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.

Do you want to see change in the fluff, crunch? Maybe new armies or codexes?


A list of things I really want to see or do if I was the head of the design department (unrealistic expectations ):

Less focus on being grimdark.

Making the xeno codexes competitive again and boot out the Cruddace. I mean seriously, that man nerfed enough potential xenos and other armies to show how incapable he is.

Fusing Inquisition, Grey Knights, Sisters of battle and Assassins in one codex.

The Imperium of man crumbling. A new civil war is happening.

New armies based on new and old like:
Squats - Fluff wise they where saved by Grimnar and the Space Wolves.
Enslavers - mindscrewing aliens with their slaves and other creatures
Lost and the damned / Pirates - Renegades, Pirates, abominations and Dark Mechanicum..
Republic of mankind - Something like the Galactic Republic. Open to co-operate with other races.

I think GW will view my vision as extra heretical .

-Gorkamorka style vehicle rules.
-Bikes follow the same rules.
-As do all "walker type monsters"

1. I hate the blast rules. I want to see it go back to the 4th edition rules (where blasts actually did roll to hit). Orks and tactical marines should not be (roughly) equally good at firing blast weapons.

2. I want to see significant nerfs to rerollable saves, superheavy vehicles and gargantuan/monstrous creatures.

3. I want to see significant nerfs to bikes.

4. I want to see nerfs to the psychic phase.

5. I want assaults from stationary vehicles back.

6. I want them to get rid of the "no assaults if your opponent wrecked your vehicle on his turn" rule.

7. I want to see vehicle cover rules apply to all MCs.

8. I also want to see all codices achieving some semblance of both internal and external balance.

9. Nerfs to grav.

10. A chaos space marines codex on par with vanilla marines.

11.I want to see Tau and Eldar nerfed into the ground.

12. I want summoning to go away.

For starters.

Traditio wrote:
1. I hate the blast rules. I want to see it go back to the 4th edition rules (where blasts actually did roll to hit). Orks and tactical marines should not be (roughly) equally good at firing blast weapons.

2. I want to see significant nerfs to rerollable saves, superheavy vehicles and gargantuan/monstrous creatures.

3. I want to see significant nerfs to bikes.

4. I want to see nerfs to the psychic phase.

5. I want assaults from stationary vehicles back.

6. I want them to get rid of the "no assaults if your opponent wrecked your vehicle on his turn" rule.

7. I want to see vehicle cover rules apply to all MCs.

8. I also want to see all codices achieving some semblance of both internal and external balance.

9. Nerfs to grav.

10. A chaos space marines codex on par with vanilla marines.

11.I want to see Tau and Eldar nerfed into the ground.

12. I want summoning to go away.

For starters.

OT: IOW "Nerf everything that isn't marines in rhinos."

On Topic:

A complete rewrite to better accommodate the increased scale/size of the game. Obviously never gonna happen, but I can dream

Realistically, either remove the vehicle damage chart, or add one for MCs (i.e. unsaved wound from a weapon that ignores their armor could reduce toughness/initiative/attacks/BS, etc)

1. I want terrain rules changed. So you have 2 models 1 inch from your obliterator. Both are in the open, but one model is standing on a base of some ruins terrain, which has been fortified. BAM instant 3+ cover save.......even though he is 1 inch in front of you. What?

I get that it is supposed to make things simplified but you should only get covered if you are obscured. They're changing it for GMCs and what not but I think every model needs it changed.

2. Remove all this cover ignoring nonsense from the Tau. It honestly was never a problem until they decided that Tau should get 5 times as much as everyone else combined.

3. Crunch some of the unit types together. Assault marines are literally wearing jetpacks. How is there both a 'jump infantry' and 'jet pack' unit type? A robotic machine that's a monstrous CREATURE? Have some consistency for gork and mork's sake.

4. Make vehicles suck less. None of this 'move 6 and fire 90% of your guns at BS: garbage' nonsense when every large model worth a damn (GMC/jump GMC/superheavy) can move and shoot everything at different targets as well. A land raider with sponsons on opposite sides of the hull has to shoot at the SAME target? what??

Wolfblade wrote:OT: IOW "Nerf everything that isn't marines in rhinos."

More like: "I want them to make 8th edition more like 4th and 5th edition."

Also, superheavies and GMCs need restrictions, as do LoWs in general.

 Don Savik wrote:
1. I want terrain rules changed. So you have 2 models 1 inch from your obliterator. Both are in the open, but one model is standing on a base of some ruins terrain, which has been fortified. BAM instant 3+ cover save.......even though he is 1 inch in front of you. What?

You aren't supposed to see that that literally. Assume the model is ducking behind some low lying wall to avoid becoming wood chips. Now, on the topic of GMCs and MCs, those need to be changed.

3. Crunch some of the unit types together. Assault marines are literally wearing jetpacks. How is there both a 'jump infantry' and 'jet pack' unit type?

Jump Pack =/= Jet Pack. A Jump Pack throws the user up into the air. It is designed for speed and the ability to hurl Astartes around, not manueverability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:OT: IOW "Nerf everything that isn't marines in rhinos."

More like: "I want them to make 8th edition more like 4th and 5th edition."

Also, superheavies and GMCs need restrictions, as do LoWs in general.

More like "I want Gauss on my bolters"

Tactical_Spam wrote:More like "I want Gauss on my bolters"

Necrons have it on theirs. Just saying.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:More like "I want Gauss on my bolters"

Necrons have it on theirs. Just saying.

The rule is stupid regardless. No one should get it.

Tactical_Spam wrote:The rule is stupid regardless. No one should get it.

Just so long as we're being consistent.

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:OT: IOW "Nerf everything that isn't marines in rhinos."

More like: "I want them to make 8th edition more like 4th and 5th edition."

Also, superheavies and GMCs need restrictions, as do LoWs in general.

So, IOW, "everyone should play marines in rhinos" or "Everyone should play infantry in transports"? Man, such variety. Does your gaming group actually play by all your silly rules?

And if you like 4th/5th, just ask your group to PLAY 4th/5th rules. And yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to point restrictions on SHVs/GMCs assuming they were all worth the cost (i.e malcador...), but they don't need heavy handed nerfs.

Wolfblade wrote:So, IOW, "everyone should play marines in rhinos" or "Everyone should play infantry in transports"?

Is that how it played in 4th and 5th edition?

In terms of rule specifics, the following:

Better AP system where it's not "all or nothing". AP should still affect armor saves a la WHFB's strength modifiers so that AP4 and AP5 weapons aren't worthless.

Redo Grav so it's not stupid. That is all.

Introduce the "Plasma" and "Flame" weapon types. Right now we have to outright state if something is plasma or Flame, it'd be a lot easier if these were just "types" thrown in (they would have no actual rules, well maybe flame would cause a "burn" effect, but they're just qualifiers). Normally I'd not ask for something that'd complicate rules even more, but there's enough of both types of weapons and specific spells negating them that this should be a thing now.

Change cover to a To Hit modifier in shooting. We now have random streakers running around on the board because they can use a bush to substitute for armor.

On the broad sense, here's some stuff I'd like to see changed with the game as a whole :

Remove allies period. They introduced unnecessary complexity as well as rendered a lot of units obsolete. Ogryns are suppose to be the melee shield for Imperial Guard but why ever take them when you can ally in Space Wolves, who are just flat out better in every aspect? Picking and choosing the best just destroys any utility even moderate choices would have, not to mention make armies that are almost unable to ally with others (nids) even weaker by comparison. This leads to my next point (so withhold your pitchforks Harlequin and Inquisitorial lovers):

Conversely, the few remaining codexes specifically designed as Allies should be the ONLY ones that can be an ally to something. This goes into yet another point:

The following Codexes should come into existence and replace whatever they would replace:

Codex: Agents of the Imperium, an allies Codex that contains Inquisition, Sisters of Battle, Grey Knights, Militarium Tempestus, Legion of the Damned and the Assassins. It should be playable on it's own as a mixed force, a difficult mono-faction force, or as an ally element to another Imperial force.

Codex: Kroot: This would be similar to Codex: Harlequins in that it takes the few kroot units from Codex: Tau Empires and makes it a semi-autonomous army. The primary trait of this is that the Kroot can ally with anyone (as mercenaries) as Allies of Convenience.

Codex: Chaos Legions: This should be Renegades and Heretics, Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons all rolled into one. This one is long overdue.

Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus. Obviously this one should have existed a long time ago as well. Basically Cult Mechanicus, Skitarii, and Imperial Knights rolled into one codex.

I got much more gripes but I ran off on a tangent and can't remember them anymore. I will put my old coot cane back now.

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:So, IOW, "everyone should play marines in rhinos" or "Everyone should play infantry in transports"?

Is that how it played in 4th and 5th edition?

Somewhat, a lot of variety was removed then re-added as formations.

But yes, you either spent as little as possible on troops, or you gave them transports, minus the few factions with good troops (i.e. nurgle plague marines)

Wolfblade wrote:Somewhat, a lot of variety was removed then re-added as formations.

But yes, you either spent as little as possible on troops, or you gave them transports, minus the few factions with good troops (i.e. nurgle plague marines)

This is a popular objection to my ideas, i.e., that my ideas would restrict variety.

How much variety is there now?

"Marines = grav spam," "Eldar = wraithknights and scatterbikes," "psykers are auto-include," etc. is not my idea of variety.

Your answer to mono build lists is to mandate mono build lists?

That's not a solution bud.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Your answer to mono build lists is to mandate mono build lists?

That's not a solution bud.

I believe that you misunderstand my point. As a rule, an objection which applies equally to not A as much as A is not an objection to A.

If you object that it might rain if I eat an apple, I'll answer that the probability of rain is no greater if I eat the apple as opposed to not eating it.

If my suggestions would restrict variety no more than the current state of affairs, then the restriction of variety isn't an objection to my ideas.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Conversely, the few remaining codexes specifically designed as Allies should be the ONLY ones that can be an ally to something.

Just had this conversation the other day but in regards to Harlequins. Especially when one of the major fluff themes of your army is being the only one who actually gets the others to ally together. This falls into the realm of "Harlequins are the MASTERS of the webway" but only Dark Eldar have webway portals....

Onto the OP, I'd like to see alot more Harlequins and the "Grand Masque" Formation. In the Codex Harlequins the Timeline specifically says "they emerge from the webway in unprecedented numbers" and "several Masques join forces forming a Grand Masque"

First and foremost, the complete dropping of Formations and multi-detachment armies and a return to a single FOC (maybe not necessarily the old 3E-6E one, maybe each army gets their own, but no more 4 detachment armies from 3 different factions).

A 5E style vehicle damage chart and the complete removal of HP's.

Redo wound allocation to be more like 4E to eliminate some of the unnecessary gimmickiness and prevent multi-wound model allocation games.

Complete dropping of Maelstrom as it currently exists.

Allow units to assault from stationary transports.

A more tightened Jink mechanic to make it actually have a meaningful downside for things like Bikes and FMC's and remove some of the sillier parts (e.g. being able to jink in response to overwatch, FMC's jinking while on the ground, impose more of the Smoke Launcher restrictions on Jink)

SH/GC's may comprise no more than 25% of your army.

Drastically reign in psychic powers and things like Invisibility.

Limit D weapons to large Superheavy units or very limited Psychic abilities (e.g. no more 35pt infantry with D guns)

Combine AdMech and Skitarii into one army.
Make the INQ & Knights just an addition to other Imperial armies rather than its own unique faction.
Same for Harlequins and DE/Eldar

Have caps on saves and rerolls, no Invul saves better than 3++, FNP can't be better than 4+, 2+ saves can't be rerolled, etc.

And ideally, have a complete army list within the rulebook itself for each faction, like a 3E Blackbook list, to allow for a complete re-evaluation of broken units and armies (both ends of the spectrum) and just dump everything from the current edition.

1. Ally codexes like Harlequins get HQ's.

2. Remove Look Out Sir.

3. Mute button for people at my store.

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Your answer to mono build lists is to mandate mono build lists?

That's not a solution bud.

I believe that you misunderstand my point. As a rule, an objection which applies equally to not A as much as A is not an objection to A.

If you object that it might rain if I eat an apple, I'll answer that the probability of rain is no greater if I eat the apple as opposed to not eating it.

If my suggestions would restrict variety no more than the current state of affairs, then the restriction of variety isn't an objection to my ideas.

Wow. You really like to try and make yourself sound intelligent don't you?

Let me restate the problem.

I do not like rules that inevitably lead to a lack of variety.

The current rules have led to a lack of variety.

Your suggestions will cause a lack of variety.

Guess what my opinion of the current rules or any other suggestions that will lead to the same state is, irrespective of how they implement them?

 Limeblossom wrote:


Less focus on being grimdark.

Lol, if you don't like grimdark, why on earth do you play 40k?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus. Obviously this one should have existed a long time ago as well. Basically Cult Mechanicus, Skitarii, and Imperial Knights rolled into one codex.

I think this idea scares me the most, because you're suggesting they remove the most common super heavy ally from the entire Imperium and give it purely to one codex.

My wishlist:

Only change or advance the storyline if it can be done in a way that is in keeping with the established themes, makes sense, and doesn't suck.

Restrictions on units such as LoW and SH/GC in lower points games

PLAYTESTED RULES, CODEXES, AND POINTS VALUES

No more I-go-you-go. Players go back and forth with units, not entire armies.

"Making the xeno codexes competitive again and boot out the Cruddace. "

Please tell me how this is an issue.

Martel732 wrote:
"Making the xeno codexes competitive again and boot out the Cruddace. "

Please tell me how this is an issue.

Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Orks. Really every Xenos book has problems. Although they tend to flick wildly from too strong to not strong enough.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Making the xeno codexes competitive again and boot out the Cruddace. "

Please tell me how this is an issue.

Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Orks. Really every Xenos book has problems. Although they tend to flick wildly from too strong to not strong enough.

Throw in BA, IG, and GK as well.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Making the xeno codexes competitive again and boot out the Cruddace. "

Please tell me how this is an issue.

Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Orks. Really every Xenos book has problems. Although they tend to flick wildly from too strong to not strong enough.

Throw in BA, IG, and GK as well.

If I meant all codexes not just Xenos ones I would have done.

Nerfing something to the ground in order to make things better is always, at least in my mind, a sign of desperation. Removing
the reward of something, no matter how 'op' it seems is often the first step to new complaints. It doesn't fix the situation, it displaces
it. I'm more a fan of adding something, maybe just a risk to balance the reward.

Give Grav-Weapons the same rule as Plasma but instead of overheating on a 1, the Graviton-gun fails and generates anti-Gravitons
which attract antimatter which repels matter. The weapon is matter - ergo, the weapon is destroyed.

Maelstrom missions are fine imho. It's probably one of, if not the beginner-thing to play and a lot more generic than some missions.
Maybe rethink Maelstrom - but keep it.

Maybe less Psychic shenanigans, maybe by giving it a bit more of a risk rather than nerfing the reward. Like increasing the chance of
perils the more psychers are on the field. You still can use it, but you are mire likely to lose your psychers to the warp.

Strong weapons in general may backfire or jam rendering them useless for the shooting phase. You still have the gun, you still can use
it in any game you want - it doesn't remove the weapon from the game in general. But weapons that aren't that strong (Bolters etc.)
become more useful, since they do not carry this risk of not working.

Making overwatch Initiative based of sorts. If you see someone charging at you, you have to have a high initiative & good reflexes to
aim and/or spray & pray to actually kill something. Or maybe saying, that a specific unit can drop their shooting phase to overwatch
in general but renders other units useless in assault/cc phases.

Making "Look out Sir" initiative based as well. Once again, fast movements and reflexes rather than just rolling for an eternity for those
"Look out sir" rolls.

Changing how Metal bawkses work. Don't get me wrong, i like them. But i think the term "Assault Vehicle" should be available for any vehicle.
I'll compare those boxes (Rhino's and equivalent) to the barges that landed in the Normandy. Those were barely boats, metal sheets with
motors if you will and those brave soldiers had to charge out of them. But space marines cannot charge into the enemy from a Rhino? Maybe
make a Ld or initiative or WS or T test, if they fail - they're done. If not, they can charge.

The last one would, of course leave a void since Assault vehicle of the 7th would lose their role. Maybe giving them either a higher radius in
which they operate or making the departure for the occupants safer.

just some ideas.

It should would be nice to be able to be able to assault without resorting to Wraiths, TWC, Wulfen, or invisibility shenanigans. Not being able to do so makes my list basically hosed.