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 .
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If you made changes to charging from vehicles you could go for charges from assault vehicles are normal but non assault vehicle charges are disordered.
pm713 wrote: If you made changes to charging from vehicles you could go for charges from assault vehicles are normal but non assault vehicle charges are disordered.
That's nice, but BA are really supposed to be viable with jump packs, not packed into crates like Ultramarines. This rule would just bring back the absurd BA lists of 5th.
Tactical_Spam wrote:More like "I want Gauss on my bolters"
Necrons have it on theirs. Just saying.
Yeah, because its a necron rule. Stop taking our stuff.
You might as well complain that bolters aren't pseudo-rending, 30" range S5 AP5 and poison.
Speaking of marines, they should be really strong, but few in number. There should not be a table covered with 10 man marine units. There should be like, 2 squads of 5, a couple of vehicles and the rest composed of IG allies / chapter serfs / whatever.
The space marines are supposed to be primarily used as special forces, not a main offensive.
Tactical_Spam wrote:More like "I want Gauss on my bolters"
Necrons have it on theirs. Just saying.
Yeah, because its a necron rule.
Stop taking our stuff.
You might as well complain that bolters aren't rending, 30" S5 AP5 and poison.
Bolters do suck badly, though. But then, they have always sucked. All the things that make marines good have nothing to do with the actual marines. ATSKNF is now a useless rule, as are grenades for the most part. WS 4 ans S 4 are useless because they only get one swing in CC. Bolters being rapid fire AND terrible at killing things is just the icing on the gak cake.
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.
The reason it's the most common is because it's far more cost effective than the other 6 vanilla superheavies, the Baneblades and their variants.
With the changes I proposed, only Space Marines would be losing Super Heavies, and they really shouldn't have any of them anyways. if they must have one, maybe a superheavy flyer. The Imperial Armies should each have their own unique unit for each slot, not share one "be all end all" unit.
Martel732 wrote: Marines are currently the best horde army, which is patently absurd.
Yeah, its nonsense. They are supposed to be a small elite force, not terran marines.
If they were fielded in the fluff like in the table top with their in-lore numbers, they would be all wiped out.
As far as the BRB goes, I want to see balance (with anything new or old but previously removed being added only in the name of balance). We don't need more rules.
As for Codeces: -- I'd like to see updates for all the weaker Factions (e.g. CSM, Tyranids, Orks)
-- I'd like to see the folding of all Space Marine Chapters into the Vanilla Codex (excl. Spaces Wolves and Dark Angals) with some generic Chapter Tactics (i.e. everything you need to make your own Chapter on the tabletop).
-- I'd like to see Supplements for all the big Chapters (e.g. Ultramarines) with Black Templars potentially getting their own codex again.
-- With regards to formations, I would like to see formations that are at the core of the army instead of the ones we have. For example: Space Marines would only get formations which describe the makeup of a specific Company.
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.
7. I want to see vehicle cover rules apply to all MCs.
11.I want to see Tau and Eldar nerfed into the ground.
12. I want summoning to go away.
The changes that I've left in the above quote embodies why I can't take you seriously. You had some good suggestions in that post, but these changes are iffy at best.
Martel732 wrote: Marines are currently the best horde army, which is patently absurd.
Yeah, its nonsense. They are supposed to be a small elite force, not terran marines.
If they were fielded in the fluff like in the table top with their in-lore numbers, they would be all wiped out.
I still think it's great that Starcraft terrans don't even bother with non-power armor troops. And then they are fodder for the real stuff.
They'd all be wiped out anyway, since they are ants to knight-level units and titans.
Declutter the rules a la Age of Sigmar but not quite so violently, to decrease the size of the butt-hurt legion.
I don't know about anyone else here, but 4 pages of rules feels less like studying for your exams and more like actually playing the game you paid for lol.
Throw in rending mechanics ie the saving throw modifier of minus whatever.
The Monstrous creature chart for AoS should be applicable to 40K beasties. Having them become less effective as they soak up wounds is pretty nice IMO.
angelofvengeance wrote: Declutter the rules a la Age of Sigmar but not quite so violently, to decrease the size of the butt-hurt legion.
I don't know about anyone else here, but 4 pages of rules feels less like studying for your exams and more like actually playing the game you paid for lol.
Throw in rending mechanics ie the saving throw modifier of minus whatever.
The Monstrous creature chart for AoS should be applicable to 40K beasties. Having them become less effective as they soak up wounds is pretty nice IMO.
There's a few key MCs in 40K you can't even clear wounds on, though.
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.
7. I want to see vehicle cover rules apply to all MCs.
11.I want to see Tau and Eldar nerfed into the ground.
12. I want summoning to go away.
The changes that I've left in the above quote embodies why I can't take you seriously. You had some good suggestions in that post, but these changes are iffy at best.
I fail to see how expressing my opinion that an official rule of a previous edition (i.e., not homebrew or a houserule) is superior to rule of a current edition excludes me from being taken seriously. The 4th ed blast rules actually made more sense when it came to the to-hit roll. You selected a unit, chose a model and then rolled to hit. You succeeded? You place the blast marker and see how many you hit. You missed? You missed.
Does this rule need improvement? Sure.
But the improvement that was needed most certainly was not to give blast weapons a completely different mechanic to determine hits vs. misses which made BS largely irrelevant, a change which ultimately ended up with plasma guns being able to reroll gets hot, but plasma cannons not being able to reroll gets hot...because reasons, a change which made orks and space marines roughly equivalent in skill at firing blast weapons.
At any rate, I can understand how someone might want to dismiss 11 and 12 off hand, but I fail to see how 2, 3 and 7 are so inherently objectionable that you would dismiss them off hand as inherently ridiculous.
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.
So you purposefully left out those other codexes because you like imbalance... but don't like imbalance for xenos factions. Everyone who plays those other ones should suffer?
@Traditio: Here's how I see your points [1], [2], [3], and [7]:
[1] Tactical Marines and Orks are not as good as each other at firing Blast weapons. Admittedly the difference is mild, but there is still a difference. Just saying.
[2] Significant Nerfs isn't necessarily the answer the the problems caused by those units as a whole. If you said "Significant Balancing" instead, I'd be agreeing with you.
[3] Why do bikes as a whole need "Significant Nerfs"? I think this point falls under the same category as above which is "Significant Balancing" instead.
An ideal 8th edition for me would be a slight update. No major changes. All the FAQ and Errata for 7th added to the core rule book. Updated Flyer rules and Fortifications added.
Bolters are not a crap weapon. Against anything that isn't a MEQ they pretty much murder it without a save. Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, and Guard loathe being on the receiving end of Bolter Fire.
Orks bumped to BS3, and add Ork Clan rulez similar to Space Marine Chapter Traits.
Tyranids have 22 formations, none of them in the actual codex. Just collect all the new Tyranid model rules released since the codex and put the top 5 formations in the book.
Start by not taking people demanding that all the things they don't like NEED to be changed seriously.
Get rid of anything that makes for "shenanigans".
Simplify/streamline the game A LOT. There is just too much random to keep track of.
Something like AoS wouldn't hurt (not the fluff though, KEEP THE GRIMDARK). If they change the mechnics in a way that requires different stats they will have to redo all the armies.
Bring the suffering armies back, CSM need to be slightly better than vanilla marines (that was the point of going to chaos) and SOB in all their glory.
What is worth noting is that both warhammers are NOT meant to be a balanced games of skill, as far as I can tell. The intent is to make a game where AWESOME models ( YEA) are put down and AWESOME ( YEA) stuff happens, there are giant aliens/daemons/robots, heroic heros and EPIC conflicts with your guys .
I think most of the problems with 40k come from trying to appease people who want it to be about skill; while GW are really trying to make it about awesome.
Even so; the laughable excuse for "balance" is disgraceful. There's a limit to how balanced a game like 40k can be, but GW isn't even close to that.
adamsouza wrote: An ideal 8th edition for me would be a slight update. No major changes. All the FAQ and Errata for 7th added to the core rule book. Updated Flyer rules and Fortifications added.
Bolters are not a crap weapon. Against anything that isn't a MEQ they pretty much murder it without a save. Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, and Guard loathe being on the receiving end of Bolter Fire.
Orks bumped to BS3, and add Ork Clan rulez similar to Space Marine Chapter Traits.
Tyranids have 22 formations, none of them in the actual codex. Just collect all the new Tyranid model rules released since the codex and put the top 5 formations in the book.
Necrons - Bring Pariahs back
Sisters get an actual printed codex
Bolters murder nothing. Eldar are rocking 3+ save now jus like marines. The Tyranids that matter have 3+ saves. Guard have the numbers to not care. Bolters are crap. And have been since forever.
1. No random anything. Fixed movements and assaults, warlord traits, etc.
2. Consolidate the special rules as much as possible
3. Get rid of Necrons RPs, and give them +6 FNP
4. Undo the 'I saw a daemBLAM!' fluff of the Grey Knights
5. Pay points to pick which psychic powers you want your psyker to have.
6. Make all flyers in non-apoc games count as and follow all the same rules as skimmers
7. Make the Hrud into Space Skaven again and give them an army
8. Do away with Overwatch
9. Only models with Fleet may run
10. Chaos get more stuff on par with regular marines in equivalence to Stormravens/talons, Land Speeders, etc.
11. Roll Chaos Daemons and CSM back into one dex and bring back the DAEMON BOMB!
12. Gets Hot on longer applies to vehicles.
13. Eldar Jetbikes have every 1 in 3 be able to take a scatter laser or shuriken cannon
14. Special Characters unless army is above 'x' amount of points and you have opponent permission
15. Make Ordnance HURT again or cheaper up artillery units like certain IG tanks and the Chaos Defiler
16. Nerf grav weapons or at least give Chaos access to them.
17. No more buying buildings. Buildings are terrain.
18. Chaos can pick and pay the appropriate points for what Possessed they want
19. Bring back the dreadaxe for Chaos
20. Give Ork Warbosses a power weapon option (preferably a burna, so it's versatile...and bbqs things)
21. Streamline the weapons in close combat. CCWs are everything from knives, clubs, swords a big rock, etc. Power weapons are power weapons, they ignore armor saves and use the users strength. Big Hit weapons like Thunder Hammers, Power Klaws/Fists, Eviscerators etc. should all have the same profile, L. Claws count as P. Fists with rerolls to wound.
22. Drop ALL 'basic' Space Marines (including CSM) to Int 3
23. Be able to move a transport, have the unit get out, shoot and then assault an enemy.
24. Titans/GCs and Superheavies can't be taken in non-apoc games
25. Give IG a biker unit
26. No formations in non-apoc games or tweak to where a formation is an actual 'arrangement' the models have to be deployed in to get the formations bonuses.
Orks - Everything that isn't in Mega Amor, like 99% of the codex
Eldar - Everything that isn't an aspect warrior or has Wraith in the name
Tyranids - Everything that isn't a monstrous creature or has Guard in the name
Guard - Everyone
Tau - Everyone who isn't in power armor
If bolters were any better, you wouldn't need any other weapons.
Some of my ideas are somewhat army-specific, but here are some things I would like to see in 8th edition:
-Space Marine Terminators (including all variants like Deathwing, Chaos, GK) have some special rule that either ignores Rending and Bladestorm, or give them two wounds. Or both. Or maybe something else. Make terminators relevant.
-Vehicles need some kind of help. Mainly find a way to make it where glancing a vehicle to death is no longer a thing. Like maybe a vehicle cannot lose its last hull point to a glancing hit. This would help prevent a unit of Necron warriors from toasting a much more costly Land Raider. Also, grav weapons should only immobilize a vehicle for one turn, and not take hull points. Hull points themselves are not the problem. Another idea that I've seen bounced around is the idea of giving vehicles some kind of armor save based on the AV. This would mean that a vehicle would be less vulnerable to small arms, but anti tank weapons would still be very effective (as they should be).
-Transport vehicles specifically need a little work. You should be able to assault out of a stationary vehicle. Or maybe you should have to pass a leadership check to do this. Or something. This would make Rhino rush a thing again, but drop pods would not become super nasty (er) because they would count as having moved on the turn they drop. Assault vehicles such as Land Raiders remain as they are, you can assault out of them even if they move with no leadership required.
-Add a Critical Hit system for MC/GC's. Maybe on a 6 to wound you cause d3 wounds instead of 1, unless you can only wound on a 6. Maybe only AP2/AP1 weapons would be able to cause Critical Hits, making them a go-to choice for monster hunting as well as vehicle popping.
-Do something about crazy ally shenanigans. No more Superfriends deathstar units. Maybe make it where even Battle Brothers cannot join each other's units. Also no more Come the Apocalypse allies. CtA should mean you can't ally. This does hurt Tyranids, but maybe that means its time for a new 'nid Dex...
-Make it so only Chaos psykers can summon Daemons. I don't see a lot of players abusing Summoning with Imperial units, but I've seen it done. Should not be possible. Also make it so CSM can use Malefic powers without getting Perils on every doubles. CSM Sorcerers can summon Daemons in the fluff, so they should be able to on the TT without dying every time they try.
-I'm not sure what could be done about this, but something needs to be done to make CC more relevant. I don't think it's horribly bad right now, but it needs something. Really I like someone's suggestion I read in this thread about Overwatch needing a Leadership check. Perhaps certain armies would give penalties to this check.
-Many point costs need adjusted across the board. Too many to list. Some things need to be more expensive, others need to be cheaper.
-Possibly add a restriction on the number of certain often-spammed units allowed in a single army. Many players complain about players spamming all the good units, so maybe there should be rules in place to prevent some of this. Make certain units "Limited Availability" or something.
-In the composite detachments ("Decurion-style detachments"), limit each auxiliary choice to 1 per core choice. This goes with the spam prevention above.
-Psychic powers in general need some adjustment and balancing. Certain disciplines and powers are way too powerful (*coughInviscough*), and others, like Pyromancy, are just so weak that no one takes them. I'm okay with rolling for powers, but we need more variety than everyone rolling on Telepathy and hoping for that 5.
-Many Codexes need some updates (specifically Chaos Space Marines, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Orks, and Tyranids), so those should be given priority for new releases. They should be brought to the power level of the current power codexes and then hopefully as even more new books come out there is no further power creep.
First get rid of any armies ability to create units. It's dumb to bring my 2k list and then my opponent creates another 500 points. Second let psykers pick spells. Third no more super heavies in regular 40K
Orks - Everything that isn't in Mega Amor, like 99% of the codex
Eldar - Everything that isn't an aspect warrior or has Wraith in the name
Tyranids - Everything that isn't a monstrous creature or has Guard in the name
Guard - Everyone
Tau - Everyone who isn't in power armor
If bolters were any better, you wouldn't need any other weapons.
Make bolters AP3 and watch the world burn.
Doesn't seem to help the 1K sons. At all. Bolters suck. You need to get a grip on this. The only thing keeping marines at the top is invis shenanigans, grav cannons, and free transports.
yellowfever wrote: First get rid of any armies ability to create units. It's dumb to bring my 2k list and then my opponent creates another 500 points. Second let psykers pick spells. Third no more super heavies in regular 40K
This. Thousand Sons have AP 3 bolters. They are not competitive. There's even lots of stuff that they can't even touch. Anything over AV 10 or T7, for starters.
Most of the desirable targets are beyond their touch. Wolfstars, invis centstars, gladius, Riptide wing, Eldar bikes. None of those lists care about 1K sons.
yellowfever wrote: First get rid of any armies ability to create units. It's dumb to bring my 2k list and then my opponent creates another 500 points. Second let psykers pick spells. Third no more super heavies in regular 40K
This. Thousand Sons have AP 3 bolters. They are not competitive. There's even lots of stuff that they can't even touch. Anything over AV 10 or T7, for starters.
TS are also overpriced massively, have little mobility, and a generally useless psychic power (iirc)
yellowfever wrote: First get rid of any armies ability to create units. It's dumb to bring my 2k list and then my opponent creates another 500 points. Second let psykers pick spells. Third no more super heavies in regular 40K
This. Thousand Sons have AP 3 bolters. They are not competitive. There's even lots of stuff that they can't even touch. Anything over AV 10 or T7, for starters.
Yeah, it's ALMOST like there are weapons DESIGNED to take out tanks and high toughness targets Sorry bud but basic marines with no heavy weapons should NEVER be able to take out very high toughness or tanks.
The problem is that the units the 1K sons are good at killing don't matter anymore. They'll never do enough damage to a gladius formation to even make the marine player think about them.
1. Make glancing hits crew shaken again and nothing to do with hull points - remove 'immune to shaken' from everything that isn't a superheavy or doesn't pay out the nose for it
2. Make furious charge +1 I again
3. Make skyfire optional
4. Make double immobilised results turn into weapon destroyed
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.
So you purposefully left out those other codexes because you like imbalance... but don't like imbalance for xenos factions. Everyone who plays those other ones should suffer?
No.... Martel was specifically mentioning xenos codexes and asking how that was an issue.
Most people are just listing the things they always moan about in other threads. Lol.
As for what I'd like to see in 8th edition. A simplification of the rules to an extent. I like the current ruleset and it's fun, but the rule book is a mess. It needs a damn good editor and a full rewrite. The rules themselves aren't so bad. There needs to be a few tweaks here and there and some modifications to how GMCs and vehicles work.
As I see it, most of the problems with the game come from woeful Codex writing rather than poor rules. Throw out every single codex and release them all at the start of 8th edition. Make them online and free like AoS. Make sure they are balanced, and update them regularily to account for new models that throw out that balance.
The company seems to be moving towards campaign books anyway, so this seems a goer to me. Put all the formations, special characters, and such in the campaign books, and make sure they are balanced.
This separation of basic unit and army rules from formations and characters would make it easy enough for tournaments and events to ban formations if they wanted to.
A lot of ally shenanigans could be solved by making the Allied organisation chart have a rule that excludes special characters.
Vaktathi wrote: 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.
Dark mechanicum which could ally with CSM (renegades we have already) and redo CSM. Tzeentch daemonkin.
Yeah, if they went to a system where the faction rules were online and updated regularly it would be easy to make it so Mechanicum and Guard can be built as traitor forces. A living rule system could open up so much more options and individuality. They'd no longer have to worry if this book would sell enough to cover the cost of printing.
4: Allow units to charge after disembarking from a transport that hasn't moved that turn.
5: Psykers can only use their own dice and the dice from the Harness the Warp roll.
6: Simplify the rules. Get rid of unit types that aren't in many dexes. Get rid of redundant unit types (Vehicles and MCs, I'm looking at YOU). Get rid of rules that just give other rules. Combine/pare special rules that do similar things.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
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.
I also disagree with lumping knights into one codex with other mechanicus forces, because it is quite clear in the Knight fluff, that some houses ally with the Imperium, and some strictly stuck with the Mechanicus.
For me personally, what I'd like to see:
-A mechanic for shooting into combat.
-5th edition "gets hot" rules for vehicles.... remember when you took an executioner specifically because of how gets hot was rolled, you couldn't hurt yourself?
-I'd like to see something done about D weapons... I get what they are and how they are supposed to be so powerful, but with how often I've seen my knights and Leman Russes and Land Raiders, etc. get vaporized with a single die roll, and no ability to save it at all, is a bit much.
-I'd also like to see some sort of combination of Crack Shot and Gauss for a number of the basic weapons... maybe like, if you shoot at a vehicle with a bolter, roll a 6 to hit, even if the gun cant normally glance/pen the vehicle, on another 6, it does so.
As for codex specific changes I'd like to see:
-Alter the reanimation protocols because right now, it's fething ridiculous. Perhaps make it end of turn or something, because having it as a FNP save means that they generally just don't die.
-Make Wraithknights more fething points... Seriously, having 2 fething ranged D-weapons for less than 300 points is fething ridiculous. Or, make it a fething Super-Heavy Walker, like the Imperial Knights are.
-Fix the CSM codex. Give Typhus EW, take away the unwieldy rule on Manreaper for feths sake... he's had it for 10k years! Personally, I'd like to see CSM perform about on par with an army like Grey Knights... small numbers, but somewhat hard to kill and can do some good damage on their own.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ohh.... and Fleet... I'd change fleet. Nerfing that rule seriously hurt a number of units like gaunts that needed their move through cover, as well as the ability to run and charge on the same turn.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
As a Quins player (I only run them standalone), I'd like to see them flesh out the book, and by extension, most of the ally books, to have full HQ, Elite, Troop, FA, HS options.
I think books like Skitarii and Quins are fine how they are, there are ways to play them by themselves, but they are also available as allies. I'd keep that, though as I said, I'd like to see a more fleshed out book with more options for running them alone.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
I think it would make sense to allow armies like Harlequins, Inquisition, Assassins, etc. that are obviously designed to ally to continue to do so. They aren't the problem. The problem is invisible wolfstars allying with invisible cent stars.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
really, factions like Harlequins arent really their own armies. Harlequins arent going to get in 40k style battles with Orks or Imperial Guard or a Tyranid invasion without the presence of other Eldar, thats just not something theyd really do. They make more sense as a unique faction in an RPG or skirmish game, but for 40k, they really should just be a bolt-on to CWE/DE and not their own army.
Get rid of super heavies and strength D weapons. That belongs in Apoc games.
Update all of the codicies at once.
I am fine with formations; however, if formations are going to be a thing, give every codex the same opportunity.
Remove unbound.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: 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.
I agree with most of this. I prefer Maelstrom; however, if the rest of this is done, I'd accept it.
kronk wrote: Get rid of super heavies and strength D weapons. That belongs in Apoc games.
Update all of the codicies at once.
I am fine with formations; however, if formations are going to be a thing, give every codex the same opportunity.
Remove unbound.
I keep seeing a lot of people rallying against an Unbound and it just makes me laugh. Could someone abuse it? Sure, but with the existence of Formations and super friends, I think Unbound is actually worse than what you could make with a Decurion, Gladius, or War Convocation.
I would want to see a well planned, thought-through ruleset that will be kept as the basis for ALL codices to be written against.
If modifications are made, I would like to see free updates for owners of the E-Book versions and Trade-ins (book swaps) for those with the actual book version with maybe a charge for the literal book-making cost.
Other, far newer companies have managed this, GW surely can.
I agree with most of this. I prefer Maelstrom; however, if the rest of this is done, I'd accept it.
I wouldnt mind a new mission system to replace all the existing missions, the current Maelstrom incarnation just has too much randomness, variability, nonsensical objectives, and record keeping involved, at least to me
Major redesign to big models, i.e- monstrous creatures and vehicles, to properly balance them against each other. I'd like to see weapon abilities be less tied to vehicle armour, e.g- Melta weapons should wound MC's automatically at half range, armour bane weapons should probably inflict multiple wounds and such, as anything that can bring down a tank should hurt a big monster pretty badly too, whereas right now we have a lot of dedicated anti-tank weapons that are of little use against MCs (don't remove enough Wounds) because the rules are too badly suited to them.
Either that or just ditch the custom vehicle armour rules and use Toughness and Wounds, with a heap of add on rules to optionally change movement, give immunity to poison and so-on. Many of these may make sense on Monstrous Creatures too so it will make sense to create a common pool of smaller rules and just dish them out as appropriate. Vehicles could still have different Toughness and armour saves per facing for the tactical advantage of hitting a side/rear facing.
But yeah, vehicles need redesigned and improved badly.
Grav weapons need to be redesigned to actually fill a niche rather than just being some of the best weapons in the game. Destroyer weapons need to be less random, as right now they tend towards game ruining rather than useful but fun. Basically GW needs to get away from their default "let's just add a random table" setting, as it's almost always the wrong solution to a problem.
Bikes need to be balanced better, but this is partly a codex problem; they're just too powerful and easy to spam in many lists, giving us even less reason to take regular troop squads.
Infantry needs to get better in general, and melee needs to be un-nerfed; I have no idea why it was in the first place (it's not like combat was super overpowered before 6th yet GW kept beating on it for no reason), this could go a long way toward fixing many currently useless units.
Some weapons need tweaking; I'd like to Storm Bolters become Assault 2/Heavy 3 (or make Salvo full range so they can be Salvo 2/3, but only after fixing Graviton first), Heavy Bolters could do with something to increase their value again, but it needs to avoid encroaching on Assault Cannons.
This is just the first few things that spring to mind, there's loads more
I like the allies rules. You can create fluffy lists with it. The problem is always that ten percent that wants to put a riptide wing with daemons. Or whatever the combos are now. They need to tighten up the rules.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
really, factions like Harlequins arent really their own armies. Harlequins arent going to get in 40k style battles with Orks or Imperial Guard or a Tyranid invasion without the presence of other Eldar, thats just not something theyd really do. They make more sense as a unique faction in an RPG or skirmish game, but for 40k, they really should just be a bolt-on to CWE/DE and not their own army.
They do seeing as the Codex specifically has mentions of battles against both Guard and Orks.
It seems like over this latest edition there has been a paradigm shift from powerful 1 shot weapons to mid range high rate of fire weapons and I'd like to see the point cost reflect this. Maybe a las cannon should cost the same as an auto cannon or maybe even be cheaper!
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
really, factions like Harlequins arent really their own armies. Harlequins arent going to get in 40k style battles with Orks or Imperial Guard or a Tyranid invasion without the presence of other Eldar, thats just not something theyd really do. They make more sense as a unique faction in an RPG or skirmish game, but for 40k, they really should just be a bolt-on to CWE/DE and not their own army.
They do seeing as the Codex specifically has mentions of battles against both Guard and Orks.
I dont have the book one me, are these pitched open battles or like small commando raids, and are they done without any other Eldar present? It would appear to be rather nonsensical for a Harlequin Troupe to engage something like a mechanized/armored IG column in a pitched firefight or a Green Tide is a direct mass melee.
...ie the saving throw modifier of minus whatever.
No. I keep seeing people advocate for saving throw modifiers as a way to "fix" the current AP system. The *ONLY* way that works is if they scale the game way back. It would need to go back down to a true skirmish level game for that to be effective. Anyone who played 2nd. Ed knows what I'm talking about ... "So you have a 3+ save with a +1 modifier because of your artifact and you're in hard cover so that's another +2 but my gun has a -2 modifier and also I cast misfortune so that's another -2 and .......". At the current scale the game that just doesn't work.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the AP system itself. I think they just went overboard on the higher AP weapons. If they rebalanced things so that the high AP weapons were more rare I don't think there would be an issue.
I'd like to see the following:
1. Rebalance the # of high AP weapons available to each army such that they are not nearly so common
2. Either make all "walker" type units into MCs and eliminate the "walker" unit from the game OR put the two on par with one another. Make it so that they have different strengths and weaknesses but are essentially on par. As it stands there's not much reason to ever tale a walker when you can get a MC.
3. Streamline the psychic phase. Maybe even prune it back to what it was in 5th. It's too time consuming as it is IMO
4. A new mission system along with a proper campaign system IN THE BRB. There was a basic system in one of the BRBs for a fantasy edition that allowed you to play an escalation league style campaign and capture different territories that would give you different advantages. IIRC, it even kept track of your casualties and that had an effect on what you could field in future games.
5. Streamline the special rules. No more individual special rules that exist for no other reason than to bestow several other special rules.
6. More rules that reward fluffy list building. A good example is the Gladius Strike Force for the marines. I realize it can be considered OP, but it IS a really good example of how a marine army would actually look on the field.
7. I like formations and I like multiple detachment armies, but if we're going to have them, (like Kronk said), let's make sure everyone has a similar opportunity
8. Basic vs Advanced rules. Split the BRB into two halves so that the first maybe 10 pages are a streamlined super simple rule set that I can explain in a few minutes and quickly start an intro game with, and have the rest of the rules in the "advanced" section. The advanced section uses all the rules form the basic section but really goes into the nitty gritty.
9. New mission system:
I'd like to see some of the more fun missions like the "patrol" mission form previous versions (where a player had sentries posted that moved randomly around the board) as well as some new more standard missions. Maelstrom is .... not great
10. Eliminate almost ALL of the randomness. Like 98% of it.
11. Push each and every codex to 11. Make them ALL off-the-wall, bat gak INSANE.
12. A return of just a little bit of the old sense of humor.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
really, factions like Harlequins arent really their own armies. Harlequins arent going to get in 40k style battles with Orks or Imperial Guard or a Tyranid invasion without the presence of other Eldar, thats just not something theyd really do. They make more sense as a unique faction in an RPG or skirmish game, but for 40k, they really should just be a bolt-on to CWE/DE and not their own army.
They do seeing as the Codex specifically has mentions of battles against both Guard and Orks.
I dont have the book one me, are these pitched open battles or like small commando raids, and are they done without any other Eldar present? It would appear to be rather nonsensical for a Harlequin Troupe to engage something like a mechanized/armored IG column in a pitched firefight or a Green Tide is a direct mass melee.
The Orks were hit and run attacks. The Guard it really didn't say much about anything outside one Harlequin. It didn't mention other Eldar.
I'd rather GW didn't touch the fluff, but at this point I wish they would tear down the ruleset to the foundation and build it back up again into a more stable game.
What I'd really like is for the game to be split into three rulesets. First would be a kill team/necromunda game. Small groups where its not uncommon to see bikes, speeders and a single transport. MC's and vehicles would likely be "take down the beast" scenarios. This would encourage quick games with only a small portion of a collection that feeds well into campaign or random unit allocation.
Second would be a skirmish ruleset, pretty much designed for the old FOC, but where vehicles are limited to 1 per slot - you'd get some on the board but they wouldn't be the majority of your force; hopefully that would make infantry still worthwhile to take and heavy weapon spam wouldn't be as pervasive as it has become. Something akin to army size in 4th-5th edition.
Last would be an Epic-like scale. Infantry are handled with movement trays (because they die cheap/have little impact individually) but the game otherwise looks like what we have now - though it should play a little faster (combine some of those 20-50 dice rolls of single attacks into 1-3 attacks and such).
1. Rebalance the # of high AP weapons available to each army such that they are not nearly so common
3. Streamline the psychic phase. Maybe even prune it back to what it was in 5th. It's too time consuming as it is IMO
8. Basic vs Advanced rules. Split the BRB into two halves so that the first maybe 10 pages are a streamlined super simple rule set that I can explain in a few minutes and quickly start an intro game with, and have the rest of the rules in the "advanced" section. The advanced section uses all the rules form the basic section but really goes into the nitty gritty.
9. New mission system:
I'd like to see some of the more fun missions like the "patrol" mission form previous versions (where a player had sentries posted that moved randomly around the board) as well as some new more standard missions. Maelstrom is .... not great
12. A return of just a little bit of the old sense of humor.
#1.... do you mean "high AP" as in AP 1 and 2, or high as in 4 and 5?
#3, I agree on dealing with the psychic phase. My first full edition of playing was 5th ed, so maybe it's just a soft spot for me, but I rather liked the "this character can cast X # of spells per turn" and then each spell listed when it was carried out. It makes no sense to me why a character like Njall Stormcaller should have a psychic attack and, say, a bolt pistol and get to use both.
8. Agreed. While it may be *TOO* simplistic, I think that for things like stat lines, I'd much rather see an AoS style line. "Space Marine shooting attack: Range 24, 3+, 3+, rapid fire" Space marine combat weapons: Hit on 4+, wound on 4+.... that sort of thing. I hate having to look up, much less memorize all those bloody charts on the to hit and to wound.... I think it'd be a slightly fluffier way of dealing with things, because units like howling banshees or harlequins or gaunts that are supposed to be really good in combat could have stats that reflect that.
9. While I personally think that Maelstrom isn't the worst thing, and the cards are cool, ish, I'd probably keep that, or something similar in a new edition... But, I'd also add in official rules for those super small games... ya know, like where each side only has 250 points to spend, and have a bunch of restrictions, but a 10 man squad of space marines doesn't need coherency and all that.
#12.... Most definitely, while a lot of the humor found in older editions and older codices was cringe, or face-palm worthy, it was still better than All Grim-Dark, All the Time!! that we have now.
I would welcome an AoS style reset for 40k. As it stands it's a horrendously overcomplicated mess that takes far to much time, money and effort to play.
The way GW is heading, I have genuine hopes that they may take the current rules and codexs, bin them and start fresh.
r_squared wrote: I would welcome an AoS style reset for 40k. As it stands it's a horrendously overcomplicated mess that takes far to much time, money and effort to play.
The way GW is heading, I have genuine hopes that they may take the current rules and codexs, bin them and start fresh.
Obviously, my comment welcoming an AoS style does not extend to having no points costs though
And I don't think that 40k will ever become quite as simplified as fantasy went, simply for the fact that you have so many different types of units, and so many different fluff elements to attempt to uphold. I mean, really, pretty much the only "vehicles" in AoS are chariots, which I suppose in 40k would be some sort of DE style, AV 10, open topped weak little thing.
One big fear I have with respect to this AOS idea is the wide variety of wargear. I want to keep all of those different options. Some tactical squads have lascannons. Others have plasma cannons. Some have missile launchers.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
really, factions like Harlequins arent really their own armies. Harlequins arent going to get in 40k style battles with Orks or Imperial Guard or a Tyranid invasion without the presence of other Eldar, thats just not something theyd really do. They make more sense as a unique faction in an RPG or skirmish game, but for 40k, they really should just be a bolt-on to CWE/DE and not their own army.
They do seeing as the Codex specifically has mentions of battles against both Guard and Orks.
I dont have the book one me, are these pitched open battles or like small commando raids, and are they done without any other Eldar present? It would appear to be rather nonsensical for a Harlequin Troupe to engage something like a mechanized/armored IG column in a pitched firefight or a Green Tide is a direct mass melee.
The Cull (988.M40) - Imperial forces attempt to plunder forbidden archeotech on the dying world of Karadox. The Midnight Sorrow strike without warning, orchestrating a blistering campaign of hit-and-run attacks. Eventually the terrified humans flee, abandoning their tainted prize without ever learning the horrors it would have unleashed.
Giant Slayers (056.M41) - Knights of House Terryn claim the maiden world of Velos for the Imperium. In response, the Frozen Stars deploy swarms of Voidweavers in the saedath known as the Giants' Lament. Though the cost is high, the invaders are finally wiped out.
The Maedrax Encore (785.M41) - The Masque of the Dreaming Shadow begin a decade-long campaign against the tomb worlds of Maedrax, fighting to stem the rising Necron tide after craftworld Ulthwé's failure to do so.
A Promise Kept (992.M41) - While battling Tyranids on Deshil, Ultramarines Strike Force Apollon find their senses clouded by visions. The swarm is driven back by spectral figures, even as the Astartes slump into unconsciousness. Upon awakening, they are horrified to find themselves strapped to the surgical tables of the Haemonculi. Of their captors there is no sign, but the Haemonculi croon delightedly of a debt settled in blood.
Faolchú's Wrath (993.M41) - Several masques combine their forces into a grand masque in order to topple the Echospire on the Shrine World of Baedros. In the process, they earn the undying enmity of the Space Wolves, whose honour is besmirched by this bloody disaster.
Cegorach's War (995.M41) - Across the Galaxy, Harlequins go to war in unprecedented numbers.
I have a question for people removing allies. What about books like Harlequins? Do they get a HQ, do they get rolled into other books or something else?
really, factions like Harlequins arent really their own armies. Harlequins arent going to get in 40k style battles with Orks or Imperial Guard or a Tyranid invasion without the presence of other Eldar, thats just not something theyd really do. They make more sense as a unique faction in an RPG or skirmish game, but for 40k, they really should just be a bolt-on to CWE/DE and not their own army.
They do seeing as the Codex specifically has mentions of battles against both Guard and Orks.
I dont have the book one me, are these pitched open battles or like small commando raids, and are they done without any other Eldar present? It would appear to be rather nonsensical for a Harlequin Troupe to engage something like a mechanized/armored IG column in a pitched firefight or a Green Tide is a direct mass melee.
In the fluff of the Quins book, it's less a pitched battle, and more a "highly orchestrated ballet of death" where the Harlies show up, slaughter everything and vanish before the ground turns red. So, it's not really a pitched battle per se, because fluff writers gonna fluff...
Pictures came out at the wrong angle lol had to go copy paste the text
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyways my point is there's more Harlequins then people give them credit for. As well as ruling them out because they are not an "army" is ridiculous. You could take that same logic and apply it to every space marine 'chapter'. They are not legions anymore.
#1.... do you mean "high AP" as in AP 1 and 2, or high as in 4 and 5?
Actually, now that you mention it, I think I mean both. Ap 4-5 should be the standard for almost all infantry weapons. Ap1-3 weapons should get increasingly more expensive and rare as you get closer to AP1. Ap 3 could be the most common and cojld be found on infantry models in the form of "1 per squad" weapons and/or grenades. AP1-2 would be very rare and largely vehicle mounted type things or emplacements or the occasional relic on a special character.
As the game stands now it jusy seems like its way too easy to get AP 2/3 weapons in silly quantities. It not only makes AP4/5 weapons pointless, it also makes most of the armor in the game pointless.
#1.... do you mean "high AP" as in AP 1 and 2, or high as in 4 and 5?
Actually, now that you mention it, I think I mean both. Ap 4-5 should be the standard for almost all infantry weapons.
Lasguns shouldn't have a significant AP value.
Ap1-3 weapons should get increasingly more expensive and rare as you get closer to AP1. Ap 3 could be the most common and cojld be found on infantry models in the form of "1 per squad" weapons and/or grenades. AP1-2 would be very rare and largely vehicle mounted type things or emplacements or the occasional relic on a special character.
As the game stands now it jusy seems like its way too easy to get AP 2/3 weapons in silly quantities. It not only makes AP4/5 weapons pointless, it also makes most of the armor in the game pointless.
Space marines should be able to keep their AP 1 and AP 2 weapons as is. They're space marines.
As the game stands now it jusy seems like its way too easy to get AP 2/3 weapons in silly quantities. It not only makes AP4/5 weapons pointless, it also makes most of the armor in the game pointless.
I see what you mean, but I think that some armies absolutely need to keep their AP weapons in the availability that they currently have. I mean, when people face my guard army, it isn't the 80+ flashlights that people are worried about, it's the 3-4 AP3 battle cannon pie plates they are worried about, or the 2-3 STR 6 AP 4, Ignores Cover blasts that they have to deal with each turn. On the flip side of that, without having the "protection" if inordinate amounts of ordnance, my 5+ save owning guardsmen are generally paste to be wiped off of the underside of a boot, or cleaned off of a sword blade.
As for SM keeping AP1/2 weapons - i never sakd they couldn't. What I said was that those weapons should be much more rare than they are. Plus, firepoeer is not what traditionally has made Space Marines who they are. It was always about toughness and survivability. A 3+ save would actually mean something again under my suggestion.
As for SM keeping AP1/2 weapons - i never sakd they couldn't. What I said was that those weapons should be much more rare than they are. Plus, firepoeer is not what traditionally has made Space Marines who they are. It was always about toughness and survivability. A 3+ save would actually mean something again under my suggestion.
It's more complicated than that. The only low AP shooting attack my marines are getting crushed by are grav cannons and ion accelerators. That's it. Everything else is death of a million wounds. Also, MCs getting AP 2 universally has killed a huge number of marines. Lascannons and meltaguns don't even matter anymore.
MC's have always ignored armor saves however, at least since the 3E reboot (and IIRC in 2E the few MC's that existed basically ignored armor through ASM's except on things like Termi's who functionally saved on similar odds to their 5++ now)
Vaktathi wrote: MC's have always ignored armor saves however, at least since the 3E reboot.
Yeah, and they used to have 4 wounds and no invulns, too.
The point is that low AP shooting is only a small issue. No one is running scared from fusion blasters or bright lances. It's the scatterlasers and HYMPs that are the killers.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And I don't think that 40k will ever become quite as simplified as fantasy went, simply for the fact that you have so many different types of units, and so many different fluff elements to attempt to uphold. I mean, really, pretty much the only "vehicles" in AoS are chariots, which I suppose in 40k would be some sort of DE style, AV 10, open topped weak little thing.
Daemons have chariots; yea open topped and AV10. Not so little though, just try deepstriking one.
As for SM keeping AP1/2 weapons - i never sakd they couldn't. What I said was that those weapons should be much more rare than they are. Plus, firepoeer is not what traditionally has made Space Marines who they are. It was always about toughness and survivability. A 3+ save would actually mean something again under my suggestion.
Do you view it problematic that 5 man tactical squads can bring a multimelta, meltagun, plasma gun or plasma cannon?
#1.... do you mean "high AP" as in AP 1 and 2, or high as in 4 and 5?
Actually, now that you mention it, I think I mean both. Ap 4-5 should be the standard for almost all infantry weapons.
Lasguns shouldn't have a significant AP value.
Considering that we have Lascannons that are AP2, I think it kinda follows that they should. Lasguns and Lascannons definitely should not have the same Strength or AP value, but it's definitely not a stretch to say that a Lasgun should have a half-decent value for both of those characteristics.
Traditio wrote: One big fear I have with respect to this AOS idea is the wide variety of wargear. I want to keep all of those different options. Some tactical squads have lascannons. Others have plasma cannons. Some have missile launchers.
I want to keep my options.
In AoS everything has options and unique abilities.
Vaktathi wrote: MC's have always ignored armor saves however, at least since the 3E reboot.
Riptides haven't existed since 3rd edition.
Please explain to me why a riptide should have AP 2 attacks.
Because it's gigantic and certainly able to exert a tremendous amount of force through its limbs? It having AP2 isn't an issue, the Riptide's problem is that it's absurdly survivable and way too mobile for the firepower and range it sports. AP2 on CC attacks is just tiny window dressing, and the MC rules shouldn't be re-written just for one problem unit, that's how we got the crappy vehicle rules we have today.
IllumiNini wrote:Considering that we have Lascannons that are AP2, I think it kinda follows that they should. Lasguns and Lascannons definitely should not have the same Strength or AP value, but it's definitely not a stretch to say that a Lasgun should have a half-decent value for both of those characteristics.
This is a non-sequitur. I can only assume that a musket ball and a cannon ball are both basically fired according to the same principles. I wouldn't use a musket to knock down walls.
At any rate:
5+ and 6+ armor saves exist.
Those armor saves should actually mean something.
The way to make them mean something is to assume that the most common infantry weapons can't simply ignore them.
Boltguns should ignore the most common forms of armor because they are taken by the most elite forces of the imperium, and they are a suitably elite weapon for a highly elite force.
Again, boltguns are AP 5. This is an elite weapon. Lasguns should be nowhere near as good as boltguns.
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if it punches at AP 2 if it dies like a Tyranid MC.
Exactly, the big issue is it's ability to shrug off an enormous amount of damage while being able to hit targets from across the board and utilize Jet movement to avoid assault threats, on top of the Tau combined overwatch rule. AP2 CC attacks are a very minor thing with it.
So? That only matter against Orks and guardsmen in the open. And even then, Orks and guardsmen are so cheap that you still aren't doing that much damage after rolling to hit and wound. If they have cover, forget it.
IllumiNini wrote:Considering that we have Lascannons that are AP2, I think it kinda follows that they should. Lasguns and Lascannons definitely should not have the same Strength or AP value, but it's definitely not a stretch to say that a Lasgun should have a half-decent value for both of those characteristics.
This is a non-sequitur. I can only assume that a musket ball and a cannon ball are both basically fired according to the same principles. I wouldn't use a musket to knock down walls.
At any rate:
5+ and 6+ armor saves exist.
Those armor saves should actually mean something.
The way to make them mean something is to assume that the most common infantry weapons can't simply ignore them.
Boltguns should ignore the most common forms of armor because they are taken by the most elite forces of the imperium, and they are a suitably elite weapon for a highly elite force.
Again, boltguns are AP 5. This is an elite weapon. Lasguns should be nowhere near as good as boltguns.
Therefore, S 3, AP null.
And so in the quest to make 5+ and 6+ Armour Saves useful, Lasguns get singled out? You have to look at the whole myriad of weapons and then give us reason why you're singling out the Lasgun. Singling out the Lasgun as the gun that has to be the gun that can't ignore any Armour Saves without any apparent consideration for what other weapons can and/or should ignore any type of Armour Save is not exactly the right way to go. Take, for example, the Plasma-Cannon, -Gun and -Pistol: They all have the same S and AP values but I don't hear you whinging about the Plasma-Gun still having the same S and AP values as the -Cannon.
Bear in mind I'm not saying that the Lasgun should be S9 AP2, but something a bit better than S3 AP- would be good (even if it was just S3 AP5 or S4 AP6 or something). A better S and AP value for Lasguns would also go a long way in representing the fact that the Lascannon and the Lasgun are the same type of weapon.
Martel732 wrote: "Boltguns should ignore the most common forms of armor "
Boltguns have never been good. Ever. Not in 2nd, not in 3rd, not in 5th. Never.
But at the same time, since I've been playing (tail end of 4th, early 5th) they haven't been bad.
They were terrible in 5th. 12" range on the move? Really?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think lasguns should certainly hurt more than a guardsman punching. This is yet another reason I'd put the game on a D10.
And so in the quest to make 5+ and 6+ Armour Saves useful, Lasguns get singled out? You have to look at the whole myriad of weapons and then give us reason why you're singling out the Lasgun. Singling out the Lasgun as the gun that has to be the gun that can't ignore any Armour Saves without any apparent consideration for what other weapons can and/or should ignore any type of Armour Save is not exactly the right way to go. Take, for example, the Plasma-Cannon, -Gun and -Pistol: They all have the same S and AP values but I don't hear you whinging about the Plasma-Gun still having the same S and AP values as the -Cannon.
Bear in mind I'm not saying that the Lasgun should be S9 AP2, but something a bit better than S3 AP- would be good (even if it was just S3 AP5 or S4 AP6 or something). A better S and AP value for Lasguns would also go a long way in representing the fact that the Lascannon and the Lasgun are the same type of weapon.
That's because las- weaponry runs, essentially off of battery power. Would you agree with me that a AA battery has less power available to it than say, a car battery? That's the difference between a lasgun and a lascannon.
I get your argument regarding plasma... but in 40k plasma has "archeo-tech" and Handwavium to explain why they are all the same strength and AP.....
I mean, one of my favorite guns in existence, the Leman Russ Punisher Cannon has an AP-, but at least it has Rend, so it can potentially ignore some armor. Fluff wise, I don't see how a cannon like that shouldn't have some kind of AP value, but it doesn't.
And so in the quest to make 5+ and 6+ Armour Saves useful, Lasguns get singled out? You have to look at the whole myriad of weapons and then give us reason why you're singling out the Lasgun. Singling out the Lasgun as the gun that has to be the gun that can't ignore any Armour Saves without any apparent consideration for what other weapons can and/or should ignore any type of Armour Save is not exactly the right way to go. Take, for example, the Plasma-Cannon, -Gun and -Pistol: They all have the same S and AP values but I don't hear you whinging about the Plasma-Gun still having the same S and AP values as the -Cannon.
Bear in mind I'm not saying that the Lasgun should be S9 AP2, but something a bit better than S3 AP- would be good (even if it was just S3 AP5 or S4 AP6 or something). A better S and AP value for Lasguns would also go a long way in representing the fact that the Lascannon and the Lasgun are the same type of weapon.
That's because las- weaponry runs, essentially off of battery power. Would you agree with me that a AA battery has less power available to it than say, a car battery? That's the difference between a lasgun and a lascannon.
I know the whole battery powered thing, which is why it makes no sense of them to be any higher than S4, but my primary concern here is that, according to Traditio, AP- is just fine. To me, this is not the case. Why can't a Lasgun have AP6? It is a laser weapon after all, meaning that it should be able to punch through some level of armour (even if it's only the relatively basic armour). And consider the fluff (I know, translating fluff to rules can be bad, but bear with me): In a number of novels that I've read, the lasguns/lasrifles that the IG carry tend to punch through the armour of a cultist (which, IIRC, is a 6+ on the tabletop), so why can't they punch through that on the tabletop by way of AP6?
Martel732 wrote: In a reworked armor system going from 2+ to 10+, I'd make lasguns AP 8 or 9.
And that's all well and good, but what about the current systems?
I don't know. Squeezing all infantry into the T3, T4, S3, S4 paradigm makes it hard to establish granularity. I see no reason a lasgun couldn't be AP 6, though or even AP 5.
Martel732 wrote: In a reworked armor system going from 2+ to 10+, I'd make lasguns AP 8 or 9.
And that's all well and good, but what about the current systems?
I don't know. Squeezing all infantry into the T3, T4, S3, S4 paradigm makes it hard to establish granularity. I see no reason a lasgun couldn't be AP 6, though or even AP 5.
That's fair. I've often thought that the system could benefit from being extended to a 1 - 15 scale or 1 - 20 from a 1 - 10 scale to allow for greater differentiation between units and weapons (I actually had a conversation based on this idea the other day when my mate and I were discussing Orks and SM's both being S4 and T4).
And as much as I agree with AP6, AP5 may be a bit much given that weapons such as Bolters are AP5 and Lasguns probably should be on par with them haha
I know the whole battery powered thing, which is why it makes no sense of them to be any higher than S4, but my primary concern here is that, according to Traditio, AP- is just fine. To me, this is not the case. Why can't a Lasgun have AP6? It is a laser weapon after all, meaning that it should be able to punch through some level of armour (even if it's only the relatively basic armour). And consider the fluff (I know, translating fluff to rules can be bad, but bear with me): In a number of novels that I've read, the lasguns/lasrifles that the IG carry tend to punch through the armour of a cultist (which, IIRC, is a 6+ on the tabletop), so why can't they punch through that on the tabletop by way of AP6?
IMO, I think that, the weakest "base" firearm in the game (even quins basic Shuriken has AP5) being AP- somewhat prevents guard shooting from becoming an exercise in removing models. Having AP6 even, which negates Ork T-shirt saves would create just such a situation.
That said, I do think that having another fluff action in the guard shooting phase wouldn't go over horribly bad. IIRC, there's a number of novels and such where guardsmen turn up the power on their gun, thus lowering the number of shots they have, but increasing the punch each shot has. I would think that either an order, or a simple "Once Per Game" type mechanic to make the STR and AP values go up for that round of shooting could do well to aid guard armies in those tense moments where better weapons are needed.
I know the whole battery powered thing, which is why it makes no sense of them to be any higher than S4, but my primary concern here is that, according to Traditio, AP- is just fine. To me, this is not the case. Why can't a Lasgun have AP6? It is a laser weapon after all, meaning that it should be able to punch through some level of armour (even if it's only the relatively basic armour). And consider the fluff (I know, translating fluff to rules can be bad, but bear with me): In a number of novels that I've read, the lasguns/lasrifles that the IG carry tend to punch through the armour of a cultist (which, IIRC, is a 6+ on the tabletop), so why can't they punch through that on the tabletop by way of AP6?
IMO, I think that, the weakest "base" firearm in the game (even quins basic Shuriken has AP5) being AP- somewhat prevents guard shooting from becoming an exercise in removing models. Having AP6 even, which negates Ork T-shirt saves would create just such a situation.
That said, I do think that having another fluff action in the guard shooting phase wouldn't go over horribly bad. IIRC, there's a number of novels and such where guardsmen turn up the power on their gun, thus lowering the number of shots they have, but increasing the punch each shot has. I would think that either an order, or a simple "Once Per Game" type mechanic to make the STR and AP values go up for that round of shooting could do well to aid guard armies in those tense moments where better weapons are needed.
Fair enough, but I've always thought Orks to be a bad comparison simply because they're significantly under-powered and/or over-costed (depending on the unit). The Ork's 6+ Armour Save is one of those things which is broken, where a 6+ FNP instead of their Armour Save not only making more sense but actually making them something other than a throwaway model. This also ties in with what Martel732 said about expanding the numerical scale so that we can solve issues like the Lasgun having no AP value a bit more easily that we otherwise could.
Isn't having armor that only saves on a 5 or 6 anyways bad enough? Why has the game got to make it worse by getting rid of that save altogether?
A marine's armor stops shots over 50% of the time; A guard gets saved from dying about 33% of the time; an Orc, 12%. If you removed most AP and only worried about the AP 1 and AP 2 weapons (say, appying a -4 and -2 respectively to armor saves), wouldn't this be enough?
I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.
Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo
War Kitten wrote: I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.
Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo
Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.
War Kitten wrote: I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.
Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo
Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.
Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.
War Kitten wrote: I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.
Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo
Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.
I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.
IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.
Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
War Kitten 692437 wrote:I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.
I completely agree that Leeman Russes shouldn't be able to be reliably and easily glanced to death by scatbikes.
But the answer to this shouldn't be to make Leeman Russes more durable.
IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.
Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.
There's nothing wrong with the weapons themselves, but when equipped to Tactical Squads, they (more often than not) become incredibly inefficient because moving means snap shooting and staying still means they can relatively easily be "avoided".
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS Nerfing something into oblivion isn't a solution to anything.
Traditio wrote: I completely agree that Leeman Russes shouldn't be able to be reliably and easily glanced to death by scatbikes.
But the answer to this shouldn't be to make Leeman Russes more durable.
Yes it should be, because if you just nerf scatbikes you still leave the problem of heavy tanks being shut down and glanced to death by spamming mass mid-strength weapons. A LRBT should be a terrifying mountain of armor plates, lascannons should be a desperation shot and melta should be the only thing it really fears.
IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.
Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
War Kitten 692437 wrote:I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.
I completely agree that Leeman Russes shouldn't be able to be reliably and easily glanced to death by scatbikes.
But the answer to this shouldn't be to make Leeman Russes more durable.
Nerf scat-bikes into oblivion.
Honestly, I think there could/should be a middle ground here.... Personally, I think D-weapons are fething ridiculous. In the year + that I've been back in 40k, I cannot count the number of times that I've had a vehicle with some form of save (be it Ion Shields, camo nets, building/terrain cover, intervening model cover, etc.) be insta-gibbed by D-weapons.
I agree that things like Lascannons, plasma cannons, vanquisher cannon rounds, etc.... Rounds/guns designed to hunt tanks should be buffed to do so... Alternatively, they could just adopt a more AoS style system that says Lascannons penetrate armor (and monstrous creatures "hides".... fething wraithknights) on a 3+
But I also happen to agree that transports swung a bit too far the other way from 5th ed. here. Perhaps turns of shooting could be resolved in some different way.... Perhaps, say, a single unit with 4 AT weapons fires at a single target. They hit 3 times, managing 2 glances and 1 pen.... Perhaps one solution would be to say that the 2 glances = 1 pen, and then you simply roll 2 die for damage. Or, you could go 1 glance automatically causes a crew shaken result, a second glance automatically bumps this up to a crew stunned result.... This would mean that in the following turn, that vehicle is almost dead in the water, it will be largely unable to do much of anything, making it easier in the following round of shooting to get more shots and penetrating hits on it.
Ultimately, I see both of your arguments. I just happen to think that the answer isn't buffing the hell out of vehicles, and I don't think that AT weapons need any more nerfing than they pretty much have gotten.
Peregrine wrote:lascannons should be a desperation shot
No.
I'm just going to leave my answer at that.
Just...
No.
This bit is just obviously wrong.
No, that bit is just obviously right. Lascannons should be effective against medium tanks, but marginal at best against the heavy stuff. Dealing with a LRBT (or a Baneblade, Land Raider, etc) should require way more than a random lascannon on a tactical squad. You should have to bring melta or high-end dedicated anti-tank weapons (railguns, vanquisher cannons, etc) to stop the heaviest tanks reliably.
But really, you should be happy with this change, since your C:SM Land Raiders would become more durable as well. Or are you too attached to spamming your free obsec Rhinos in your cheesy formation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I think there could/should be a middle ground here.... Personally, I think D-weapons are fething ridiculous. In the year + that I've been back in 40k, I cannot count the number of times that I've had a vehicle with some form of save (be it Ion Shields, camo nets, building/terrain cover, intervening model cover, etc.) be insta-gibbed by D-weapons.
IMO D-weapons should be ridiculous. The main gun of a dedicated tank-killing superheavy should annihilate its target (and any cover that target happens to be hiding behind) effortlessly. The issue is not D-weapons, it's the fact that they're no longer limited to main guns of 500+ point superheavies, they're given to random infantry units and made much easier to spam.
I have to agree with Peregrine here regarding D-weapons. The weapons themselves are ok, it's the fact that they've become so much more commonplace that is the issue in my mind.
IMO D-weapons should be ridiculous. The main gun of a dedicated tank-killing superheavy should annihilate its target (and any cover that target happens to be hiding behind) effortlessly. The issue is not D-weapons, it's the fact that they're no longer limited to main guns of 500+ point superheavies, they're given to random infantry units and made much easier to spam.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with their 2-5 rolls... it's seriously just that the six completely negates any opportunity for saving??? Also, since you mention that it "should" annihilate the cover that the unit is behind... why not make it a beam weapon? It would make all those smug eldar players who run wraithknight spam bring their knights out front, instead of hiding them on the back line.
And, this isn't about D strength melee, I get that IKs and Wraithknights are massive and shouldn't be STR10. At least in the shop where I game, the only really effective way to deal with a wraithknight, is with a wraithknight.... and I think that does nothing good for the game.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I don't have a problem with their 2-5 rolls... it's seriously just that the six completely negates any opportunity for saving???
You're right, it is a bit silly. D-weapons should be that nasty all the time, not just on a 6: non-superheavy units are dead automatically with no saves or defensive abilities of any kind allowed, superheavies/GCs get random HP loss and can take invulnerable saves if they have them. If a Shadowsword's main gun hits you you're dead, period.
Also, since you mention that it "should" annihilate the cover that the unit is behind... why not make it a beam weapon? It would make all those smug eldar players who run wraithknight spam bring their knights out front, instead of hiding them on the back line.
This is also a fair point. Some D-weapons probably should be "beam" weapons that can go right through one unit and keep killing the stuff behind it. A shot from a Tigershark's heavy railgun should do exactly that.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I don't have a problem with their 2-5 rolls... it's seriously just that the six completely negates any opportunity for saving???
You're right, it is a bit silly. D-weapons should be that nasty all the time, not just on a 6: non-superheavy units are dead automatically with no saves or defensive abilities of any kind allowed, superheavies/GCs get random HP loss and can take invulnerable saves if they have them. If a Shadowsword's main gun hits you you're dead, period.
Also, since you mention that it "should" annihilate the cover that the unit is behind... why not make it a beam weapon? It would make all those smug eldar players who run wraithknight spam bring their knights out front, instead of hiding them on the back line.
This is also a fair point. Some D-weapons probably should be "beam" weapons that can go right through one unit and keep killing the stuff behind it. A shot from a Tigershark's heavy railgun should do exactly that.
Ehh... Maybe I'm just coming off as salty. But I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've seen a ridiculous amount of things going poof just because a Wraithknight points at it. Maybe the saltiness comes from the fact that Wraithknights are so cheap that they are basically an auto-include for most Eldar players (especially the 2 at my store). Had one game of doubles where I watched literally 3 straight turns of shooting where the WK pointed at two Leman Russes, and two Leman russes got 6'd If I didn't know the guy that we were playing against, I may have suggested that he was using loaded die. But on the flip side, the fact that the WK is a creature, and not a vehicle, means that multi-melta is about pointless, as are most lascannon shots, etc. etc. Just about the only way to deal with it, is with a D-weapon of some kind, and Imperials generally only have Knights to rely on for that, and unless you're running some FW shenanigan unit, the only D you get is a CCW.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: But I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've seen a ridiculous amount of things going poof just because a Wraithknight points at it.
I think the bigger issue there is that the Wraithknight is too small/cheap to really justify having D-weapons, especially two D-weapons.
IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.
Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.
Nobody should really have problems slaying mech IG armies in this edition, when you look at lists and rankings, mechanized IG lists (particularly without allies) struggle to make it even into the top 50% at most events, they're awful.
That said, I think a return to a 5E system, where big guns matter and small guns can only suppress, is really where it's at. Non-skimmer tanks in general are just way too easy to kill as a whole.
Vaktathi wrote:Nobody should really have problems slaying mech IG armies in this edition, when you look at lists and rankings, mechanized IG lists (particularly without allies) struggle to make it even into the top 50% at most events, they're awful.
1. Not everyone spams cheese. The people at those events do, though.
2. Vaktathi, you play Chaos Space Marines, no? Please explain to me how you would beat mechanized IG lists using actual chaos space marines.
2. Vaktathi, you play Chaos Space Marines, no? Please explain to me how you would beat mechanized IG lists using actual chaos space marines.
Obliterators, and Land Raiders carrying Typhus with Terminator squad. Chimera are fairly "easy" to take on with my plasma wielding plague marines, once I can get a shot on the side armor. But then, for some reason, some of the guys at my shop are terrified of my MoN bikers with no other upgrades
Vaktathi wrote:Nobody should really have problems slaying mech IG armies in this edition, when you look at lists and rankings, mechanized IG lists (particularly without allies) struggle to make it even into the top 50% at most events, they're awful.
1. Not everyone spams cheese. The people at those events do, though.
2. Vaktathi, you play Chaos Space Marines, no? Please explain to me how you would beat mechanized IG lists using actual chaos space marines.
I do play CSM's, mostly I've struggled to figure out how to beat just about anyone with actual Chaos Space Marines
The new FAQ does throw a wrench in the works as infantry assaults with Krak grenades usually formed a large part of the solution, particularly with parking lots where multi-assaults worked great (and the downsides didn't really matter too much), send the powerfist and a couple dudes with Kraks into one tank and the other 7 or 8 dudes into another tank with Krak grenades and most of the time that was two dead tanks straight away. That will be an interesting new element if that change makes it into the final FAQ draft.
However, in general, deep striking terminators and Oblits with Meltas coupled with infantry krak grenade assaults and maybe a Helldrake tossed in could kill enough of the armor and make advancement into assault range of the CSM's that now held the midfield certain death would work well *enough* to give a decent chance of mission victory. That said, the CSM book has a litany of issues that most other armies do not and makes the comparison with the larger metagame and most other factions somewhat stilted.
The bigger issue for me is that in 6E/7E I've tried mostly sticking to a relatively fluffy IW "daemon engine" army (defiler, 2 forgefiends, a Decimator, 2 Chaos Dreads, a Heldrake and 3 kitted units of CSM's with a Khornate CC Lord), that is just absolutely gutted by the current vehicle rules, and would have a much better time in general with a 5E style damage chart.
Roughly in descending order of "ruining the game" that I would like to see fixed:
--Everything is too close together, both points and statwise
--Poor damage resolution mechanics for the current scale
--Ancient and inappropriate turn structure
--Rules that are extremely binary, something is either completely ineffective or lethal (Keep the D6, but use it better)
--Little to no tactical options (smoke, flanking, poor execution of cover and suppression mechanics, etc)
--Abysmal mission structure, both classic and especially maelstrom
--Shooting has virtually no restrictions while Melee has scores
--Horrible mechanics both for and between monstrous creatures and vehicles
--Pointless randomness
--All information is hard to access, spread out all over books, hidden within other rules, or generally unclear
I would like to see marines cost 25-30 points each, but be much more effective and durable, something between movie marines and what we currently have. This would open up a lot of space for other units to differentiate themselves, rather than being either too expensive for what you get or only being taken for the special weapons.
It would be exciting to see something similar to movement trays from fantasy, but with 3-5 models each instead of blocks of 10-30, which would make horde armies much easier to play and offer some fun opportunities for modeling. This would let small groups of models fit into 40ks varied terrain, while speeding up gameplay, and could form the basis of a new damage system built specifically for a game of 40ks size, somewhere between skirmish and battle games.
Bringing back modifiers would solve a lot of problems at once. Yes the D6 is a limiting factor, but they're cheap and readily available, and a simple system where infantry rarely see net modifiers beyond +1 to -2 offers a shocking amount of variety.
The current turn structure would preferably be changed to alternating unit activations, with some extra detail around reactions, leader models activating multiple units at once, etc. Alternating phases is another good option, but alternating activations would work better for games with 3 or more players, which would be an interesting style to bring more into the mainstream.
The mission system would be changed to focus on a combination of holding classic objectives, killing key targets, and completing secret objectives, with points awarded as these objectives are completed. Scenarios that allow for themed armies to perform more uniquely (ambush missions for infiltrating armies, pincer strike missions for biker armies) that are mandatory instead of fun diversions no one actually plays would be exciting.
---------------------
Edit:
Blast weapons having different profiles at different radii would fix a lot of problems with large blasts especially, in that they're extremely lethal for the full 5" diameter, which is why the ion Cannon is so devastating. As an example, for the demolisher cannon:
--The center hole would have strength (10) AP (1)
--up to 3" diameter (small blast size) has Strength (6) AP (3)
--up to 5" diameter (large blast diameter) has strength (4) AP (5)
A better way of representing unit information would be welcome, the charts+reference table+unit entry system is awful. I like the unit cards used in warmahordes, maybe look into using something like that covering all unit stats, standard weapon stats, and special rules on the back.
I would love to see a lot of codices bunching up- Coedx: Imperial forces (Inquisition, Stormtroopers, Assassins), Codex: Eldar (Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins).
Also, make all rules available online, constantly updated., AoS style. Make cover saves more effective, especially shields.
...ie the saving throw modifier of minus whatever.
No. I keep seeing people advocate for saving throw modifiers as a way to "fix" the current AP system. The *ONLY* way that works is if they scale the game way back. It would need to go back down to a true skirmish level game for that to be effective. Anyone who played 2nd. Ed knows what I'm talking about ... "So you have a 3+ save with a +1 modifier because of your artifact and you're in hard cover so that's another +2 but my gun has a -2 modifier and also I cast misfortune so that's another -2 and .......". At the current scale the game that just doesn't work.
That ain't in practice problem(I play 2nd ed already as it is and with largish battles. Streamlines are not needed here. It's elsewhere that slowed it down). Bigger problem is "oh you have non-terminator armour? Okay just forget it". Even power armour is laughably weak protection. Only really good saving is not getting hit(ie be out of sight or have enough - modifiers to shooting). Armour is of no help unless it's terminator styled(3+ on 2d6)
But funny how lots of people here are wishlisting things that _are not going away for sure_. Specifically superheavies in normal games and allies. These are NOT going away. They were introduced specifically to allow selling more models. GW is not going to RESTRICT use of superheavies(or fliers) out of normal games as that's going to result in less sales.
Similarly allies have shown that it allows them to widen base they sell each kit and as AOS shows they are heading even MORE of "everybody should be able to use every release" style than more limitations...GW is moving AWAY from limitations. They are not going to bring MORE of them.
So maybe hope for something that can actually happen This way you get less of a dissapointment when your wishes don't come true.
I think a lot of the wishlisting here is being unrealistic.
Allies, unbound, super heavies, formations etc. These are all things that help GW sell models, at the end of the day they need to sell stuff. I've got no problem with that, but they need to make sure these rules are well written and strict enough to stop the super friends nonsense that happens.
The idea that someone can ally guard with a bunch of Harlequins is fun, it means they can paint two sets of cool but different models and still play them on the table. I really don't think that should change.
What should change is the ability to use allies to build crazy lists. Make special characters harder to take, make it so an allied detachment can't take special characters. Make certain combos impossible.
It's not impossible to do all this and still have a game that allows people to use all of their cool models.
General Kroll wrote: I think a lot of the wishlisting here is being unrealistic.
In all fairness, the premise of this thread is "What would you like to see?" rather than "What do you expect to see?", so whether or not any of the wish-listing going on here is realistic is not entirely relevant.
General Kroll wrote: Allies, unbound, super heavies, formations etc. These are all things that help GW sell models, at the end of the day they need to sell stuff. I've got no problem with that, but they need to make sure these rules are well written and strict enough to stop the super friends nonsense that happens.
The former stuff about helping them sell models is true, but it's not the only set of things that is going to help them sell models. As for writing better rules: We're all praying for that but can't realistically expect any better from GW that what we have now, especially since they identify as a modelling company first.
General Kroll wrote: The idea that someone can ally guard with a bunch of Harlequins is fun, it means they can paint two sets of cool but different models and still play them on the table. I really don't think that should change.
Remember you can choose to ignore the entire rule book or any part thereof, so outside tournaments, taking allies is a lot simpler than people think: Just ignore the consequences of being anything but Battle Brothers and you'll e fine.
General Kroll wrote: What should change is the ability to use allies to build crazy lists. Make special characters harder to take, make it so an allied detachment can't take special characters. Make certain combos impossible.
The problem is that something like this is very hard to do and often requires a lot of specificity. Generic blanket rules are the easier path, and it's also the path I'm willing to bet GW would take. With that in mind, something like this will either never exist or be limited in scope (thus still allowing for at least some of the sorts of shenanigans these general rules are trying to cut down on).
General Kroll wrote: I think a lot of the wishlisting here is being unrealistic.
In all fairness, the premise of this thread is "What would you like to see?" rather than "What do you expect to see?", so whether or not any of the wish-listing going on here is realistic is not entirely relevant.
General Kroll wrote: Allies, unbound, super heavies, formations etc. These are all things that help GW sell models, at the end of the day they need to sell stuff. I've got no problem with that, but they need to make sure these rules are well written and strict enough to stop the super friends nonsense that happens.
The former stuff about helping them sell models is true, but it's not the only set of things that is going to help them sell models. As for writing better rules: We're all praying for that but can't realistically expect any better from GW that what we have now, especially since they identify as a modelling company first.
General Kroll wrote: The idea that someone can ally guard with a bunch of Harlequins is fun, it means they can paint two sets of cool but different models and still play them on the table. I really don't think that should change.
Remember you can choose to ignore the entire rule book or any part thereof, so outside tournaments, taking allies is a lot simpler than people think: Just ignore the consequences of being anything but Battle Brothers and you'll e fine.
General Kroll wrote: What should change is the ability to use allies to build crazy lists. Make special characters harder to take, make it so an allied detachment can't take special characters. Make certain combos impossible.
The problem is that something like this is very hard to do and often requires a lot of specificity. Generic blanket rules are the easier path, and it's also the path I'm willing to bet GW would take. With that in mind, something like this will either never exist or be limited in scope (thus still allowing for at least some of the sorts of shenanigans these general rules are trying to cut down on).
All fair points. Maybe what GW need to move towards is a tournament ruleset and a casual ruleset idk. 40k is a game with so much scope, I imagine getting the rules in order will be like trying to herd a thousand cats
Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.
Any way to reduce or combine unit types? I'm thinking about those that are very similar, or those that are rarely used. Like maybe combine Beast & Cavalry and Bikes & Jetbikes. Get rid of Chariot.
Change walkers to be MCs. Walkers are rarely used because MCs are just better. There are plenty of "machine" walkers that are classified as MCs now anyway, so really it shouldn't be a huge effort to do.
Tweak Maelstrom objectives. I enjoy Maelstrom a ton as it really encourages a mobile army vrs static gunline, but I'm not a huge fan of the cards sometimes giving you too many poor selections. Also, I'm not a huge fan with Maelstrom encouraging MSU.
Streamline/simplify the rules a bit. I think psychics could be wrapped into shooting.
Help assault out. Too many things going against assault for it to be viable. Can't assault out of a station vehicle, can't run & assault, have to pull casualties from the front, and have to weather overwatch.
Make first turn less important. That'd be tough to do without a huge rewrite. I've seen other games use random activation (Bolt Action?), which I've wondered how that'd work with 40k.
Allies have to be reigned in. Mostly it's the shenanigans like piling in as many different characters as you can into different units to share rules. I don't mind some allies and I even use some myself. Maybe go to a percentage system?
Get rid of the CAD? I like the idea of Formations, and I think with some tweaking, it could replace the CAD. I think the Orcurian is in the ballpark of where I'd like to see Formations at. Maybe have them grant small bonuses, but nothing like free transports or free gear. The bonuses might make it tougher to balance, but I'd like to move away from there being several formations, but there really only being 1-2 worth taking due to their advantages.
Fix Grav. Maybe reduce it's rate of fire? Maybe not strip hull points + immobilize? Right now it basically outclasses plasma, melta and lascannons, which no one weapon should.
Tied to the Grav fix might be adjusting vehicle damage. Right now, for the most part it is just more efficient to take a high ROF weapon and strip 3 hull points off a vehicle than it is to try and 1-shot it with a high STR weapon. I'm not sure if adding a hull point or two would help this, or maybe giving vehicles saves, which if they had saves, then the low AP of weapons like Lascannons and melta would matter more.
Adjust psychic powers. Some are kind of useless, some are too powerful. I'd also like to see the powers not be random anymore, like when you used to purchase them as wargear.
Flush all of the current codices and supplements. On a unit-by-unit basis, post stat sheets for them individually. Then maybe few pages of special faction rules for that army, like their formations, weapons...etc. This would make fixing a problem unit much easier since GW could just upload a new stat sheet for that particular unit.
Martel732 wrote: 40K needs more rules and numbers, not less. That's the sad reality with as many models as there are.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. There are lots of things that could be simplified.
The ballistic skill / to hit stat could easily be removed and replaced by a stat that just tells you what number on the dice you need to roll to hit. That wipes out an entire page of tables and removes a layer of complexity that doesn't really need to be there.
It could be argued that Weapon Skill could also be replaced with something similar. But I'd still rather it took into account the skill of your opponent. It wouldn't be hard for example to change it to a simpler version of what it is now. Units could have a rating of Good, Average, or Bad, you go up against someone good when your average, and you need a 5 to hit, someone bad and you just need a 3 someone of the same level and it's a 4. That would cut out yet another table.
I know most of us know the tables and can quickly determine the dice roll we need. But for anyone new to the game it can be bewildering, and make the game very slow and hard to get into at first.
There's plenty of fairly superfluous stuff in the rules that could be trimmed down without making the game overly simplistic.
What they need is a full redo a la 3rd. Streamline the game, include the core army lists for all factions in one rulebook, and then have supplements/campaign stuff adding formations and the like, but AOS style where you get the rules freely with the models and online and via an app (but still charge for the formations).
Game is too bloated now and it just makes games take forever. It needs a trimming, half of the special rules now don't make sense in a large-scale or even platoon-level game, but are fine for small skirmish type games where individual stuff matters. That kinda thing can be integrated with the game, but does not IMHO need to be the default. The default should be clear and lean, and then have "Advanced Rules" or something that has all this other stuff in there to spice up the game if you want to.
Do you view it problematic that 5 man tactical squads can bring a multimelta, meltagun, plasma gun or plasma cannon?
That in and of itself is not the problem IMO. The real issue is that you can play Marines as a horde army. The fact that you can come close to and in some cases surpass the amount or Orks on the field by playing Marines is what creates the issue in that particular case. If you really limit the number of AP1-3 weapons like I'm suggesting, then having a 3+ save actually means something again and you can raise the points slightly on Marine infantry units and they can go back to what they were suppose to be - a small but efficient and elite strike force.
I see what you mean, but I think that some armies absolutely need to keep their AP weapons in the availability that they currently have. I mean, when people face my guard army, it isn't the 80+ flashlights that people are worried about, it's the 3-4 AP3 battle cannon pie plates they are worried about, or the 2-3 STR 6 AP 4, Ignores Cover blasts that they have to deal with each turn. On the flip side of that, without having the "protection" if inordinate amounts of ordnance, my 5+ save owning guardsmen are generally paste to be wiped off of the underside of a boot, or cleaned off of a sword blade.
See, the army you describe isn't really a problem as I see. Again, I don't want everything taken away - just limited. The strong AP weapons you mention in your post are on vehicles (which makes total sense for a powerful weapon) that are all somewhat fragile. Additionally, they are blast weapons and as such, come with inherent drawbacks. Plus, you at most in your example you would have 7 of them. That's not that bad when you can consider what I could bring in a 2000pt game using Marines/Eldar/Tau, etc etc.
Also, some other changes I forgot to mention -
Assault out of dipstick/reserve and first turn assault.
Shooting into CC (it could be for certain armies only, or, for the "good guys" it could be after a moral check) - this was a fun tactic for my Orks in 2nd ed. Flood the Marine lines with hordes of Gretchen and have the heavy artillery cut loose on the resulting combat while the Marines are pinned down. Orks don't care about Grots anyway.
Make vehicles a little more survivable. They don't have to go back to 5th ed levels, but right now vehicles are way weaker than they should be.
War Kitten wrote: I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.
Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo
Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.
I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.
I think this hits on one of the big issues with 40K these days. ROF for moderate strength weapons has gone up dramatically, making AT weapons far less useful. I really think a lot of weapons should be returned back to firing 1 shot and one shot only. For things like scatter lasers or burst cannons, they need a variant of the burst rules or a new template - something like an arc to represent hitting multiple units. Anything under the template gets hit only once, but whereas a vehicle or walker would take one hit, you could "sweep" a unit to hit multiple targets. This would make the weapons useful against armored columns, infantry squads or other groups, but not the glancing machines they currently are.
Of course, you'd likely need to do something about MC's only taking one wound - but in that regard, I really think that STR 7-8 weapons should deal 1D3 wounds to a single target (no spillover to other models) and STR 9-10 should do 1D6 wounds. Maybe D weapons could do 2D6, and you get rid of the D table.
I think what you see right now is the game of 40K recovering from the massive over-simplification it suffered when going from 2nd edition 3rd edition. Going from a heavy skirmish game with a ton of rules to a "buy more models" game with maybe 15% of the rules remaining. Now as the model lines have expanded (and continue to do so) you have the base underpinnings of 3rd edition being stretch to their maximum.
Look at 2nd edition. You had armour values of 10 through 24 or thereabouts. A huge range which was suddenly reduced to 10-14. That condenses a lot of vehicles into very close proximity. The change in armour penetration also essentially removed the ability of weapons to be strong against infantry but weak against vehicles. Using a simple strength+D6 etc. now required a whole host of additional rules to separate the dozens and dozens of weapons types (which were artificially hamstrung into a narrow performance band by the game mechanics). Weapons (even good ones!) had very varying damage bands against armour. A Lascannon was 3D6+9 for example. Meaning you might flub a roll and fail to penetrate even light armour. There was much larger variation in armour penetration. This allowed vehicles to be very robust and not suffer near guaranteed hits from the majority of weapons. This huge variety in armour penetration rolls allowed a lot of variety in the weapon effects themselves.
If we look at Movement, which used to be a simple statistic...then changed to make everyone move the same. Stupid. Now instead of a simple Move value you need to introduce a whole host of additional rules to artificially increase the pace of various races, creatures. How hard would it be to simply re-introduce a simple "M" to the stat line?
The game doesn't need more rules. It needs better rules. With the right clever mechanics you can introduce a lot of depth with very reasonable rules. The game is suffering from loads and loads of special rules which are currently overloading the overly simple base mechanics which are four generations old.
The main thing to remember...Games Workshop cares far less about wonderful game design, and far more about producing models. They need playable rules which allow people to buy and use their models - that's about it. The way they release codexes once every two or three editions for certain armies is hugely damning and complicates everything even more. I am very suspect about ever getting a really good revision of the rules.
Trebloc wrote: Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.
GW made clean slate with AOS. What did we get? Even more special rules! Everything has to have special rule.
Don't expect them to trim down number of special rules. Expect even more. Every unit needs to have awesome special rule to make the it stand out!
Trebloc wrote: Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.
GW made clean slate with AOS. What did we get? Even more special rules! Everything has to have special rule.
Don't expect them to trim down number of special rules. Expect even more. Every unit needs to have awesome special rule to make the it stand out!
That's all well and good. But for example, do we really need a special rule for rending, and bladestorm? They both so much the same thing, same with the whole ap2 on a 6 with sniper rifles.
There's three rules there where there could be just the one.
Rick Priestley mentioned on a Gates of Antares podcast recently that he got the impression that GW is moving away from Codex books and will offer rules more deliberately in the future. GW already does this with printing datasheets in the construction manuals. Maybe they will release an app like the AoS one for 40k's 8th edition. They can still sell digital and printed campaign books, codices (containing fluff too) with formations and other expansions like Cities of Death to make money. If GW wants to offer a modernized 40k, they must create a way to update rules whenever need be and that only works with digital books and occassional FAQs for players with printed editions. Hastings (reliable rumormonger on Warseer) had heard Codex books could be a thing of the past, too. Not saying this will happen but if GW moves away from their current way of releasing rules then a 40k app seems to be the most obvious next step. I would like 40k to change to a 'Living rulebook' style
Trebloc wrote: Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.
GW made clean slate with AOS. What did we get? Even more special rules! Everything has to have special rule.
Don't expect them to trim down number of special rules. Expect even more. Every unit needs to have awesome special rule to make the it stand out!
That's all well and good. But for example, do we really need a special rule for rending, and bladestorm? They both so much the same thing, same with the whole ap2 on a 6 with sniper rifles.
There's three rules there where there could be just the one.
But GW hasn't shown any interest in going that way. On the contrary MORE so you could expect to see bunch of units with say rending get own "almost like but not entirely rending" rather than reduce those...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfblade wrote: However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.
Well the rending difference comes into play mostly vs T8+ stuff...Pretty minor difference.
Wolfblade wrote: However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.
They are all very similar though, and I don't think rationalising them all into one rule would take away anything vital from the game. For example it would be easy to give Shuriken Catipults the rending special rule, and the sniper rifle the rending special rule in addition to a special rule that stated something always wounded on a 4+ You could even do away with the poison special rule and rename it the wound special rule. It would perform the same task within the game.
The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.
To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.
I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)
Runic wrote: The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.
To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.
I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)
They rewrote the fantasy. Technically nothing prevents them from rewriting 40k. It's not like GW is worried about invalidating older books anyway.
Better reason is "is there anybody competent enough at the GW?"
Runic wrote: The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.
To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.
I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)
Yeah, there's really nothing stopping them from redoing all the codices at the start of a new edition. They've certainly done it before.
Runic wrote: The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.
To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.
I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)
Yeah, there's really nothing stopping them from redoing all the codices at the start of a new edition. They've certainly done it before.
3rd ed and fb 6th ed too. Pretty sure my 2nd ed codexes isn't all that usable in 3rd ed
Nothing stops them if they decide they want to do it. Their product, they can do whatever they wish and it's never resulted in game total death(AOS got closest and even that has it's fans...). Hey theoretically it COULD be even move that would win them popularity if done right!
But really what would be reason they couldn't do it? Not going to invalidate recent books? False. They invalidated FB armybook within year or so(vampire counts in 5th->6th ed) and of course every end times book in FB got invalidated with the AOS. Expensive hardbacks and last one invalidated in mere months...
Wolfblade wrote: However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.
They are all very similar though, and I don't think rationalising them all into one rule would take away anything vital from the game. For example it would be easy to give Shuriken Catipults the rending special rule, and the sniper rifle the rending special rule in addition to a special rule that stated something always wounded on a 4+ You could even do away with the poison special rule and rename it the wound special rule. It would perform the same task within the game.
That might actually be a huge buff for a lot of weapons. Vs everything that isn't a vehicle, it's flat out better than gauss. Instead of JUST wounding, it's also denying any armor save too. Not to mention the D3 extra armor pen on a 6, which allows an S4 wep to glance everything but AV14 with some luck.
There's also a few units (some nurgle stuff maybe? I forget) that cause poison to be less effective besides GMC.
Any way to reduce or combine unit types? I'm thinking about those that are very similar, or those that are rarely used. Like maybe combine Beast & Cavalry and Bikes & Jetbikes. Get rid of Chariot.
just add movement and size values to the units profile and you can skip unit types completely
General Kroll wrote: Yeah, there's really nothing stopping them from redoing all the codices at the start of a new edition. They've certainly done it before.
GW has moved away from the Codex format and into the campaign book format, as evidenced by well... all the evidence.
I doubt there will be a round of new codices anymore, a complete one atleast. Or maybe, just maybe with a huge gap inbetween releases.
Trebloc wrote: Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.
GW made clean slate with AOS. What did we get? Even more special rules! Everything has to have special rule.
Don't expect them to trim down number of special rules. Expect even more. Every unit needs to have awesome special rule to make the it stand out!
It's not quite the same. The problem I have is that each unit has several lists of special rules that one has to find is several books and keep track of and remember all the time.
You can say that AoS has special rules for each unit, but it's more like each unit has a handful of unique rules. This adds much more flavour and is easier to keep track of, becauseo AoS has less special rules per unit
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Doesn't sniper also give precision shots, as it should?
Pretty sure it does, think I forgot that.
What I'm talking about...
I suppose I should also I say I almost NEVER use snipers as the the two units who have them in my army (kroot or sniper drones) I usually never take, and same with my local group. If I used them more, or others did, I'd sure remember the rules.
Huron black heart wrote: Two sets of rules. One for large scale games and a more in depth set of rules for smaller games.
To be fair this could easily be done with a more streamlined abstract base set of rules, and then an Appendix that adds the extra special rules for smaller scale games where those things matter more.
A Codex: Ecclesiarchy or Mknistorum with a combined forces of the Frateris Militia, Sisters of Battle, and maybe some Arbites related things mixed in to bring the Heresy hunting forces to a larger Army feel.
Bonus points for plastic Sisters and rules that make the Sororitas units better at hunting Witches. Also points drops across the board, especially since Scouts are 10 points a model, have a largley better statline (+1 WS/I/T), rules (ATSKNF/CT which are always on rules vs the AoF which are limited in use and tend to be worse) and are cheaper with only a dip in their armour save to compensate. I'm not asking for Guardsmen prices, just Space Marine scout prices.
DarknessEternal wrote: I would like Stomp, Thunderblitz, and Seize the Initiative to stop being in the rulebook entirely.
I would like to see psychic disciplines that aren't Daemonology or Telepathy buffed up to equal them.
I am curious as to what reasons you have for wanting to get rid of stomp, thunderblitz and Seize the initiative....
I don't think that the Technomancy really needs any buffing. In a rather devastating, yet fun game, the local GK player took his librarians with technomancy, and managed to roll the power that lets you control and shoot the guns of an opponents' vehicle... yeah, that got rough, pretty quickly (until a knight gallant was able to take care of that problem)
DarknessEternal wrote: I would like Stomp, Thunderblitz, and Seize the Initiative to stop being in the rulebook entirely.
I would like to see psychic disciplines that aren't Daemonology or Telepathy buffed up to equal them.
I am curious as to what reasons you have for wanting to get rid of stomp, thunderblitz and Seize the initiative....
I don't think that the Technomancy really needs any buffing. In a rather devastating, yet fun game, the local GK player took his librarians with technomancy, and managed to roll the power that lets you control and shoot the guns of an opponents' vehicle... yeah, that got rough, pretty quickly (until a knight gallant was able to take care of that problem)
That power is the primaris power. He didn't have to roll it. But its success rate is so very low....
I am curious as to what reasons you have for wanting to get rid of stomp, thunderblitz and Seize the initiative....
Stomp can not only kill things regardless of what those things might be, it can do so from 15" away from the guy doing the Stomping and any assault it is involved in. Meanwhile, you can't even shoot back at the thing doing the Stomping, since it's in assault. This is too much violation of the normal game state.
Seize the Initiative simply holds more weight than any single die roll should over the course of one game.
Sieze the initiative is in to balance to potential power of going first. It forces more strategic deployments in case you end up losing first turn privileges instead of letting people set up to stop face without their opponent getting a chance to go.
That said I always liked going second. It lets me play a bit more defensively at the start and ensures I'll always get the last move (save for the Harlequin warlord trait) so I can ensure that late game if I control key points I win.
I am curious as to what reasons you have for wanting to get rid of stomp, thunderblitz and Seize the initiative....
Stomp can not only kill things regardless of what those things might be, it can do so from 15" away from the guy doing the Stomping and any assault it is involved in. Meanwhile, you can't even shoot back at the thing doing the Stomping, since it's in assault. This is too much violation of the normal game state.
Seize the Initiative simply holds more weight than any single die roll should over the course of one game.
Seize the Initiative is dumb, but fun at times. Stomp needs to be removed, or massively nerfed. The fact that it can kill Primarchs is mega stupid.
Pretty sure being stepped on by a super heavy should be a potential death sentence for any who suffer it. That said I think it should be limited to models within 2" of the base.
Runic wrote: The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.
To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.
I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)
Yeah, there's really nothing stopping them from redoing all the codices at the start of a new edition. They've certainly done it before.
3rd ed and fb 6th ed too. Pretty sure my 2nd ed codexes isn't all that usable in 3rd ed
Nothing stops them if they decide they want to do it. Their product, they can do whatever they wish and it's never resulted in game total death(AOS got closest and even that has it's fans...). Hey theoretically it COULD be even move that would win them popularity if done right!
But really what would be reason they couldn't do it? Not going to invalidate recent books? False. They invalidated FB armybook within year or so(vampire counts in 5th->6th ed) and of course every end times book in FB got invalidated with the AOS. Expensive hardbacks and last one invalidated in mere months...
It might be the language or something, but I'm really struggling to see your point here.
Wolfblade wrote: However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.
They are all very similar though, and I don't think rationalising them all into one rule would take away anything vital from the game. For example it would be easy to give Shuriken Catipults the rending special rule, and the sniper rifle the rending special rule in addition to a special rule that stated something always wounded on a 4+ You could even do away with the poison special rule and rename it the wound special rule. It would perform the same task within the game.
That might actually be a huge buff for a lot of weapons. Vs everything that isn't a vehicle, it's flat out better than gauss. Instead of JUST wounding, it's also denying any armor save too. Not to mention the D3 extra armor pen on a 6, which allows an S4 wep to glance everything but AV14 with some luck.
There's also a few units (some nurgle stuff maybe? I forget) that cause poison to be less effective besides GMC.
If it's a buff then so be it. I don't think it would really be THAT huge.
If it's a buff then so be it. I don't think it would really be THAT huge.
Its goes from the basic gun being unable to kill say, a rhino on front/side armor to killing it on a 6. It's like super gauss for non vehicles. And let's be honest, Eldar don't need MORE power, which in turn would create a bigger gap in the current imbalance of power. Simplicity is not always better.
I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.
Nocturus wrote: I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.
Well, nerf the grav weapons is a must. The actual gravs weapons are so fething broke
Also a revision of all the psi powers. There are to may to much powerful. Also there are no control: some armies have access to near all the powers of the book in addition several exclusives and other armies only have their esclusive....no fair
Franarok wrote: Well, nerf the grav weapons is a must. The actual gravs weapons are so fething broke
Also a revision of all the psi powers. There are to may to much powerful. Also there are no control: some armies have access to near all the powers of the book in addition several exclusives and other armies only have their esclusive....no fair
The walkers should be buffed somehow
Only if MCs are nerfed first. Or rather, the "problem" MCs, as many will insist.
I am curious as to what reasons you have for wanting to get rid of stomp, thunderblitz and Seize the initiative....
Stomp can not only kill things regardless of what those things might be, it can do so from 15" away from the guy doing the Stomping and any assault it is involved in. Meanwhile, you can't even shoot back at the thing doing the Stomping, since it's in assault. This is too much violation of the normal game state.
Seize the Initiative simply holds more weight than any single die roll should over the course of one game.
Lol, I guess I've been playing Stomp wrong all this time..... But then again, when I'm using stomp (usually with my knights) I keep the markers within the current combat because I'm usually trying to get it OUT of combat, or I may be trying to roll like gak so that it can't be shot the next round
While I see what you're saying about Seize the Initiative, others have addressed the "pro" argument better than I could have, and I rather agree with them.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Buff vehicles by giving them saving throws like everyone else, nerf MCs by letting you cripple them as they take damage.
The problem is that Riptides, DKs, and WKs never take said damage.
Based on my own experience and exposure to those units, the DK dies. Riptides CAN die, they just take a bit of work. It's WKs that never seem to fail anything, especially with FNP.
Wolfblade wrote: However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.
They are all very similar though, and I don't think rationalising them all into one rule would take away anything vital from the game. For example it would be easy to give Shuriken Catipults the rending special rule, and the sniper rifle the rending special rule in addition to a special rule that stated something always wounded on a 4+ You could even do away with the poison special rule and rename it the wound special rule. It would perform the same task within the game.
That might actually be a huge buff for a lot of weapons. Vs everything that isn't a vehicle, it's flat out better than gauss. Instead of JUST wounding, it's also denying any armor save too. Not to mention the D3 extra armor pen on a 6, which allows an S4 wep to glance everything but AV14 with some luck.
There's also a few units (some nurgle stuff maybe? I forget) that cause poison to be less effective besides GMC.
You may want to check the bolded part in your rule book, IIRC they ditched the additional D3 in the last change.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Buff vehicles by giving them saving throws like everyone else, nerf MCs by letting you cripple them as they take damage.
I've personally tried to come up with a number of different ways to approach the Vehicle Saving Throws and it usually comes down to something that's either over-powered, overly complicated, or both. Maybe GW can come up with a better solution than the half-a-dozen or so solutions I've come up with, but the better approach seems to be making vehicles harder to kill via other means (not to too my own horn, but this is an example). Honestly, Saving Throws for vehicles is a good idea but the impracticality of it has made me skeptical.
I like the idea Crippling MC's, but just like with the Vehicle Saving Throws, the nature of putting something like that into practice has made me skeptical haha.
Nocturus wrote: I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.
Only downside to this is D6 stack nicer (for storage and shipping, hance those little cubes GW sells them ib) and tend to be cheaper to buy large quanities. I learned that after stocking up on D10s for Dark Heresy.
Nocturus wrote: I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.
That was me. It would work out quite nicely, too.
Not if GW would use it the same way as the D6 now.
A D10 makes no difference if there are only 2 results for to hit in melee and to hit for ranged is limited to 2-6.
D10 would work well if GW removes charts, put the results needed into the model profile and uses the whole spectrum from 1-10.
If it's a buff then so be it. I don't think it would really be THAT huge.
Its goes from the basic gun being unable to kill say, a rhino on front/side armor to killing it on a 6. It's like super gauss for non vehicles. And let's be honest, Eldar don't need MORE power, which in turn would create a bigger gap in the current imbalance of power. Simplicity is not always better.
I guess so, but then I still think it would be simpler to remove the vehicle penetration part of rending, give it to all those disparate weapons and then add a penetration rule to things like assault cannons. It's still 2 rules where there were once 3 or 4.
If it's a buff then so be it. I don't think it would really be THAT huge.
Its goes from the basic gun being unable to kill say, a rhino on front/side armor to killing it on a 6. It's like super gauss for non vehicles. And let's be honest, Eldar don't need MORE power, which in turn would create a bigger gap in the current imbalance of power. Simplicity is not always better.
I guess so, but then I still think it would be simpler to remove the vehicle penetration part of rending, give it to all those disparate weapons and then add a penetration rule to things like assault cannons. It's still 2 rules where there were once 3 or 4.
Again, simplicity (or as few rules as possible) is not always the best. Otherwise, why not throw gauss into that list? It's already pseudo rending with the auto wound (sure, it also glances vehicles on a 6, but it's not that different). Then you have 2 rules where there were 5! I mean, so what if 2 armies now auto wound anything with no armor saves allowed on basic troops?
Just because you're removing/condensing rules, again, doesn't mean the game will be better for it.
I don't like the idea of forcing people to buy the wrong book, but... What would be a good "patch" for CSM now or a way to run them in a new edition is if GW released a supplement to vanilla SM that lets you add chaos corruption/weapons/marks to marines. This would mean that CSM stay on par with SM and creates more demand for one product.
I still feel bad for the CSM army I played last week. They are not even on par with SM, but I only realized this after I swept 2 biggish quads of Slaanesh marines
Nocturus wrote: I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.
That was me. It would work out quite nicely, too.
Not if GW would use it the same way as the D6 now.
A D10 makes no difference if there are only 2 results for to hit in melee and to hit for ranged is limited to 2-6.
D10 would work well if GW removes charts, put the results needed into the model profile and uses the whole spectrum from 1-10.
Correct, changing to a D10 system would require an overhaul of all the tables and this is no bad thing.
We could now have the dice roll required instead of the current stat table, an Orks bs of say 8 would require that on a D10, a Marines for arguments sake would be 3. A guardsmen would be 5.
This way we could have more range on each of the different units which may prevent having to add so many special rules
Nocturus wrote: I've seen one other person mention it, I think re-working a lot of what is out here into a d10 system would help. Stats ranked 1-10 just seem limited to me with a d6. Plus it would allow armour to mean something again if the AP system was re-balanced with it. I don't see it actually happening, but I don't see allies or unbound going away either.
That was me. It would work out quite nicely, too.
Not if GW would use it the same way as the D6 now.
A D10 makes no difference if there are only 2 results for to hit in melee and to hit for ranged is limited to 2-6.
D10 would work well if GW removes charts, put the results needed into the model profile and uses the whole spectrum from 1-10.
Correct, changing to a D10 system would require an overhaul of all the tables and this is no bad thing.
We could now have the dice roll required instead of the current stat table, an Orks bs of say 8 would require that on a D10, a Marines for arguments sake would be 3. A guardsmen would be 5.
This way we could have more range on each of the different units which may prevent having to add so many special rules
Correct, we could do this.
GW would just keep Marines wigh BS3, Guard with 4 and Orks with 5 and ignore all other results.
At the moment they are moving stats closer together and make units different by special rules.
Before GW start using the full possibilities of a D6 or try to get the rules ported to D10, they gonna change everything to D3.
Umm, with a D10 system, don't you usually want to score under the listed amount? I think you have it backwards.
So Marines would be BS 5 and pass on a D10 roll of 5, or lower, Guard would be 4 and orks 5.
you can do both, same with a D6.
a 2+ rolls fail if you roll a 1, no matter if D10 or D6.
But if you want the score needed in the profile and higher rolls being better, than it would be -9 with and 10 is the failing roll.
But if you are not using all possible results it doesn't matter what dice or system you use
Try rolling 30 D10's (not cheap dice to buy) and sorting the results quickly.
you should first play a tabletop using D10 and than start complain about it.
SST used a mix of D10 and D6, used more models and had more detailed per model rules but was still played faster than 40k.
Because the rules were written to use D10 to speed things up while the 40k rules are there to slow things down.
If youe take the advantage of the D10 you could playa standard 40k game in halve the time
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Umm, with a D10 system, don't you usually want to score under the listed amount? I think you have it backwards.
So Marines would be BS 5 and pass on a D10 roll of 5, or lower, Guard would be 4 and orks 5.
Rolling over or under the particular number doesn't really matter, once you get your head round it.
And surely a D10 system would remove the need for special rules which currently slows the game down.
And wouldn't the cost of D10's come down if they had to be mass produced for everyone that wants to use them in 40k, at least if you avoid buying them from GW. We're only talking about a marginally more complicated block of wood/plastic.
Franarok wrote: Well, nerf the grav weapons is a must. The actual gravs weapons are so fething broke
Also a revision of all the psi powers. There are to may to much powerful. Also there are no control: some armies have access to near all the powers of the book in addition several exclusives and other armies only have their esclusive....no fair
The walkers should be buffed somehow
Only if MCs are nerfed first. Or rather, the "problem" MCs, as many will insist.
How about after switching to the D10 system, grav wounds on 10-toughness, so high T targets (bigger, heavier stuff) are more vulnerable to grav weapons than low T targets.
Additionally, one thing I would definitely like to see 40k take from AoS is listing the needed to-hit roll on the stat sheet. It would easier to be able to look at a unit's Datasheet and say "Oh! I need to roll a 4+ to hit". It's not like the math of 7-BS=to-hit is hard, but just one less step to have to figure out.
D10 works very well in Gates of Antares, and I don't see why it couldn't be similarly good in 40k. A lot of bloat in 40k comes from the endless poxy re-rolls, which are only there cos the writers need something to differentiate the units/weapons and couldn't think of anything better.
This is not related to the dice.
40k could be a lot less bloated with much more difference between units/fractions while keeping the D6, if the writers would want the game to be that way.
kodos wrote: This is not related to the dice.
40k could be a lot less bloated with much more difference between units/fractions while keeping the D6, if the writers would want the game to be that way.
It however would be easier. I.E. ork boyz are S3, same as your average guardsmen, yet most of the fluff touts ork boyz as being MUCH stronger than your average human, and sometimes as strong as a space marine.
This is because GW only use stats from 3 to 4 for common units while stats from 1-10 ( or 1-infinite if charts would have a hardcap of +/-2) would be available.
the whole game is based around Marines, so they should have average stats. So a profile of 5's while Guard has all 3's and an Orc can be a mix (WS/BS 3, S4-5, T4-5 etc).
and because everything use a chart to compare their stats a D6 will work fine.
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.
I DEMAND THE RETURN OF THE GLORIOUS BANDBLADE TO IMPERIAL GUARD ARMIES! This walker nonsense is for the admech.
What id like to see
For csm chaos daemons grey knights and eldar to have access to the most powerful psychic abilities in the game (call my crazy but imo these armies should the armies you should be scares of psychic wise not space marines)
Chaos lords and chaos characters in general to get eternal warrior
1.) Str D is an abomination, it needs to be available to all armies or none, preferably none. It's a needless rules complication, with a secondary damage chart, and several different interactions with models. In short to many rules failure points for not enough value to the game.
2.) Cover rules needs to change as they've become a crutch for too many armies. They also slow down the pace of the game, and 40k needs to be a faster paced game. Cap cover at 5+, and make shrouded/camo cloaks/whatever prevent the unit from being targeted unless the attacker is within a certain range, 12 inches for instance.
3.) Less army specific special rules, I mean like a lot less. Every army should be limited to two things, that can be explained in a sentence or two. Space marines have ATSKNF and chapter tactics, necrons have gauss and repair protocols, Tau have Combined fire and improved snap shots, etc. All other rules come from a shared pool of war gear, with perhaps minor racial differences.
4.) Units balanced mathematically, not by feel or whatever is newest is most awesome.
pm713 wrote:Why give Chaos Marine characters Eternal Warrior?
Because after 10,000 years, Abaddon and Typhus and the other named characters have sure as gak learned quite a bit more about fighting than a prissy drama queen like Calgar or Lysander.
Grimgold wrote:1.) Str D is an abomination, it needs to be available to all armies or none, preferably none. It's a needless rules complication, with a secondary damage chart, and several different interactions with models. In short to many rules failure points for not enough value to the game.
.
Actually just had this idea pop into my head a second ago... D could be nerfed a bit by making it auto reduce to a STR 10 hit on any target that it is larger than. While this would still screw me over as an IK player, it would aid other parts of my army by making it so that the non-super heavies in the army aren't being rolled for on the same chart.
Also, I think that some changes to the FNP spam we've had in 7th are due. Personally, I think it would both help and hurt everyone if the prerequisite for getting a FNP roll in the first place, the player must be able to make an armor save. So WKs could be brought down easier (or, at all) by saturating it with AP3 guns. IMO, this would work best if the keyword was the armor save, as I don't think cover or invul. saves should grant a FNP save.
Obviously, for some units like Orks that have/had it, they need to be fixed and brought up to speed in order to be more survivable.
I hate the charts of to hit and to wound.
I keep trying to remember all the stats and translate it into the chart without looking, but everytime i play with my girlfriend, she tires after a while because of the time it takes.
Also, special rules, i have to look up stuff all the time.
I want games to be more about playing and having fun, and less about studying the rules during gametime.
Anyone want to play two games in two hours?
Anyone want to not be tired after a game?
Just let all vehichles drive same distance and fire all their guns.
All infantry walk same distance etc.
Lets put fewer special rules, and let them be written on the units own page.
Its like looking up an encyclopedia damn it.
Why do we have a chart for ballistic skill, when we can just have the to hit nr be their BS.
Make the game so we dont need to look stuff up.
And when we have to look stuff up, for gods sake, dont write gak like: these guys are so good at this or that, they can bring this or that easily because this or that.... Just write : furious charge = +1S on charge.
It makes us save 10 sec just skimming text to find the actual info.
Why is the name of the rule in the unit entry, then you have to remember the name, then look it up in another book?
Lets try to only use unit entries and skip the whole damn big rulebook.
I love the models and love reading and thinking about the game, but during a game, its better to play than read..
Ironically bringing back the Movement stat, at this point, would be a nice way of removing special rules from the game. That said a guardsman should move 4'', not 6''
Korinov wrote: Ironically bringing back the Movement stat, at this point, would be a nice way of removing special rules from the game. That said a guardsman should move 4'', not 6''
I think this is pretty much the reason why I don't like the movement stat. because the second it gets introduce, there's going to be some army with a jumped up movement stat and that'll just throw the movement balance out the window as they dance around the field and never be able to be caught in melee or with short ranged weapons
Honestly, if the Move stats gets reintroduced it'll be Eldar, probably Marines and hopefully Slaanesh Daemons and Tryranids that end up being better with 5"-8" compared to Guard, Tau, Orks, etc with 4".
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly, if the Move stats gets reintroduced it'll be Eldar, probably Marines and hopefully Slaanesh Daemons and Tryranids that end up being better with 5"-8" compared to Guard, Tau, Orks, etc with 4".
If I were looking at purely infantry models, I would place Orks and Tyrandis (e.g. Boyz and Guants respectively) in a category with a movement range greater than or equal to that of a Space Marine, especially given they're both supposed to be predominantly assault-orientated armies.
IllumiNini wrote:If I were looking at purely infantry models, I would place Orks and Tyrandis (e.g. Boyz and Guants respectively) in a category with a movement range greater than or equal to that of a Space Marine, especially given they're both supposed to be predominantly assault-orientated armies.
Why should basic orks and tyrranids move faster than a space marine? He's 14 ppm. What that pays for is, among other things, an all around above average statline. That includes movement. I might grant that orks and tyrranids should be faster than humans. But not space marines.
IllumiNini wrote:If I were looking at purely infantry models, I would place Orks and Tyrandis (e.g. Boyz and Guants respectively) in a category with a movement range greater than or equal to that of a Space Marine, especially given they're both supposed to be predominantly assault-orientated armies.
Why should basic orks and tyrranids move faster than a space marine? He's 14 ppm. What that pays for is, among other things, an all around above average statline. That includes movement. I might grant that orks and tyrranids should be faster than humans. But not space marines.
The important thing to note here is that a normal Space Marine is 14 Points/Model in the current system where all infantry (by default) move 6". So that base points cost does not currently account for differing default movement speeds. It does increase the points cost (generally speaking) if you want to move further (e.g. paying 3 points/model for Jump Packs), but that's not quite the same thing as the proposed movement stat.
IllumiNini wrote:The important thing to note here is that a normal Space Marine is 14 Points/Model in the current system where all infantry (by default) move 6". So that base points cost does not currently account for movement.
Fair enough, though my general point stands: 14 ppm, among other things, is for the above average stat line. If there were a movement stat, why should my 14 ppm tactical marine move slower than a 6 ppm ork?
IllumiNini wrote:The important thing to note here is that a normal Space Marine is 14 Points/Model in the current system where all infantry (by default) move 6". So that base points cost does not currently account for movement.
Fair enough, though my general point stands: 14 ppm, among other things, is for the above average stat line. If there were a movement stat, why should my 14 ppm tactical marine move slower than a 6 ppm ork?
Well in all honesty, that also assumes that no more balancing is done. If an Ork was suddenly able to move faster than a Space Marine, I imagine he would cost a bit more than 6 points/model (whether or not he'd cost more than the Space Marine is something I can't comment on because it'd be impossible to say).
Might as well not even bother trying to argue on this point. Nothing should be faster than Marines, nothing should be more resilient than Marines, nothing should be stronger, nothing should have better firepower or outperform them in close combat...SPEHSS MAHREENS should be unstoppable because that's literally what the fething fluff says about them. "But I pay 14ppm!" ad nauseam.
IllumiNini wrote:Well in all honesty, that also assumes that no more balancing is done. If an Ork was suddenly able to move faster than a Space Marine, I imagine he would cost a bit more than 6 points/model (whether or not he'd cost more than the Space Marine is something I can't comment on because it'd be impossible to say).
That's just it, though. Do you really want orks costing more than 6 ppm? Orks should be stronger and faster than regular humans. They should be roughly as strong as (but no stronger than) space marines (I think it's silly that orks have a 3 in the S part of the statline). They should probably be faster than normal humans (but maybe not as fast, and certainly no faster than, space marines).
An Ork boy is not an elite infantry.
People will mock me for saying this, but there is no sense in which a space marine (whether tactical, assault or devastator) should be outmatched by any troop choice of another codex. A space marine is, for all intents and purposes, already an elite. There are no "regular" troops* in the space marines codex.
Even space marines scouts are essentially Captain America on steroids.
Sidstyler wrote:Might as well not even bother trying to argue on this point. Nothing should be faster than Marines, nothing should be more resilient than Marines, nothing should be stronger, nothing should have better firepower or outperform them in close combat...SPEHSS MAHREENS should be unstoppable because that's literally what the fething fluff says about them. "But I pay 14ppm!" ad nauseam.
I can't really tell if you're joking (not one of my strong suits by any means), but I agree that it's not really a point that should be argued mainly because we're trying to add in this Movement Characteristic and then assume all else is equal so we can argue about it. Doesn't really make sense.
Traditio wrote:People will mock me for saying this, but there is no sense in which a space marine (whether tactical, assault or devastator) should be outmatched by any troop choice of another codex. A space marine is, for all intents and purposes, already an elite. There are no "regular" troops* in the space marines codex.
For Space Marines not being out-classed by any other type of infantry is not correct if you ask me. The way I've always understood it is that on a person-by-person basis, Space Marines were designed to be better at dealing with the threats that are out there (because they're stronger, faster, bigger, smarter, etc than normal humans), but that doesn't mean they outclass absolutely everything that already out there (it just means that they're better and more efficient at doing it).
I would say more, but I feel this topic is best kept for another thread.
For Space Marines not being out-classed by any other type of infantry is not correct if you ask me. The way I've always understood it is that on a person-by-person basis, Space Marines were designed to be better at dealing with the threats that are out there (because they're stronger, faster, bigger, smarter, etc than normal humans), but that doesn't mean they outclass absolutely everything that already out there (it just means that they're better and more efficient at doing it).
I would say more, but I feel this topic is best kept for another thread.
I agree... Harlequins, based on their fluff, are insanely fast, hit you before you even realize it, and then flip away. Nearly every book of fluff that I've read, if there's a POV from an Eldar, it's always the "brutal, stupid and slow Mon'keigh" they are fighting, and personally speaking, that should be reflected in stats in some way.
currently, Eldar and Harlequins reflect that by a higher initiative. While I think that having an identical movement characteristic for all basic troops is wrong, I think that there are definitely things which move faster/better than Marines. Other balancing factors include the facts that basically all space elves are T3, while marines are T4. That is fine. I think that even giving a "move" characteristic, if we say your standard SM troop choice is a movement of 6, it is balanced to say that a guardsmen is a 4, basic Ork is a 6, Gaunt/Gants are 8 (they look like dogs/insects which can scuttle ridiculously fast), and Eldar could probably be a 6 or 7 movement...
simply put, altering a movement characteristic of troops and units can bring out some new strategies, while they would undoubtedly highlight other balancing factors.
Speaking of Quins, I kind of wish that "Hit and Run" was resolved at initiative step.
I think in terms of speed Eldar should indeed be faster then space marines. gaunts should likewise mnove faster. Orks however shouldn't be faster. they should be as fast. or even slightly slower.
The movement stat thing seems dumb, I thought the point of 8th wishlisting was Streamlined rules and talking about how every other edition was better than whatever one we're playing (14th ed is my favorite)
ERJAK wrote: The movement stat thing seems dumb, I thought the point of 8th wishlisting was Streamlined rules and talking about how every other edition was better than whatever one we're playing (14th ed is my favorite)
The movement characteristic isn't dumb. If it were, then the models in 40K (assuming 7th edition rules and no house rules) would never move anywhere. Technically every model has a movement characteristic, but it isn't displayed as such but instead it's been generalised and put in the BRB. For example, the default movement characteristic for all infantry models is 6", but we don't think of it as a 'movement characteristic' because its a rule in the BRB rather than a characteristic listed as part of every unit.
The introduction of a movement characteristic on a unit-by-unit basis (which is what I think is being suggested) allows for more freedom and differentiation in how each individual unit moves.
And Streamlining the rules may be the purpose of your 8th Edition wish-listing, but it doesn't have to be for everyone else.
The introduction of a movement characteristic on a unit-by-unit basis (which is what I think is being suggested) allows for more freedom and differentiation in how each individual unit moves.
And Streamlining the rules may be the purpose of your 8th Edition wish-listing, but it doesn't have to be for everyone else.
It's what I'm suggesting.... Ie, if an Ork boy has a move characteristic of 7", then a mega nob (wearing heavier armor) could have a move of 6, etc.
Having played a ton of AoS, it really is streamlined, because once you begin to really know your army, you don't really need to look at the unit entry every single movement phase and things move faster.
a movement value will reduce the amount of special rules and unit types and add a lot more possibilities to give every faction a unique play style.
basic movement rules would be reduced to:
- every unit can make a single (up to max movement value) or double move (up to 2 times the movement value).
- a unit making a double move cannot shoot or charge
special rules:
- fast, the unit count as making a single move no matter how far it moved
- slow, the unit can never make a double move
- Special move, units with a special move can use it instead of a Standard movement. It has to move the full distance. Jump (ignore terrain restrictions during movement) etc.
For movement values, Standard Marines should have 5, Terminators 4, Centurions 4 and slow, Bikes would be 6 and fast, Assault Squad get Jump 12, etc.
Guard would be 4 (transport tanks 6), Orks 5, Tyranids get from 4 (Big Bugs) to 7 (Liktor), Eldar 6 and Necrons get 3 or 2 (but have Portals and Flyers to compensate it).
But as long as GW will do the rules, they will mess it up any way and keep it simple (everything would have 6" in the profile and special rules and unit types would increase or decrase the profile value)
Traditio wrote: Why should basic orks and tyrranids move faster than a space marine? He's 14 ppm. What that pays for is, among other things, an all around above average statline. That includes movement. I might grant that orks and tyrranids should be faster than humans. But not space marines.
Given how common SM players are, I would like to see space marines be the average and everything based off that.
I wish that exploding vehicles had a 2d6 blast radius, and had a randomised AP.
I'd love if when you destroyed a flyer the rules for crash and burn always took effect (you know with the deviating blast dealing a pile of hits?) instead of only when it explodes.
Traditio wrote: Why should basic orks and tyrranids move faster than a space marine? He's 14 ppm. What that pays for is, among other things, an all around above average statline. That includes movement. I might grant that orks and tyrranids should be faster than humans. But not space marines.
Given how common SM players are, I would like to see space marines be the average and everything based off that.
But that contradicts the fluff. Space Marines are meant to be exceptional. One could compensate by making Space Marines themselves higher than average, but introducing a another type of unit that's either a chapter serf or a Space Marine in training, that is not a new as a scout but not as experienced / developed as a true marine.
Black templars had a similar system,where their scouts / neophytes, were not organized into scout companies, but instead accompanied a more experienced marine in battle.
So with my idea, most of the army would consist of chapter serfs / neophytes / fledgling marines / whatever, and the true marines would be the absurd things you see all the time in the fluff.
Korinov wrote: Ironically bringing back the Movement stat, at this point, would be a nice way of removing special rules from the game. That said a guardsman should move 4'', not 6''
I think this is pretty much the reason why I don't like the movement stat. because the second it gets introduce, there's going to be some army with a jumped up movement stat and that'll just throw the movement balance out the window as they dance around the field and never be able to be caught in melee or with short ranged weapons
Nah that ain't going to be problem. IG isn't bothered by not being able to catch eldar in CC. Who goes there anyway?
Bigger issue is gunline becoming even more of to go. Why waste shooting when you move mere 4"?
Will need reducing shooting power to encourage moving
Traditio wrote: Why should basic orks and tyrranids move faster than a space marine? He's 14 ppm. What that pays for is, among other things, an all around above average statline. That includes movement. I might grant that orks and tyrranids should be faster than humans. But not space marines.
Given how common SM players are, I would like to see space marines be the average and everything based off that.
But that contradicts the fluff. Space Marines are meant to be exceptional.
One could compensate by making Space Marines themselves higher than average, but introducing a another type of unit that's either a chapter serf or a Space Marine in training, that is not a new as a scout but not as experienced / developed as a true marine.
Black templars had a similar system,where their scouts / neophytes, were not organized into scout companies, but instead accompanied a more experienced marine in battle.
So with my idea, most of the army would consist of chapter serfs / neophytes / fledgling marines / whatever, and the true marines would be the absurd things you see all the time in the fluff.
Not "average" as in mediocre, "the average", as in the middle from the game design point of view.
But that contradicts the fluff. Space Marines are meant to be exceptional.
They are still exceptional, for humans.... which is pretty much how the fluff is. Thing is, most of the other races have something that is as good as, or "better" than marines.
But that contradicts the fluff. Space Marines are meant to be exceptional.
They are still exceptional, for humans.... which is pretty much how the fluff is. Thing is, most of the other races have something that is as good as, or "better" than marines.
General Kroll wrote: Yeah reintroducing the movement stat would provide a massive opportunity to simplify the rules by removing a tonne of special rules.
The way your written it up there, it would also remove the need for running in the shooting phase (and get rid of a dice roll)
It could even be used to simplify charging.
So instead of having to remember 3-5 special rules you have to memorize the movement stat of every model in the game; because remember, there are a LOT of units in different codexes that would get different movement ranges. There's no way ALL eldar would all be 7.1783 inches or w/e because A. they would either have to STILL HAVE special rules for different units to move at different speeds, or have every unit have a different movement stat (Banshees are 8 Dark reapers are 6 Warp spiders are 14 or w/e etc) B. if they did make every unit in a codex move the same distance then you'd still have dozens of codexes and dataslates worth of movement stats to look up/memorize everytime you include either play with or against a new army which is even worse than the system we have now. C. It would send balance spinning even further out of control, assault marines aren't great when they move 12 inches, moving 6-8 would make them paperweights, warp spiders are super broken moving 20+ inches per turn but moving 7.5 they wouldn't even be useful as a deepstrike bomb unit, not to mention how silly it would be to have a stormsurge shuffle the tau's 3-5" inches every turn or wraiths that can only move whatever incredibly low distance necrons would have. This also makes drop pods even better for getting around the system.
TL: DR the movement stat is stupid because you'd either have to do it unit by unit which would be the absolute freaking SAME as the special rules system, or uniform within codexes which would be dumb because it puts any unit that relies on having high movement to be useful into the pyrovore/hellion category, you still have to memorize every armies movement stat, people would bitch constantly about who should be faster than who (case in point HERE), AND It blandifies units( if every unit moves the same distance it comes down to either who has the mathmatically best shooting, or MAYBE in a VERY FAST army who has mathematically best assault.)
The movement stat thing is a silly fad rule based on some past edition or other game people band-wagoned without actually thinking about.
TL: DR the movement stat is stupid because you'd either have to do it unit by unit which would be the absolute freaking SAME as the special rules system, or uniform within codexes which would be dumb because it puts any unit that relies on having high movement to be useful into the pyrovore/hellion category, you still have to memorize every armies movement stat, people would bitch constantly about who should be faster than who (case in point HERE), AND It blandifies units( if every unit moves the same distance it comes down to either who has the mathmatically best shooting, or MAYBE in a VERY FAST army who has mathematically best assault.)
The movement stat thing is a silly fad rule based on some past edition or other game people band-wagoned without actually thinking about.
Except that it really isn't stupid. AoS has this exact thing. If you don't memorize your unit's stats, as long as you have your stuff mildly organized, you can find the unit in question in 10 seconds or less. And I'd guarantee that you're not gonna sit there and try to memorize literally every single unit's movement, because odds are you aren't going to use every unit from your codex. As a personal example, I never have, and never will use Scouts in any marine army. As such, I don't need to memorize a theoretical movement characteristic, and won't because it's a waste of time.
I have thought about this, and it isn't some band wagon idea. It's one that works quite well for a number of games, and works well for a GW game to boot.
The movement stat thing is a silly fad rule based on some past edition or other game people band-wagoned without actually thinking about
So the, one movement rule for all, based on a 15mm WW2 game is better to represent different non-human factions in 28mm Mass Skirmish than an actual per hnit value?
For the same reason WS and BS should be cut from the profile. Why should I remember different WS/BS values and a chart, if a simple "everyone hits on 4+" and 20 special rules would have the same effect.
And I thought about it a long time and and works out a lot better also for balancing.
I have to disagree with the movement stat. I think giving everyone different movement speeds is a waste versus the everyone moves 6". Change everything, but keep that the same, as it makes balancing the game easier if it's "every model moves 6", unless it has a special rule".
WarmaHordes has every model have a different movement, but this works because you only have around 20 guys, not 60+.
The movement stat thing is a silly fad rule based on some past edition or other game people band-wagoned without actually thinking about
So the, one movement rule for all, based on a 15mm WW2 game is better to represent different non-human factions in 28mm Mass Skirmish than an actual per hnit value?
For the same reason WS and BS should be cut from the profile. Why should I remember different WS/BS values and a chart, if a simple "everyone hits on 4+" and 20 special rules would have the same effect.
And I thought about it a long time and and works out a lot better also for balancing.
Indeed - pretty much everyone hits on a 4+ these days anyway. High WS is poor and units hthat should have excellent WS- Dark Eldar Wyches don't.
A Move stat is something that be a good ting to bring back.
kodos wrote: 20 models in WM/H is a small game, a standard 50 point infantry list has much more models.
But a movement value also worked in warhammer with 100+ models per side, so why should it not work with 40k.
A standard 50 point list is still around 40-50+ max, and even then 20-40 of those will have the same movement rate. It worked in Warhammer, and look what happened to that
Anyways, that's an aside. My bigger issue with the movement stat is: why? what does it change that other special rules or stats could not do? Faster? Okay, give them run and charge. Or just flat out have two character types like they do already: Infantry moves 6", Beasts move 12".
I don't see the point in having army wide different move blocks and I think it moves away from the balance of the game. Would Termagaunt swarms or Harlequins be that much better if they had a higher movement? Unlikely, as they're still super fragile or overcosted or don't shoot as good as other armies.
The movement stat thing is a silly fad rule based on some past edition or other game people band-wagoned without actually thinking about
So the, one movement rule for all, based on a 15mm WW2 game is better to represent different non-human factions in 28mm Mass Skirmish than an actual per hnit value?
For the same reason WS and BS should be cut from the profile. Why should I remember different WS/BS values and a chart, if a simple "everyone hits on 4+" and 20 special rules would have the same effect.
And I thought about it a long time and and works out a lot better also for balancing.
Indeed - pretty much everyone hits on a 4+ these days anyway. High WS is poor and units hthat should have excellent WS- Dark Eldar Wyches don't.
A Move stat is something that be a good ting to bring back.
I disagree. Having a high WS serves it's purpose, case in point: Flesh Hounds hit tac marines on 3's, while they hit back on 4's. Bloodthirsters, Daemon Princes will be hit on 5's by most things, even a knight, so them having a high WS adds some survivability.
jreilly89 wrote: I have to disagree with the movement stat. I think giving everyone different movement speeds is a waste versus the everyone moves 6". Change everything, but keep that the same, as it makes balancing the game easier if it's "every model moves 6", unless it has a special rule".
WarmaHordes has every model have a different movement, but this works because you only have around 20 guys, not 60+.
You haven't played WM/Hordes much have you? 20 models is laughably small in that infantry swarm game.
And movement stat didn't slow down 40k 2nd ed nor FB in...Well any edition.
it removes a lot of uneeded stuff from the game while just adding a single number to the units profile which would be the same for most units of a single faction.
all rules for different unit types ard only there because the "everything slow moves 6 inch, everything fast 12 inch and very fast moves 18 inch" was not viable.
And there is still no difference between factions and a super agile alien runs with the same speed as the armoured slow behemoth.
of course random movement and charge distance solved the problem but not very well.
but this is the general solution to all problems, just add a random dice roll and everything is fine.
I disagree. Having a high WS serves it's purpose, case in point: Flesh Hounds hit tac marines on 3's, while they hit back on 4's. Bloodthirsters, Daemon Princes will be hit on 5's by most things, even a knight, so them having a high WS adds some survivability.
But what does WS add to the game what a 4+ for all and so e special rules cannot do?
Why should there be a WS and not just a special rule to hit on 3+, one to get hit on 5+ etc?
compare WS everytkme and for every model just to slow things down?
add more durability to literally everything, or lower ap /str and/or increase toughness. maybe increase cover saves like ruins 3+ forests 4+ currently at least in my meta anything out of a transport or vehicle disappears fromt he table.
No more formations that give free wargear/ transports. sorry but showing up with 300 points that does not cost any points is not ok.
nerf force / ID / remove from play to mean surer 2 / 2 / 3 wounds, give all mc a 5 or 6+ inv save (or at least for tyranids because dear god do they need it, it would also help less used MC from other codexes ) while it might be only on one codex a warboss should probably be a MCIC they are fluff wise supposed to dwarf even a space marine, they are after all the biggest, meanest and greenest orks.
I disagree. Having a high WS serves it's purpose, case in point: Flesh Hounds hit tac marines on 3's, while they hit back on 4's. Bloodthirsters, Daemon Princes will be hit on 5's by most things, even a knight, so them having a high WS adds some survivability.
Way way too much stuff now has WS4 - Eldar Guardians for one.
A Avatar of Khaine, a BloodThirster of Khorne or similar still miss on a 1 or 2 - really impressive - had plenty of times when elite CC with WS 7+ Miss completely when they attack.
it removes a lot of uneeded stuff from the game while just adding a single number to the units profile which would be the same for most units of a single faction.
all rules for different unit types ard only there because the "everything slow moves 6 inch, everything fast 12 inch and very fast moves 18 inch" was not viable. And there is still no difference between factions and a super agile alien runs with the same speed as the armoured slow behemoth.
How so? I still don't see what special rules/unneeded stuff it removes and what is the benefit. Please give examples. In regards to my claim, I think if we leave the movement phase alone, that gives more freedom to balance the shooting and assault phases, as the movement phase is generally fine.
If we revamp the movement, then I think the whole game would need to be redone, rather than some phase overhauls and power level balancing.
I disagree. Having a high WS serves it's purpose, case in point: Flesh Hounds hit tac marines on 3's, while they hit back on 4's. Bloodthirsters, Daemon Princes will be hit on 5's by most things, even a knight, so them having a high WS adds some survivability.
But what does WS add to the game what a 4+ for all and so e special rules cannot do? Why should there be a WS and not just a special rule to hit on 3+, one to get hit on 5+ etc?
compare WS everytkme and for every model just to slow things down?
Because it's silly that my High Lord Daemon Prince, Terror of the Galaxy, can get hit on 4+'s by a run of the mill Guardsmen. It's the same problem I have with AoS. Sure, the concept works fine, but A) there's more benefit to just bringing bodies than special guys and B) it totally kills the story aspect for me.
Feel free to adjust WS to 1, 2, or 3, so a 1 hits a 3 only on 5's, but leave the core idea alone.
I disagree. Having a high WS serves it's purpose, case in point: Flesh Hounds hit tac marines on 3's, while they hit back on 4's. Bloodthirsters, Daemon Princes will be hit on 5's by most things, even a knight, so them having a high WS adds some survivability.
Way way too much stuff now has WS4 - Eldar Guardians for one.
A Avatar of Khaine, a BloodThirster of Khorne or similar still miss on a 1 or 2 - really impressive - had plenty of times when elite CC with WS 7+ Miss completely when they attack.
Of Course high BS gets re-rolls cos "reasons"
OH and everything Kodos said - truth.
So how about adjusting the WS to only three values, a low, medium, or high, but leaving the core value alone. I.E. Low hit's High only on a 5+ Second, I'm totally fine with WS getting rerolls. Third, Yeah, I've had a Bloodthirster whiff attacks, but that's the curse of dice games, it's random chance.
Because it's silly that my High Lord Daemon Prince, Terror of the Galaxy, can get hit on 4+'s by a run of the mill Guardsmen.
But it is ok for you that he moves at the same speed as a plague zombie?
How so? I still don't see what special rules/unneeded stuff it removes and what is the benefit. Please give examples
I am not familiar with all english terms so there may be wrong names but:
slow and purposeful, just give the unit a lower value instead of a random dice roll and remove this special rule
charge: units charge one or two times their movement value instead of a random roll (and no need to have different unit types for beast, cavalry etc)
run: units just move two times their movement value in the movement phase (no random dice roll and no need to move units two times)
no special rules needed to allow shooting after a fast movement (just give those units a higher movement value).
If we revamp the movement, then I think the whole game would need to be redone, rather than some phase overhauls and power level balancing.
this need to be done anyway, edition 6.2 will have no future and I guess that GW will change 40k to be more like AoS.
Because it's silly that my High Lord Daemon Prince, Terror of the Galaxy, can get hit on 4+'s by a run of the mill Guardsmen. It's the same problem I have with AoS. Sure, the concept works fine, but A) there's more benefit to just bringing bodies than special guys and B) it totally kills the story aspect for me.
Feel free to adjust WS to 1, 2, or 3, so a 1 hits a 3 only on 5's, but leave the core idea alone.
Bwahahaha. You DO realize same arqument works for movement stat? Why on earth is agile alien just as fast as lumbering terminator or heaven forbid living corpse barely holding together...
Once upon a time, there was a movement stat. Then some brilliant minds at GW decided it made stuff too complicated, and it was removed. Countless special rules have been added since then just to make it up for it. Because of course, a zillion special rules > a single stat when it comes to streamlining the game!
uh, guys? you know grav weapons aren't that good, right? they are worth the 35 points you pay for them, because of the situationality of them. You salty marine players just need to toughen up a bit.
I'd be fine with the re-introduction of the movement stat. If WHFB were able to remember that stat than so can 40k players. It's just 1 more stat to remember for a unit, not that complicated.
Because it's silly that my High Lord Daemon Prince, Terror of the Galaxy, can get hit on 4+'s by a run of the mill Guardsmen.
But it is ok for you that he moves at the same speed as a plague zombie?
No, he flies at 12". But that's another thing entirely. As a Monstrous Creature, yeah I'd be fine with him moving at 6", assuming he didn't die to a stiff breeze, as most T5-6 MCs do.
How so? I still don't see what special rules/unneeded stuff it removes and what is the benefit. Please give examples
I am not familiar with all english terms so there may be wrong names but:
slow and purposeful, just give the unit a lower value instead of a random dice roll and remove this special rule
charge: units charge one or two times their movement value instead of a random roll (and no need to have different unit types for beast, cavalry etc)
run: units just move two times their movement value in the movement phase (no random dice roll and no need to move units two times)
no special rules needed to allow shooting after a fast movement (just give those units a higher movement value).
I will give that to you, it's an interesting concept. How would you apply it to vehicles?
If we revamp the movement, then I think the whole game would need to be redone, rather than some phase overhauls and power level balancing.
this need to be done anyway, edition 6.2 will have no future and I guess that GW will change 40k to be more like AoS.
Irrelevant and just plain speculating. I'm just pointing out something could keep the game more or less the same and just be an edition change, without being a total game change.
40k is literally the only game I know without a movement stat. It's really not that hard to remember and it gives armies a different feel with very little complication.
I will give that to you, it's an interesting concept. How would you apply it to vehicles?
the same like for every other unit.
no need to add different rules for vehicles, they just get a higher base movement.
e.g.:
double movement in the movement phase (to replace running) prevents the unit from shooting or charge
Guard Soldier, Movement 4"
Chimera Transport: 8"
Vendetta: 12"
So the soldier can move 4" and shoot and/or cgarge (depends on the weapon) or move 8", the chimera moves 8" and shoot or 16" and the vendetta moves up to 12" and shoot or up to 24"
if the chimera moved 8" it can also charge 8" in the assault phase (=ramming or tank shock)
I will give that to you, it's an interesting concept. How would you apply it to vehicles?
the same like for every other unit.
no need to add different rules for vehicles, they just get a higher base movement.
e.g.:
double movement in the movement phase (to replace running) prevents the unit from shooting or charge
Guard Soldier, Movement 4"
Chimera Transport: 8"
Vendetta: 12"
So the soldier can move 4" and shoot and/or cgarge (depends on the weapon) or move 8", the chimera moves 8" and shoot or 16" and the vendetta moves up to 12" and shoot or up to 24"
if the chimera moved 8" it can also charge 8" in the assault phase (=ramming or tank shock)
This seems reminiscent of Warmachine (not that that's bad). Now they play on a 4x4. Would you consider imposing the same restrictions? 6X4 now seems big with only 4" movement.
Warmachine use something similar, but this is more inspired from SST.
And no, 6x4 is not to big with 4" as long as all standard weapons have 24" (just moving and shooting is decreased in range).
I would give humans 4", Orks and Marines 5", Eldar a mix of 4 to 6 and Tyranids from 4 to 7.
PS: I think the table is alredy to small for a good game and I would reduce weapon range as well to prevent units from shooting across the table without moving (placing units 24" away from each other at the start of game and give them 24" range does not work ou well)
I will give that to you, it's an interesting concept. How would you apply it to vehicles?
the same like for every other unit.
no need to add different rules for vehicles, they just get a higher base movement.
e.g.:
double movement in the movement phase (to replace running) prevents the unit from shooting or charge
Guard Soldier, Movement 4"
Chimera Transport: 8"
Vendetta: 12"
So the soldier can move 4" and shoot and/or cgarge (depends on the weapon) or move 8", the chimera moves 8" and shoot or 16" and the vendetta moves up to 12" and shoot or up to 24"
if the chimera moved 8" it can also charge 8" in the assault phase (=ramming or tank shock)
This seems reminiscent of Warmachine (not that that's bad). Now they play on a 4x4. Would you consider imposing the same restrictions? 6X4 now seems big with only 4" movement.
I could see it.. though I disagree with a guardsman only moving 4. I would say make things start at 6" but some very fast or large units move more. a space marine might be able to move 7 or 8, a elder unit to represent the speed moves 7-8 as well. all monstrous creatures due to their size start at 10, some move up to 12-13. dreads and other walkers should probably also be faster than a person so 8-9 etc.
What about more love for chaos? we don't even have 7th edition yet. we need to make csm on par with normal marines and make slaanesh more viable because lore wise slaanesh should be the strongest and most corrupting god
I'm not a player anymore more of a collector but here is my brutal approach!
1) The rulebook should be ONLY a rulebook.All non rule related material should be scrapped reducing the overall cost.Well, we can hope!
2) There should be basic rules for each army included so each army is completely playable and balanced from the word go.Also see below.
3) Codexes should be scrapped! The cost is ridiculous for the amount of information that is included;this could be included in each weekly WD.Imagine actually having up to date information on a weekly basis rather than having to wait years for a codex update which is normally out of date when the latest rules appear! Is it worth buying a codex that has exactly the same information as the last codex with only minor rules changes/yet you are charged up to £35 to read them?
I'm not a rules expert by any stretch of the imagination but I've always found about 75% of the rulebook pointless/ all the things like building and painting are covered in all GW's stuff,do they really need to regurgitate it in the rules as well?
Told you it was brutal!
Alot of people already said so much but this is one thing I would LOVE to see.
I want cover saves gone (this will have to rework alot of things tho)
Instead of cover saves, I would much rather see negative to your BS for shooting into cover.
Templates and Flamers work the same as they do now, Templates -1/2/3 to BS on scatter dice, Flamers/templates ignoring this rule.
BS, -3 max.
Night Vision ignores Stealth (not shrouded)
Grenades Ignore this rule too.
A unit with Stealth, Shrouded and in Ruins will have a -3 when being shot at, A unit can never go below BS 1.
This will really change the game and make alot of the Shooting armies hurt, but it will lead more to better movement and strategy than Mass spam High S High assault guns.
I know it sounds crazy But I feel it would work wonders for the game.
AutomatedMiner wrote: uh, guys? you know grav weapons aren't that good, right? they are worth the 35 points you pay for them, because of the situationality of them. You salty marine players just need to toughen up a bit.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. They have been proven to be mathematically the single most undercosted upgrade in the game. No other weapon is better at killing monstrous/gargantuan creatures, MEQs, or TEQs. Grav makes things like maulerfiends, who are otherwis quite good, useless. Transports from rhinos up to spartan assault tanks get shut down instantly from 1 grav cannon; even dying outright with some lucky rolls.
There is no situationality to them, they are the HAMMER of the space marine force and the reason why marines are a top tier army. Even basic grav guns are so good they pretty much eliminate the need for plasma.
If you don't believe me bring a grav spam battle company against a meta double wraithknight eldar list run by an average eldar player (top tier eldar players are crazy) and have a bucket ready to collect his tiers.
I could see it.. though I disagree with a guardsman only moving 4. I would say make things start at 6" but some very fast or large units move more. a space marine might be able to move 7 or 8, a elder unit to represent the speed moves 7-8 as well. all monstrous creatures due to their size start at 10, some move up to 12-13. dreads and other walkers should probably also be faster than a person so 8-9 etc.
A Guardsman moving 4'' is fine. A Marine should move 5'' due to the extra size plus the speed enhancements of power armor. Eldar should move 5'' for most units, and perhaps 6'' for a few selected ones. Dreadnoughts are implied by fluff to be not really fast, they're more walking tanks than agile mecha, 6'' perhaps and that's it.
In order to balance some movement capacity decreases, you can simply re-introduce the old penalty for long-range shooting: units shooting at more than half their max range have a -1 to hit. That way you don't even need to reduce firing ranges because you're already making all shooting weapons less efficient at long ranges.
Also Running shouldn't be random unless doing it through difficult terrain. Under ordinary circunstances, you Run as fast as you can Move, and that's it.
I could see it.. though I disagree with a guardsman only moving 4. I would say make things start at 6" but some very fast or large units move more. a space marine might be able to move 7 or 8, a elder unit to represent the speed moves 7-8 as well. all monstrous creatures due to their size start at 10, some move up to 12-13. dreads and other walkers should probably also be faster than a person so 8-9 etc.
A Guardsman moving 4'' is fine. A Marine should move 5'' due to the extra size plus the speed enhancements of power armor. Eldar should move 5'' for most units, and perhaps 6'' for a few selected ones. Dreadnoughts are implied by fluff to be not really fast, they're more walking tanks than agile mecha, 6'' perhaps and that's it.
In order to balance some movement capacity decreases, you can simply re-introduce the old penalty for long-range shooting: units shooting at more than half their max range have a -1 to hit. That way you don't even need to reduce firing ranges because you're already making all shooting weapons less efficient at long ranges.
Also Running shouldn't be random unless doing it through difficult terrain. Under ordinary circunstances, you Run as fast as you can Move, and that's it.
Starts to sound like it would be better off to simply go back to where said rules were
2nd ed with most of the persistent effects off is actually fairly fast to play. Biggest issue is bunch of new units that needs statting up but apart from that it offers better rules from the get-go.
Amishprn86 wrote: Alot of people already said so much but this is one thing I would LOVE to see.
I want cover saves gone (this will have to rework alot of things tho)
Instead of cover saves, I would much rather see negative to your BS for shooting into cover.
Templates and Flamers work the same as they do now, Templates -1/2/3 to BS on scatter dice, Flamers/templates ignoring this rule.
BS, -3 max.
Night Vision ignores Stealth (not shrouded)
Grenades Ignore this rule too.
A unit with Stealth, Shrouded and in Ruins will have a -3 when being shot at, A unit can never go below BS 1.
This will really change the game and make alot of the Shooting armies hurt, but it will lead more to better movement and strategy than Mass spam High S High assault guns.
I know it sounds crazy But I feel it would work wonders for the game.
I've always thought cover saves should work something like this. Get rid of ignores cover shenanigans that many factions have access to, and this would be good.
):
.
to keep track of.
This way you get less of a dissapointment when your wishes don't come true.
idk. 
