Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello,

So I was thinking about these issues the last couple of games and I am curious what people think, and if people agree. First, I want to start by saying I love 10th edition, I am enjoying the crap out of it, and I would not make any major changes. So if your opinion is "burn the whole thing down" which is a valid opinion to have if that is how you feel, this thread is not really about that, and I think there is like three that are. Below are my what I would consider minor to medium tweeks that I would like to see in a balance pass (probably won't happen). If anyone has any other minor to medium tweeks that they think would really improve game play I would love to hear those as well. To me the biggest issues are as follows:

Devastating Wounds: This just needs to go. There is no way to really balanced this, especially with shooting. It is just to powerful of a rule, even with the nerf, especially on things that can put out a lot of shots (forgefiends) or attacks (possessed). I would just change the rule so "on a critical roll increase the ap by 2 i.e. -1 becomes -3". That is basically the old rending rule, but I think that such a rule would be better for the game, especially with shooting. If GW wanted to keep some kind of Mortal Wound generation on a critical, they could add something like [Eviscerating Wounds] but hand it out SPARINGLY, like only to big bads like primarchs, abbadon, etc. Not for shooting, or extremely extremely limited for shooting.

Indirect fire: This is not even a balance thing, but a engagement in the game thing. At least on turn 1, perhaps the whole game, to fire indirect you should need at least one of your units (other than the firing unit obviously) to see the target. It is just super unfun and unengaging to go second and on turn 1 enemy indirect fire can just shoot whatever it wants with no way to really counter deploy, other than reserves which is really a limited way to respond. This is especially true for fragile units, who just get smacked in that situation.

Lone operative: Yea, this rule needs tweeking, because small lone op units are a must take in competitive lists it seems. I actually like the rule, it is better than 8/9th, but maybe a bit two powerful. Maybe something as simple as making lone operative not count for certain secondaries would help. Not sure what to do about this one.

Going second: So yea the game is "I go you go" for the foresseable future. Going second is still a pretty big disadvantage most of the time. I think that they should bring back the option to go first or second if you win the roll-off, and give the person going second an extra command point. Not exactly making second that much better, but it would help to allow for use of more defensive strats, or 2 cp ones on turn one.

Re-roll all hits and all wounds: Every strat or rule that has this should be changed to "chose one, re-roll all hits OR all wounds" Re-roll both is WAY to good, it makes units too efficient, especially when fishing for criticals. Like Devastating Wounds above, this is just to good to try to balance, especially since its effect on something like 40 power weapon attacks is magnitudes better than 15 chain sword attacks.

Re-roll one hit and one woud roll: Like above, this is just to good and to efficient for low shot high strength weapons. Like above all of them should be limited to "Re-roll one hit OR one wound roll". This would have the benefit of reducing the power of Eldar as well, (which I play mind you).

Non-Gamplay issue: GW should put out another detachment via WH Community or White Dwarf for Indexes that are as far out as the Fall or next year. While compared to the glacial pace of releases from when I started playing in 2nd, 10th is moving really fast, I still would like to see GW release some detachments for armies that are way out. Things like my TS detachment is starting to feel a bit stale. It would be nice to have another detachment option, which they could then just roll into the codex when it comes out. However, unlike past editions, 10th is better about armies getting a codex and then out competing the indexes, many of which still stack up against the codex armies (for now at least). I mean if they put a new detachment for one of my armies (CSM [well if their codex wasn't close], Thousand Sons, Daemons, Eldar) It would make me go out and get a copy of white dwarf.

 xeen wrote:
GW should put out another detachment via WH Community or White Dwarf for Indexes that are as far out as the Fall or next year.

Hell yeah!

WD has so many opportunities to offset the neglect of 40k's second class, NPC armies. But instead, we've had lots of Marine stuff, quite a bit of Tyranid stuff...

I understand that the primary purpose of WD is to advertise, which works best when the thing you are advertising is a new release- it's hype on hype. So I get it; I just think it's bad for player satisfaction.

I'd have published a detachment per month, starting with the last faction on the release schedule and working back.

I'd also produce some holdover Crusade content, not necessarily in reverse order, but complimentary. So the Tyranid dex drops, why need GSC Crusade content instead of the effing Tome Keepers?! Scorpions are coming, maybe drop some Ynari or Drukhari or Harlequin bombs. These things COMPLEMENT the new hotness, rather than just double down on the new hotness.

When Chapter Approved wasn't 100% tournament focused, adding an extra Detachment per non-Codex army would be the exact thing they'd use it for.

They once added a few relics and whatnot to armies that hadn't got their books yet (Orks, Woofs, etc.) and whilst it was obviously not as expansive as a full Codex, it was nice to have something as a stop-gap. Ditto for Crusade stuff. That's what CA was for. Not this meta-chasing tournament bull gak.

How long are some armies going to wait to get their 5+ Detachments? How long will some of those armies have to use their detachments before 11th comes around and the entire damned process starts again?

If re-rolls (of any & all sorts) were to just disappear I'd not shed a tear.

It is always the same gak. GW keeps the game way too killy through a lot of big and little things.
Full rerolls, buckets of dices, silly cover rules and a ton of other rules

The Deer Hunter wrote:
It is always the same gak. GW keeps the game way too killy through a lot of big and little things.
Full rerolls, buckets of dices, silly cover rules and a ton of other rules

The biggest rule that increases the Lethality is the Everything can shoot the same thing aspect. When you had to shoot closest Infantry or Tank/Monster you had far less opportunity to dump your entire army into one unit.

My biggest gripes in 10th edition are the new weapon special rules LETHAL HITS and DEVASTATING WOUNDS. These two special rules are ok in isolation, but the way they are used to offset other dumb decisions in the game and its statliones is what just makes it all fall apart.

Now, your best antitank in the game is a unit with a Character that gives you one or the other, and a bucketload of die for attacks. Makes soo much sense

I like that we have less Strats now. I like the idea of Detachments (their execution still needs to improve though). But I effin hate the new weapon special snowflake rules. I much preferred it when the weapon stats themselves were doing all the heavy lifting (like weapons under half Strenght to Toughness being unable to wound, and Double Strenght weapons causing Instant Death)

But do we really have fewer strats, when the good armies have strats on each of their unit? Often overlaping with characters, auras etc.