I was thinking about this the other day after reading an article on BoLS, and I thought I'd post the question here to see what additions others would be interested in.

It can be anything. It could be rules, a unit or a character, an entire faction or perhaps a concept for codex incorporating smaller factions together...

Ideally I'd like to keep this limited to suggestions which are plausible additions but I'm very interested in hearing what others have to say.


For me at this point in time, I think I'd like to see supplements released once all of the codices are released. Supplements which provide a greater identity to chapters and sub-factions, especially given supplements are nothing new when it comes to GW. I'd also like to see faction specific formations released within said supplements... something which helps provide greater identity, although one potential hick up here is that GW have already released some 'smaller' faction codices.

Anyway, let's have at it.

Grot Codex, Kroot Codex, Tau Auxillary codex (for the odder things like the boneless psychic lizard people and Demi-urgs), Emperor's Children.

Codex: Black Templars. Either that or just squat us at this point so I can finally stop suffering.

First off, I disagree with adding more subfaction codexes. They need to be trimmed down already.

Inquisition codex: with storm troopers, grey knights, deathwatch and SoB all in the same book. Assassins too.

More Kroot units, so that they can work as a standalone army.

IG storm trooper variants (e.g. Kasrkin) and rough rider variants (e.g. Hussars).

I'd like to see some of the fantasy Orks being ported over to 40K as Snakebites so I can easily proxy with my Lotr-Orks .

More complex cover/ terrain rules. Don't have to be the same as 7th that basically made many Ap-weapons useless and tanks got stuck on a stone. Just a bit of cover for things that aren't completely in terrain but still obscured 50%.

Disgustingly resilient for possessed, Lords and sorcerers in the DG-codex.

-Introduce a line of historical battle books, which include 5-6 scenarios each with established armies to re-fight historical battles. Aimed at fluffy/narrative engagements with scenario/objectives well beyond the boring Maelstrom stuff.

-Stop introducing new factions, and concentrate on the old established factions. I'd rather see a game with 10 factions which are fully supported and updated often, than 26 "kinda" factions with new special models.

-A secondary "Open War" deck which features cards with random world traits (atmosphere, space, etc.) and a set of stratagem cards you could use to make your own Narrative scenarios.

-Combine expensive character clam packs into boxed sets (command squads, seer councils, etc.).

-Make a genuine effort to bring old established races up to modern plastic kits as needed.

-Reduce codices (combine tiny factions which shouldn't be there own codices into larger books).

 Elbows wrote:
-Introduce a line of historical battle books, which include 5-6 scenarios each with established armies to re-fight historical battles. Aimed at fluffy/narrative engagements with scenario/objectives well beyond the boring Maelstrom stuff...

(Read: Bring back Imperial Armour and support it properly.)

Terrain rules would be nice, expecting it in Chapter Approved over a few years, but personally some actual terrain rules to replace (totally) the ones in the main rules.

Expand on the two types of cover,

1. stuff that makes you hard to hit, smoke, fog, hedgerows etc which should be a negative to hit modifier

2. stuff that makes you hard to hurt, concrete walls, armoured bulkheads etc, which should be a save bonus

there is then a subtype that does both (e.g. a trench line may make you hard to hit and hard to hurt)

include the various GW terrain sections, but also use the various photo boards they use as examples for other types of terrain combinations and how they should work.

Withdrawal from cc should be penalized.

Cover for tanks should be given if 50 percent concealed.

Facing of tanks for targeting purposes should be a must have.

The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

* Better rules for cover. Include units behind cover gaining a benefit for example.

* More battle zones to make missions more interesting. Bring back the Death World style randomness for example.

* Add some more detachments for variety.

* A primarch equivalent character for each army (the shadow king for Necrons, a giant battlesuit character for Tau... etc), so that everyone gets a big gribbly character.

Otherwise I wouldn't change a thing.

I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

Angron/Khorne Daemonkin release with juggernaut-riding CSM, Dark Mechanicus codex, and a well planned/well-executed Imperial Armour: renegades and heretics that isn’t utter dog poop approached with the philosophy that traitor armies should be inherently worse than their loyalist counterparts.

Also, free rules updates, but I won’t hold my breath for that one. The aforementioned armies might actually happen.

All the rules for all factions and units in a single book. I would be okay with buying such a book every year to get the updates.

The rules to be available for free like AoS. The notion that GW expects me to pay $40 for a single page in cgapter approved is utterly ridiculous. Same goes for all unit entries. I liked being able to just have AoS entries all available to be on an app. Why GW didnt do this with 40k is beyond me.

• Advance happens in the shooting phase like Fleet of Foot/Run did. Assault weapons can still advance by roll 2d6 drop highest, then shoot with -1 to hit.
• A unit can only overwatch once in the charge phase. A unit can elect not to fire in their shooting phase for to shoot as normal in overwatch.
• Failed charges still get to move that distance.
• Make charge distance related to unit’s move. It makes sense a dark eldar jetbike can charge further than a terminator.
• Different fallback mechanic where there is a risk of failure.
• Vehicles/Monsters can shoot while in combat at a penalty.
• Changes to how detachments work to avoid min size units filling up requisite slots to maximize CP. Or give codices different detachments. It makes sense for Imperial Guard to form into a battalion, less so for Tyranids.
• Remove mechanics that allows a player to regain CP.
• Change reroll auras to +1 die rolls instead. There is way too much dice rerolling in this edition.
• Chance cover to -1 shooting hit rather than +1 armor save.
• Change the morale phase to something else. Too many armies trivialize this mechanic already. It currently just punishes large unit sizes or elite multi-wound units.
• Bring back weapon arcs for vehicles. Will help curve down some of the alpha strike lists.
• Make mortal wounds rarer. They are far too common already.

USRs in a responsible manner.

Weapon-scoped keywords.

A better-structured detachment keywords.

Alternating activation.

KOW-style magic...

Better cover rules. Ideally something that accounts for intervening terrain. Doesn't need to be fancy, just something to make it where if someone spots your left fender around a corner it's not the same as being in the open.

An actual penalty for falling back from combat. Not much, but at least an attack of opportunity. As it is, units with fly, or IG, have almost no reason not to fall back at every opportunity. I mean, I'd still fall back anyways, but it at least makes me think about it.

Consolidating codexes, like how the admech one combined cult mechanicus and skitarii. Ideally sister/Inquisition/assassins, and stuff like that.

Instead of adding new armies, focus on updating what we have. Sisters obviously need a massive update, but so do old kits like IG infantry, the space marine scouts, and all the resin things like tank Buster's and metal ratlings. In addition, bring back old options and units like IG vet gear, officer options, tank equipment, and other faction equivalents.

An expanded set of optional advanced rules that are official from GeeDubs. More advanced cover save mechanics, more advanced terrain mechanics, reverse overwatch for melee if units leave melee (or possibly a dice roll to leave and failure means you stay put and lose your chance to fight that turn). Otherwise, I think it's in a fairly good place overall. I enjoy the simplistic approach where it's not so overly convoluted in unnecessary rules that are there just to bog the system down.

Also updated online codexes that update along with FAQs, errata, etc. as they are released.

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
The rules to be available for free like AoS. The notion that GW expects me to pay $40 for a single page in cgapter approved is utterly ridiculous. Same goes for all unit entries. I liked being able to just have AoS entries all available to be on an app. Why GW didnt do this with 40k is beyond me.

It is beyond you why GW charges you 40$?? I wonder what their motives might be...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ntin wrote:
Assault weapons can still advance by roll 2d6 drop highest, then shoot with -1 to hit.

Advance AND shoot with assault weapons, but at -1 to hit ????? The horror !!!! How utterly game-breaking that would be.

*EDIT* Ignore, I can't read apparently.

Plastic SoB!

-Remove all rules providing any rerolls
-remove mortal wounds, make those attacks have strenght and ap.
-Allow 6's to allways be hits, regardless of modifiers
-cover bonus can be gained purely by LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and bake some codexes together, reduce subfactions rules.
Like knights and ad mech, IG and militarum tempestus, gsc and tyranids, all marines. There are just too many codexes.

Not a fan of removing ALL rerolls and ALL mortal wounds. Both have their place. They are just too prevalent in their current implementation.

I’d remove grey Knights, sisters, inquisition, deathwatch, assassins and adeptus ministorum, and of replace them with Codex inquisition, and hot glue these armies that flop on their own into one, while also giving them access to storm troops.

Aeldari...



... on dinosaurs.

pismakron wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ntin wrote:
Assault weapons can still advance by roll 2d6 drop highest, then shoot with -1 to hit.

Advance AND shoot with assault weapons, but at -1 to hit ????? The horror !!!! How utterly game-breaking that would be.

That is what assault weapons do now?

40k Battle Primer wrote:Assault
Assault weapons fire so rapidly or
indiscriminately that they can be shot
from the hip as warriors dash forwards
into combat.
A model with an Assault weapon can fire
it even if it Advanced earlier that turn. If
it does so, you must subtract 1 from any
hit rolls made when firing that weapon
this turn.

Hoodwink wrote:
Not a fan of removing ALL rerolls and ALL mortal wounds. Both have their place. They are just too prevalent in their current implementation.

I don't see the purpose or "place" of rerolls. Could they not just be replaced by +/- modifiers instead? I think that would make 40k a more fast paced and less frustrating game.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

this is the problem with the community! They lost the whole orginal purpose of these kind of games... it isn't just to fight each other! It's to create an adventure with randomness involved! Your own worlds and stories! It's like someone playing D&D (which 40k (even to this day) was obviously inspired by). You basically all start out with a simple class but you use your imagination and build on from that! You don't play D&D to be a competitive winner all the time! Love how you directly go to hearthstone and skip D&D which (while being very random) has some of the best fun there is! This is what I want from 8th ed 40k! Epic army wide role playing campaign games but i'm limited to players in my area using unpainted broken OP lists just to get a slight high from winning a game every Thursday!

One day I hope to play one of these 40k role playing games that so many people talk about so fondly... a combination of D&D and 40k to create a beautiful afternoon.

More terrain rules, ones that you dont have to beside 100%

Vect model and rules.

I'm with Amishprn86, some better terrian rules, although given the limits of a D6 system it'll be tricky

 lolman1c wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

this is the problem with the community! They lost the whole orginal purpose of these kind of games... it isn't just to fight each other! It's to create an adventure with randomness involved! Your own worlds and stories! It's like someone playing D&D (which 40k (even to this day) was obviously inspired by). You basically all start out with a simple class but you use your imagination and build on from that! You don't play D&D to be a competitive winner all the time! Love how you directly go to hearthstone and skip D&D which (while being very random) has some of the best fun there is! This is what I want from 8th ed 40k! Epic army wide role playing campaign games but i'm limited to players in my area using unpainted broken OP lists just to get a slight high from winning a game every Thursday!

One day I hope to play one of these 40k role playing games that so many people talk about so fondly... a combination of D&D and 40k to create a beautiful afternoon.

Except the issue with that is that 40k is a COMPETITIVE game. It's a head-to-head battle between two or more armies, whereas D&D is a cooperative game.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

I don't understand, how does grots being viable necessarily lead to every army being the same?

craftworld_uk wrote:
Aeldari...



... on dinosaurs.

Yes to the Exodites!

Plus if GW feels lazy, they got plenty of great dino sculpts that just need a minor sci-fi retooling on the stuff they carry, as well as replacing the skinks with space wood elves.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

this is the problem with the community! They lost the whole orginal purpose of these kind of games... it isn't just to fight each other! It's to create an adventure with randomness involved! Your own worlds and stories! It's like someone playing D&D (which 40k (even to this day) was obviously inspired by). You basically all start out with a simple class but you use your imagination and build on from that! You don't play D&D to be a competitive winner all the time! Love how you directly go to hearthstone and skip D&D which (while being very random) has some of the best fun there is! This is what I want from 8th ed 40k! Epic army wide role playing campaign games but i'm limited to players in my area using unpainted broken OP lists just to get a slight high from winning a game every Thursday!

One day I hope to play one of these 40k role playing games that so many people talk about so fondly... a combination of D&D and 40k to create a beautiful afternoon.

Except the issue with that is that 40k is a COMPETITIVE game. It's a head-to-head battle between two or more armies, whereas D&D is a cooperative game.

Just because you're facing off against another player doesn't mean it has to be a competition. It can be scenario driven or narrative driven. One player can try to escape a city against an overwhelming force for example. You know, things you can do for fun with a friend. If you're playing for competition, you're in the wrong game since half the time the list wins the game. You'd have better luck with Chess.

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

this is the problem with the community! They lost the whole orginal purpose of these kind of games... it isn't just to fight each other! It's to create an adventure with randomness involved! Your own worlds and stories! It's like someone playing D&D (which 40k (even to this day) was obviously inspired by). You basically all start out with a simple class but you use your imagination and build on from that! You don't play D&D to be a competitive winner all the time! Love how you directly go to hearthstone and skip D&D which (while being very random) has some of the best fun there is! This is what I want from 8th ed 40k! Epic army wide role playing campaign games but i'm limited to players in my area using unpainted broken OP lists just to get a slight high from winning a game every Thursday!

One day I hope to play one of these 40k role playing games that so many people talk about so fondly... a combination of D&D and 40k to create a beautiful afternoon.

Except the issue with that is that 40k is a COMPETITIVE game. It's a head-to-head battle between two or more armies, whereas D&D is a cooperative game.

Just because you're facing off against another player doesn't mean it has to be a competition. It can be scenario driven or narrative driven. One player can try to escape a city against an overwhelming force for example. You know, things you can do for fun with a friend. If you're playing for competition, you're in the wrong game since half the time the list wins the game. You'd have better luck with Chess.

Playing a game, 1 v 1 to see who the winner is can easily be seen as competitive.

More terrain rules, definitely.

Optional rules, starting with rules for facing.

Eldar aspects redone as plastic dual kits.

More weapon options for necrons. With Rending essentially gone, I wouldn't mind seeing some heavy weapons being created for troops.

terrain rules, vehicles...and probably MC getting back facings and drawing los from the guns.

Updated guard models that include both female and male body sections. Don't even have to be anything fancy just the Infantry and I'll be happy. They could probably get in another few hundred dollars out of me at least from that.

I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Free Slurpy's and food trucks will fix anything.

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

this is the problem with the community! They lost the whole orginal purpose of these kind of games... it isn't just to fight each other! It's to create an adventure with randomness involved! Your own worlds and stories! It's like someone playing D&D (which 40k (even to this day) was obviously inspired by). You basically all start out with a simple class but you use your imagination and build on from that! You don't play D&D to be a competitive winner all the time! Love how you directly go to hearthstone and skip D&D which (while being very random) has some of the best fun there is! This is what I want from 8th ed 40k! Epic army wide role playing campaign games but i'm limited to players in my area using unpainted broken OP lists just to get a slight high from winning a game every Thursday!

One day I hope to play one of these 40k role playing games that so many people talk about so fondly... a combination of D&D and 40k to create a beautiful afternoon.

Except the issue with that is that 40k is a COMPETITIVE game. It's a head-to-head battle between two or more armies, whereas D&D is a cooperative game.

Just because you're facing off against another player doesn't mean it has to be a competition. It can be scenario driven or narrative driven. One player can try to escape a city against an overwhelming force for example. You know, things you can do for fun with a friend. If you're playing for competition, you're in the wrong game since half the time the list wins the game. You'd have better luck with Chess.

I'm currently working through a campaign like this with a friend and, win or lose, they're the most fun I've had with a game for a long time.

On topic; alternate/ advanced terrain rules, including a cover system that isn't entirely negated by weapons with high AP.

Vehicle facings for weapons and armour (even if it was as simple as front and rear)

Jimperial wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

this is the problem with the community! They lost the whole orginal purpose of these kind of games... it isn't just to fight each other! It's to create an adventure with randomness involved! Your own worlds and stories! It's like someone playing D&D (which 40k (even to this day) was obviously inspired by). You basically all start out with a simple class but you use your imagination and build on from that! You don't play D&D to be a competitive winner all the time! Love how you directly go to hearthstone and skip D&D which (while being very random) has some of the best fun there is! This is what I want from 8th ed 40k! Epic army wide role playing campaign games but i'm limited to players in my area using unpainted broken OP lists just to get a slight high from winning a game every Thursday!

One day I hope to play one of these 40k role playing games that so many people talk about so fondly... a combination of D&D and 40k to create a beautiful afternoon.

Except the issue with that is that 40k is a COMPETITIVE game. It's a head-to-head battle between two or more armies, whereas D&D is a cooperative game.

Just because you're facing off against another player doesn't mean it has to be a competition. It can be scenario driven or narrative driven. One player can try to escape a city against an overwhelming force for example. You know, things you can do for fun with a friend. If you're playing for competition, you're in the wrong game since half the time the list wins the game. You'd have better luck with Chess.

I'm currently working through a campaign like this with a friend and, win or lose, they're the most fun I've had with a game for a long time.

On topic; alternate/ advanced terrain rules, including a cover system that isn't entirely negated by weapons with high AP.

Vehicle facings for weapons and armour (even if it was as simple as front and rear)

this campaign based mentality is one I've seen in plenty of other games too. Battletech definatly has a compeitive scene. but by and large the online community is more concerned with narritive then "tourny play" for example

Des702 wrote:
Updated guard models that include both female and male body sections. Don't even have to be anything fancy just the Infantry and I'll be happy. They could probably get in another few hundred dollars out of me at least from that.

Nah these no point in upgrading guards bodies like that as the uniform and flak armor are a one size fits all, plus with how their gear looks you can't tell whose male or female when the heads covered, in order to make the cannon fodder look female you either have to make the whole uniform tighter and give the flak armor boob plates and no ones gonna waste time and resources on that for expendable lives.
But with that said I'd like to see a upgrade spruce with 15 female heads, 5 normal, 5 with berets, 5 with cybernetics.
More dark eldar characters.
Better line of sight and cover, if you see the tip of a raider aether sail just poking a little above a building it shouldn't mean you can 'see' it.
up Guillimans power and points costs.
update all metal and resin models into plastic.
Slap blood angels, dark angels and space wolfs into one codex.
Slap Greyknights, deathwatch, Inquisition and sisters together.
Add eldar exodites and slap them togther with harlquins and Yanarii.
give admech a skitarii aplha hq, give them transports.
Tell space marines to f**k off and make new box sets of other imperial armies fighting xenos or xenos v xenos or xenos v chaos.

Better terrain rules for sure. A D10 system, its unfair that a gun with S8 has the same of chance wounding a T7 target as a S9-13 gun. Instant death, a T3 model should not survive a hit from a S16 gun.

 p5freak wrote:
Better terrain rules for sure. A D10 system, its unfair that a gun with S8 has the same of chance wounding a T7 target as a S9-13 gun. Instant death, a T3 model should not survive a hit from a S16 gun.

In my head, the 1 or 0 damage from a S16 gun is more like the shot hit nearby and shrapnel hits the model but they live. Not every hit always involves a 6 inch diameter shell to the chest, and you can't really do much else with a 1 wound character. No half-wounds.

I agree with a lot of the other posters - better terrain rules would be nice. I hope they make some expansion codexes that give some fixed rules for the existing fortifications and expand the terrain rules. I'd like to see vehicle facings come back too.

I'm somewhat doubting they will do this though as I think more complex terrain rules would raise the barrier for new players and the success of 8th will probably cement that idea. Suits in a business room will say "No, we don't want to expand to more complicated rules. The success of 8th is due to our simpler rules and community engagement."

It's kind of the opposite of how movies that flop won't see sequels as the board room says "people aren't interested in this IP anymore", when in reality, they aren't interested in garbage versions of that IP.

Dandelion wrote:
First off, I disagree with adding more subfaction codexes. They need to be trimmed down already.

Inquisition codex: with storm troopers, grey knights, deathwatch and SoB all in the same book. Assassins too.

More Kroot units, so that they can work as a standalone army.

IG storm trooper variants (e.g. Kasrkin) and rough rider variants (e.g. Hussars).

You seem to have missed out Flanderised marines - you know the red, green and WOLFY WOLF ones. Or are they still those special snowflakes that need a codex each?

New Imperial Guard Regiment with actual models,
Sisters with models.

Get rid of he awful no model no rules

More BL characters as models

Adjust the LOS rules so that terrain blocks LOS through it - that's what we play.

Campaigns like Shield of Baal.

Id lie a codex for renegade chapters to be honest. Especially mono god renegade armies. The current love in csm is OK but rather lacking if im honest.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

Got it-my style of play is badwrongfun and I should feel horrible for daring to have a different opinion. /s

Yes, you can play this narratively, but the system is set up as a head-to-head competition. I don't NEED to win to have fun or anything like that, but my focus is on the game. Is that wrong?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

Got it-my style of play is badwrongfun and I should feel horrible for daring to have a different opinion. /s

Yes, you can play this narratively, but the system is set up as a head-to-head competition. I don't NEED to win to have fun or anything like that, but my focus is on the game. Is that wrong?

It's not wrong. There are lots of ways of enjoying the game. My personal point of view is that 8th edition fits casual player better than it does competitive.

All the seventh ed. rules!

I'd like to see a unique unit for each of the codex marines (Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Raven Guard, etc). Give someone aside from the Smurfs some love!

The real GK codex. The one in print now is obviously just for GW employees to get a laugh at all of the GK players' faces.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Is that what it is?
Large competitive events say otherwise.
Can we play the way we want, if that's ok with you?
Other companies manage to make balanced systems...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Codex: Black Templars. Either that or just squat us at this point so I can finally stop suffering.

Why do you need a whole codex telling you that you can take Scouts in Tactical Squads and no Librarians?

Terrain rules that matter.
Facings.
Positioning.
Removal of turn 1 abundance alpha striikes.

Darsath wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I miss vehicle facings/armor values. Vehicles were horribly flawed in 7th, but it was a good idea with poor execution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
The ability to use what ever troop I want and still have a good army that can at least compete vs other armies.

This sounds boring. If every army is equal, games becomes more and more random. Might as well go play Hearthstone.

this is the problem with the community! They lost the whole orginal purpose of these kind of games... it isn't just to fight each other! It's to create an adventure with randomness involved! Your own worlds and stories! It's like someone playing D&D (which 40k (even to this day) was obviously inspired by). You basically all start out with a simple class but you use your imagination and build on from that! You don't play D&D to be a competitive winner all the time! Love how you directly go to hearthstone and skip D&D which (while being very random) has some of the best fun there is! This is what I want from 8th ed 40k! Epic army wide role playing campaign games but i'm limited to players in my area using unpainted broken OP lists just to get a slight high from winning a game every Thursday!

One day I hope to play one of these 40k role playing games that so many people talk about so fondly... a combination of D&D and 40k to create a beautiful afternoon.

Except the issue with that is that 40k is a COMPETITIVE game. It's a head-to-head battle between two or more armies, whereas D&D is a cooperative game.

Just because you're facing off against another player doesn't mean it has to be a competition. It can be scenario driven or narrative driven. One player can try to escape a city against an overwhelming force for example. You know, things you can do for fun with a friend. If you're playing for competition, you're in the wrong game since half the time the list wins the game. You'd have better luck with Chess.

Playing a game, 1 v 1 to see who the winner is can easily be seen as competitive.

When I play basketball it's to have fun. I couldn't care less if I win or lose. It's just an attitude/perspective thing. Most 40K games really shouldn't feel competitive. They should just be fun. The fact that there's a game mode where you bring "all the models in your collection" regardless of points means that it's not meant to be competitive.

You seem to have missed out Flanderised marines - you know the red, green and WOLFY WOLF ones. Or are they still those special snowflakes that need a codex each?

No, they should get rolled back into Codex Marines. They're the ones that need trimming.

Im in the revised terrain rules.

its pretty meh.

everything else is pretty much fine with a hand full of exceptions (basically anything being spammed because too good/ broken/ abusable/ extremely points efficient)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

Got it-my style of play is badwrongfun and I should feel horrible for daring to have a different opinion. /s

Yes, you can play this narratively, but the system is set up as a head-to-head competition. I don't NEED to win to have fun or anything like that, but my focus is on the game. Is that wrong?

Fun is fun. If you have fun with competitive games then all the power to you. But, it should be noted that 40k is not balanced enough to allow true competition between players. In fact, narrative games assume an imbalance of forces, which is actually what happens in war. You should give scenario driven games a try if you haven't already.

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

Got it-my style of play is badwrongfun and I should feel horrible for daring to have a different opinion. /s

Yes, you can play this narratively, but the system is set up as a head-to-head competition. I don't NEED to win to have fun or anything like that, but my focus is on the game. Is that wrong?

Fun is fun. If you have fun with competitive games then all the power to you. But, it should be noted that 40k is not balanced enough to allow true competition between players. In fact, narrative games assume an imbalance of forces, which is actually what happens in war. You should give scenario driven games a try if you haven't already.

again it just to me (in my head) feels bad. What is fun about abusing game systems to beat someone who just came to have a fun time? Is it funny to watch them not have a fun time? Because that's extremely childish... I'm not saying you're like this but I genuinely know people who are in 40k and it's one of the reasons I am very much against this! Again... like i said earlier... I would be like a DM in D&D who just kills you character off in the first 10 minuets because they find it funny... like pulling the legs of a spider.

Vect model plus good rules representing his awesomeness.

And fix the terrain rules.

Removal of arbitrary Australia Tax (Flash Gitz cost $71!)
Custom character rules
A Games Workshop endorsed Battlescribe like app

and as an aside...

Balance within the force.

People need to be aware that the game is balanced separately between Matched and Narrative play - as different people play games differently.

I would like more wounds. I think the least wounds you should have is 2 wounds per model, gretchins etc. can have 1.

Wow people are super serious about toy soldiers on the internet.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I would like more wounds. I think the least wounds you should have is 2 wounds per model, gretchins etc. can have 1.

I'm pretty sure that would throw weapon balance out the window, as suddenly D1 weapons are worthless as they can't kill their intended target (infantry) in a single turn.
Escalation is what killed the game before. It doesn't need to be escalated again.

 lolman1c wrote:


again it just to me (in my head) feels bad. What is fun about abusing game systems to beat someone who just came to have a fun time? Is it funny to watch them not have a fun time? Because that's extremely childish... I'm not saying you're like this but I genuinely know people who are in 40k and it's one of the reasons I am very much against this! Again... like i said earlier... I would be like a DM in D&D who just kills you character off in the first 10 minuets because they find it funny... like pulling the legs of a spider.

Typically if you're being competitive you're playing against someone else in the same boat. When I was more into card games, I'd usually pack both a meta-teched and tweaked competitive deck and a 'fun' deck that tried out a combo idea or cards I just liked using. Nothing worse than creaming a new player with a miserable game when they show up, but a match between two people who have put a lot of thought into their decks can be really interesting and exciting to watch!

Rules added to 8th edition?

Well, i'm going to say that i'm disliking more and more of the 8th edition as it is being shaped. So i would change a lot of it, instead of adding:

- The basic rules are ok-ish, but...
Psychic phase and psychic powers need a lot of more work into them. As they are now, is just a matter of allocating randomly mortal wounds and some minor buffs. I would like to have a bit more fleshed out powers, with different damage output and different effects. And back to have points per psychic power and not a generic absurd increase in price points per model if it can cast powers. Powers as are right now are useless also because they are restricted to one by turn, except smite. So then you have things like smite-spamming lists... It would be better to fine tune them and let the less powerful powers to be casted multiple times per turn (like buffs).

Mortal wound mechanic itself is a bit of a "cheating" mechanic for me. I would remove it altogether, or make it exceptional.

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Terrain rules and cover mechanics are non-existant as well. Playing in a table full of terrain that doesn't block full line of sight is like playing in a table without terrain. Forests and ruins and other types of terrain should have better rules and have some impact in the shooting mechanics (like for example, -1 to hit if firing thru some ruins), and much better cover rules and line of sight rules for the vehicles (LOS rules for vehicles should return to the LOS from every weapon)

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

- Where it is really bad is in the organization section. As it is, the different categories of units (HQs, Troops, etc.) do not matter at all. Because you can have all the detachments you want and you have detachments of every flavour, so if you want an army of all Heavy Support units, you can have it... Why having at all the different categories then? And why having different codexes and armies if one can mix and match all of them as he sees fit? I find it pretty absurd.

I would go back to one codex = one army = one Force Organization Chart. Minor factions and units could have then their own rules to be attached to some armies and not anothers (like inquisitors). I would go back to the 0-1 restrictions of units as well (like imperial assasins or obliterators).

Something i specially dislike is the proliferation of flyers, mega-monsters and war engines that in my opinion, don't really have their place in a game of W40k. I would like to play W40k and not EPIC 40k in 28 mm. I would ban them altogether, but i understand that some people could like them, so perhaps it could be better to restrict them according to the size of the game, like for example, one lord of war every 1500 pts or 2000 pts, or one flyer every 1000 pts or things like that. Or things like special characters and primarchs, it should be only one for army, no matter which one (so not more Magnus and Mortarion in the same army, for example).

- The stratagems mechanic. At the beginning i liked it, but with every codex released is bringing more nonsense to the game. I don't know how to improve it or change it or restrict it, but i dislike it.

- Finally, the codexes. I find all of them pretty bland, dull and uninspired. The policy of "no model - no rules" is hurting them badly, as well as absurd army wide rules, like for example the eldar craftworlds specific craftworld rules, are simply incoherent with the fluff of each craftworld and don't match them at all. The most hurting of these rules are the -1 to hit to the ENEMY, so it is a rule for your army that actually forces your opponent to have an unadvantage. It is not fluffy for an entire army... It is too powerful and too punishing. An army bonus rules should be that, a bonus for your own army, not a penalty for the other player. Most of the people are making lists with those specific advantages (alaitoc, alpha legion, etc.) so it is unbalancing as well. It could have been balanced and fluffy if it would be restricted to specific units known to be stealthy, like the Alaitoc rangers. That unit would make sense to have that -1 to hit. But a superheavy eldar grav tank...?


So... Yes, it seems that i really don't like this edition of the game

Personally, I'd like to see better rules for vehicles, there are a lot of silly/backwards things happening right now.

1. Exploding transports should hurt the occupants, I believe an emergency disembark should happen before the vehicle explodes, representing them bailing out as its exploding.
it's rare enough on a 1 in 6 that it explodes why should the guys in the tank be immune.

2. Transport fliers, emergency disembarkation deaths should be on a 1 or a 2; after all how many people disembark just fine from a passing transport helicopter ?
Its much riskier and there may be some falling involved.

3. Stupid Vehicle cover and line of sight from the Tip of the Gun barrel . Rules, as written and played at tournament level, means It can fire all its weapons... and get a cover save provided just the tip of the barrel is showing
" also known as , No you cant deploy / move your shadowsword like this. I don't care its either a dangerous terrain roll or you cant get there at all ... rules, as written this tank, has Los and cover...
https://youtu.be/Ev6ps-hpeYo?t=1137

Definitely revised terrain/cover rules! I'd prefer something solid like in 4th edition where everything has a defined level of height and you can't shoot through area terrain unless you're inside it.

Also, just a niggle, but I would change the new Chapter approved missions to remove "seize the initiative." If I'm already rolling to determine who gets first turn, I don't need to turn around and do it again.

 Warpspy wrote:
Rules added to 8th edition?

Well, i'm going to say that i'm disliking more and more of the 8th edition as it is being shaped. So i would change a lot of it, instead of adding:

- The basic rules are ok-ish, but...
Psychic phase and psychic powers need a lot of more work into them. As they are now, is just a matter of allocating randomly mortal wounds and some minor buffs. I would like to have a bit more fleshed out powers, with different damage output and different effects. And back to have points per psychic power and not a generic absurd increase in price points per model if it can cast powers. Powers as are right now are useless also because they are restricted to one by turn, except smite. So then you have things like smite-spamming lists... It would be better to fine tune them and let the less powerful powers to be casted multiple times per turn (like buffs).

Mortal wound mechanic itself is a bit of a "cheating" mechanic for me. I would remove it altogether, or make it exceptional.

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Terrain rules and cover mechanics are non-existant as well. Playing in a table full of terrain that doesn't block full line of sight is like playing in a table without terrain. Forests and ruins and other types of terrain should have better rules and have some impact in the shooting mechanics (like for example, -1 to hit if firing thru some ruins), and much better cover rules and line of sight rules for the vehicles (LOS rules for vehicles should return to the LOS from every weapon)

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

- Where it is really bad is in the organization section. As it is, the different categories of units (HQs, Troops, etc.) do not matter at all. Because you can have all the detachments you want and you have detachments of every flavour, so if you want an army of all Heavy Support units, you can have it... Why having at all the different categories then? And why having different codexes and armies if one can mix and match all of them as he sees fit? I find it pretty absurd.

I would go back to one codex = one army = one Force Organization Chart. Minor factions and units could have then their own rules to be attached to some armies and not anothers (like inquisitors). I would go back to the 0-1 restrictions of units as well (like imperial assasins or obliterators).

Something i specially dislike is the proliferation of flyers, mega-monsters and war engines that in my opinion, don't really have their place in a game of W40k. I would like to play W40k and not EPIC 40k in 28 mm. I would ban them altogether, but i understand that some people could like them, so perhaps it could be better to restrict them according to the size of the game, like for example, one lord of war every 1500 pts or 2000 pts, or one flyer every 1000 pts or things like that. Or things like special characters and primarchs, it should be only one for army, no matter which one (so not more Magnus and Mortarion in the same army, for example).

- The stratagems mechanic. At the beginning i liked it, but with every codex released is bringing more nonsense to the game. I don't know how to improve it or change it or restrict it, but i dislike it.

- Finally, the codexes. I find all of them pretty bland, dull and uninspired. The policy of "no model - no rules" is hurting them badly, as well as absurd army wide rules, like for example the eldar craftworlds specific craftworld rules, are simply incoherent with the fluff of each craftworld and don't match them at all. The most hurting of these rules are the -1 to hit to the ENEMY, so it is a rule for your army that actually forces your opponent to have an unadvantage. It is not fluffy for an entire army... It is too powerful and too punishing. An army bonus rules should be that, a bonus for your own army, not a penalty for the other player. Most of the people are making lists with those specific advantages (alaitoc, alpha legion, etc.) so it is unbalancing as well. It could have been balanced and fluffy if it would be restricted to specific units known to be stealthy, like the Alaitoc rangers. That unit would make sense to have that -1 to hit. But a superheavy eldar grav tank...?


So... Yes, it seems that i really don't like this edition of the game

Pretty much this.

7th was a burning tire fire at the end, but the base system was IMO better about a lot of things.

Add a -1 to hit penalty for indirect fire that doesn't have line of sight. If the unit is more than 48" away and firing without line of sight there is a -2 penalty.

Delete army-wide -1 to hit penalties/tactics/etc. Replace them with units have cover if they do not advance or charge.

Adjust detachments such that the maximum number of non-troop slots for any given role was 3. So a spearhead could bring 3 heavies, and only 3 heavies, not 6.

Allow the use of allies, but only in a patrol detachment. All detachments would be monofaction, except for specific units which would be given keywords to allow this, like assassins would be given "Agents of the Imperium," or something, to allow them to join a detachment of something that they did not share a specific keyword.

No invulnerable save can be better than 3+.
No Feel No Pain save can be better than 5+.

Allow models to take a "Primaris" power in place of smite, which can be cast multiple times and is thematic with the army or Craftworld/Chapter/Hive Fleet/Regiment of choice.

I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

Better rules for Inquisition. Miss beating on them with my Chaos Space Marines and Grey Knights could use a suitable companion.

* The concept of "natural dice roll" versus "modified dice result" when it comes to re-rolls and modifiers.
* Reworked Character targeting rules (for example: limitations only apply if the enemy Character is within 6'' of another enemy unit)
* Reworked Cover rules for vehicles (e.g. just a plain "must be covered 25/50%" instead of adding "and has to be in a piece of terrain)
* Rework toHit modifiers - being able to stack up to -3/-4 is ridiculous in a D6 system, especially when there're many armies that average to a 4+ or 5+ to start with. Even +2 is too much, it should be reduced to something like either you are -1, 0 or +1, and that's it.

Pink Horror wrote:
I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

That works right up till two people have honestly different ideas of what the "spirit of the rules" actually is.

I'd like to see a return of TDA not having to take the -1 to hit for moving and firing heavy weapons. It just seems weird to me that this ultimate combat suit can't keep a weapon mount steady or on target.

Only had a few games myself and enjoying more than 7th ed

- The basic rules are ok-ish, but...
Psychic phase and psychic powers need a lot of more work into them. As they are now, is just a matter of allocating randomly mortal wounds and some minor buffs. I would like to have a bit more fleshed out powers, with different damage output and different effects. And back to have points per psychic power and not a generic absurd increase in price points per model if it can cast powers. Powers as are right now are useless also because they are restricted to one by turn, except smite. So then you have things like smite-spamming lists... It would be better to fine tune them and let the less powerful powers to be casted multiple times per turn (like buffs).

Pts per power is fine if they are worked out ok, I prefer them not being an overwhelming powerful element.

Mortal wound mechanic itself is a bit of a "cheating" mechanic for me. I would remove it altogether, or make it exceptional.

Happy with it as is

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Personally I would go Move +D6 but still max 12" but that would probably make it far too reliable as would double move? It also adds a little uncertainty which is (for me) enjoyable in a game.

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Not sure about this but can see where you are coming from.

Terrain rules and cover mechanics are non-existant as well. Playing in a table full of terrain that doesn't block full line of sight is like playing in a table without terrain. Forests and ruins and other types of terrain should have better rules and have some impact in the shooting mechanics (like for example, -1 to hit if firing thru some ruins), and much better cover rules and line of sight rules for the vehicles (LOS rules for vehicles should return to the LOS from every weapon)

Hmm there are more advanced terrain rules in the book, we also use "no LOS through terrain which helps a great deal.

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

Not unless the same applies to monsters and pseudo monsters - Wraith Knights, baby carriers, Riptdies etc etc.

- Where it is really bad is in the organization section. As it is, the different categories of units (HQs, Troops, etc.) do not matter at all. Because you can have all the detachments you want and you have detachments of every flavour, so if you want an army of all Heavy Support units, you can have it... Why having at all the different categories then? And why having different codexes and armies if one can mix and match all of them as he sees fit? I find it pretty absurd.

I would go back to one codex = one army = one Force Organization Chart. Minor factions and units could have then their own rules to be attached to some armies and not anothers (like inquisitors). I would go back to the 0-1 restrictions of units as well (like imperial assasins or obliterators).

Not sure about this.

Something i specially dislike is the proliferation of flyers, mega-monsters and war engines that in my opinion, don't really have their place in a game of W40k. I would like to play W40k and not EPIC 40k in 28 mm. I would ban them altogether, but i understand that some people could like them, so perhaps it could be better to restrict them according to the size of the game, like for example, one lord of war every 1500 pts or 2000 pts, or one flyer every 1000 pts or things like that. Or things like special characters and primarchs, it should be only one for army, no matter which one (so not more Magnus and Mortarion in the same army, for example).

That's really a matter of taste. there s an equally valid argument that Marines should be restricted as they are so rare and valuable.

- The stratagems mechanic. At the beginning i liked it, but with every codex released is bringing more nonsense to the game. I don't know how to improve it or change it or restrict it, but i dislike it.

Strongly disagree - one of the best things about 8th IMO

- Finally, the codexes. I find all of them pretty bland, dull and uninspired. The policy of "no model - no rules" is hurting them badly, as well as absurd army wide rules, like for example the eldar craftworlds specific craftworld rules, are simply incoherent with the fluff of each craftworld and don't match them at all. The most hurting of these rules are the -1 to hit to the ENEMY, so it is a rule for your army that actually forces your opponent to have an unadvantage. It is not fluffy for an entire army... It is too powerful and too punishing. An army bonus rules should be that, a bonus for your own army, not a penalty for the other player. Most of the people are making lists with those specific advantages (alaitoc, alpha legion, etc.) so it is unbalancing as well. It could have been balanced and fluffy if it would be restricted to specific units known to be stealthy, like the Alaitoc rangers. That unit would make sense to have that -1 to hit. But a superheavy eldar grav tank...?

Yep too much rush / lazy writing.

Rework toHit modifiers - being able to stack up to -3/-4 is ridiculous in a D6 system, especially when there're many armies that average to a 4+ or 5+ to start with. Even +2 is too much, it should be reduced to something like either you are -1, 0 or +1, and that's it.

#

Yep - or maybe just always hit on a 6.

Add a -1 to hit penalty for indirect fire that doesn't have line of sight. If the unit is more than 48" away and firing without line of sight there is a -2 penalty.

Having played against 3 basilisks and 4 Manticores at the weekend its hard for me to disagree.

* Slightly improved cover mechanism. Doesn't have to take the granularity to the max, but at least some cover rules that can be used.

* Remove the -1 to hit army benefits. They make people favor one sub-faction. I don't mind them being unit rules like Venomthropes or Dark Shrouds, but at least there you are paying for the benefit.

* Add plastic sisters.

Scrap 8th and just make a proper 9th edition. 8th is 40k with the nitty gritty details gutted to reduce bloat but the foundation of the game is so weak that piling more complexity onto the 8th system will just start to break the game apart more. Contract some technical writers who understand how to make a functional and extensive game system that can be played in a simplified manner for beginners while also having an in depth rule set for advanced play.

Armor facings
Old cover system of 50% obscured.
Templates back, but no scatter.
No deep strike turn one in any form.
Old moral system.

 Elemental wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:
I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

That works right up till two people have honestly different ideas of what the "spirit of the rules" actually is.

Well then it's a good thing everyone always agrees on what the "rules as written" actually are!

I have played a few games of 8th edition and the last 2 ones i won. Every game i played i dislike the game more, even when winning (i dislike it more then, actually...). I didn't play since 2 months ago for these lackluster rules. And between them and the recent TS debacle, i think i'm not going to play much at all for the remainder of this edition...

 Mr Morden wrote:

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Personally I would go Move +D6 but still max 12" but that would probably make it far too reliable as would double move? It also adds a little uncertainty which is (for me) enjoyable in a game.

Well, for me it is better if the game has not random nonsense. The less randomness has the game, the more value has the skill of the player in that game. For example, Chess. In 40k there are more than enough random factor with the dice rolls to decide what happens in the game. And from the strategic and tactic point of view unknowing what distance your troops move is absurd, so in my opinion it is a limiting factor and rewards the people that have more luck in dice rolls and not the ones that actually have more tactical thinking and skill in the game.

Besides that, are unnecesary. All the superfluous randomness of the game does not add anything to it, as i said, i think it detracts from the experience of the game. So previous editions were better in that regard, having only randomness in the actual dice rolls to decide the actions of the game (to hit, to wound, etc...). I think moving, choosing powers, determining characteristic of the units and so on should all be known factors.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Not sure about this but can see where you are coming from.

Don't know if you didn't understand my post, apologies if that is the case. English is not my primary language and i'm not good writing it.

I meant that the actual morale effects are reduced to some more casualties in the end of each turn. A bit more depth would be greatly appreciated. As well as more coherency with the background of each unit. It makes no sense to me that the Space marines or the Dark Angels can reroll morale tests or outright ignore them, but 10,000 years experienced chaos space marines are as prone to flee as a bunch of imperial guards (or even more). In my opinion, morale should be much more nuanced and stepped, like having units inmmune to morale, some others with limited effects (like maximum of 1-2 casualties from it), some others with more effects and some units so fearful that could run the moment they get shot at.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Hmm there are more advanced terrain rules in the book, we also use "no LOS through terrain which helps a great deal.

That's a house rule. The "more advanced terrain rules" actually have little to no effects. I was speaking of them as well.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

Not unless the same applies to monsters and pseudo monsters - Wraith Knights, baby carriers, Riptdies etc etc.

Fair point. Agreed.

 Mr Morden wrote:

That's really a matter of taste. there s an equally valid argument that Marines should be restricted as they are so rare and valuable.

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

Actually, speaking of that, i think FW uses the core 7th edition for their game. But it is a balanced game despite all the flakk that the previous edition of 40k has. How is that?

Another point i would change is the mechanic of "rerolls before modifiers" and all the dice mechanic they have done in this edition. I find them counter-intuitive, and actually i think in all the games i have seen, nobody has done it right. People always do it the intuitive way, that is, modifyng the dice roll needed before rolling.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:
Scrap 8th and just make a proper 9th edition. 8th is 40k with the nitty gritty details gutted to reduce bloat but the foundation of the game is so weak that piling more complexity onto the 8th system will just start to break the game apart more. Contract some technical writers who understand how to make a functional and extensive game system that can be played in a simplified manner for beginners while also having an in depth rule set for advanced play.

I think the basics of the 8th edition are interesting. Only that it seems "unfinished" and lazy rushed. It needs a lot of changes to work as a representation of the background, and specially it needs a lot more restrictions and "safeguards" to avoid players exploit the system or play the game breaking it. I think that in the basic rules GW usually does an ok-ish work, it is with all the Codexes and FAQs and expansions when they screw it.

In this case, 8th edition needs, in my opinion, proper fleshed out morale phase, terrain rules, psychic powers, charging phase and LOS rules. Then erase all the "detachments" free-to-all nonsense and go back to one Force Organization Chart to all armies, to give back the meaning to the different unit roles (HQ, Troops...), and then make properly restrictive Codexes, going back to 0-1 and similar mechanics and actually giving advantages to fluffy list building.

 Eldarsif wrote:

* Remove the -1 to hit army benefits. They make people favor one sub-faction. I don't mind them being unit rules like Venomthropes or Dark Shrouds, but at least there you are paying for the benefit.

Agreed. Too powerful.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Armor facings
Old cover system of 50% obscured.
Templates back, but no scatter.
No deep strike turn one in any form.
Old moral system.

Agreed. Deep strike mechanic is just lame. And one should not be able to charge after deep striking.

- Return Orks to WS 4+/BS 4+ so they're not one dimensional.

- Any time 30 or more dice are to be rolled, an average result is assumed.


EDIT:

Also abandon the current detachment system, in favour of:

- If an army is Battleforged, you have 6 CP.
- All units in an army form a single detachment.
- The detachment must 50%+ Troops
- No more than 25% can come from each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, Dedicated Transports, Flyers or Lords of War.

Since the army is all one detachment, the trade off for mixing in soup elements is you lose whatever Chapter/Legion/Craftworld trait you'd get if you played a more restricted list.

The -1 to hit needs to not stack. I have no idea what devt were smoking when they thought that having a possible -3 to hit was a good idea.

Back to invisibility levels of broken.

Monthly balance updates for competitive play.

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

There were rules for big things in Rogue Trader as well as for Marines

Pink Horror wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:
I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

That works right up till two people have honestly different ideas of what the "spirit of the rules" actually is.

Well then it's a good thing everyone always agrees on what the "rules as written" actually are!

One of them can be made clear with competent rules writing, the other will always be subjective.

Exodites

Save Squats for the end of the edition and the beginning of 9th.


Bring in more 2nd edition elements

simplify the amount of dice.....dramatically.


Terrain, overwatch, ranges of weapons and units that move faster than bullets. Targeting stationary vs super fast units, and a host of other things need revamped.

8th is good.....it just becomes the same old same old.

The spice is in the details. They made it simple to have bigger armies for profit and needed faster game play.

They can still do that but things need to change. A couple years of 8th and I will have used up all my 6 armies and will be getting bored.

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

Got it-my style of play is badwrongfun and I should feel horrible for daring to have a different opinion. /s

Yes, you can play this narratively, but the system is set up as a head-to-head competition. I don't NEED to win to have fun or anything like that, but my focus is on the game. Is that wrong?

Fun is fun. If you have fun with competitive games then all the power to you. But, it should be noted that 40k is not balanced enough to allow true competition between players. In fact, narrative games assume an imbalance of forces, which is actually what happens in war. You should give scenario driven games a try if you haven't already.

The problem I see with the competitive side is this constant drive for balance. 40k isn't the best wargame out there. It isn't balanced and won't ever be. What makes it my favourite by miles us the story, the models, the universe it us set in. If you want to play a competative game there are loads out there better then 40k rules wise. I watched a game from the LVO and the lists and styles of play had nothing to do with any of the universe. So my question is this. Why play an unbalanced game with only its background going for it when you ignore that very background. They could've been playing any game out there it was just the models made it 40k. I couldn't imagine any of the battles happening, couldn't picture cinematic scenes as loads of dark reapers hid in a corner behind to wave serpents while 7 hive tyrants flew around.

This pressure from the competitive "side" of the hobby is what broke fantasy. Right now I think GW have got the narrative/competitive balance right. Keep the game open and simple as you want it and faq any crazy competative none sense regularly to stop it getting out of hand but don't ignore that side. It's keeping everyone happy (ish). Too much heading for balance could ruin a very good universe and story.

On topic id say optional more in depth terrain rules is a must in the next chapter approved. I like the idea of AA but haven't seen a system that will work well enough, I like the old epic 40000 style best I think. Bug again it should be optional. I think 8th might benefit rom being olayed an a bigger field, wider than 48". Maybe a six foot by six foot. Everything is so much quicker this edition.

leopard wrote:


2. stuff that makes you hard to hurt, concrete walls, armoured bulkheads etc, which should be a save bonus

Make it actually improve toughness!

 Vankraken wrote:
Scrap 8th and just make a proper 9th edition. 8th is 40k with the nitty gritty details gutted to reduce bloat but the foundation of the game is so weak that piling more complexity onto the 8th system will just start to break the game apart more. Contract some technical writers who understand how to make a functional and extensive game system that can be played in a simplified manner for beginners while also having an in depth rule set for advanced play.

Good idea but it won´t be implemented because the focus is on selling models and on "streamlining" the game. So in the spirit of this fact they should remove the wound chart like in AoS. Now all models will hit & wound on a fixed value which will quicken the gameplay up even more.

ITT- certain individuals confusing the point of the game with the objective. I'm also a bad person for wanting to win the games I play apparently...


Also Rak'Gol as a playable faction.

I would like to see more xenos factions, yes.

 Mr Morden wrote:

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

There were rules for big things in Rogue Trader as well as for Marines

I don't think that "big things" really means the same as today. That said, i don't know very much about Rogue trader. I do know that 2nd and RT were much more "skirmish" than 3rd and folowing editions. And definetely there were no rules for super-heavies or airplanes in the main standard rules of 40k. But anyway...

Rogue Trader Codex!

Or at least 3 or 4 pages in an Index! Rogue Trader retinue should be the ultimate HQ of the Imperial Soup faction, as lore-wise they can lead almost any Imperials, including Space Marines.

 Warpspy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

There were rules for big things in Rogue Trader as well as for Marines

I don't think that "big things" really means the same as today. That said, i don't know very much about Rogue trader. I do know that 2nd and RT were much more "skirmish" than 3rd and folowing editions. And definetely there were no rules for super-heavies or airplanes in the main standard rules of 40k. But anyway...

White Dwarf even called out the fact that all of the big stuff was in the game to start with - on day one in RT

They had rules for 30m long dinosaurs and Catchan devils and Juggernaughts - vehicles that measured 24" on the table or larger and which could carry other vehicles.

I would like to get the fall back/pursue mechanic back:
One unit falls back and the other trys to pursue. They compete by rolling dice and if the pursuing unit rolls higher, the other unit is stuck in combat.

In earlier editions there was also a risk to falling back, but I don't think thats really necessary. Maybe give the unit a -1 to hit in the next combat phase for trying to and failing to fall back.

I would like it if you failed to make your charge the unit being charged can fire overwatch again but hitting on 5s instead.

there should be unit killed markers with power level ratings.
it would be really nice at the end of the game to look over at the field & dissect moves and such.

I think ive got it after all this reading. Lets go back to the 7th edition base rules. All of it. But get rid of the decurion detatchments and formations. I noticed that most formations in 7th were reiterations from the 6th edition apacolypse book so no wonder they were to powerful.

So 7th base rules.

Take the formations and decurions out of the codexes.

Expand the combined arms detatchments with a list of the new detatchments.

Forgo stratagems but give detachments overall rules that help just the units specific to that detachment.
I.e. troops in battalions get a buff, vangaurd buff only affects elites, spearhead buff only affects heavies and so on.

Now this is a jump point not a end all. I believe that one set of rules for all game types is imperative though. The new modular system is overwhelming.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

There were rules for big things in Rogue Trader as well as for Marines

I don't think that "big things" really means the same as today. That said, i don't know very much about Rogue trader. I do know that 2nd and RT were much more "skirmish" than 3rd and folowing editions. And definetely there were no rules for super-heavies or airplanes in the main standard rules of 40k. But anyway...

White Dwarf even called out the fact that all of the big stuff was in the game to start with - on day one in RT

They had rules for 30m long dinosaurs and Catchan devils and Juggernaughts - vehicles that measured 24" on the table or larger and which could carry other vehicles.

Yeah but c'mon these were rules for hobbyists who converted or more likely scratch built these things and you'd have been lucky to see the rules actually used once throughout the lifespan of the edition. They weren't a staple of the game.

No dog in the fight here by the way. I don't tend to get the big things but that's just because they're a pain to store etc.

I do miss having a more tournie style game in Epic running alongside the more skimrishy/narrative 40 though as in the mid 90's. But that is the rose tinted glasses GW era for sure and likely it wasn't as great as I remember.

Honestly I want to see more stuff like the build your own landraider. Open war rules for stuff that GW wont make kits for. Bring back all the old 4th/5th editions crazy FW units that never were made. Plague tower, baneblade monestarry thing. Khorne tower of skulls. Toss in a few basic ideas on where to get the parts to build them and I would buy the hell out of that book. Would love to use big crazy silly models in apoc!

I miss the initiative stat and wish it would be added back in 8th. It was a natural defense in close combat for my Slaanesh daemons. Resolving in initiative order seems less confusing than the Slaanesh/Emperor's Children, special rule that modifies how the fight phase works

-free or subscription based online rules constantly updated with army building tool.
-plastic sisters

Do we need anything else?

ntin wrote:
I miss the initiative stat and wish it would be added back in 8th. It was a natural defense in close combat for my Slaanesh daemons. Resolving in initiative order seems less confusing than the Slaanesh/Emperor's Children, special rule that modifies how the fight phase works

I though slannesh just got to go first like banshees

also i would not want it back for combat. it made unwieldy weapons like powerboats basically pointless.


i wouldnt of minded it coming back but only for being able to leave combat but then one stat for one effect seems like a waste of ink too.

edit: triple agree on the online building tool. azyr for 40k would be fantastic.

 Desubot wrote:
but then one stat for one effect seems like a waste of ink too.

Well I guess we then need to remove weapons and ballistic skill as well as movement and leadership too. Initiative is not necessary in current 8th with all the falling back making melee almost like shooting where one side thrashes the other without meaningful resistance and then it is over.

 Desubot wrote:

ntin wrote:
I miss the initiative stat and wish it would be added back in 8th. It was a natural defense in close combat for my Slaanesh daemons. Resolving in initiative order seems less confusing than the Slaanesh/Emperor's Children, special rule that modifies how the fight phase works

I though slannesh just got to go first like banshees

also i would not want it back for combat. it made unwieldy weapons like powerboats basically pointless.

Slaanesh units fight first in existing combats only. Opponents that charge to get active 1 unit first then slaanesh player activates. That continues until the opponent runs out of charge units or the slaanesh player no longer has units.

Howling Banshees lost this ability in the codex. They are now immune to overwatch.

A proper Sisters of Battle codex. Throw in the Sisters of Silence if you want.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Warpspy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

There were rules for big things in Rogue Trader as well as for Marines

I don't think that "big things" really means the same as today. That said, i don't know very much about Rogue trader. I do know that 2nd and RT were much more "skirmish" than 3rd and folowing editions. And definetely there were no rules for super-heavies or airplanes in the main standard rules of 40k. But anyway...

White Dwarf even called out the fact that all of the big stuff was in the game to start with - on day one in RT

They had rules for 30m long dinosaurs and Catchan devils and Juggernaughts - vehicles that measured 24" on the table or larger and which could carry other vehicles.

I can confirm that in WH40k:RT the rules allowed for pretty much anything. I'm not saying it scaled well, but there were rules for making up literally anything and using it in the game. Remember, there were no vehicles then. No Rhino. No Land Raiders. Just grav-tanks scratch-built from deodorant bottles, plastic spoons and a straw!

WH40k:RT had rules for flying jet-surfboards. Yes, they made a model of it. Yes, I have one. Yes, I vividly remember the game I decisively won using it. Sky-surfer Marine with a bolt-pistol and a Vortex Grenade. Mmm-MMM!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Honestly I want to see more stuff like the build your own landraider. Open war rules for stuff that GW wont make kits for. Bring back all the old 4th/5th editions crazy FW units that never were made. Plague tower, baneblade monestarry thing. Khorne tower of skulls. Toss in a few basic ideas on where to get the parts to build them and I would buy the hell out of that book. Would love to use big crazy silly models in apoc!

I'm with you, buddy. But this cannot happen until the game goes to a d10 based system. Mathematically, they're WAY past the point where they can write in a structure where you can invent something, give it stats and then come up with a quantified points value which doesn't require hours and hours of play-testing to be deemed "fair" to use in a game with strangers.

It's a fundamental design flaw in the core mechanics of the game. Even Rick Priestley (the guy who wrote WH:40k and Beyond the Gates of Antares) acknowledges this mathematical fact. 40k is inherently un-scalable, which is a big reason they had so many problems translating it into Epic and BFG successfully.

We used to wish we could play Grand Campaigns (like you can with lots of other games) where our Fleet could buzz into the system, drop our pods, land our vehicles and begin our assault on the reactors. Fight a grand battle, then when our HQ's got close enough, scale up to 28mm and fight mano-e-alieno. Go ahead, try it. The game mechanics are just too dissimilar. You have to be able to master circular logic like Rev. Graham trying to convince Prof. Dawkins that Big J is real. It's more work than it's worth.

I would LOVE to see 40k go to base d10. It would totally open up the options for player creativity and for their other games. Imagine learning 40k, then playing...Inquisitor without the beastly learning curve because the rules have the same core mechanics.