2 issues above to be some of the primary concerns to the health of the game that comes before the subjective choice in game mechanics each player prefers. Fix these, then we can comfortably discuss which edition game mechanics are ideal. 

[Marshal Mittens]

Personally I want to see damage get flattened again; less high ap, damage 2+ and mortal wounds, less wounds and invul saves. 

 

I would like less special rules. 

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

EDIT: Oh, and that bizarre attachment to the old vehicle rules is bizarre. Thank God they're gone. 

What's bizarre about wanting vehicles to work like vehicles? You should not be able to pepper a Leman Russ to death with grot blastas. Having vehicles as a specific kind of unit with strengths (speed, durability, firepower) and weaknesses (blind spots, vulnerability to difficult terrain, size as a target etc) adds a lot more depth to the gameplay than them working the exact same way as infantry.