The TOP 3 rules changes Warhammer 40k needs
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- If you can think of any more, then pop them in the comments section. You never know, maybe someone out there is listening?
If you would like to support me and get tons of extra content then become a UA-cam channel member.
/ @wintersseo
If you buy stuff from Element Games using my affiliate link it also supports me. Don't forget to use code "win13" for extra Element Crystals which = money back.
elementgames.co.uk/?d=11014
Check out Den Of Imagination, the greatest painting studio in the Sol system.
denofimagination.com/
Minimum codex shelf life of at least 5 years.
Agreed. If they are going to release a new rules set they need to give people a chance to enjoy their codex (at least 2yrs), I would be happy it they went back to the way they done it between 3rd-7th. Your codex was always relevant and may not get a new one for 2 editions.
I hope not… Custodes player
@@timzuber6682 by the time the next edition comes around it will be 2 years for custodes. Im looking more at the last edition where Imperial Guard players had a couple of months to use their codex and it was done.
I actually agree in with you broadly speaking. World Eaters had the same.
But we got a pile of trash codex… a new one sooner rather than later would be great. More of a tongue in cheek comment about poorly balanced rules
@@timzuber6682 fair point. My request would require balanced rules, which makes it more or less extra impossible. Custodes 9th Ed codex was quite nice, as written anyway.
I love how he's basically describing Heresy rules :D
To me, the top rules changes would be:
1 - Battleshock, needs a rally role in the command phase instead of autopassing. Battleshocked units have half movement and -1 BS and WS.
2 - Revert the devastating wounds rule back to mortal wounds, and create a new universal special rule, say catastriphic damage or something, for weapons like star cannons, rail guns, vanquishers and the like that ignores saves on a critical wound. This would make rules that ignore mortals useful again and it would prevent big damage weapons from 1 shoting whole units with 1 hit.
i hear that first one all over the place and i swear nobody ever notices you are supposed to keep making battleshock tests. Units dont make 1 test and theyre done for the rest of the game, if theyre less than half they make a test every single command phase.
Battleshock is not a useless mechanic, people just keep ignoring parts of it or not obeying it right. Ive bumped into tons of people that even thought it happened AFTER scoring for some stupid reason. Nobody ever gets that rule right.
so tau and guard would be unplayable with those battleshock rules.
@@vineheart01 when I mean a rally test it's not for bellow-half units. It's for units that were battleschocked by stratagems and abilities. Bellow-half battleshock is almost always useless because more often then not the unit is just wiped. But if units need to make a rally test even if at full strength, makes strats and abilities that force units to test for battleshock more useful.
I am also in favor of attacks that triple the toughness of a target just auto wound.
The way leadership scores and battleshock are written in 10th I think just a couple tweaks could make them work:
1. Detachments/Armies that force battleshock tests should simply gain additional rules (like -1 to saves) that always apply to battleshocked enemies.
2. Detachments/Armies that benefit from battleshock tests should have more ways to cause those battleshock tests to happen. (i.e. unforgiven battleshocking themselves??)
3. Battleshock tests should happen at half-strength rather than bellow half-strength. Especially for units with 2 models.
We need the Winters SEO -Card Deck of Missions.
I don't understand why GW balances and evolves 40K and AoS purely around tournament play. Think about it. The vast majority of players are casual players that get to play like once a month. And yet all balance updates and so on is derived solely from the 1% of players that go to tournaments.
Every game has this. The hard part of balancing for pro level play and casual play.
A big issue there is that a LOT of casual players will look to tournament results anyway to determine if their army is "washed" or their opponent's army is "Overpowered BS". I've had some people in my scene whine and winge all game when I brought my incredibly off-meta Eldar list at the start of the edition.
Also, tournaments are realistically the only place where win rates are being tracked as fairly as possible, and therefore the only place GW can get any relevant data on what's over-/underperforming.
Either they balance around tournaments or not at all.
@@maxmagnus377 And yet tournaments and the performance of armies in them aren't easily compared to the casual scene. Take armies with small playerbases like GSC or Sororitas. If a handful of very good players manage to win GTCs with them the army is suddenly considered strong even though 90% of players wouldn't be able to recreate the same results.
At this stage we need a separate game system like heresy but for casual 40k. My absolute hopium dream is that 40k eventually gets its own game system built off of (obviously improved) 7th edition rules with all the flavour. But it'll never happen.
They use tournament stats because those are the easiest to acquire, but they balance the game for new players. Tournament players are fully invested. They can handle units being good or bad-they’ll just switch to different units. If a new player loses badly because they picked the “wrong” units because they looked cool, they may decide wargaming isn’t for them, and will never come back.
As someone trying to get back into Old World with limited time for games, I will say that making almost everything a universal special rule does add some challenge to the learning curve. Units in that game frequently have a dozen or more universal rules that apply before you start adding magic effect. Keeping them all sorted in your head when you’re getting one game a month is a problem. Nothing that couldn’t be solved with a decent reference sheet, of course.
Honestly there needs to be a separate set of rules for matched play something super dumbed down like 10th but let most people play in a 9th eddition style mixed with horus heresy moral. I miss running my valhallen militia being carried by 6 commisars. It wasnt tournament viable but it was unique it was fun and it was my own. We lost so much from 9th to 10th. Rules, flavor, unique playstyles, fan animations, price hikes for plastic, whole swaths of units from every faction,whole factions in fact, detatchments that are universal not specific to a single unit type.
It would have been so easy for GW to set some extra rules for tournaments ban certain units and change around tornement points for units banning units that are rare. Capping the unit sizes and unit types and what detachments can be taken against each other bc right now it feels like GW is trying to funnel everyone to play the same few factions in the same few ways so they can streamline sales the community be damned.
Some things that I feel makes the game a bit lacking is about vehicles. Simple changes (or going backs) could make the game more cinematic and also force more tactics (maybe).
1. Take back armour facings. You can still use regulat saves but have different saves for different facings. Example: Rhino Front 3+ Sides 3+ Back 4+.
2. Make vehicles use true line of sight from their guns to fire. Rotating tanks that somehow manages to fire all their guns in the same direction is silly.
3. Leave destroyed vehicles on the table and treat them like cover and dangerous terrain (does that still even exist!?). If they explode, put a crater there.
Simple things that I find would be cool and fun.
Just front and rear. Attacks that can draw line of sight from a horizontal line behind the rear of the vehicle apply +1 AP and -1 T to the vehicle. Some models have Open Topped (always count as receiving fire from the rear) and some units like Monoliths have "No Rear" special rule, so they ignore this.
Just because it's matched play, doesn't make it "sweaty". This is the kind of attitude that needs to change.
Nahhh
I think these are all good changes. I'd like to see characters able to attach themselves to new units after their unit is killed off, units of the same models able to merge to make up their casualties, and Striking Scorpions need to have stealth because Come On.
Get rid of command re-rolls. If you roll bad you roll bad
Make snipers and barrage less lethal but bring back pinning. That was an amazing rule.
Finally does every unit have to have a special rule. I get some units do but does every unit need to have one.
Oh last one make battleline units more relevant. They should be the mainstay of you army. But instead of an actual unit being battle line, list what is battle line in the detachment rules. For example the Kroot Detachment make the Kroot Warrior battleline. All battle line units double there OC
My biggest change that needs to happen _yesterday_ is how the points work. Something feels... off when building an army with premade unit sizes. I feel like the game is designed to make me choose at a model-level. Like Obliterators for example; why were they 2 or 4 before the codex? Wouldn't it be more sensible to just let me pick 1, 2, 3 or 4 models? Why would it matter if the unit number can't exceed 3 anyway?
At the scale that 40K plays at, I feel the rules better suit individual model counts. For something bigger like Legions Imperialis then whole units make sense, but you also kill whole bases of units. In 40K, kill based on a model-by-model basis, so why can't we build units based on model count too? I only want 6 or 7 Legionaries most of the time. Not 10. Especially if they're already being lead by a character.
Would it be possible to have 40K armies have multiple unit sizes instead of just 5/10 or 2/4 etc.? So they have a minimum of say, 5, then it goes 5/7/10? Or technically, aren't the unit point costs divisible per the model number? What if they costed the models individually? Would that work?
Have you checked out the bunker missions in white dwarf? Our group have been enjoying them, very much in the style of the old open war missions.
I like the idea of units or models having a charge range on their data sheet.
It really bugs me that in one phase terminators can move as far as jet bikes. I think all charge rolls should remain 2d6 and the movement can be up to 12 inches, but fast attacks should be able to declare charges up to 12, normal infantry could be 10 and slow models should be 8 or something.
It will stop people just moving slow models around and tagging units, it will make the fast attacks feel faster and the slower units feel more realistic.
Agreed. Or it’s 2D6 + x. Or fast attack can reroll charges. Or 3D6 charges etc
My three changes would be:
One page rules
Legions Imperialis
Bolt Action
Everyone I talked to ignored narrative play entirely. TwT Killed so much of my interest.
Which is so ironic when you look at something like necromunda, which structured it’s entire rule set around encouraging dynamic narrative action, and everyone loves the game for it.
In contrast, locally we play almost exclusively narrative-style games via Crusade, with competitive-style games being dismissed aside from someone wanting to practice before going off to a tourney once every few months.
Crusade remains the best way to play.
The best part of narrative play is that you make up your own rules.
People have to realize you don't need a box of mission cards to make a mission.
100% agree, though personally I’d prefer -1 BS/WS for battleshock
My top 3 needed changes are:
1) battleshock needs updating, but it should be -1 to their ws & bs because armor will always be armor but being in a state of shock you arent able to function (shoot/move) is impaired in real life.
2) Properly fix titanic and allow them to see and be seen through ruins as they are tall enough to have parts of their models at that height or higher.
3) your idea about consolidation of the ability rules is good, hard to achieve but proper balance of them. Ability to do certain things in reserves and/or on the battlefield only for example. Some get to do it in both while some only get it while on the battlefield like reanimating models.
Battleshock. Extra - 1 to all rolls for the unit. Stackable with the - 1cap from other sources
I think they should bring back some forms of detachments. Have some constraints on list building so that we go back to elites, heavies, and vehicles supporting a core of battleline infantry and not being the whole army
I find it quite telling, and I know this is anecdotal, that my fairly big circle of other Warhammer players have, almost to a man:
-- Moved to Heresy, Old World, AoS, Kill Team or smaller games.
-- Have moved onto other game systems period. I know four people trying to get armies together for a game without rules, yet - the religious armies versus demons WW1 thing. Trench something?
-- Have otherwise just dropped playing games of 40K to focus on the modelling and painting.
For me, Heresy has been my go to since it released and Old World has now picked up a lot of my time as well.
They're just so much better to play, IMO.
Spot on, no one plays 40k in my group any more.
30k, legion imperialis, bloodbowl are the big hitters
It's Trench Crusade
Needs is a bit strong of a term for this video, but suggestions are generally OK.
Making a silly deck for casuals that has things like meteorites would be fun (but totally unnecessary) and having a deck for more narrative missions like the ambush mission of old would be nice.
I am in for bringing back and doing more standardizing special rules, I do like the flavor of having different names on the data sheet, but referencing fleet/hit&run/fearless would be convenient. Though I do understand that it does lean towards less creativity because you can't do things similar but slightly different if there is a universal rule.
Your battle shock idea is great: but I think you don't make them easier to kill; you reduce their effectiveness by reducing to hit or to wound rolls by 1. And the coolest would be if the opponent could move them d3 inches in any direction upon the failed test.
The changes I would make would be bringing back difficult terrain (units move d3-1 fewer inches when moving through difficult terrain) so they still could move full speed, but likely lose an inch or two when going through that rubble. And make charges 2d6 take the highest, lowering the range but increasing the consistency for charges (I would consider adding a universal stratagem for auto roll of 6 for a charge range but am not sure as I would also change the deepstrike range to 6, and don't want the 100% free charge there).
I'm not partial to the -1 save on Battle Shock units, admitedly, but I do think Battle Shocked units should have two options in the movement phase: Remain stationary (huddle in fear!) or Fall back (retreat!) .... being able to shrug and just march forward into incoming fire feels wrong, but someone being pinned in place or running away makes sense.
Past that, yes to more universal rules, yes to new ways to play, but a "Meeting engagement" 500 pt ruleset would be nice as an inbetween from combat patrols to thousand point games. A thousand points is a great game level, but it can take a while to get there and something that's a step smaller, but still larger than a Combat patrol, would be lovely.
After that? Better terrain rules. All you see these days is ruins, with the old days of woods and hills (remember hills?!), rivers, and other terrain features being ignored entirely. Let us make good *boards* to tell stories on and we'll all be better off for it.
I have felt the game has needed to move on from a my-turn-your-turn to a simultaneous action ruleset. Units need to get an Initiative stat back (1-10) and on each turn players alternate activating their units by initiative step. So, I activate all my initiative 10 units, then you activate all your initiative 10 units. If you dont have any, we move on to activation of initiative 9 units and so forth.
Some armies like Eldar would have high initiative, others like Necrons would be mostly low. Some abilites would exist to flip the initiative order once it gets down to 1. (so the next turn resolves in reverse order) and some units might scramble or deduct numbers from enemy models, like Tau spectrum grenades.
For battle shock i would make a battle shock unit unable to use invulnerable save and also it has fights last.
Funnily enough, I play one of the few armies where battleshock can actually matter a lot, if my sorcerers (I play thousand sons) are battle-shocked, then I don't generate my cabal points, but overall I do agree, battleshock is very meh otherwise.
Fully agree with all those changes. They half-arsed universal special rules for sure.
what they should also do is fix the damned data sheets on the app if they errata important stuff like "free stratagem" but now its just a battle tactic but data sheets still say free stratagem
Personally I'm really enjoying 10th edition. GW are making efforts to reduce codex creep and add in universal rules. To change the game so radically after 9th may have alienated alot of the core player base. I do agree with abilities though being universal which would further streamline the game.
I think there should be a 2 inch movement modifier for infantry units moving, charging or advancing through ruined walls or over pipes or barricades.
Some really interesting ideas. I think using these ideas (or a variant of) would work quite well. 😊
Let's add a universal special rule for units that do mortal wounds on the charge too. Call it Onslaught or something.
Regarding USR's, you have to be careful of having too many rules as players end up having to flip through the USR section constantly for effects that might just take up a sentence on the datasheet. Especially if they have similar names, the example's you used of resilient for -1AP and tough for -1 to wound would get mixed up constantly by players that aren't playing multiple times a week.
Battle shock doesn't need to be more punishing; it just needs to actually be applied. So many rules battle shock the enemy in your own turn, which is utterly meaningless, as they'll un-shock in their turn before they actually do anything. All units across the board should have a 1-2 point reduction in leadership, and units should have to test to remove battle shock (with anyone below half having to first test to un-shock, and then test to see if it hits them again).
You didn't mention Crusade, as a way to play, which in my opinion, is the best way to play modern 40K. It has a bit of book keeping and extra effort in list building, but with the right group of people its a ton of fun. The missions are sometimes pretty asymmetrical and there are great narrative opportunities.
Also I agree with Battleshock changes. I think a battleshocked unit shouldn't be able to make a charge, or at least suffer a penalty to charge. The auto fall back 6 inch away from enemies is a good one though which would make games way more interesting.
there definitely needs to be some universal special rules i agree. it seems like it should be a standard thing at this point, every card game i know of does this. makes the game so much more simple, easy to learn and feels less congested.
I wouldn't want to go back to "fall back" mechanics of 5th Ed. That had a whole set of problems on its own. The simplest thing to do is to force a unit to test to "rally" after it has been Battle Shocked rather than auto rally.
Nice one Winters love this 👍
Battleshock suggestion is bang on, make it shocking!
I think it would be cool to have a "bounce back" mechanic baked into battle shock. Like Winters suggested, maybe a unit is extra vulnerable for a turn, but if it miraculously survives, the last few soldiers in a squad become empowered by faith, demons, plain ol' adrenaline, etc. and gain some bonuses -- like that Space Wolves stratagem from a while ago. I think it would be quite cinematic to have a battle-hardened guardsman rise from the ashes to do something cool that impacts the outcome of the battle!
The only thing i think Battleshock should change for is Battleshock should also prevent any extra rules from affecting that unit.
No detachment rules
No "select a unit within range" rules (i.e. ork minimek cant fix a battleshocked vehicle)
Potentially no character "When leading" rules though that might be too much.
Battleshock is not a useless rule like people think it is. Its just has that weird void like you stated where the unit is nowhere near an objective and even if you had CP you probably werent using it on a mostly dead unit anyway. When Battleshock is actually paid attention to it can easily shift games: the amount of times people will skip through the command phase cause theyre 'used to it never mattering' irritates me. "It doesnt matter" Yes..it..does...
That all being said, i still say that each unit should have had a "bad rule" that goes off if theyre battleshocked so the effect can be tailored between cowardly chaff and hyperelites. I.e. Grots just run off the board, but Meganobz lose an inch of movement or something like that.
Make precision able to target lone operatives would be a change with my vote also
Alternating activations and individual editions having a longer lifecycle.
on the "more ways to play" comment...
When have we ever had diverse missions? They all play the same way in the end since the You Go I Go mentality prevents dynamic reactions and on-the-fly decisions.
The missions that didnt play exactly the same way people despised because they were so clunky and broke so many army dynamics (football i.e. grab the relic of old, hope youre an assaulty army!)
My only issue with the Leviathan cards is for some dumb reason the "Action" objectives you can draw are insanely hard to do and give less points and prevent a unit from doing something. That makes no sense to me, i've actually been tempted to take them out of the deck. All they do is force a CP to redraw or easily be pointed to as the reason the points gap jumped.
I know it will never happen but I would like to see alternating unit activations.
i don't mind the rule things having different names... the logic is the name indicates why that model has it so i dont mind it
10th needs more ways to play for sure but i think the gameplay works well
Different decks for different scenario types!
Story themed ones like Leviathan and pariah nexus, but also for like siege battles, early sorties, and different locales like islands, djungles or urban warfare.
You might even be able to use multiple decks at once!
Great ideas! Would make games simpler and more fun to play!
I would say multiple play style decks would be nice. Universal special rules and a convenient reference sheet would benefit newer players and older alike. As far as battle shock the unit should fall back it's movement towards it's board edge like older editions and possibly give the unit -1 BS & WS to represent them be shaken up from whatever they encountered. It would also be interesting to fix charge distances to the movement of the unit.
They had a fun new way to play… Boarding Actions. UPDATE THE DETACHMENTS FROM THE ARCS OF OMEN BOOKS GW.
Would be SO easy to do and gives everyone who invested in those books a new lease of life in 10th.
Make wargear points costed and be different.
Make army composition fun again (requirements for detachments)
Points pr model - not fixed squad sizes.
Battle shock relevant
Couldnt agree more.
Im just playing Horus Heresy at the moment.
40k is fun. But not that often at the moment.
I'd like to see more ways to play! Rule consolidation is a fantastic idea! It works well for what has been consolidated, stealth and dev wounds for example! And Battleshock DEFINITELY needs something! Dark Angels was and still is SO disappointing for Unforgiven, and no-one I have played has seemed to care at all that they have a battleshock'ed unit, it doesn't affect their plans, their gameplay or their unit directly! Great ideas Winters!
I'm still playing 8th ed , it's much more fun!
Get rid of re-rolls
Battle shock
That unit is unable to move or shoot or melee but is still able to save against shooting and melee
Also also
Make the term attack clearer "shooting attacks, Melee attacks", not just use the words attack.
Make all mission decks useable together. So you can mix them up.
Also make battleshock harder the pass - I played 2k Tyranid battle. I unleashed Shadow in the warp, it did absolutely nothing and was a complete waste of time.
I'm just gonna keep playing with my 5th-7th editions because I'm afraid of change and am especially attached to the look of my Firstborn Blood Angels.
I wouldn't make it -1 to saves, I would make Battleshockes units +1 to wound against, and like -1 BS/WD and they have to test to get unshocked
Maybe they should do with battle shock like they did for disembarking/explosions: roll is roll. No strats with autopass or rerolls. Preferably with no exception. The unit is surpressed and that's it. And maybe roll at the end of a phase in which it happened. But instead at the beginning of the turn of the player with the shocked unit until the end of their turn.
only having 1 deck this far into the edition is pretty bad. they need to bring out narrative focused decks, decks that come in terrain boxes or something new
On the money boss!
I would probably add minus 1 to hit in both melee and shooting to battle shock. Also WWF tournament when? Do we get to wear Lucha Libre masks at the table??
Battle shock is disproportionately negative for certain armies like Guard and Tau as it negates their core rules. Tau can’t guide if they’re battle shocked and guard can’t give orders which is annoying as it means sod all for most other armies
These 3 points are so on point! Ha ha ha! Joke aside, I would add a 4th point provide a better app where HQ’s, troops and vehicles are separated. It would facilitate unit’s search so much!
Battle shock should be the same as moral in 30K (run away, run away)
Or Battle shock reduces all datasheet characteristics by -1 !
I’d like to see them dial back the lethality of the game still somewhat. There is no reason for people not min max most kill units in army’s and some armies just can just flat out wreck some armies in one term.
Like to see battle shock actually affect stats of units for a phase / turn as you say. Penalty hits saves or if battle shocked they can’t score any form points for army until next turn (Be it objectives be it all corners.
Like to
See flyers get some love even if it means you are capped to a max of ome flyer per army to avoid spam
Bring in interactive terrain rules more. So you can damage buildings to mess with units hiding in them or behind them
If maybe even say look at removing dev wounds and just go back mortal
Wounds / saves or at least cap dev wounds to a max number per attack unit
100% agree with all three.
Make meltas double strength at half range, give infantry a chance.
Battle shock only needs one simple change and it will perfect: if you fail a battle shock at any point in the battle round, on your next command phase you have to do a battle shock test, MAYBE at a -1 (that part is up for debate IMO). This is an objective game, and not being able to take objectives with battle shocked units absolutely is impactful, we just need it to be a more common occurrence
Pretty much on point . Make it so deployment zone gives +1 to morale rolls then morale should work like this for infantry when they fail a morale test they will run towards next set of cover at normal movement+d3 with -1 to save on all save throws while heading towards to cover/ deployment zone once they the destination they turn around and work as normal again but if there no cover they just run to your deployment then turn around back into the game . Vehicle morale should work once failed -1 to hit , half movement and half OC rounding down if decimal point on it until passed another morale test . Sorry for the shit punctuation 🤣
I'm a lore/video game 40k fan, but I like watching battle reports too. Problem is, I don't understand the codex specific rules very well. So things like "sustained" and "lethal" attacks are cool because its universal. I don't know what "chaos barrage" does but I know (vaguely) what "sustained" is. And yeah, battleshock seems pretty underwhelming. Barely worth the time/mental energy it seems.
Alternating unit activations.
Battleshock: BS units have to roll to de-battleshock, instead of simply recovering from BS automatically. As a CK player, its almost like having no army nor detachment rules at all right now.
Seems like we're gravitating back to 7th ed rules; A compendium of rules with set names, characters joining units and granting those buffs - definitely like the newer limits on what units they can join, keeping it fluffy. I think the 7th ed core rules compendium Winters mentions here is the way to go. But my big no-no opinion for 40k is: The vast contrast between armies can't be represented with just a D6, need some different dice even just for certain roles. Yes that'll slow the game slightly, make it more complicated etc but, I just don't think a D6 represents the world enough anymore...
Also, definitely agree with the other comment - codexes and game core should last 5years at least... so much money with the hobby getting more expensive as well.
Love your three change proposals! Battle Shock definitely needs to change. Currently,as you said,it does nothing.
Could just bring back the old LD system where if you fail your unit starts to run for your table edge, until they pass an LD roll on a following turn, which this would also bring back fearless since those units didn't have this problem and high LD meant you where less likely to fail to begin with LD 10 almost never failed the 2d6
I play Chaos Knights, and Minus 1 on saves would turn my army into a real nasty force, so I love that idea. 👍
The Wisdom of Winters ... can't argue with anything you have said ... and like others I have seen, without any conscious discussion really, a bunch of my 40k friends playing LI and Old World instead at the moment. I like 10th but it feels somehow transitional and after years of sugar hits and new releases momentum seems to have slowed ... maybe AOS V4 is soaking up all the energy in GW atm.
appreciate you winters, youre a cool dude.
Cheers
The alternative ruleset that i play makes it that a unit with its morale broken, cannot claim any objectives, receives a -1 penalty to its hit rolls and armour save rolls.
that hurts a unit. morale matters in that ruleset.
GWs focus on Competitive play destroyed the game.
Changes i would make:
Abandon staggered codex system. All armies balanced PROPERLY on release.
Edition supported by supplements covering major events and battlezones, maybe some new model releases.
Abandon D6 system, the gulf in power levels in the game means it doesn't work any more.
Get rid of Mortal/Devastating wounds.
ALTERNATE ACTIVATIONS!
Plus what Winters said.
winters please play a few games of star wars legion with sayhipaul, its not perfect but it does teh keyeords really well and panic used to work exactly how you just said. Its different now but panicking and enemy is a very valid strategy
My main one is make "fly" actually fly again rather than hop around the board. There was nothing wrong with all the previous editions of units with fly ignoring vertical distance travelled so they can fly over models and terrain. So fed up of my fast drukhari skimmers and jetbikes having to move around terrain features because they've forgotten how to fly.
I've been wanting USRs to come back since they got rid of them in 8th! THEY WERE SO GOOD! You knew EXACTLY what your opponents army could do and there was no real need to check their codex as you could just look it up0 in your own rule book!
Some good sensible suggestions there. Anything that will make this unfortunate edition simpler to play would be great.
I just want my Deathwatch to be relevant again.
Blast markers are a better one and done to a battle shock or roll my man???.
Terrain rules. Proper terrain rules that make sense. Terrain rules than can use GW terrain. And finally terrain rules that make you able to use other things than ruins and don´t use "now it´s true line of sight, now it is not".
I just want interesting and fun crusade rules... that i DONT need an Excel spreadsheet for lol
Edit: for point 2 i just call tankshock likes "mortal charges" (when this unit ends a charge, roll, deal X MW yatta yatta) and the -1 wound if S > T "Bodyguard" (or "mini transhuman" as a throwback lol)
Just use the old missions and old decks from last edition if u want different ways too play.
Its crazy how close they were to making battle-shock good. The fact if ur battleshocked and above half strength, yiu auto pass battleshock is bullshit, they should still have to roll
What if battleshock made it so you could only do one of the following: move charge or shoot
What i want is better explenations more designer notes and less confusen when it comes to reading rules.
Someone should just release a homemade expansion with custom missions, rules and units. Release it as a pdf online
What Warhammer needs is extensive playtesting and better coordingation between codex authors so they don't need to overhaul the game twice a year...
I've played maybe 3 games of 10th and just didn't have fun, Heresy just way more fun.
1 bring back customization for wargear and unit size. Bring back having an armored for each faction and specialized gear for characters. I think everyone misses being able to make their army. Also with this let characters join any unit.
2 change morale to a forceback mechanic like classic 40k including the assault faze which brings back sweeping advance. Related to that being back things like pinning. Letting weapons have effects beyond killing better helps slow the arms race.
3. To fix vehicles go back to the vehicle damage table but don’t include hull points. Suddenly tanks aren’t wired fleshy boxes anymore.
I’ve always thought battle shock should deactivate special unit and weapon abilities. E.G. lose devastating wounds on weapons as unit is less effective.
Tldr; dont agree with all of this
1) absolutely agree that we should have more active mission packs. We can see with pariah how easy it is to restructure game feel without major core rules changes.
2) as much as I agree that universal special rules would make life easier, there would be an outcry from flavour bunnies who would complain about lack of feel and theme. Ultimately fluff monkey contentment trumps my smooth brain desires.
3) gotta disagree with battleshock. This is only an issue if you firstly assume all rules are competitively focused rather than a narrative layer. Secondly designers need to stop pinning all their hopes on battleshock faction rules. They are justifiably wary of going too far and having factions easily shutting down an army's ability to score. By simply changing the command phase sequence, ie score before BS rolls, it becomes more relevant. Introducing some old school pinning rules or infantry is fun and thematic. Drastically reducing an opponents survivability is not the way to go. 40k is a game about hitting, wounding, and saving, on little circles. It is not morale focused. That rule is there for a fun throw back to its historical roots. If I want to play a morale based game, I've got whfb, necromunda, or historicals.