What should 11th look like?

[DuskRaider]

18 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.

 Bring back AV, facing, TLoS and templates as well and stop writing rules like we’re 7 years old. 
 

Then again, the 40K-For-Dummies rules have crept a bit into HHv2.0 so I doubt it’ll ever happen. 

[MARK0SIAN]

It depends if you’re talking about a wish list for 11th or what changes we want that might have a reasonable chance of happening. 
 

Top of both lists for me would be a return of real points, not power levels masquerading as points. 
 

I don’t think there’s much point in wish listing so other things I’d like that might have a chance of happening are a return of a proper force organisation chart, less special abilities sprinkled onto everything and some way of making vehicles behave/feel more like vehicles. 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

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.

Ah yes, "depth", like just glancing vehicles to death or just making them immobile. The edition they were best in, 5th, was still bad. Vehicle AV added no depth besides eventually creating skew armies in one direction vs another. 

 

And no you can't pepper a Leman Russ to death with Grot Blastas. 100 Gretchin mathematically inflict less than 2 wounds. Fun fact is that would be the same for Gretchin trying to kill a Carnifex in 6th or 7th, and that Carnifex is MUCH tougher in these later editions. 

 

And no vehicles don't work the same as infantry any more than Monstrous Creatures. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

19 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Ah yes, "depth", like just glancing vehicles to death or just making them immobile. The edition they were best in, 5th, was still bad. Vehicle AV added no depth besides eventually creating skew armies in one direction vs another. 

 

And no you can't pepper a Leman Russ to death with Grot Blastas. 100 Gretchin mathematically inflict less than 2 wounds. Fun fact is that would be the same for Gretchin trying to kill a Carnifex in 6th or 7th, and that Carnifex is MUCH tougher in these later editions. 

 

And no vehicles don't work the same as infantry any more than Monstrous Creatures. 

And yet I killed a repulsor executioner with a lasgun a game or two ago.

 

the two arguments in favor of weak guns being able to hurt tough tank like vehicles are complete exclusionary to each other.

 

”well this way even if your AT is killed you can still interact with enemy tanks”

is the opposite of 

“well it’s ok because realistically it would take 100 grot blastas to kill tank”

if my grot blastas can’t reasonably inflict significant damage in a timely manner the interaction between the two is completely meaningless.

[Noserenda]

I think the rules for 10th are broadly fine, it probably just needs to nuanced tweaks i havent played enough to identify :D 

I do think the codexes need to strip special rules off most units and bring back points though, id quite like my choices to be meaningful rather than ":cuss: it, bring everything" but yeah, if everything has special rules, they arent special, just more rules.

And yeah, having played a few 30k games recently, the old vehicle rules are garbage and im glad theyre gone. Facings i think could come back as a modifier like bolt action easily enough, tie it to the vehicle keyword. Bam. But yeah, if you are somehow firing hundreds of small arms at a tank a trivial amount of damage isnt actually implausible by raw fluke :P

[ThaneOfTas]

Wishlisting a bit here.

 

Broadly speaking i actually rather like the core rules of 10th, probably just needs a few minor changes to things like battleshock to make it matter more and i wish precision worked differently, but on the whole i like more than i dont. Its the faction and unit rules that i take issue with.

 

Bring back points, as well as PPM and pointed wargear.

 

a Force Org chart would be nice, but i go back and forth a little on that.

 

Get rid of the unit card abilities. some of them could come back tied to wargear, and maybe let battleline keep theirs to encourage taking them over all elites.

 

A longer edition cycle would also be nice, but I'm not holding out hope for that.

 

Ideally I'd also like to see characters at least go back to one datasheet per type, rather than 4 or 5 captains, its just one captain with a bunch of loadout options.

 

In a related note, bring back Armoury pages, a Bolter is a Bolter is a bolter, a krak missile is a krak missile, a plasma pistol is a plasma pistol, and de restrict the loadouts, why can a Lieutenant carry a Neo-Volkite pistol but a captain cannot? Why can a captain only carry a Heavy Bolt pistol when he is also carrying a relic shield and power weapon?

 

And on another related note, cut down on datasheet bloat by merging sheets that have no business being separate, there's no need for 3 Stormspeeder sheets, or three Gladiators or two Predators, hell even the Land Raider doesn't need to be three different sheets. I think I've mentioned before that back when the 10th index came out i managed to cut down the space marine list from 105 non character datasheets, to 60, all the while adding more potential options, and honestly considering that some of that has since been sent to legends i might be able to go lower.

 

I recognise that best case i get one or two of these, but i'd really like to see all of them.

[ThePenitentOne]

I'd like to see varied load out options and costed equipment return; I'd like psychic abilities to be more flexible- ie. choosing psychic powers rather than all units of the same type must have the same suite of psychic abilities.  I'd like the core rules to acknowledge that 500 point battles that aren't combat patrol are still valid. I'd like to slow the rate of update and change for Crusade- something like 9th's system where if you were a Crusade player, you didn't have to worry about updates designed for tournament and pick-up players to screw with your ongoing narrative to making sweeping changes that affect your roster or change the way your army operates.

 

But what I most want is the end of three year churn and more development of non-marine ranges. I happen to like Marines that function as Chambers militant (ie. GK and Deathwatch), but honestly, I'd like to see as few marine releases as possible until the other ranges catch up even if that means holding off GK/DW development.  I want a big book of campaign systems. And I want the biggest possible sandbox I can get, with as many roleplay/ campaign options as you can cram into a wargame.

 

What makes 40k special is that with GW's dominance of the market, they can afford to have more factions with broader ranges than any other game that's begging for money on Kickstarter and fighting bankruptcy at every turn. If you want a game that is a simple 10 faction/ 10 kit per faction range, find one and play it, rather than suggesting that 40k become the thing you want when it is literally the only table-top game with the resources to be more than that. So lean into the expansive sandbox- create as many Vespid and Demiurg and Gue'vesa as there are Kroot units... More in fact, because Kroot need Greater Knarlocs back. Give us an Eldar Corsair army. Bring on the Exodites. Massively expand Guard with regiment specific models. Create terrain kits for non-Imperial factions. Make box sets and starter sets that don't include marines. Get aircraft and superheavies to all the factions that don't currently have them.

[Cpt_Reaper]

What I remember about the days of AV facing, scatter and templates:

• Blast markers scattering onto my models, regardless of who fired the weapon.
• In the very rare instance I could argue that it had, in fact, scattered onto enemy models my opponents would argue that it only hit 1-2 models and not the ~5 it clearly did
• My opponents were always able to hit the weakest facing ("Dude, I totally can hit your side armour. No your front armour is not closer!") yet I always hit the strongest facing of enemy armour

Do I like everything wounding everything? No I do not. However I'll take that over rules that can be abused (also known as cheating). I stopped taking blast weapons for the majority of 4th-7th editions. I only started winning games in 8th edition. I am oh so glad to see vehicle rules go the way they did, and I am even more glad that restrictive FoC's have gone away. The Troop Tax is a thing of the past, and I will never miss it.

[Scribe]

20 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

What I remember about the days of AV facing, scatter and templates:

• Blast markers scattering onto my models, regardless of who fired the weapon.
• In the very rare instance I could argue that it had, in fact, scattered onto enemy models my opponents would argue that it only hit 1-2 models and not the ~5 it clearly did
• My opponents were always able to hit the weakest facing ("Dude, I totally can hit your side armour. No your front armour is not closer!") yet I always hit the strongest facing of enemy armour

Do I like everything wounding everything? No I do not. However I'll take that over rules that can be abused (also known as cheating). I stopped taking blast weapons for the majority of 4th-7th editions. I only started winning games in 8th edition. I am oh so glad to see vehicle rules go the way they did, and I am even more glad that restrictive FoC's have gone away. The Troop Tax is a thing of the past, and I will never miss it.

 

Sorry you had to play with dicks.

[Evil Eye]

Yeah, that sounds more like a problem of playing against douchebags than any problem with the rules themselves. Rules lawyers/munchkins/powergamers/blatant cheaters will exist regardless of the rules, and trying to legislate around them will only result in a worse game. The solution isn't to dumb down the rules to try and curtail poor sportsmanship, it's to gatekeep obnoxious players as hard as humanly possible. If you're playing cricket and some psycho starts hitting people with the bat, you don't replace the bat with a foam noodle. You keep that lunatic out of the game.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Ah the old "why AV and scatter was bad".

 

Did people not roll the scatter dice right next to where they were trying to hit? It was pretty common etiquette back 18+ years ago in both fantasy and 40k, and I see it repeated in HH 2nd, AT, and Old World. People don't argue about it because it's pretty unambiguous. Also, line lasers just removed all doubt, and doubled for showing vehicle facings; you just drew an X over the center and saw which quadrant the firing models were  in. Super simple, super easy to mark with that line laser, super end of problems. 

 

I wonder what some of these people (especially old Ishagu) who had such issues with basic stuff would have reacted if they played fantasy. Probably would have celebrated AOS 1st or something lol; they don't like having restrictions on which toys they can bring and needing to turn them around properly before making pew pew noises.

[DuskRaider]

I don’t remember having many arguments about facing or templates at all and I’ve been playing since 3rd. I do remember how cool it was when an Orbital Bombardment would drop on my hordes of Boyz or the hilarity of doing drive-bys with 20 Burna Boyz in a Battle Wagon or the fear of having to face a Land Raider, back when they were tough as nails to kill and appropriately costed so there weren’t a billion of them on the battlefield because they weren’t 100 points or whatever ridiculousness is going on these days. 
 

I imagine it’s a lot more fun just pumping shots into a tank and watching it eventually go down like a Carnifex instead of actually having to come up with a strategy to engage its weak armor facing, though. 
 

 

[HeadlessCross]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And yet I killed a repulsor executioner with a lasgun a game or two ago.

 

the two arguments in favor of weak guns being able to hurt tough tank like vehicles are complete exclusionary to each other.

 

”well this way even if your AT is killed you can still interact with enemy tanks”

is the opposite of 

“well it’s ok because realistically it would take 100 grot blastas to kill tank”

if my grot blastas can’t reasonably inflict significant damage in a timely manner the interaction between the two is completely meaningless.

Those statements don't have to be exclusive from each other though. It's simply stating that certain elements shouldn't have an ability to not interact with anything, which is what Monster and Vehicle Mash always did. It's super convenient to forget about the former being basically exactly the same, with in fact monstrous creatures getting even STRONGER vs small arms, but you don't complain.  

[Evil Eye]

2 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

I wonder what some of these people (especially old Ishagu) who had such issues with basic stuff would have reacted if they played fantasy.

Oh sweet Emperor I dread to think. I not too long ago acquired the WHFB 6th Edition rulebook and some army books (O&G and Skaven) and reading through them was interesting; the rules for movement alone were pretty in-depth, not in a bad way mind you (rank and flank games require such rules) but there was more complexity and thought that went into manoeuvring your regiments than the entirety of the new AOS edition. Added on top you had artillery where you had to guess the range accurately, stuff like the rules for squig hoppers and fantatics, etc, and you had a pretty complex ruleset. And that was in one of the more simplified/concise editions of WHFB! Imagine if these people tried playing 3rd ed Fantasy...

 

Ahem. 40K.

 

The one point where I COULD see armour facings being confusing is Eldar vehicles with their rather unusual shapes...if it weren't for the Falcon-chassis vehicles all having the same AV for front and side (the possibly tricky bit with those crescent shaped hulls), and the rear being very easy to determine. As for templates, the risk of blasts hitting your own troops was part of the fun, and also a good way of balancing blast weapons; using them in close quarters was not a great idea, meaning close-combat oriented infantry-heavy armies like Orks or Tyranids that were normally vulnerable to blast weapons would be able to turn the tables on the foe if they got into assault range. Conveniently, also giving flamer weapons a place to shine as close range area-of-effect weapons with no risk of scatter.

[Scribe]

43 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Probably would have celebrated AOS 1st or something lol; they don't like having restrictions on which toys they can bring and needing to turn them around properly before making pew pew noises.

 

See and this is the thing. You can find, this very day, people who not only played AoS as it was released, but will tell you, as they have lied to themselves long enough, that it was actually good.

 

If ANY other game company released AoS version 1? They go under. GW is simply unrivaled, and too big to fail, so any rule set will do, AoS version 1 proves it.

[HeadlessCross]

44 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Ah the old "why AV and scatter was bad".

 

Did people not roll the scatter dice right next to where they were trying to hit? It was pretty common etiquette back 18+ years ago in both fantasy and 40k, and I see it repeated in HH 2nd, AT, and Old World. People don't argue about it because it's pretty unambiguous. Also, line lasers just removed all doubt, and doubled for showing vehicle facings; you just drew an X over the center and saw which quadrant the firing models were  in. Super simple, super easy to mark with that line laser, super end of problems. 

 

I wonder what some of these people (especially old Ishagu) who had such issues with basic stuff would have reacted if they played fantasy. Probably would have celebrated AOS 1st or something lol; they don't like having restrictions on which toys they can bring and needing to turn them around properly before making pew pew noises.

And what does "they don't like having restrictions on which toys they can bring and needing to turn them around properly before making pew pew noises" have to do with AV and templates/blast markers?

[Cpt_Reaper]

11 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

See and this is the thing. You can find, this very day, people who not only played AoS as it was released, but will tell you, as they have lied to themselves long enough, that it was actually good.

 

If ANY other game company released AoS version 1? They go under. GW is simply unrivaled, and too big to fail, so any rule set will do, AoS version 1 proves it.

 

Or...they liked the game because it was good. People liking AoS 1E, and 40k 10th, aren't lying to themselves. If it's good, people will like it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Oh yeah, comparative WS in melee rather than a flat to hit, similar to the S-T interaction.

 

fantasy has this mechanic but I think they have a whole chart instead.

 

so WS6 vs WS3 6 would hit on 2+ and 3 on 6+, this would represent a model’s ability to dodge, parry, block, etc.

then we can even bring back combat shields as a +1 to WS or something, instead of just big storm shields.

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

Or...they liked the game because it was good. People liking AoS 1E, and 40k 10th, aren't lying to themselves. If it's good, people will like it.

 

AoS v1 was not a good game. It hardly could be called a game, and that it was a 'replacement' for WHFB 8th, is hilarious. Its like saying a day old McDonalds burger is good, after you have had a world class steak.

 

They are both beef, of a kind, both I guess would rate as food, but thats about as far as it goes.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

What I remember about the days of AV facing, scatter and templates:

• Blast markers scattering onto my models, regardless of who fired the weapon.
• In the very rare instance I could argue that it had, in fact, scattered onto enemy models my opponents would argue that it only hit 1-2 models and not the ~5 it clearly did
• My opponents were always able to hit the weakest facing ("Dude, I totally can hit your side armour. No your front armour is not closer!") yet I always hit the strongest facing of enemy armour

Do I like everything wounding everything? No I do not. However I'll take that over rules that can be abused (also known as cheating). I stopped taking blast weapons for the majority of 4th-7th editions. I only started winning games in 8th edition. I am oh so glad to see vehicle rules go the way they did, and I am even more glad that restrictive FoC's have gone away. The Troop Tax is a thing of the past, and I will never miss it.

Yeah I can’t remember this being a problem.

occasionally there’d be some disagreement between if the template was hitting 4 or 5 models, but nothing like 2 vs 5.

 

also never had an argument about facings. Maybe it’s cuz I was very young, or maybe just had a less toxic community. Idk.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

31 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Those statements don't have to be exclusive from each other though. It's simply stating that certain elements shouldn't have an ability to not interact with anything, which is what Monster and Vehicle Mash always did. It's super convenient to forget about the former being basically exactly the same, with in fact monstrous creatures getting even STRONGER vs small arms, but you don't complain.  

Again, they do and they are.

if my small guns cannot have a meaningful interaction then the first argument is moot.

by the same token I’m sure it was a real feel bad moment for my opponent when a basic guardsmen with a lasgun scored a lethal hit on his big ‘tough’ tank because….*checks notes* the guardsmen didn’t move…

[Evil Eye]

I think it's also worth noting that dedicated vehicle rules in particular contributed towards the game feeling like a simulation of a fictional battle and not like a video game played with models. In the classic system, vehicles were varying degrees of impervious to small arms fire, but if you were lucky could be taken out by a single hit, as is the case with real armoured vehicles. Of course, their survivability varied; a Vyper could be torn to shreds by sustained heavy bolter fire (which makes sense, it's a fast moving but lightly armoured recon vehicle) whilst a Land Raider would be untouched by anything short of dedicated anti-armour weapons (which again, makes sense, it's THE best non-super-heavy tank the Imperium has in its arsenal and is a colossal landship designed to act as equal parts assault transport and linebreaker tank).

 

Both ends of the spectrum have ups and downs. The "lightly armoured small cheap vehicle" can be taken in greater numbers, does not use up as many points that could be spent on other things, and often punch well above their weight with the ability to bring heavy weapons to bear against important targets. However, they can't be relied upon as sustained fighters as they will be crippled by relatively low-strength weapons, being better suited to hit-and-run attacks. The "huge nigh-indestructible armoured behemoth" is of course extremely resilient and usually carries a lot of firepower of its own- but they are expensive, which means if taken out, you've lost a large chunk of your force, and will attract a LOT of enemy fire.

 

Likewise, there were a variety of ways to deal with vehicles. A heavy weapon or meltagun carried in a squad could possibly ruin a tank's day, and things like melta bombs allowed for particularly daring troops to take out even heavy tanks. The Land Raider may have AV14 all around but 8+2D6 is still likely to chew through that, and if the squad gets the drop on it from the rear it's in big trouble, as its only 360-degree arc weapon is the storm bolter you probably didn't equip it with.

 

...Oh yes, weapon arcs. Those were cool too; tanks not being able to shoot through themselves and having to actually think about positioning to bring their weapons to bear without exposing weak spots was nice.

 

Every army had different strengths and weaknesses with its vehicles and ability to deal with them; Tyranids had no vehicles whatsoever and limited ranged anti-tank, but could also field Genestealers as troops which would shred through most vehicles in melee, and the Carnifex which would simply delete anything it touched. Space Marines had a variety of vehicles to choose from; the humble Predator packed a decent amount of guns on a small affordable package, the Vindicator had a short effective range but good frontal survivability and a highly destructive pie-plate chucking demolisher cannon, the Land Raider was unlikely to be fielded in multiples but was tough enough to survive almost anything, etc, and of course the actual infantry could be equipped to deal with enemy vehicles with melta bombs or heavy weapons. And then you had Necrons, who had all of one vehicle which IIRC you couldn't take more than one of, but was the most fearsome vehicle in the entire game with an immunity to extra penetration dice or AV modifiers. Scary stuff, which is why you targeted the rest of the army to trigger a Phase Out rather than going head-to-head with the Monolith itself.

 

It should also be mentioned that one real benefit of the old vehicle system was that damage wasn't just a black and white "is it destroyed or not" binary. Even stunning a vehicle's crew could be a major blow, as that's a turn the vehicle can't fight at full effectiveness, possibly wreaking havoc on a battle plan, to say nothing of a main gun being knocked out of commission or the vehicle being immobilized.

 

There were definitely issues with older editions re: vehicles, notably the horrors of 5th edition parking lot Guard, but I'd argue that those were more issues with power and scope creep, driving up the size of the average battle and bringing in ever more ridiculous units, rather than the fault of vehicle rules themselves. (In fact I'd argue that was the biggest problem with 5th; the core rules were solid but the codices varied from utterly busted, like Guard, Blood Angels and Grey knights, to pretty mediocre, like Tyranids and most of the armies that didn't get updates that edition, creating a massive imbalance of power between factions). If a game is being pushed from having medium-sized armies where you actually have to choose what you take to a free-for-all where everyone is taking multiple super-heavies and as many big scary units as possible, then frankly the game is going to suffer regardless of whether vehicles have actual dedicated rules or not. The only difference it makes is if there are still vehicle rules then normal, well-adjusted people not chasing the meta and not playing like complete tools can still enjoy the game as intended rather than having the flavour and simulationist elements stripped away as GW try and fail to combat a problem they themselves created.

[Antarius]

16 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.

While I am one of the people who would really prefer to go back to previous editions (or at least core elements of them), I sort of agree with you. As a survivor of the good old days, I can vouch for the fact that we complained about how terrible everything was back then too 

As I said, I do think 3-4-5th ed. were just straight up better games, but acting like they didn't have their share of problems is pretty silly. For my part, the idea of going back to a previous edition is pretty much just about personally preferring a different set of problems than the current crop. Right now, it looks like my next game of 40K is not going to be for a couple of years (due to other games taking precedence), but when the time comes I'll just tailor the game to my preferences, rather than play an edition I'm fundamentally unhappy with. I think that's a positive thing, really, but I totally get being fed up with endless complaints about how terrible the hobby is. I always, always think people should aim to fix the problems they encounter (whether that means houseruling, going back to other editions, playing different systems etc., etc.) rather than complain (too much) about them.

[Kastor Krieg]

RADICAL changes to the ruleset are absolutely a must. The game has stagnated for over 20 years if not more.

 

Absolutely none of:

• return of tons of USRs
• all-or-nothing rules like AV
• ambiguous rules causing aggravation and conflict at the table like the previous execution of vehicle facings or blast markers

IGOUGO and alpha strike stuff it causes has to finally die in the fire. At the very least implement it like Battletech does (units return fire undiminished, damage occurs in End Phase), preferably implement staggered randomized per unit initiative like Bolt Action order dice or similar.

 

There's a lot more, but those are an absolute minimum for me to return to playing 40k again. I came back in 10th and it's a dumpster fire. Even my Templars being finally powerful is not fun at all.

 

Edited July 11 by Jolemai
Swear filter dodge

[TrawlingCleaner]

People enjoy different game mechanics differently (different strokes for different folks) and I think GW have likely cottoned onto that. If you don't like 40k's direction there's 30k and if you don't like AoS's direction there's WHFB plus all of the various side games which also offer a wide variation on game mechanics. I suppose that's probably their plan/aim anyways. If people want to try other game mechanics, they have several ready to suck people back in. I personally don't expect a game to be marketed to me at all times or that I was even in the target market for that game to begin with and that's cool. There's plenty going, GW or otherwise!

 

I think the idea that people are lying to themselves because they enjoy a game that you don't enjoy is such a miserable hot take that really has no place in the hobby. If people are enjoying something, that's fantastic! Hell yeah! Positive, productive and creative hobbies are good for the soul in what can be a turbulent, hectic and crushing work/real life. If you enjoy older editions or HH or WHFB, pop off king/queen! Passion is more contagious and constructive that dreary put-downs of others enjoyment

 

Anywho

 

I'm having a blast with 10th so far, there's some niggles I have but largely think the ruleset works really well as is. Perhaps it's because I've enjoyed AoS (lie free) since it dropped but I don't mind units being a fixed points cost, I think they could do better at balancing some options against each other but that does mostly seem to be a problem for SM/CSM etc where there's a larger gap in power between a flamer and a melta for example. I've love the cycle to slow down to 4-5 years as others have noted as not everyone is able to get as many games in as others and it can feel like the editions gone before they've gotten many games in.

 

AoS 4th edition has brought in a sort of list building structure that I think 40k could benefit from called Regiments. You basically take characters to "unlock" up to 3 specific units (4 for your warlord), usually with a theme around them. For example, Saurus Oldbloods let you take any "Saurus" units, Skinks let you take Skink, Kroxigor or Monster units, Slaan let you take any Seraphon units, a Darkoath cheiftain can only take other Darkoath units or Monsters, Lords only Warriors and Monsters but Archaon can take any Salves to Darkness units

Spoiler

 

It wouldn't work copy and pasted for 40k but could work with some effort. Like if you took a Terminator Chaplain you can take Terminator units and a Landraider or Necron Destroyer Lords unlock Destroyer units and a Doomstalker etc etc.

Gives more of an incentive to take fluffier lists and a bit more structure

Edited July 10 by TrawlingCleaner