The invisibility spell was good for exactly one thing, and that was this one sentence from an official FAQ regarding Kharn the Betrayer: "Kharn doesn't need to see you to hate you."

@quint3ssent1a

10 күн бұрын

Ahh, good old "invisible eldar titan" things.

@yishumate

7 күн бұрын

...wait a minute...is THAT why Kharn kills an invisible woman without knowing it in The End & The Death‽

@dominicvucic8654

6 күн бұрын

​@@yishumateThat is fucking hilarious

I had a dream once where every unit had an ammunition amount and when they ran out your unit couldn't use any ranged attacks, it looked horrendous to play for most armies

@lazyminipainting

14 күн бұрын

Yay. Ammo jam rule in necromunda

@PapaBradford

14 күн бұрын

Battle tech, but the ammo in BT is like 200+ lol

@akumaking1

14 күн бұрын

That’s what will happen with a Total Warhammer 40K video game

@yikeswazowski9838

14 күн бұрын

I kinda wanna make of homebrew of that now. But instead of just running out, there would be support units that have to be in range for resupply like cherubs, servitors, drones, cultists, etc

@azeria1

14 күн бұрын

Maybe could work with a reload turn instead

What about a video where you review all ten past editions in brief and discuss the pros and cons of each?

@sarnxero2628

14 күн бұрын

This 👍

@ragingsalamanderstudios7278

13 күн бұрын

This👍

@DaneInTheUS

13 күн бұрын

That sounds interesting

@DylanScottDavis

13 күн бұрын

I know we joke about Auspex never sleeping but this sounds like it will really cause him to never sleep lol

@1985slipstream

7 күн бұрын

we'd all just agree that 2nd edition with grenades banned(slows the game down too much) would be the best lol

Eldar getting to re-roll a re-roll...

@Lady_Merlin_

14 күн бұрын

Eldar not being able to be hit.

@2guys1cliplol

13 күн бұрын

*laughs in orks* 'old on I get anuva roll

Need an episode of "Rules we all miss"

@damnationdan5253

14 күн бұрын

Wargear points, relics.

@user-mr6mw5ri6z

14 күн бұрын

Blast templates 😢

@Ilikestuff69

14 күн бұрын

5th edition apocalypse rules

@TheBlastmeister

14 күн бұрын

Psychic Phase

@MinscS2

14 күн бұрын

Smoking wrecks of vehicles who hasn't exploded, and craters after vehicles who has.

My problem with no wargear costs (and paying by unit for PL rather than by model), is that in 9th I took the units I wanted then made the list 2000 points. In 10th I have to take units that add up to 2000 points. Not to mentioned weapon balancing in a unit.

@jampine8268

13 күн бұрын

There's some kind of weird fluff with balancing after it was removed, you look at some weapons and and there's clearly a superior option, and sometimes there's just a version that's straight up better, giving marine Sargent's a chainsword, or a power sword which just has better strength, AP and the same number of hits and is free.

@Gothic7876

8 күн бұрын

@@jampine8268 yea I hope in 11th we go back to war gear costing points.

@calronkeltaran493

2 күн бұрын

I have no problem with the change itself. because lets be real here: the main reason everyone is mad about it is because you can't save 5pts on a bolter sponson like you used to be. so by the old rules, there where many weapons, that where never used unless you somehow had 10 points left, so you had to take them. now some weapons are never used because alternatives are simply stronger. but at least here we have the option to just rebalance the weapons with eachother. if you get the option between a plasmapistol and a boltpistol you always pick the plasma. but what if the boltpistol now has 3 shots instead of 1? what if it's 4-5 shots? there is a breakpoint, where small arms become more interesting and it is up to the ballanceteam to find that

Needing like 5 FAQs and several other documents that made it so difficult to look up one bloody rule... oh wait that is a thing again!

Armor of Contempt as a blanket rule. It was a lazy band aid rule to get around the fact that high AP was basically making Marines less effective than they should have been.

@StaticSilence1

14 күн бұрын

Well, that was mid 9th and GW was desperate to shore up Space Marines quickly without having to update 1000 datasheets. Which is what 10th was going to be.

@brycedery9596

13 күн бұрын

and it kicked my AP-1 Dark eldar list right in balls. Went from scoring 80+ down to 30's.

@alexisauld7781

13 күн бұрын

This shit came out right before a tourney I was going to- thankfully only a 1k event- and turned my Ap-1/2 focused Sisters list into absolute marine fodder, because the frickers decided to spring that rule *after list submission.* As you can imagine, I was absolutely megastuffed.

@quint3ssent1a

10 күн бұрын

It was a sign of severe powercreep, where -1 AP things were thrown out like candies at children's party to the point that GW had to nerf it all back by introducing new, even more atrocious powercreep step called "all your previous powercreep now has no effect on this faction".

@Gothic7876

8 күн бұрын

Basically GW doesn’t like it when their poster child faction gets hammered. Look at Nids. I used to mulch Marines with Warriors. Now in tenth they reduced melee options to one, and it’s the worse one.

I'd just like to add the old Necron Phase Out rule where if >3/4 of the Necron army is taken out then it's an auto-loss. Fun and fluffy to an extent but also quite frustrating.

@paddycorkman

14 күн бұрын

Especially when playing smaller games. Necrons were almost unplayable in 40k in 40 minutes / 4th ed combat patrol unless your opponents / group allowed you to ignore it.

@Discotekh_Dynasty

14 күн бұрын

I’d lose every game so fast lmao

@tykeorama9898

13 күн бұрын

​@@Discotekh_Dynastynecrons popped up quick though. You could bring back squads if they were close to another one. You would also have to lay down a model on its side when it died so you know who to bring back and where.

@Matt-xk8ms

12 күн бұрын

Ah man as a 25 year vet of war hammer and a long time necron player this was our most game losing rule. That and necron warriors cost 20 points each in 1200 point games

@Gothic7876

8 күн бұрын

You would ignore the objective of the mission and just focus on tabling Necrons.

And then, on the opposite side of the spectrum, we have Combi Weapons… Cmon 40K rules team! The HH stuff is RIGHT THERE!

@myrddraalhalfmen9524

14 күн бұрын

I guess gw thinks that their potential 40k player base aren't smart enough for that

@Alpha-zb8sp

14 күн бұрын

Or just give them 2 profiles like strike/sweep

@iain-duncan

14 күн бұрын

HH combi weapons are universally useless lmao

@Proto1Dude

14 күн бұрын

@@myrddraalhalfmen9524 From what I've seen of many local clubs, they aren't.

@SteelStorm33

14 күн бұрын

@@iain-duncan they arent, some are overcosted but most get played.

I miss the armour profiles from 7th and earlier editions, now tanks feel just like big monsters, no weakpoints on the rear

@Tropic_Recon

12 күн бұрын

Dont forget that came with weapon facing.. Now you can shoot a hull, front locked weapon out the rear and too the sky through the tip of an antennae....

@rumblepuss8848

11 күн бұрын

It doesn't feel like a wargame anymore. Nothing feels like a representation of what that thing is supposed to be.

@hideshisface1886

8 күн бұрын

Imagine Malcador Defender doing a 360 spin every round it fires.

@Durandurandal

6 күн бұрын

While part of me does as well, from a gameplay perspective they were never really able to find the middle ground between "Vehicle models are awful" and "Vehicle models are amazing", especially in contrast to monstrous creature models They could have taken a note from Privateer Press' Warmachine/Hordes ruleset with how they contrasted the giant magic robots and the giant fantasy monsters, and developed MCs to be a parallel but somewhat adjusted special unit type in the way Vehicles used to be, instead of flattening the latter down with the former.

On the Seize the Initiative... I remember a game at Las Vegas Open, I won the roll to go first, deployed semi-aggressively and ready to move to some objectives. My opponent deployed every single unit on his deployment edge against no-man's. My ranged units would have a turkey shoot. He then said "if I roll a 6 and seize, it's a game. If I don't, I concede and we'll grab a beer". He rolled a 6.

@sebastianrubin7476

9 күн бұрын

... As someone who usually goes basically comatose after a tournament, exhaustion is very real. That said; dick move unless you know your opponent really, really well.

I'm glad the rule to only take 3 damage in a phase is gone

@sarcasticlittleass

14 күн бұрын

Yes! that mechanic was so punishing for some armies while it had almost no impact against some others. Perfect example or a rule that was very badly balanced(and also unfun to play against).

@tykeorama9898

13 күн бұрын

I didn't mind that rule. Then again, I frequently brought the Nightbringer, and he ignored that rule!

@quint3ssent1a

10 күн бұрын

The idea was probably that you should engage such characters on multiple phases, for example shave off 1-2 wounds by throwing smite, then shooting, then charging in melee.

@dondongman

10 күн бұрын

@quint3ssent1a I know but imagine how tau or world eaters would feel about that where all their damage is focused in one phase

@tykeorama9898

10 күн бұрын

@@dondongman they didn't have problems from that. Points are the great equalizer.

Glancing hits only on skimmers that moved 12+". Then Eldar forced to roll 2d6 and take the lowest, meaning it took double 6s to kill an Eldar vehicle.

@fujin27

14 күн бұрын

It was fun tho when my squad of necron warriors took down a falcon in one round. Of course the harlequins that popped out routed them cuz their I was so low but it was fun.

@BenHyle

14 күн бұрын

Immobilized skimmers still died.

@tykeorama9898

13 күн бұрын

I play necrons... Skimmers were easy to kill!

@lordravenblade

13 күн бұрын

@@BenHylenot with Vectored Engines.

9th edition had invulnerable saves and weapons/attacks that ignores invulnerable saves. Then you had invuln saves that ignores the ignoring of invuln saves…

This is a small thing that I'm glad they changed. Re-rolling an individual charge/psychic die. Having to re-roll the whole charge is much more fair. R.I.P psychic phase

Leader units being unable to join squads was fucking stupid.

@nic0rum922

14 күн бұрын

Like what we have right now or a past version?

@dyciefisk2535

14 күн бұрын

​@@nic0rum922 In 8th and 9th every character had their buffs as an aura, which encouraged amassing multiple units around them just to make their points back. It ranged everywhere from "This Cadre Fireblade needs to be affecting 3 Fire Warrior squads to be worth his volume of fire increase" all the way to "This Crisis Suit Captain is good on his own, *and* he can buff 3 Crisis teams!?"

@svalfish1716

14 күн бұрын

I kinda liked the old leaders. Then again I played admech so most of them were “pick one” type abilities anyways

@nic0rum922

14 күн бұрын

@dyciefisk2535 I mean I think the current version we have is better in my opinion. I've always found it weird that leaders didn't attach to units and we still have units like that with shadow sun and Hive tyrants

@aguyplayinggames1193

14 күн бұрын

@@nic0rum922 I think they should be able to give an aura to surrounding units and another buff to the unit they are attached to

As someone who got into 40K at the tail end of 9th, I am SO grateful for GW cutting down the amount of available stratagems. Having some 20 odd per army was too much to keep track of.

@WilhelmScreamer

14 күн бұрын

In particular ones that should just be a thing the unit does normally.

@vegladex

14 күн бұрын

Absolutely same. Having to scan through my stratagems every phase and try to consider if each, if any, were relevant and THEN consider if they were worth using...

@andresrygnestad7043

14 күн бұрын

Bad news, every army that has gotten a codex had detachments with 6 or so strats. So there are still 20+ strats.

@WilhelmScreamer

14 күн бұрын

@@andresrygnestad7043 the issue was 20 strats were all on at the same time and regularly included things that should not be strats. The current in game cogmative load is way lower as you only have 6 unique ones at any time. And thats where the count matters. The current setup is organized in a much smarter way

@vegladex

14 күн бұрын

@@andresrygnestad7043 You don't need to worry about the ones that aren't in the detachment you're playing though. So you only need to consider that many during army construction, not during play.

I absolutely miss Initiative in Melee. I hate this current crap they call "fight phase"

Everything about the Doom of Malan'tai back in 5th edition. A weapon with strength based on the model's strength, which could go up or down based on its wound count. Then an aura that caused damage based on a leadership check, which restored wounds beyond starting. Each of those was an interesting enough rule and combined it made for a very thematic monster that ate souls and used them to fuel its psychic powers: -Ranged weapon based on the equipped model's strength -Strength based on remaining wounds on a 1:1 -ability to heal beyond starting wounds Not all amazing or even good, but fun and thematic. Also, deepstrike mishap.

I love being able to walk over your own models. Was a pain that a character had to walk around a squad its supporting in order to charge!

I remember when overwatch was free and you didnt have a limit on how many times you could use it. Made Tau so unfun to play against

@HivefleetMagoladon

6 күн бұрын

Also only worked when you charged them. So at least you could walk up and not be shot in your own turn before being able to shoot back.

@ruas4721

5 күн бұрын

Well, the problem with Tau were not the overwatch, but their markers.

I don't think people would complain about free wargear if things like chainswords and bolt pistols were slightly better on characters. Give it an extra pip of AP or double attacks. The math just never worked out for what they were going for. Still MASSIVELY better imo, but some extra cheaper enhancements to help get the last 5-15 points would go a very long way.

@matthewgagnon9426

14 күн бұрын

The thing about free wargear that gets me is how there's still tons of weapons that are strictly better. Why have the option to have a Heavy Stubber or a Storm Bolter on something if the Heavy Stubber is strictly better? The Stubber has more shots, more range, and a higher rapid fire number while all other statistics are the same. It makes literally zero sense.

@iain-duncan

14 күн бұрын

Free war gear is dogshit, it means there will ALWAYS be a best option

@spoonsrattling

14 күн бұрын

@@iain-duncan thats not new, units have always had best ways to build them even the most customizable units in the game have always had a best way to run them.

@PepsiMagt

14 күн бұрын

​@@iain-duncanthat was still true when wargear was paid by points. Most of the time one option was strictly better than the othrrs

@youngsandwich5968

14 күн бұрын

​@spoonsrattling The difference now obviously is that there is absolutely no incentive to take many options outside of rule of cool or fluff. A power weapon is strictly better than say a chainsword now, however in the past the caveat is that a chainsword costed less points. Similar to loadouts with bolt vs plasma pistol. There has always been a cheese or objectively best loadout for most units in 40k for the history of the game that is true, but at least there used to be an incentive to taking worse wargear which was getting more points to play with (although gw has had many instances of poor wargear points costs in the past as well)

I miss the idea of weapon amd armor facings, but not the reality of playing it. The conflict between versimilitude and functionality as a game is always rough. Holy hell did kill points suck.

@ComissarYarrick

13 күн бұрын

Vechicle facing worked well on boxy imperial tanks, on xenos ones with all their curves and wired shapes, not so much....

@WilhelmScreamer

13 күн бұрын

@@ComissarYarrick that is very much why I know it had to go.

@MerchantVenus

11 күн бұрын

I still think armour facings are a good system, makes tanks feel tanky rather than damage sponges. I think to make it easier GW should have put a top down profile of the vehicle next to the stat line clearing indicating which side was which

@Keithslawinski

11 күн бұрын

ha was gonna say the same thing about armor facing. Armor facing was cool in theory, but the fights that ensued whether you hit the front/side were not fun. Bolt Action fairs a bit better by limiting the number of 90degree turns and making anti-tank weapons hard to move, but I honestly hate the over randomness of damage tables personally.

@ruas4721

5 күн бұрын

This problem is solved easily. Look at Star Wars Legion bases, works completly fine without any discussion.

Credit to GW - there’s always an old rule that makes you think the new rules aren’t THAT bad…

I still remember playing Orks vs Space Marines in SECOND edition (Yeah, I am old, thanks), my opponent getting the ‘virus outbreak’ guard, and tabling my army before a shot was even fired.

@durelljfg5217

14 күн бұрын

Back then, every ork had to play with 50 points less because the vaccine squig card was mandatory...

I want templates back, Armies shouldn't be huddled up behind cover. Also precision should allow you to assign attacks to specific models not just characters.

I remember some bad ones. 5th edition you had to select your target for a unit to shoot at before you could measure to see if it was in range. So many times you found out you were an inch outside and couldn’t fire at the target. Also you were not allowed to change the target to something within range, your unit just missed for that turn. Another rule was that it use to be that you could not split fire. If you wanted to fire you heavy weapon in the tactical squad at something far away, the rest of your guys in the unit just stood there and did nothing. 6th edition Mysterious terrain and objectives was a real pain having to constantly try to remember what special rule every objective and terrain piece had which slowed the game way down. 6th edition also had terrible rules when it came to flying creatures. A creature with flying could announce they were flying and unless you fired with anti air specific weapons you could only hit the creature on a 6. This was really a problem because the creature was allowed to land and assault in the same turn which basically made them make it to close combat with no damage once so ever. I remember daemon armies doing this with 3 greater demons with wings and 3 demon princes with wings flying at your units without getting touched.

@spacenerdtrue

2 күн бұрын

The first one is still a rule in Necromunda last I checked. Not allowed to pre-measure anything.

One thing that annoys me with the current points system is that it's basically just the Power Level from 8th, and 9th editions, forcing you to take either the minimum or the maximum amount of models per unit, with a few exceptions. What if I wanted, for example, a Tyranid Warrior brood of 4 Warriors? I'd have to pay for 6 Warriors and waste the points for the last 2 Warriors. Seize the initiative was annoying AF to deal with, good riddance to a dumb mechanic. So were the Deathstar units. Captain Smash[bleep]er and friends comes to mind for the Space Marines, as an example of something that was a pain to deal with. And a thing I am glad is long gone is the whole "teleporting/deep striking units MUST fit under the 5 inch blast marker, any model who's base is just a tiny bit outside is auto-killed"

2E: Scatter dice. Sustained fire dice that rendered assault cannons etc. unusable. Blast templates that made frag missiles likely to do less damage to a mob of gretchin than a krak missile (and as missile launchers were the same cost as lascannons, just take lascannons). Unique armour penetration values for front/side/rear of every vehicle AND unique damage tables for every vehicle all of which needed d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20s. Rolling terminator saves (and eavy armoured nobs) individually on 2d6. 90pt Lictors that could only be shot if they were in initiative range and you were using a template weapon and you rolled 4+ and you also hit it and wounded it and it failed it's 4+ invulnerable save and you caused enough wounds.

@PzOwNeD

14 күн бұрын

i miss scatter dice the way a smoker misses cigarettes, honestly

@NaGa5h

14 күн бұрын

I also miss how vehicles and different unit types MEANT different rules, movement, interaction with terrain, etc. I also miss where if you wanted to shoot with the cannon of a tank, that particular cannon had to have line of sight. And when monsters and vehicles only got cover if 50% or more of the model was behind terrain out of line of sight. Now, the keyword vehicle only matters for stratagems and anti vehicle rules. And don't get me started on psykers, their keyword is LITERALLY only a weakness.

@benjaminloyd6056

13 күн бұрын

I feel like all these things could be fun if reworked with modern design sensibilities. All vehicle damage charts being d6, reworking blast template rules etc.

I remember back in the day with nids, where if they were out of synapse range some units would effectively become feral and wander off, being a complete pain to keep track of

@HivefleetMagoladon

6 күн бұрын

Or they'd charge the nearest enemy. Tbh, I liked that rule, at least in the context of the edition. They always did exactly what you wanted while within synapse (in an edition where you needed to roll Ld to shoot anything other than the closest unit) but if they were out of synapse then you'd lose that absolute control you had.

@ruas4721

5 күн бұрын

What? If that is a pain to track of for you, you should not play strategy games at all, sorry.

I miss wargear options and paying per model

@samhunter1205

14 күн бұрын

100%, power level is a radioactive garbage fire imo. I enjoy building armies in 9th edition, I hate it with a passion in 10th. It is one of the main reasons I still play 9th over 10th.

@Autumneffeckt

14 күн бұрын

I started with 10th and I dread the idea of paying for wargears, by model sounds nice though

@samhunter1205

14 күн бұрын

@@Autumneffeckt it really isn't as hard as you might think. Not all wargear cost points, only some upgrades, and anyone sane uses an army builder app like battlescribe so it is really all done for you. I think a far better middle ground would have been to have a careful look at what wargear needed to cost points. For example, let a squad sergeant have a fancy pistol for free, but have a cost for more significant upgrades. A good example of the problem in 10th are the Eldar weapon platforms (Eldar are my main army so I will use them as the example I am most familiar with). Making a d-cannon and a vibrocannon cost the same is complete nonsense - one is far more valuable than the other. The unit has to be costed for the d-cannon or it is busted, so now vibrocannons are unplayable. There are dozens of examples like this. Splitting each weapon option into a separate datasheet is really cumbersome and leads to absurdly bloated codexes, so why not just have one datasheet, one base cost and pay points for what weapon option you take? It is just a better system.

@Hiddenronin

14 күн бұрын

One of the many reasons I've not played 10th edition and stick with old / midhammer 40k

@ancientmariner9460

14 күн бұрын

Problem with wargear was that most of it was garbage AND overpriced - everyone still went for best option avaible. But pay per model was good.

I miss templates - I know most hate it, but indirect fire was balanced with scattering

@baval5

14 күн бұрын

The problem with templates was what it did to the game, both on a meta level and on time consumption. As long as templates exist you have to space all your guys the maximum distance from each other to avoid taking heavy casualties. It could mean the difference between a small blast hitting 10 guys and 2, or even 1. But spreading your guys out exactly 2 inches all the time didnt feel good, and took a lot of time. So I miss the idea of templates. But the practice of templates im glad are gone. Still, a hybrid ruleset could be made. Something like "if your template is over a unit roll a D6 to see how many guys it hit in that unit"

@ndalum75

14 күн бұрын

​@@baval5 I have to agree. It's fine in a game like TOW, as there simply is no method to spread out your infantry bloc. But in 40k, painstakingly spreading your dudes out to avoid blast templates is a headache.

@Retrosicotte

14 күн бұрын

@@ndalum75 Much as my enjoyment of them is there... I DO have to agree, so much lost time to humming and hawing every model's placement or debate on how many it covers, or moving templates around.

@ndalum75

14 күн бұрын

@Retrosicotte TOW has a decent solution for this, where any partials are treated as needing a 4+ to hit, and being wholly under the template counts as a hit. Works well enough, but as said, when you have a "skirmish" game where it already takes long to move models, having to judiciously spread your models out takes more time.

@Belphegorite

11 күн бұрын

I liked templates because they helped balance out shooting from crappy marksmen like Orks and Guard. Sometimes random chance is literally better. I do not miss all the dumb arguments with cheesedick opponents about who is and isn't covered by the template.

I don't even play Warhammer but it doesn't take any wargaming table top knowledge to predict how terrible of an Idea a 2+ saving throw would be

@BenHyle

14 күн бұрын

Oh, 2+ is fine. If you get full rerolls, it's awful. Most 2+ saves could be eliminated in those editions. AP2 weapons and power weapons both negated armor saves. The only 2+ invulnerable save was lost if you ever failed it. Oh, and even if all that held, there were a few unique units that could bypass even those (C'tan phase weapons, for instance). But the reroll of 2+ saves was just on a different level

@maxmustermann-zx9yq

14 күн бұрын

@@BenHyle as I said I'm not familiar with the system, so I guess saves aren't just a "I took damage so let me roll 2+, oh guess I take no dmg at all"

@Ferdinandong29

14 күн бұрын

​@@maxmustermann-zx9yq theres a chance of that but most the time you aren't running into entire armies or 2+ saves. It's a unit or two that are incredibly expensive (heresy wise at least)

@NaGa5h

14 күн бұрын

​@@BenHyleWas fun when c'tan could literally strip a unit of their armour save by hitting em once for the rest of the game.

Might be a hot take, but I don't miss blast templates. They're cool thematically, but they slowed the game down too much and was a headache when competitive players would dispute the results and end up taking even more time. Plus it was another set of kit you'd have to collect and take with you. I kinda feel the same about armour facing rules, but I do kind of miss having weak points to go for. Armor facing rules could also limit vehicle designs/shapes too.

@Lotus_River

13 күн бұрын

I love thematic things like templates. It gave so much feeling to the world. But also a reason competitive play ruined the hobby. We're playing with miniatures for gods sake.

I miss the way psychic powers worked in 5th with the cards; getting to choose which powers your psychers had. Good times.

I am glad that we no longer have "AP 5/4/3, Ignores Cover, Blast/Teardrop" weapons that allow a player to instantly wipe out all of their enemy's infantry while barely rolling any dice. Flamers have been largely underwhelming since 8th though, they ought to have something like the blast rule to make them stronger against infantry hordes.

@sebastianrubin7476

9 күн бұрын

As someone who runs lots of bug swarms, flamers are not too shabby. Sure, D6 hits can be a bit random, but you are guaranteed at least one hit and the average is 3.5 hit. With a BS4+ blast weapon, that's the equivalent of 7 shots - so against 20+ model units they get about the same number of hits. Anything less, and flamers actually come out ahead - and that's without accounting for Stealth, Cover, or Overwatch. That said, they suffer from pretty short ranges, and they feel like they should be offensive weapons more than defensive. Take a page from Plasma guns and Skaven - a second profile with more shots, and both Pistol and Hazardous? Would make them more suited for the role of front-line units, and make them appropriately scary to get stuck in a fight with.

Don't forget about falling back. As late as 7th edition, if your unit took too much damage and then failed a leadership check, you would have to fall back towards your board edge 2d6", or 3d6" for some units like bikes, jump packs, etc. If they ran off the board, they were instantly dead. Not only did this take away control of your units, but it may create a scenario where you deploy something near enough to your board edge and they get shot turn one for just enough damage to cause this to happen, and you lose a ton of value without any recourse. You only needed to lose 25% of your unit in order to force a leadership check, so you could lose 3 out of 10 marines and have them run away and die instantly.

Overwatch in 8th when it was free. My god that was annoying! Trying to kill a squad of hellblasters on the charge with anything was a nightmare!

@Jerry2die4

14 күн бұрын

What? All you had to do was tag them and if you flubbed that, they still only hit on 6s. What are you on ahout?

@Renegade666

14 күн бұрын

@@Jerry2die4 mate, my friend rolled a big squad of 10 with a captain, behind cover, so rerolls on everything when not overwatching, so even GETTING to them was tough, I play chaos marines and back then we only had 1 wound marines, and then hopefully not failing the charge (remember walls added an extra 2" to a charge), and getting overwatched for free with rapid fire. Even hitting on 6s pretty much guaranteed half the squad was dead before having to chew through 2 wound marines. I had to literally rhino rush them, disembark, hope they didnt get shot to shit, and next turn charge. Hellblasters were BRUTAL in 8th man!

@TideUltra13-ex3xl

14 күн бұрын

​@@Renegade666and then everyone stood up and clapped 😂

@iain-duncan

14 күн бұрын

Bro Overwatch has been free the vast majority of 40k history.

@Renegade666

14 күн бұрын

@@iain-duncan yes but hellblasters haven't

I miss actual points, I also miss the old weapon skill. Made sense to me that a Space Marine captain would have an easy time slashing a guardsman, and a tough time with a Hive Tyrant.

@damnationdan5253

14 күн бұрын

More character duels!

@101Mant

14 күн бұрын

Absolutely for weapon skill. In close combat you can dodge and block your opponent so your skill matters. Making it work like ballistic skill just makes it less distinct. Miss initiative too, made species feel more different and speed wasn't just movement an Ork isn't going to get the drop on an Eldar in melee.

@lt.danhooper1635

14 күн бұрын

I only started in 9th, would you be willing to explain the kind of WS you're talking about? How it worked, and what edition(s) it was in?

@JasonM69

14 күн бұрын

@lt.danhooper1635 up until 7th edition, every unit had a weapon skill value. In combat, to determine the hit roll, you would compare weapon skills. It's just like comparing strength and toughness to determine the wound roll.

@lt.danhooper1635

14 күн бұрын

@@JasonM69 Ooh that is interesting. Thank you!

Whenever i think of how the game was played in 7th Edition, i get sea sick. im extremely happy that the game will not go back to that state of play, it was soooo bad.

Anyone else remember target priority from 4th edition?

@Lotus_River

13 күн бұрын

Now that was a truly terrible rule. 4th did a lot of things right with trying to make the game more mobile, but by god that one rule was the bane of my existence.

@sirrathersplendid4825

12 күн бұрын

@@Lotus_River- Some minimal target priority rules are essential. Like having to fire at something that is charging you (or within charge range). Activating a leader skill of some kind might allow you to override the priority.

@Lotus_River

12 күн бұрын

@@sirrathersplendid4825 4th editions rules were definitely not essential. You had to pass a Ld. test to shoot at anything that wasn't closest, which was hell on low Ld. armies and just not fun at all as it never led to fun situations.

@sirrathersplendid4825

12 күн бұрын

@@Lotus_River - Sounds like a pain. So many rules in WH are not well thought through. One reason why I stopped playing it as there are so many vastly superior systems out there.

This game is starting to feel a lot like Warmachine/Hordes with how you pick "leader" models and units with fixed unit sizes and effectively fixed loadouts. Warmahordes was fun but list building was barely even part of the game because of how competitive it was.

@shadowmancy9183

13 күн бұрын

I quit 40K to get into Mk.2 Warmachine. I get where you're coming from, but the feel isn't quite there. It's still too imbalanced to be a good comparison for Warmachine.

I kinda miss tank facing. And turret/side guns facing. But I understand why it’s gone

The Alliance Table

There are rules I'd like to see come back. They'd slow the game down a little, but I'm not a routine competitive player. Old AP, templates, facings for weapons and toughness (I'm okay with not bringing back armor values), Initiative as a stat, old cover saves, a psychic phase, and having certain weapons unable to harm anything with a toughness above a certain relative value (S*2+2 as max?). Certain factions should be tweaked as well, but those tweaks need to wait until a rules update happens.

Points in 8th was a fucken sewer.

Yo though I was playing Daemons in the Leviathan 10th crusade and the mission was "There are 6 objectives on the board everywhere except in the Daemon deployment zone. No one can deep strike withing like 12 inches of an objective." Which basically nullified my entire army rules wholesale. Also you destroyed the objectives instead of stealing them, so no shadow. Auto lose missions are still around.

I agree with all points but I do have fond memories of seize the initiative in 7th edition

I'd like to see Mortal Wounds gone, or more restricted: they bypass the core game mechanics, and mean that strength, toughness or saves mean nothing. Therefore, spamming them is the most effective strategy in 8th/9th.

That null field sounds kind of fun. It'd be interesting to have a game type just built out of weird things. Like capturing specific objectives causes things to happen other than just getting points.

From just a viewing standpoint, I'm glad "Only Take X Wounds In A Phase" rules are gone.

Only thing I miss is armour value and wargear options

I wish they make the shooting phase happen at the same time. Example I shoot my unit and the opponent shoot theirs... and after that we each remove casualties

@damnationdan5253

14 күн бұрын

Wouldn’t it be cool if 40k had kill team style alternating activation

@manyslayer5889

14 күн бұрын

They just need to go to alternating activation.

@ericsmith9212

14 күн бұрын

​@@manyslayer5889Wholeheartedly agree! My gaming group has played around with alternate activations,making for a better game,

@OverlordZephyros

14 күн бұрын

@@ericsmith9212 im glad im not the only one who thought of it

@ruas4721

5 күн бұрын

Pro tipp: Just play better games than the shit GW releases with 40k, AoS and Old World.

Necrons with the phase out at 75% models...

Fearless units taking more wounds after combat. It was a great way to make playing Deathwing even harder than it normally was.

I misunderstood the thumbnail and I thought you hated blast templates and I honestly got a little upset before I realized.

I don't personally agree with how Obscuring is better but I think that's an issue with how the game is designed. Most terrain pieces only serve to stand behind, and few actually like entering the ruins as it's much better to never get hit insetad of a cover bonus. This destroyed a lot ot thematic map building.

Automatic death if you were wounded by a weapon with strength 2x your toughness. Yeah I hated that one...nothing like seeing your HQ getting nuked by a lascannon or bright lance turn 1.

@dawkinsforpope

14 күн бұрын

What do you think would realistically happen if a human-sized target was hit by something designed to punch through futuristic tank armour? lol The idea is not to be shot by them in the first place.

@biguschungus3989

14 күн бұрын

If the focus was logic and not fun then yeah i guess ​@dawkinsforpope

@sheo720

14 күн бұрын

I have to disagree with this. I loved this rule, and I still love it in HH.

@dawkinsforpope

14 күн бұрын

@@biguschungus3989 in that edition characters couldn’t even be targeted if there were any friendly units within 12”. The only time that ever happened in 3rd-5th was either if your army was mostly dead, or you did something incredibly dumb.

@clonetf141

14 күн бұрын

Thats a rule I miss so damn mutch

That null field is back in Crusade. One of the Pariah Nexus Crusade missions. My daemon playing mate hated it even though he won our game.

Having a to roll to see if your army ended up as death company it was time consuming and it made planing lists absolutely dog-water

I only got into warhammer at the end of ninth. hearing what rules were like in previous editions is quite interesting.

I absolutely, vehemently hated Sweeping Advance and Challenge rules. Many old rules I wish came back but two two especially can F off. I'll never forget the time in 6th where a 6man strong bikernob force somehow completely whiffed to kill a single tactical marine, said tactical did 1 damage to me, he won the fight, I lose the roll, he removes my entire biker squad. This is not an exaggeration, this happened to me. Lot of other bs times too but this was the worst offender of sweeping advance massively swinging the game

Oh this is gonna be a fun nostalgia trip. 😅

Should do one on "rules that are dearly missed", like vehicle armour, initiative, WS/BS tables, full unit characteristics and more amusing "fun" rules for some weapons that aren't just" do mortal wounds".

@KR4FTW3RK

14 күн бұрын

Initiative? Really?

@Retrosicotte

14 күн бұрын

@@KR4FTW3RK it's imo superior to what we have now as it actually reflects the capability of the unit

@darko-man8549

14 күн бұрын

agreed - imo, "fun" rules have lost to GW's focus on Comp and "Simplified not Simple" bs

@Sentenal

14 күн бұрын

@@KR4FTW3RK Initiative is a great balancing mechanic between melee weapons. For example in Horus Heresy, your high STR, high AP weapons like the Thunder Hammer or Power Fist will strike last, due to how ponderous they are. This allows for less powerful weapons like Power Swords, that are lower STR and lower AP, to still have a place in the 'meta' and not simply be the 'bad' option.

@_Morph1ne_

14 күн бұрын

Or ‘enemy takes a battle shock test’. Probably the most boring rule for a flamethrower ever written.

Seize the Initiative is hilarious. I will never forget stealing the intiative against my opponents death star.

Your dream was called rogue trader, there were rules for everything even ammo checks, later there was the ammo check in Necromunda

If we're talking about any old rule, being able to roll multiple dice for saves, Turn Radius Ratio for vehicles, the limitations on vehicles firing weapons if they moved, Every model moves six inches, the Initiative mechanic, the small blast template (Side note, if you didn't have to center them on specific models, the blast templates would have been great), the old weird rules for wound distribution that made nobs basically immortal, the old rules for selecting which models were removed from a squad when they died that weren't 'Person whose squad it is picks', most of the unit spawning mechanics, snap shots (basically various things that made you only hit on 6), most of the old untargetable mechanics, any of the 'can only take X wounds per phase' mechanics, and the original way the League's of Voultan worked. 40k is a great game with a long life that has had a lot of utterly deal breakingly bad rules in the past.

In the old days, Terrain was meant to have a Datasheet to go along with it. The offical rules gave permission for these sheets to be created, as most terrain wasn't offical products. Needless to say, all the problems created within the Core Ruleset (such as the lack of movement instructions) could be corrected by utilizing this little known Rule. So many Terrain Designers would grant some sort of Cover Save when it comes to sniping a model out of a window.

The old Hazardous Ground was miserable. Friend of mine for three games straight would have their tank crippled first turn for the whole game 😂. Deep Strike mishaps were also randomly punishing. Could lose a whole squad of terminators just because of RNG and be out a good chunk of points. The feels-bad 'flavor' rules of 7th was a time left better as history.

Definitely don’t miss transhuman-type rules

Wargear costs should make a comeback. Also warlord traits.

Dont forget about using torrent weapons against transports with open tops to just roast the dudes inside before they get to do anything. Thanks 6th and 7th....

My personal picks: - close combat win = enemy unit completely wiped out - this basically killed off tarpit units, like conscripts for a good while - vehicles getting insanely easily tied in close combat, unable to do anything - was a plague for plenty of editions - measuring distances, like charges and range from any point of the model instead of the base - allowing some hilarious model for advantage shenanigans - one of the iterations of rules protecting character models - that does not allow shooting the character if he is not the closest model, even if no other model is in line of sight - vehicles can shoot all their weapons, regardless of angle and facing - I can't stop imagining Malcador Defender tank making a 360 spin every bloody round.

5th Edition wound allocation shenanigans made Ork Nobs almost unkillable. The allies rules allowing almost unbeatable lists like Taudar. Templates should have been fine, but a lot of players are too gamey. I wish they brought back rules allowing more fluffy armies, like Decent of Angels or maybe Ork Warbikers as troops ( I know troops aren’t a thing but you know what I mean…)

@WilhelmScreamer

9 күн бұрын

@@bedathprop I thought it was 4th that did the woubd alocation nonsense?

@bedathprop

9 күн бұрын

@@WilhelmScreamer maybe it was....but it was horrible...

Imperial guard + kill point = sure defeat 😝

'Multiple special close combat weapons', a rule that multiple codex writers ignored.

As someone who started in Arks of Omen, dear God. How was 40K a playable game before 9e?

@SGWeber

12 күн бұрын

I started in 5th, and tbh you played 40k not for balanced rules but for batshit insane fun. I never won a game back then, but I had a hilarious time rolling dice and watching little plastic soldiers get slowly obliterated as we figured out how the rules worked. That said, 10th is much smoother even if I miss some things about the old systems.

i miss when synapse existed i miss when psychers existed i miss when strategy existed

My father always told me tails how an ork scrap titan shot directly and still needed a metal ball to see if he hits the target ir not. If it hit a titan it 0ed its void shield and 1 shot its leg thus the titan fell over and got destroyed. Other thing was scatter and how deathstrike missile had 3 warheads each for different situations. Barage warhead which we have now, warping, being able to bypass voidshields and detonate behind it, but moving random distances cause its moving through the warp, and some actually 1 shot warhead.

I started playing in late 9th. If GW would have made me pay for not just models, paints and codexes but also BALACE PATCHES! I would have never bothered playing 😂

I always felt like I was cheating with the old guess weapon / artillery rules from 3rd ed 40k & 5th / 6th Warhammer. I was one of the people who could guess the distances between models with very good accuracy (I still can 😅), let alone with knowledge like my opponent deploying a unit on the deployment line (usually 24" between deployment zones) and moved that target unit x" each turn.

one thing about 8th ed terrain is that it meant having mountains and other stuff were actually relevant for making a battlefield, i miss impassable terrain in general for comp

The Rule that I always hated, that never once worked for me was the normal units taken wounds for special characters. It was so obnoxious to have one super high durability unit up front tanking everything with 2+ save and feel no pain and whenever a wound came through that had instakill, destroyer or otherwise gauarnteed damage they could just give that to the cheap chaff next to them

Eldar fliers getting a casual -4 to hit

Things we miss: The master statline page from 3rd-7th

definitely glad seize the initiative got the boot

I'm going back a long way, and faction-specific, but the RT-era Infinite Bloodthirster is one I'm really glad no longer exists (any model with a daemon weapon could, on it's turn, deliberately release the daemon bound inside. The newly unbound daemon came with the base weaponry and equipment for its type, which for most daemons at the time wasn't too overpowered. Bloodthirsters of Khorne, however, always carried an axe with a bloodthirster bound into it. The only limitations were the number of Bloodthirster models you had access to [or number of proxies your opponent would let you get away with], and the number of turns in the game. Well, that and the reaction table for unbound daemons, which could have the newly-freed greater daemon fighting on your side, the enemy's, neither, or just upping and leaving). There was also the OG Daemon Bomb from the same era (if a flyer slowed below it's minimum flying speed, it crashed, doing d4 wounds per level of altitude to itself and whatever unit it landed on [plus the falling unit's toughness, minus the toughness of whatever it landed on]. You could fly up to the +40 level [or theoretically even higher] and then deliberately crash, doing 5d4 damage. Oh, and Greater Daemons were immune to non-magical/non-psychic damage, including falling damage. And are now effectively in combat with whatever hapless unit they've landed on). Sure, crashing units were subject to d12" scatter, but when it worked... Wow, those were terrifying, and it's a really good thing they're gone.

I remember I had a game in 7th ed, where for a friendly game dude brought 4 demon princes (one for each god) and of course rolled for telekinesis discipline on 3 of them. He of course got invisibility for two of them, and proceeded to trash me with two invisible princes just going through my entire army

The debuff stacking was also quite atrocious (Aeldari planes lists, we don't forget you)

11:30 oh, man... the Scarab Occult formation in Wrath of Magnus! 45 Terminators with a 1 in 36 chance of killing them if they get a save. Not massively fun for either player.

Don't want to sound like a fan boy, but I am really a big fan of 8-10 edition philosophy. 1) Templates. Go to hell and never return! 2) Armor sides and random table on which part of the vehicle is actually damaged. So freaking annoying. 3) FOC. No troops tax, troops are just genuinely good at capturing the objectives (or not). Competitive players still chose to include "troop", because instead of forcing players to build armies a certain way, they balance the game in a particular way, without needing to punish players who don't want to include them. That's a win. 4) Universal Special Rules other than Deep Strike, FNP and some other ones. Some of the codex writers just straight out took the best of them and wrote them to their units, and some of USR just felt like a worse version of other, better ones. Like every morale-based rule just sucked compared to Fearless. Now I see the tendency to go back to that shit, but I'd rather have GW write same rule for 9000 times than have another USR accidentally broken. 5) Random rules like surrounded and tank shock - they do sound quite cinematic and fun, but they are straight from the nonsense fun territory. 6) Unit weapon types and wound allocation shenanigans from the 5th edition. 7) No measurement before selecting a target for shooting. Most of you will say "what the fuck", but back in a day it was the rule. It didn't lead to dudes not shooting within the experienced players base, just lead to more measurement-realated cheating. Like choosing a target with one unit, that stands close by, but doesn't even have the weapons to deal any damage, and simultaneously remembering the distance towards the target for the other unit, so you will know if you are reaching before taking the shots.

@shadowmancy9183

13 күн бұрын

Old morale was better, in my opinion. It made morale very relevant to keeping a force in the fight rather than just losing a guy or two, or not scoring points while still clogging up the battlefield.

@MrFiremagnet

13 күн бұрын

​@@shadowmancy9183 it was fun, but it kind of punished players for not having Matt Ward as a codex writer. For top armies morale didn't really exist, for others it just sucked, losing control over the dudes just like that. My opinion might be unpopular, but I think that the best morale system was in the first DoW game. Morale there was a bar, pretty much like a health bar, and some weapons damaged the morale (sniper weapons, flames and artillery, for example). And broken squad made them still present, but ineffective and quickly dying. Current system just doesn't do enough.

@shadowmancy9183

13 күн бұрын

@@MrFiremagnet I like the bar system as well, but I think it really only works in the digital realm. Requiring tests under circumstances from before, such as taking 25% casualties in one phase, would help make it more useful, along with applying penalties to hit.

@MrFiremagnet

13 күн бұрын

@@shadowmancy9183 I think it can work as a separate pseudo wound count and have a degrade table/fixed debuff. And adding morale damage rule to some weapon types/triggering moral damage on dramatic casualties. And than adding morale regen mechanics - by gathering the distance and making regroup test, so that fall back would be a tactical option instead of making the player completely lose control or just instantly removing models.

As a recently returned player from 3rd to 5th ed alot has changed. But the way vehicles work now, with Wounds and Toughness instead of Armourvalue and a d6 on two different tables to see what happens... Still have nightmares about a game where my landraider and venerable dreadnaught (both in cover) got exploded turn 1 by a few lascannon shots 😅

I never played back then but old vehicle rules and mortar type rules looked very complicated

Terminators saving 3+ on 2d6 not an invun save

That exact null field mission is still a thing in the Pariah Nexus Crusade Book.

Randomly rolling for psychic powers is something that I'm glad to see gone. I recall lots of power gamers would try to squeeze as many psykers into their lists just so they can fish out that one powerful and/or broken spell for their death star unit.

I’d love to see your review of the THREE books that came with the Second Edition boxed set, then throw in Dark Millennium for flavor.

Jaws of the world wolf was really horrible rule. Especially for people expensive initiative 1 models.

Is there a chance u will cover AoS 4th similarly to 40k?