The poor Hammerfall Bunker guy on reddit has even stopped doing his obscene triple bunker list, that's how bad it's gotten, even that lunatic has stopped.

It's very cool that the Guard index incentivizes you into playing artillery parking lot and then endlessly penalizes you for playing artillery parking lot

Guard was shoehorned into using arty because of Born Soldiers, and then we get punished for playing how they wanted us to

The problem is that with Guard, the Detachment rule *heavily* suggests towards using artillery (Lethal hits if remaining stationary), a lot of people have suggested that like the Dark Eldar detachment rule getting reworked, Born Soldiers should get a rework from "if remains stationary" to "if remains station OR recieved Orders" to make it a lot more useful. Essentially GW have pushed the Guard into the Arty spam castle playstyle which isn't fun to play against...but it's one of their few options.

"GW is first and foremost is Plastic model company, rules can follow later " If GW marketing "ask" me on how to make these kits selling, just simply make special campaign rule for them akin Imperial Armour campaign

The Exorcist's increase is just such a shame for such an iconic model. Particularly givven how the Castigator wasn't touched.

It really makes the game less of a combined arms wargame and more like 90% infantry with some vehicle support. I had some really great idea for flyers for some lists in 9th but never got around to assembling and painting any of them until 10th, and now they are piss useless.

GW should stop trying to treat flyers with a completely separate rule set. Just make them the same as any other (hover) skimmer, they could even keep the minimum move and just get rid of the pivot nonsense. Then they have a nice niche as just much faster tanks/transports that can get in position easier with the downside of being more fragile and unable to contest objectives at OC0

This is definitely one of those circumstances which make me go "Gee, if only we had a system where you could have a max of certain types of options, that would certainly cut down on all the issues of spamming..." It's probably nostalgia goggles, but getting rid of the Force Organization chart has really broken some aspects of the game. You had your 'forced' battleline, and then you could tailor your force how you wanted. It actually looked like an army, and there were the rules for theming it around certain factors for most groups like with the Imperial Guard Armored Fist squads. If we were capped to 3 Heavy Support choices, or like... what they're doing with certain Special and Rare choices in the Old World, I don't think we'd be having this problem. It definitely feels like they introduce some of these as a quick way to make a buck in their edition, and then realize how broken they were later on. Heldrakes felt terrifying to me for so long because of the lack of anti air weapons, which... big F for the Hunter and Stalker now, along with the good old universal Aegis Defense Line with quad Autocannon.

I got a 'rescue' Stormraven as a gift a while ago, which I believe is still the most expensive marine model you can buy outside of forgeworld. It's been sitting in a box because every time I look at it I go "why bother". That's not what someone's reaction should be to the center piece model of their army.

I've heard the HammerFall bunker described as such: it doesn't hammer anything, it doesn't fall like a drop pod, and troops cannot bunker inside it. Honestly, the name is objectively garbage. It quite adamantly misrepresents the units use and function on a fundamental level. A automatic gun is NOT a bunker

Sadly I see no fix for their mindset. They've shown time and time again that they think 40k is something to be balanced around WAAC Players that frequent the tournament scene. Flyer and artillery spam aren't a real issue in casual play, if you encounter it you simply don't play with that person, and they'll learn pretty quickly no one wants to put up with that crap. GW keep ruining their game balancing for the tournament scene which doesn't account for the majority and I wish they would stop doing it. My friends and I have gone back to 9th recently and we ignore the indirect fire / flyer nerf and wouldn't you know... The game is a lot more fun again.

I think flyers could work with some simple rules: they can't get cover, they are always visible and they can rotate BEFORE and after moving, to better position them; they still arrive on turn 2 but you can select an enemy to be bombed or make a transported unit deploy like they had Deep Strike, both within a certain distance from the flyer (10"? 12"?), like they did their thing while entering the battlefield

Maybe the could balance indirect fire with scatter dice and blast templates!

GW: No good fortifications. Rogal Dorn: (;_;) (;_;) (;_;)

I think the hammerfall bunker would be pretty reasonable if it came with indirect fire.

One way to balance indirect would be to use a spotting system so that a unit could only fire indirect on a target if the target was spotted by another friendly unit which would in turn prevent that unit from doing anything else except spot. Giving the player the choice of getting the benefit from indirect by losing a unit doing things.

When it comes to indirect fire, I feel like an interesting way to balance it would be to make these units need a "spotter" (not totally unlike real-world artillery). If they can't see their target, give them a very strong damage penalty, but with the ability to ignore it if another of your units can see them (and maybe the spotter has to do some kind of action). This would mean that you would still have to get out there (althought with cheap, expendable units), and could prevent the "artillery spam" problem if you need a spotter unit for each different artillery one. (Obviously, you'd have to change the current T'au army's rule as this is basically the same thing, but it's a detail in the grand scheme of things.)

How to fix broken units in Tournaments… Bring in Force Organisation. You know, the novelty of HQ, 2 troops, with optional 3 Heavy support, 3 elites, 3 mounted, etc.

My Necron Croissants haven't been good since the 5th edition (right before 6th edition where they shined) codex dropped and they were new(where they were a nightmare for everyone).

Sad thing is like factions like sisters of battle is they only have 1 artillery and no flyers or visa versa. Or just lack in other tanks unlike guards, tau etc that just filled with them

I appreciate I'm a casual player but totally agree with flyers. I brought a Stormhawk into my Grey Knight list, it did ok but next game I realised I could add an imperial knight for 20 points less, which did a LOT more for the points, it was the end of flyers for me

Notice how all the Tau's units on these lists are missing... excited to see if they're OP again once their codex drops!!

It's a shame they can't make flyers work, some of them are really cool models.

To be fair the Plagueburst Crawlers indirect was basically only truly good when running the Lord of Virulence or whatever the character that makes them ignore the -1 to hit from indirect. Which would mean that the plaguebursts cost is essentially another 80+ points on top of the 180 it is now.

I actually like your idea for a “scalar” points on units. Good units go from being spammed to never used post nerf. The increasing points would mean everything could still be usable and still be seen even if it’s just one . Seems thematic to me that you would see some but not 6 of the same thing. Would also make list building more interesting and easier to tweak points on second and third units with out seeing a good unit then just never be used at all.

It’s a shame because I think making fortifications a more important part of the game would be fun

Their mistake is taking the rules for flyers too seriously. If they just gave them movement more in line with rest of the game and stopped trying to make all these special mechanics for them it would just be a matter of appropriate points for their statline. . 16-20 movement depending on the aircraft (a speed tier above bikes) . Cut the pivot and minimum distance rule . Has to come in turn 2 onward, but has deep strike. . 0 OC. . Adjust Points.

GW should introduce incrementing costs to list Say one manticore costs 150. If you want a second one, it costs 180. A third one costs 200.. And so on, to stop spam.

I love the Hammerfall Bunker, I bought it in 2021 and haven't used it once...please make it decent and more then just a cool terrain piece

I get that Flyers are hard to balance. When they first started coming along, way back in 5th, they were Fast Skimmers which were enough of a pain. But then they became full-on aircraft, and were either wet farts or brokenly powerful. The only good thing about how they are now is how any army doesn't have to worry too much about dedicated anti-air, which was also a huge pain. But as a Corvus enthusiast, I want it to be viable soooo much!

Seeing all indirect fire tanks go to the same point cost of 180 really does confirm that it is a targeted hit against that entire unit archetype. Definitely not the best approach from a player perspective. With all that in mind, I really hope GW look to returning to some form of Force Organisation in future, as 10th edition sees a distinct lack of Battleline units in many armies but on the flipside we have units that are being overcosted to stop spam lists, where they could just be limited to 1 or 2 per X amount of points, in a system reminiscent of the old fantasy battles organisation.

I understand not wanting aircraft and artillery to be spammable, but fortifications feel different enough that a handful of small exceptions can be thrown on them to make them usable. Make them Epic Hero and unable to be deployed within 3" of an objective marker or within 9" of the enemy deployment, and they count as neutral terrain for deep strike/cover/objectives. Age of Sigmar encourages the use of faction terrain, so I don't know why they distrust it so much in 40k.

So easy to fix indirect fire, if they cared to try. 1 - don't make indirect give cover, make it give +1 to save rolls so it stacks with cover. 2 - require a spotter unit for each artillery piece to enable indirect fire (any non-artillery unit with LOS can spot for 1 artillery unit), so spamming 3 of them will take more work, and so there's more interactivity between the armies.

Flyers, artillery and towering to certain extents ignore the line of sight rules. Knowing the intended terrain is key to pointing these units (same for super heavies and moving). Indirect could be largely fixed if they're only really useable against static foes.

I use the Hammerfell bunker in my Imperial Fists as it's the only way it can shoot on 3+ like actual space marines.

Flyers need a strat that lets them do a strafing run, it either slows down a single enemy unit or gives a unit -1 BS and/Armor Save, and artillery need something similar, for maybe battle shock or slowed movement. Maybe either lose movement speed or take mortals dealers choice for defender.

artillery needs the return of blast templates and scatter dice, that kept them somewhat in check originally

So we went from aflier focussed couple of years that started with release of the flying land raider aka Stormraven to a edition that basically goes "F" fliers. After all, they even removed some of the dedicated AA model kits and rules entirely.

I think the Stormfang Gunship is actually right on the cusp of being useful. Fixing the typo in the Helfrost Destructor weapon profile would be a good start.

My answer: call in artillery stratagem, when a model would fire, you can instead choose a unit with the "indirect" keyword this model can shoot. for the rest of the shooting phase, that unit improves it's ballistic skill by 2 against the models target. Worsen all indirect by 2 and youre golden, no reason to ever take more than 1

The best fix for stopping "always take 3" of units is what I thought they originally promised 10th edition would be. Have every unit with a once per turn ability that only 1 of those units can do (like they have done with captains, but for every unit). Whirlwind pinning bombardment - 1 whirlwind unit can do this per turn, not every whirlwind unit. Stormtalon strafing run, the same. Every single unit in the game could have this change made to them, and it would massively increase build diversity. So taking 2 lets you choose which of the 2 can use the ability, but you can still only use it on 1 of them. It works well for balancing captains, I just thought they were going to do it like that for every unit when they announced the edition.

The old school scatter dice helped keep them a bit more balanced in old editions. Of course, there was the old guard leaf blower list.

The thing I dislike about nerfing indirect fire to oblivion is, that it strenghtens the only part of terrain that currently has any impact, i.e. whether you can see through it or not. With current rules terrain giving cover has pretty much zero impact and thus is rarely used in favor of table full of buildings/ruins.

Yeah :( I got a whole airwing of Space marine flyers.. Been useless since beginning of 8th edition. The hammerfall bunker (I got 2) is basicly only useful as cool looking terrain 😢 The points together with the total slaughter on rules for them / lack of rules. makes the utterly useless.

I think the issue with flyers is that over half of the factions do not have an anti-air option and those that do the unit is rarely good and GW does not balance those units against each other. I feel like you could make aircraft a good unit if you have good anti air options with maybe access to some sort of reactionary thing against aircraft specifically so that you might want to keep the aircraft in reserve until that anti-air unit is dead.

I don't necessarily mind that GW is pushing back on flyer and artillery spam, because that's never fun to play against. But making them unusable in game isn't a great answer either, since that's not a great feeling for people who have the models. It really feels like they just can't be bothered to make the effort. I think this is a big reason they should bring back force org charts. Imposing some structure would give more options for restricting how these units are taken in a competitive game. The current listbuilding means there's no middle ground between useless and must-have. The extent to which they hate fortifications, though, is a bit bewildering. In an edition defined by movement, they're already at a disadvantage. Not sure why they need excessive costs and terrible rules on top

Webway gate could be incredible if it wasn't so expensive. Being able to arrive from reserves within engagement range is pretty strong, but 220 eats up so much of your budget for speculative area denial. At least from my limited PoV

Auspex raises the interesting idea of scaling points for units so that after the first, every extra copy costs more points. I'd say that this should be brought in for all units except maybe battleline; it would help a lot with the problem of an undercosted unit being spammed, and make everyone's armies more interesting. Now that almost everyone uses an app to work out their army, it shouldn't be that hard to do - maybe 5% of the unit cost rounded up to the nearest 5 for a second copy, and 15% for a third (or 10/20%)? There would far less spam!

They should have the webway gate jump around the board like swooping hawks. Could be a weird transport similar to how it was in Dawn of War! (Maybe take away the fortification keyword if it does this?) :)

I want to get some forge world stealth fighter drones. I just like the idea of them and want to paint up some models. I don't know if I'd ever run them.

I feel like the flaw with fliers is twofold; on one hand if they're too good they become spam-able, but this could be an easy fix by making 'aircraft' keyword units limited to 3 datasheets of any kind with the keyword (or some other balanced number) for any army. Thus hard capping them while letting them still be good rules wise. The second issue is the smaller size of maps in most modern 40k games. Back in 3rd-5th editions I recall playing on much MUCH bigger table sizes. Easily 3x bigger than the fields used now. Because aircraft travel so far and have such restrictive movement jankyness; the limited map sizes prevents them from really being able to shine. I find this problem also rears itself with things like longer range guns. After a certain distance on these smaller table sizes; range just becomes redundant. I think 10th ed could do with a shakeup at least in casual games with missions and games designed for larger battlefields over longer games. Keep the tight, core competitive rules sure; but some support for the capacity of casual; large map games and objectives supported to them would be well received imo.

I'd like to think it's to prevent no-win situations. Melee army vs aircraft spam is going to be a victory by army list since fliers are pretty much untouchable. Fortification army vs fortification army would be a staring contest over no-man's land since who attacks first, loses. And artillery spam taking out key units at turn 1 would make the situation very favourable for the one who goes first and miserable game for the second.

I don’t care about the stats. I’m still going to get a Feculent Gnawlmaw because it’s a really cool model and Grandfather Nurgle loves us all. Fortifications should be -5 or -10 OC. As in, if you are battling over an objective and you also have a fortification present, your opponent has a negative modifier due to your fortification.

seems like I've been waiting forever for my Heldrake to be worth bringing to a game

It wouldn't make sense for all fortifications, but some really seem like they should work like transports and provide some Firing Deck support. How exactly is the Hammerfall Bunker a "bunker" if your infantry can't actually seek shelter inside it? Benefit of Cover just isn't enough, especially given how common it is to get even without fortification units. The ones that don't should at least provide good auras. Convergence of Dominions FNP, rerolls, whatever. The point is, if you're going to invest points and reduce your mobility by keeping units near forts, they should benefit from more than just basic cover they can get almost anywhere if you have a decent amount of terrain. Maybe also set the fortifications OC to be dependant on "embarked"/nearby infantry, or otherwise nullify nearby enemy OC while the fort stands so that they can actually be used as high investment backline defences. The decision to take a fortification shoud be deciding whether you want to sacrifice points that could be spent on offensive power/mobility to have your home objectives on lockdown. As it is, you're sacrificing those points for little that another unit of battleline or two wouldn't already get you.

The lack of a force org chart kind of killed these units as now you can take an entire list of just these unit classes.

The 0 OC on flyiers with hover is the real nail in the coffin. Feels bad to have a highly mobile unit that cant cap an unguarded objective.

the sporocyst was actually really good at the start of 10th ed, had that hive defences rule that let you reactively shoot at enemy units within 24 up to 4 times per PHASE. now its one free overwatch a turn. royally pissed me off this one

to make aircraft a bit better is to make it that when they do come in from reserves they do their move that turn so that bombers can do there thing as with them able to pivot. Artillery should be a either move or shoot type unit with 2 types of firing profiles of either good against infantry that slow them down with d6 shot, low ap, strength, and damage as with a anti vehicle option that has few shots, high ap, high strength, and damage but no slow. Fortifications need to be a one of only with ok shooting with a main purpose on overwatch in a specific area. there is ways to balance all of this it is just up to the game designers

They could at least make them playable. But limit them to one per army or something. They are cool models with a lot of gameplay possibilities, even if they focus them to support and effects and less damage.

Will they bring back force organization? How often do the rulea change that radically?

What sucks is that the tau are supposed to be an aircraft heavy army. In lore, they don’t build big suits often because their job is already taken up by our superb Air Force.

I think you're on the money about the 'all or nothing ' aspect of list building. If something is good enough to take once, theres usually be little reason not to take all you can, and even build your strategy around them. All of these units mostly play to the Static gunline that ignores cover and line of sight primary strategy, and GW is trying to move away from that, and if any of them are "good" then it has a noticable shift in the meta away from the dynamic midfield objective snatching gameplay. The game really plays to the melee advantage and short-midrange heavy firepower, especially with how common line of sight blocking terrain is these days, which i think in turn is preventing the trouble of alpha strikes and first turn advantage from being as much of an issue.

The Necron fortification is so weak even Auspex forgot it existed

Hats off to the workhorse of the deathwatch the Corvus Blackstar. Very consistently decent since I started in 9e.

Would adding something like 'misfire' rolls to heavy artillery with indirect fire be something that could make them fairer? I loved the mechanic in old Warhammer Fantasy where if artillery misfired then you had to roll to see what it did. I understand 40k is a different beast (only jumped into it at the start of 9th) but feels like some kind of mechanics could be applied to make them viable to take while still feeling fair.

Artillery and buildings are pretty obvious in some regards - GW has been doing everything it can to stop gunline armies becoming meta again. The forcing of taking objective markers, as opposed to sections of the board, means that sitting there and shooting puts you at a disadvantage. As for fliers, well... I think it's because they don't know what to do.

The drone one in tau is really shenanigans though

TBH, It looks like the 40K team don't know wtf they're doing or are just overwhelmed at the moment. They also settled on some design choices for the game that aren't helping (no cost for options, just rule of 3 to limit spam, etc). It's kinda mean but the only thing they manage to do somewhat properly is nerf the items "everyone" is complaining about. Nobody likes flyers, nerf, nobody likes indirect, nerf, nobody cares about fortifications, forget about it, everything that makes some waves on the internet for a few months, nerf (the nerf might completely miss the point and just make the item useless but who cares, the internet will stop talking about it). And layer on top that they also pre nerf units based on how they performed on older rulesets. So if a unit over perform in an Edition, you can leave it on the shelves for a few years (flyer are exactly in this spot, they just don't know wtf to do with those and would rather not deal with the headache, too bad if you have a few laying around). Buffs are a game of Russian roulette most of the time either you're LoV and you get a ton of free points or you're anything else and your stuff drop 5%. Rewrite bad rules ? Nah, even if nobody uses an entry there must some point cost where it's viable, right ? Right ? Oh, look, the internet isn't happy about something (mmh, let say golden boys army rules), let's fix that ! and forget to fix anything else that should work in the same way. All that to say, I don't think they can fix those 3 without changing how they work, but it won't happen. At least they make some nice minis.

I really wish aircraft could come with deep strike and pivot at the start of their move instead of the end. I personally think thatd be about right

As for flyers I knew a drumstick player who flew what we called “the starscream” where he would fly all drukari jets and just do the strafing run over and over ending every game in a draw because all the enemy were dead in two turns and he had no way to cap objectives. I miss the scatter dice with indirect fire weapons. Make them strong but inaccurate. As for bunkers I think you and your opponent should have a separate terrain budget to the actual units. Maybe the any objective the bunker sits on counts as extra victory points.

Really sad to hear, I was planning a new type of list for my dark angels, using the ravenwing aircrafts as my heavy support. But it looks like would be almost impossible😢 so sad that GW won't allows to have variety in our lists

THe problem with bunkers and Aircraft was tat they alowed a very static gun line of weak infantry to hammer and anvl even eleat forces in older ed's. now that positional armour has gone, it is not much of an issue as it used to be. Also look at the crep in movment speed in the game. just because your on a bike or have a jump pack dosn't neserseraly mean you are the Faster inifantry around.

They should just phase these out if this is their idea of keeping them playable. Might as well cut down on a few datasheets since they already have a preconceived idea of how the game should be played.

Feels like GW is trying to nerf out "feelsbad hammer" unit spam that remove player interactions that are too one-sided. The problem is that it some armies (ahem, Guard) are designed around that core (horde infantry, tanks, artillery, and two of those are bad now) and don't have resilient answer to elite infantry MSU armies, especially since terrain is so dense which dramatically limits LOS and mobility for vehicles while infantry can move through it without penalty.

I understand why they adjusted the artillery units they did, each of them is overpowered to begin with. Not hard to miss it though cause everyone does math vs armigers instead of vs marines like GW does. Imagine this, you're facing a manticore and it's been stationary the whole game, it gets +1 from heavy and it rerolls every one of it's D6+1(probably +2 cause blast) shots against your unit. For something like intercessors that's 3 to hit with a reroll(!), 2 to wound, 5 to save, and if they fail they're obliterated. Even if you DONT have line of sight, which is odd but assuming you're indirect, it's still just 4's to hit, 2's to wound, and a 4+ save. Barely any worse really... A little good luck rolling on shots and your unit is gone in a single round of shooting. Even IF it's not gone, it will be severely weakened, and need a lot of support from the rest of your army to do it's original job, if it still can. A single lone marine is hardly a challenge for any army, even guardsmen. In just 2 turns of shooting their model has already made back it's points and also severely reduced your overall effectiveness. 3 of these could nuke an army in just 2 turns. It was worth it, especially with support from sentinels and hellhounds which ignores they're drawbacks. Now they're still worth it, but less enticing to those who don't know how stupidly powerful they actually are. It's a small penalty for those players who know what they are doing, but sadly discourages others from trying them. Overall it really comes down to GW wants you to use infantry (cause $$$) so they math out everything vs infantry stat-lines. Players want to use Tanks/Armigers (cause $$), and so they math out everything vs those instead. Hence the discrepancy.

Honestly, I say this as a guard player and somebody that thinks that the Valkyrie is the coolest model GW makes. This is a game where we roll for individual pistol shots, division level artillery pieces (manticore, basilisk) and aircraft beyond the lightest of skimmers just don't belong at the scales the game takes place at.

Basically they gave up balancing them so rather than risking them being somehow too good it's preferable to just bin them and not look back. 😅 A shame really. But I having experience with planes and indirect being too good; while I may not agree with the methods perhaps it's the lesser of two evils.

My main issue is the complete lack of designers insights, such as which you normally see in competitive video games. If GW would just give a small blurb of text, that explains the reasoning behind changes, then that would solve a lot of issues.

my problem is that artillary is a key actual part of warfare. like shooting the guy from several km's away. Not having it kind breaks the versimilitude. but I'd rather the game was fun. Maybe limit it to certain factions. guard feel like they should have artillery. maybe a version of the old skaven "life is cheap rule" (shoot into melee but misses hit your own guys)

I still hold out a sliver of hope we’re getting an “imperial navy” army to fix flyers- flyers, marines, jet troopers….the works

I was there Gandalf... 3000 years ago when GW pushed for Dawn of War : Soulstorm to include flying unit to boost their sales and now they want to get rid of them.

This has to be the most objective focused edition in ages for me, but my guard need to stay still to gain a buff. I've shelved guard after about 20 years and switched to Eldar. Even with the recent fate dice nerf, they are still decent and have all the gotcha rules that 10th has brought. The actual resolution of things is so convoluted and petty in this edition.

Why oh why does the hammerfall bunker not deepstrike, its called hammerfall it should be dropping in like a droppod but without anything in it. I think flyers being overcosted is stupid too, they have enough disadvantages not to be a big problem and if they are worried about spam i honestly think the limit on aircraft was good before just put max 2 for 2000 points and call it quits there

That dark eldar aircraft nerf in this dataslate was priceless. I think an aircraft dishonored James Workshop's mother.

real talk, artillery is crap since 8th when they removed templates. also, if they dont want Guard players to use artillery so much, why give them a trait (borne soldiers) that only really works with artillery?

This is... a very bad time for my Chaos army, which consists of only:- 3 x Heldrakes (Nurgle) 3 x Noctilith Crowns (Undivided) 3 x Lord Discordants on Helstalker (Slaanesh) 1 x pair of Obliterators (Nurgle) I fear they're going to struggle, even if they form exactly 2000 points and should therefore be balanced with other armies at that value.

In my thinking it’s alot less sinister. Looking at the way new codexes have less units than before, it’s propably just concetrating to the units that actually matter. Balancing niche does not seem so impactful than balancing the core.

i wish someday i will be able to play my tiger shark....

How does the Tau Tidewall fortifications hold up? Are they in the borderline unplayable category?

I really don't see why some unit classes can't be good? What does GW have against tidewall shieldlines and Skull Altars? I imagine there is someone writing the rules at GW that just thinks the entire game should be limited to infantry with a tank sprinkled in.

In such a small battlefield, relative to the size of the models’ range, flyers and indirect would dominate infantry, just like real life. And fortifications wouldn’t allow all the infantry models GW wants you to buy to move around the board. Understand that most players will go full Math-hammer and spam whatever wins. These types of models have power that barely fit on the board.

Fortifications have an inherent problem and that is not to do with the models' rules but rather the game itself. Buildings etc can't move which is is basically against what you need to do to play the game. Ive discovered this myself without using fortifications with my marines, not pushing forward turn one basically concedes victory to the enemy

There really needs to be a better form of gameplay for people who dont want to just run 90% infantry or bike spam. Maybe give us options for big, sprawling games where we can bring 10 or 20 vehicles/aricraft/fortifications and limited infantry, one that isnt epic scale. Itd be a really simple change too. Keep the statlines and basic rules the same, but keep the points costs low. I'm a larger collector and like having a wide variety of models, both infantry and vehicles. I currently have 2 gladiators that i can barely justify bringing, i have 20 dreadnoughts of various types- most of which are no longer useful, and an executioner, 3 invictor warsuits, 2 land speeders, a corvus blackstar and a dozen aircraft i havent used for two editions.

Both Flyers and Field Artillery similar to Baselisks are also pretty unusual for a small army encounter in my opinion. Artillery is usual Kilometers away from where the shells impact, same goes for flyers except Helicopters. Both type of equipment could be represented by Stratagems or costs points without being represented as a model: Strafing Run, Bombs away, Artillery Support and so on. As to fortifications: this should a central element for clear Attacker / Defender battles, where one side needs to protect its fortification.

If GW didn’t want me to field three whirlwinds then MAYBE they should have taken the TIME to add detachments. They even playtested this crazy shtick in Arks, and then MADE IT WORSE

The hover keyword should grant 1 OC.

For artillery couldn't GW try something based on range to represent accuracy ? Like you have the -1 to BS for indirect fire, but also (or instead perhaps) -1 to hit roll if target is beyond half the range or something like that ? And adjusting the points, BS and range stats accordingly Could even be just -1 to BS at 1/3rd range adding the -1 to hit roll if at more than 2/3rd, giving 3 zones of efficiency Artillery would suffer penality from shooting without LoS and/or have an accuracy nerf at long range ; means the 9" bubble and backline holders would still be safe to not be utterly removed so easily and have to be dealt with in more subtle ways or heavy artillery focus, but at the same time allows for artillery to be a better threat for ennemy coming too close ? Couldn't it give artillery a defined purpose with indirect fire (don't come too close) without making it OP, while allowing full strength if exposed to get LoS ?

I'd love to see the ork stompa come down in points significantly, then it actually might be worth taking. It's at least 200 points too expensive