Based on the "9 things" video, what would be your ideal set of rules changes from 8th to 9th? Keep in mind that 9th is not a full overhaul rules change so all current codexes etc will need to remain legal.

Personally, I'd love to see stuff like this:

-Weapons with random numbers of shots score max hits against units with 15 models or more. Additionally, weapons that hit automatically score max hits against units that receive a cover save.

-Obscurement: When all models targeted by a shooting attack are at least partially obscured by terrain or models not in the firing unit, that attack receives -1 to hit

-Ambush: new movement phase option. A unit chosen to Ambush moves twice its Mv stat, but must end the move within 1" of at least one enemy model. A unit that performed an Ambush move does not count as having charged in the Fight phase. (A new method for close combat units to close with the enemy more reliably than a Charge, avoid overwatch, but comes with the drawback of removing your ability to shoot the unit you Ambushed and your unit does not count as having charged. I can see some increase in the reliability of close combat being extremely necessary with the removal of preventing vehicles from being able to shoot.)

-Take Cover: In the shooting phase, units may be selected to Take Cover. Units that Take Cover may not be selected to shoot or charge in the charge phase, but receive an additional +1 to their save rolls if they receive cover from a shooting attack, and always count as Obscured

-New Transport rules: Allow units embarked within a transport to exit either at the beginning or the end of the movement phase. Units that disembark at the end of the movement phase may move no further (basically, make the impulsor's rule a USR).

-New Ruins rules: Apply to Sector Imperialis and Sector Mechanicus structures. Any INFANTRY, BEAST, SWARM, CAVALRY or BIKER unit that ends its turn wholly within 3" of a structure designated as a ruin may embark upon the ruin. Remove the unit from the board and set them up wholly on or within the ruin. Any number of units controlled by the same player may embark in a ruin as long as all models can fit on or within the structure. Units embarked in a ruin receive Cover.

Line of sight to and from units embarked within a ruin is drawn to the ruin structure. If multiple units are embarked within a ruin, the player who controls those units determines which units are closest when an enemy unit is selected to make a shooting or psychic attack targeting the ruin.

While within a ruin, any ability that a model has with a range value affects all models within the ruin, but no models outside the ruin.

When enemy units declare a charge against a unit within a ruin, they must declare their charge against all units currently within the ruin. Models within 1" of the ruin structure or within 1" of a friendly model within 1" of the ruin structure may make their close combat attacks against any unit within the ruin.

When a unit within a ruin is selected to move in the movement phase, they must first disembark from the ruin. Set the unit up with all models within 1" of the ruin structure. Any models that cannot be placed are destroyed. A unit that disembarks from a ruin structure that has enemy models within 1" counts as having Fallen Back.

I like the ruin one, quite similar to the way apoc does it.

I would modify your point about weapons though:

Weapons with random number of shots inflict one more hit for each 10 models in the target for each d3 shots they have and one more hit for every 5 models in the target for each d6 shots they have.

This way you avoid creating arbitrary tresholds in unit dimensions.

Spoletta wrote:
I like the ruin one, quite similar to the way apoc does it.

I would modify your point about weapons though:

Weapons with random number of shots inflict one more hit for each 10 models in the target for each d3 shots they have and one more hit for every 5 models in the target for each d6 shots they have.

This way you avoid creating arbitrary tresholds in unit dimensions.

Oh sure, that'd be better, I'm just going off of what GW said in their preview. I figure it'll be max hits if you go over a certain arbitrary threshold.

While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Though balance would go awry with 12"+ move guys. 14" would be autocharging t1 with no way to counter.

tneva82 wrote:
While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Just an idea. IMO, if a large fraction of your ability to turn off enemy shooting via melee is being removed, melee needs to become way, WAYYYYY more reliable than it is now...and it sounds like from the rules designed with 9th in mind, we're not seeing a removal of random charge moves or overwatch.

Melee in 8th reminds me of "Spot" mechanics in other super-beardy wargames. "Before you can roll to hit, you must roll to see if you can see the enemy!" This inevitably just results in your units twiddling around unable to do anything while an enemy unit sits right in front of them and the chortling beard walrus running the game explains "no no, this is much MORE realistic because it represents the fooooog of waaaaar."

Imagine if every time you wanted to shoot, you had to roll a 2+ or the unit could not shoot at all and just had to stand there for the remainder of the turn. That's how playing melee feels in 8th right now, except much, much less reliable.

1 CP for every 100 points of army.

- 3 CP for each additional subfaction or codex.

We hit an eddy in the Warp and 5th ed is rereleased, word for word and is treated as a brand new edition. Nobody says anything and we move on.

Spoletta wrote:
1 CP for every 100 points of army.

- 3 CP for each additional subfaction or codex.

20CP for the current most competitive pure IH lists out there in the meta seems like quite a lot.

Yeah, but they said "more CP for everyone" and they also said that the game will be balanced on all point levels, so i expect something like that.

the_scotsman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Just an idea. IMO, if a large fraction of your ability to turn off enemy shooting via melee is being removed, melee needs to become way, WAYYYYY more reliable than it is now...and it sounds like from the rules designed with 9th in mind, we're not seeing a removal of random charge moves or overwatch.

Melee in 8th reminds me of "Spot" mechanics in other super-beardy wargames. "Before you can roll to hit, you must roll to see if you can see the enemy!" This inevitably just results in your units twiddling around unable to do anything while an enemy unit sits right in front of them and the chortling beard walrus running the game explains "no no, this is much MORE realistic because it represents the fooooog of waaaaar."

Imagine if every time you wanted to shoot, you had to roll a 2+ or the unit could not shoot at all and just had to stand there for the remainder of the turn. That's how playing melee feels in 8th right now, except much, much less reliable.

Doesn't change that ambush name for rule that is anything but ambush(you rush forward 2 turns in open sight and then ambush? ) is odd discontent between name and rule.

And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

As is reliable t1 charges is already common with average 30-40" charges or 20" charges after starting 9" from dz.

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

tneva82 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Just an idea. IMO, if a large fraction of your ability to turn off enemy shooting via melee is being removed, melee needs to become way, WAYYYYY more reliable than it is now...and it sounds like from the rules designed with 9th in mind, we're not seeing a removal of random charge moves or overwatch.

Melee in 8th reminds me of "Spot" mechanics in other super-beardy wargames. "Before you can roll to hit, you must roll to see if you can see the enemy!" This inevitably just results in your units twiddling around unable to do anything while an enemy unit sits right in front of them and the chortling beard walrus running the game explains "no no, this is much MORE realistic because it represents the fooooog of waaaaar."

Imagine if every time you wanted to shoot, you had to roll a 2+ or the unit could not shoot at all and just had to stand there for the remainder of the turn. That's how playing melee feels in 8th right now, except much, much less reliable.

Doesn't change that ambush name for rule that is anything but ambush(you rush forward 2 turns in open sight and then ambush? ) is odd discontent between name and rule.

And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

As is reliable t1 charges is already common with average 30-40" charges or 20" charges after starting 9" from dz.

T1 charges are already extremely commonplace in the current game, and with the way they work currently, you get to strike before your opponent and you may shoot the unit you're planning on charging later in the turn.

So I'm not seeing how something like this to make charging more reliable to all units, and not just units that have special snowflake rules and strats enabling them to essentially auto-get in would be in any way imbalanced.

Particularly if they're removing a large amount of the lockdown that charging currently provides by allowing vehicles to continue to shoot undeterred. That rule change means you'll be able to screen your gunline with vehicles rather than cheap infantry, and most extremely fast melee units are not good at damaging vehicles in melee.

Who cares if you can get a unit of reaver jetbikes instantly across the board and into combat with an enemy leman russ tank if the russ tank can just continue to shoot the following turn?

Removal of fallback. Not gonna happen, more like likely an additional fallback reaction against charges.

 Brutallica wrote:
Removal of fallback. Not gonna happen, more like likely an additional fallback reaction against charges.

A reaction from the unit that got fallen-back from is a good change that could be made to the core rules that would allow the current fall back ssytem to still exist.

Some of this is what I know will be happening and some of this is what I wish would happen instead.

1- No Lord of War/Super-heavy below 1500 points.

2- Incentivize mono-faction play: Restrict Command points to the detachments that generate them.

3- Cover shouldn't make me more durable when I'm hit, it should make it harder for you to hit me.

4- Sponsons shouldn't shoot over a tank.

5- Give me a reason to Deep Strike, there's no point in taking Warp Talons if they're just going to have to sit there for a turn after a Deep Strike.

6- All Marines 2 wounds, 2 attacks base.

7- Stop making stupid dice with icons on the 1 and on the 6.

A complete re-write by competent game designers and technical writers.

Concept of primary detachment.

 skchsan wrote:
Concept of primary detachment.

What does this mean?

the_scotsman wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Concept of primary detachment.

What does this mean?

I'm guessing it means your Primary force would be the one with all the options, your supporting force would be limited to a few specific roles and maybe be limited to a certain percentage of your total points.

An example:

I'm playing Alpha Legion as my Primary Force in a 2000-point game. I can choose whatever type of detachment I like, all that stuff. I'm taking Renegades & Heretics as a supporting detachment, but I am not allowed to exceed 500 points (1/4 of my total allotted points for the game), I can only take certain kinds of formations, perhaps only certain kinds of units, and perhaps there's a limit on how many CP they can generate and what I can use them for.

He might have been the person I was discussing this with a while back, actually.

Make Terminators good... please.

Biasn wrote:
Make Terminators good... please.

Nope, they going to legends eventually.

Martel732 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Make Terminators good... please.

Nope, they going to legends eventually.

tbf the replacement unit to terminators is a boltgun and powerfist armed heavy infantry unit.

If Terminators being replaced by Aggressors had taken place in literally any other faction, people would just be expected to use their terminators as aggressors and aggressors would just be called "Terminators."

See: Necron Wraiths, Tau Broadsides, Greater Daemons, Beasts of Nurgle, Tempestus Scions.

Non-marine factions regularly replace old units with new units that look and feel as different as Aggressors do Terminators.

Top of my wish list would be to see damage taken at the end of each turn similar to Apocalypse. I'd really like to see it for four reasons. Firstly, you won't have units getting shot off the board turn 1 without doing anything, it would add an element of risk on target priority as you don't know for sure if you have killed a unit at that point, it would mitigate the advantage of going first or last and lastly it helps simulate the idea that battles are happening in real time with both forces acting simultaneously. Not sure how likely that is to happen.

I'd also like to see cover provide more than just a plus one to save. A minus to hit would also be good to illustrate the unit being obscured by the cover. As we've been told there are going to be big changes to cover, I think this is more likely.

 CatachanDevil wrote:
Top of my wish list would be to see damage taken at the end of each turn similar to Apocalypse. I'd really like to see it for four reasons. Firstly, you won't have units getting shot off the board turn 1 without doing anything, it would add an element of risk on target priority as you don't know for sure if you have killed a unit at that point, it would mitigate the advantage of going first or last and lastly it helps simulate the idea that battles are happening in real time with both forces acting simultaneously. Not sure how likely that is to happen.

I'd also like to see cover provide more than just a plus one to save. A minus to hit would also be good to illustrate the unit being obscured by the cover. As we've been told there are going to be big changes to cover, I think this is more likely.

that would be the dream. However, I don't see a way to make that happen in 8th simply due to the fact that AP and Damage are variable in this game. You would have to remember "Ok, my knight got shot with 3 Ap-2 D1 wounds, 4 Ap-3 Dd6 wounds, 2 AP- d1 wounds, and 5 Ap-1 D2 wounds this turn, so let's make those saves....

The reworking of the cover system to be more like apoc I can see. 40k is a game that has to be designed for anything from coke cans and cardboard boxes to wild fancy terrain kits that GW puts out. The current cover system is incredibly fiddly and incredibly specific for something that ultimately does not make a huge amount of impact in the game. Retooling large terrain pieces to work more like transports that you embark and disembark from allows you to avoid the weird task of trying to maintain squad coherency while moving up and down levels, trying to balance models precariously so they can still draw LOS to enemies but won't fall off and break the tiny pointy antennae that the plastic models all now seem to have, and worse, trying to do anything that involves the Fight phase movement sequence inside a terrain piece would be a huge leap forward.

Bringing back obscurement/intervening terrain is something I also think is necessary, the only thing that frustrates me about it is how lopsided to-hit penalties are in the current game. A -1 to hit inconveniences a space marine army...basically not at all, because they hit on rerolling 3s most of the time, and going from a 87% chance to hit to a 75% is not much difference while ork firepower drops by a massive 50%.

Given the previews we have so far, the current rules designed "with 9th in mind", and the fact that early 8th was all about cheap chaff hordes, I'm guessing we're going into a supremely elite-army focused 9th ed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

Here's thought. I have faced shadowsword. I have even had shadowsword to shoot at my unit and it didn't just die.

But yeah keep on your strawman claims that ignore facts.

Come back again when you have shooting unit that deletes unit no dice rolling involved. Until then you are just sprouting garbage.

Also never mind there's this wonderful strategy from surviving shadowsword. Hide behind LOS. Heard of that? Little bit of amateur level of strategy that helps a lot against shooty units? Bit of basic elementary school thing that when used can ensure that said shadowsword kills pretty much nothing until it's destroyed. Seen and done that myself. But guess it's too hard tactical concept when you just want to walk in open field without any concern of LOS or terrain and smash everything in melee without worry.

Doesn't really help with charging or this ambush since you can do that out of LOS.

Difference between meaningful die rolls and trivial die rolls.

I might butcher this but I'd love to see a bigger separation between weapon archetypes, anti infantry, anti tank etc.

Like most weapons should do 1-2 Dmg at most but then anti vehicle weapons do large damage like a flat 6 (and yes vehicle wounds would be adjusted). It's just that we've seen non anti tank weapons perform better than anti tank weapons.

Only other thing I'd like to see happen is a stats change. I just think it's weird that 8th was a revamp but they chose to keep the same statlines from previous editions

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

tneva82 wrote:
Here's thought. I have faced shadowsword. I have even had shadowsword to shoot at my unit and it didn't just die.

Well, that depends on the unit, after all. I could also think of several units my Keeper of Secrets could charge on turn 1 that would easily survive, therefore this Ambush mechanic is no different.

tneva82 wrote:
But yeah keep on your strawman claims that ignore facts.

What facts am I ignoring?

tneva82 wrote:
Come back again when you have shooting unit that deletes unit no dice rolling involved. Until then you are just sprouting garbage.

The dice rolls for a Shadowsword to kill a Keeper are trivial. Let's calculate the average, assuming stratagem support: 6 shots, 4 hits (stratagem/WLT/any number of ways to buff To-Hit rolls), one passed save, 6d6 damage (average of 21 damage for 16 wounds). So should we say "deletes a unit on a 2+" or "a 3+". I think this Ambush rule is fair if it needed a 2+ or 3+.

tneva82 wrote:
Also never mind there's this wonderful strategy from surviving shadowsword. Hide behind LOS. Heard of that? Little bit of amateur level of strategy that helps a lot against shooty units? Bit of basic elementary school thing that when used can ensure that said shadowsword kills pretty much nothing until it's destroyed. Seen and done that myself. But guess it's too hard tactical concept when you just want to walk in open field without any concern of LOS or terrain and smash everything in melee without worry.

Doesn't really help with charging or this ambush since you can do that out of LOS.

Here's a tactic to avoid turn 1 charges: don't deploy in charge range. A unit with a 14" move (e.g. this Keeper of Secrets) using this Ambush thing can go 28" across the board. This means you can deploy within 7" of your own board edge (the width of a Baneblade, so it doesn't prevent any units from deploying) and be just as safe as a unit out of LOS from the Shadowsword. I guess it's too hard of a tactical concept when you just want to deploy against the edge of your deploymentzone and shoot everything to death, but HEY, you know what? You can do that from 5" back from the edge of your DZ as well!

And it isn't even terrain dependent the way dodging LOS is. It'll work 100% of the time! No dice rolls required.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

Here's thought. I have faced shadowsword. I have even had shadowsword to shoot at my unit and it didn't just die.

But yeah keep on your strawman claims that ignore facts.

Come back again when you have shooting unit that deletes unit no dice rolling involved. Until then you are just sprouting garbage.

Also never mind there's this wonderful strategy from surviving shadowsword. Hide behind LOS. Heard of that? Little bit of amateur level of strategy that helps a lot against shooty units? Bit of basic elementary school thing that when used can ensure that said shadowsword kills pretty much nothing until it's destroyed. Seen and done that myself. But guess it's too hard tactical concept when you just want to walk in open field without any concern of LOS or terrain and smash everything in melee without worry.

Doesn't really help with charging or this ambush since you can do that out of LOS.

...What is this magical melee unit that deletes units without rolling dice? All my melee units have to roll to hit, roll to wound, and roll for damage, just like a Shadowsword does....Charging and making your charge roll is just an EXTRA layer of randomness that is on top of all that, and to make matters worse it's all or nothing randomness. either you make your roll and you get the privilege of getting to try and roll to hit, wound, etc, or you fail your roll and your WHOLE unit does NOTHING.

That doesn't exist for shooting. You don't have to make a die roll to see if you're allowed to shoot at something.

A dream set of changes would involve something that flies in the face of GW's business practices, so there's little point in imagining it.

1) I want 'true line of sight' gone. That would be great.

2) Keep blast templates out of the game

3) AOS style turns

4) Morale effects being more devestating. Either more models lost on bad roll, or a better mechanic overall.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Concept of primary detachment.

What does this mean?

I'm guessing it means your Primary force would be the one with all the options, your supporting force would be limited to a few specific roles and maybe be limited to a certain percentage of your total points.

An example:

I'm playing Alpha Legion as my Primary Force in a 2000-point game. I can choose whatever type of detachment I like, all that stuff. I'm taking Renegades & Heretics as a supporting detachment, but I am not allowed to exceed 500 points (1/4 of my total allotted points for the game), I can only take certain kinds of formations, perhaps only certain kinds of units, and perhaps there's a limit on how many CP they can generate and what I can use them for.

He might have been the person I was discussing this with a while back, actually.

No, I was getting at declaring your primary detachment for the purpose of stratagems, WL traits & CP generation. Picking 'astra militarum' as primary detachment will allow you to earn CP fron eligible faction keywords and determine the WL trait and stratagems yoy can use.

Allies should be taken as true auxillary and for their statlines only, and not what they unlock.

TLOS has been a thing in 40k since Rogue Trader. It's going nowhere, no matter how much people gnash their teeth.

 Grimtuff wrote:
TLOS has been a thing in 40k since Rogue Trader. It's going nowhere, no matter how much people gnash their teeth.

While true, in the past there were more concessions to limit TLOS.

I remember when you could:

-Not target banners, weapons, wings, and antenna as default
-Declare a unit to be hiding, turning partial LOS block from terrain into full LOS block
-Gain more cover depending on how much LOS was blocked
-Draw line of sight only from the barrel of the weapon being fired, and only in a fixed arc.
-Only target the closest visible enemy unless you passed a LD test.

While it is true that TLOS has always existed, it is far more extreme now than it was "back in the old days" even if weapon ranges were the same. Which they're not, to be clear, weapon ranges have increased massively.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
TLOS has been a thing in 40k since Rogue Trader. It's going nowhere, no matter how much people gnash their teeth.

While true, in the past there were more concessions to limit TLOS.

I remember when you could:

-Not target banners, weapons, wings, and antenna as default
-Declare a unit to be hiding, turning partial LOS block from terrain into full LOS block
-Gain more cover depending on how much LOS was blocked
-Draw line of sight only from the barrel of the weapon being fired, and only in a fixed arc.
-Only target the closest visible enemy unless you passed a LD test.

While it is true that TLOS has always existed, it is far more extreme now than it was "back in the old days" even if weapon ranges were the same. Which they're not, to be clear, weapon ranges have increased massively.

Agreed on all points, just pointing out we are not getting the ol' "Magic cylinder" (Hey, veteran Dakkanauts, 'member those conversations on this board?) in 40k. TLOS will be in 9th in one form or another.

1. I'd love some sort of sweeping advance against units falling back. Perhaps get 1 attack against the fleeing unit.
2. Monsters can fire assault/rapid fire into melee.
3. More reliable charges.
4. Some recompense for hordes getting trashed. Anything. My poor gants...

StarHunter25 wrote:
1. I'd love some sort of sweeping advance against units falling back. Perhaps get 1 attack against the fleeing unit.

So much this. Currently there is practically no disadvantage to breaking off from HTH. Oh boo hoo, I can't shoot- well guess what, the rest of my army can do so at that unit that slogged across the board to get there...

They need a free strike mechanic like in WMH, make it dangerous to pull out of HTH unless you have the correct training (aka the Parry USR in WMH).

Getting rid of all double fighting/shooting stratagems and fighting/shooting on death abilities. They were bad with ynarri and they're bad with everyone else too.

Eldritch Storm

No more IGOUGO. D6 is replaced with D10/12. Apocalypse loss removal system. No more highly random stats, like D6 shots, D6 damage. Plasma only blows up on unmodified 1s. No more than +2/-2 stacking modifiers. No more reroll everything, just 1s. No more fallback without penalty. Tanks can shoot in melee (which is confirmed). Vehicles shouldnt suffer penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons. Same CP for everyone, based on points, not detachments.

Something for non-psychic armies to do in the 'psychic phase'...some opportunity for interaction other than just removing your models.

Rewrite the whole rule set from the ground up. A proper foundation is what 40k needs to not be a bloaty mess and 8th is the most flimsy foundation possible for a game (and 8th has bloated in a way that rapidly outpaced anything we saw outside of the end days of 7th).

Before my laundry list of changes, GW needs to make something like a quick reference sheets free, updated, and online for people to print out. It makes complex rule sets 10 times easier to play when you can easily reference the core rules from a sheet instead of digging through a giant book or flipping through multiple books.

Short list of mechanics needed to be properly fleshed out and built into the core game.

Indepth terrain mechanics (not just this minus to hit gak that breaks a d6 dice system)

Core unit mechanics and functions other than just move, shoot, chop, die

USRs that cover some fundamental abilities shared across many units. Shouldn't rely on stratagems for units to function differently and universal rules means you can design around other units having those functions.

Area of effect weapons that proper account for model proximity. 8th desperately suffers from a lack of penalty to castling and stacking on aura units. I really like blast templates and scatter dies but perhaps just having templates indicating the blast area and you roll to hit as per normal (could make scatter an optional rule).

Vehicle and MC rules so they function differently to weapons than infantry. Lasguns should NEVER be able to harm a land raider for example. I personally like the AV and vehicle facing system but vehicles should have armor. Something like 3+ for all vehicles except flyers and skimmers who get 4+ but can still jink, rear armor hits are 1 less armor. Lets proper anti vehicle weapons like missiles, lascannon, rail gun, etc properly punch holes in vehicles while weak AP weapons spammy weapons like scatterlasers and gauss flayers will be less effective at spamming hull points off a vehicle. MCs should be the same except with its own system. More wounds than 7ths 3 to 5 wound/HP range but not like 8ths ballooning amount of wounds.

Avoiding using a bunch of haphazardly given out +1 -1 modifiers which results in dumb crap like stratagems + spamming pulse rifles being the best anti Knight weapon in the game. Again d6 in a universe with vastly different races, units, weapons, etc does not lend it self well to a bunch of modifiers to hitting, wounding, etc as it gets janky without something like 10 or 20 sided dice to create granularity. I don't think 40k could do a transition away from d6 despite it probably benefiting from it.

Get rid of the vast majority of stratagems. Too much like MtG instances or CoH munition abilities. Rather see it rolled into codex specific abilities like WAAAGH or Tactical Doctrines. Fewer of them, more strategic in their application, more global for the army, very refined to the army's playstyle.

LOS, directional shooting, closest casualties need to make a return. Perhaps allowing units taking casualties to consolidate forward (but not beyond the closest original model) after a shooting phase to off set shooting casualties being shot away from the enemy.

Rework morale system to cause units to panic, route, etc. Game needs more mechanics that diminish a unit for a turn instead of just the binary (alive or dead).

Remove the degrading profile thing and instead return some form of status effect that reduces a vehicle/MC's performance for a turn without completely gimping the unit. Limits of the d6 system prevent this from functioning well for fringe cases such as Orks.

Some form of activation system or perhaps an interwoven turn system. Something to prevent such a hard alpha strikes. Could be something like light infantry can engage or react before the enemy shoots or some other system that helps defuse the hammer blow nature of 40k combat. Not too keen on AoS's system.

Tone down hero abilities. Auras should be far more rare or more so limited to simpler things like leadership. Rarer examples such as the Tau Ethereal or certain psychic abilities should be aura based. Instead the majority of such Character abilities should be sorta like orders given to a unit.

ICs join units like before 8th as to avoid the whole dumpster fire rule set for ICs being almost untargetable. Instead of the IC applying their special ability to the unit they are attached to, they can apply it to a unit within a certain range. Example being a Fireblade is with a unit of FWs and has 2 other units of FWs nearby. The Fireblade's unit takes moderate loses but a nearby FW unit is near full strength. The Fireblade can use his extra shots ability on that near full strength unit to get the most of of his ability without having to bounce between unit to unit.

Return the psychic phase to have some actual risk management. Maybe something like when casting a power you get the psyker's mastery level + a "draw" in dice when attempting to cast a power. Add more dice to your attempt but it increases the risk of perils. Warp charge pool should be avoided at all costs as its a flawed design. Not sure about denying but definitely prevent an army with 10 psykers from bullying the army with 1 psyker from ever casting a thing.

Multi wound weapons should be a lot rarer and multi wound models also being less common than what there is in 8th.

Make a beginner rule set that is super simplified for new players to learn the ropes with its own beginner "codex" based on units found in the starter boxes (start collecting). These rules are like the 8th core rules with move, shoot, chop, and some very basic character/unit abilities. These mechanics and rules are independent to the core rules and codex entries for the main game so balance/mechanics changes in the full game doesn't impact the starter rule set. Its super casual without stepping on the toes of those who want the complex gameplay.

1) Alternate Activations
2) Better terrain rules
3) More abstract line of sight rules (something as simple as "you can see and fire into terrain but not past it" would be nice). This kind of goes hand in hand with #2 really.
4) Less lethality - I'd rather see a handful of units slog it out for a good chunk of the match instead of just have a bunch of super killy units delete each other on turns 1 and 2
5) Fairly balanced factions - true 100% balance is impossible, but getting to a point where people can at least agree the game is mostly balanced would be nice

Corsairs get any type of support. lol.

the_scotsman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Just an idea. IMO, if a large fraction of your ability to turn off enemy shooting via melee is being removed, melee needs to become way, WAYYYYY more reliable than it is now...and it sounds like from the rules designed with 9th in mind, we're not seeing a removal of random charge moves or overwatch.

Melee in 8th reminds me of "Spot" mechanics in other super-beardy wargames. "Before you can roll to hit, you must roll to see if you can see the enemy!" This inevitably just results in your units twiddling around unable to do anything while an enemy unit sits right in front of them and the chortling beard walrus running the game explains "no no, this is much MORE realistic because it represents the fooooog of waaaaar."

Imagine if every time you wanted to shoot, you had to roll a 2+ or the unit could not shoot at all and just had to stand there for the remainder of the turn. That's how playing melee feels in 8th right now, except much, much less reliable.

Uh.... I don't think I often fail charges that I would have made before the introduction of random charge rolls. But sometimes I get lucky and make long ones.

IIRC it used to be that charging was a fixed 6" move, right?


That said, dream changes for a new edition:
Removal of multiple wounds. Vehicles and Monsters are the same, and share penetration and critical hit tables for damage and destruction. MW infantry just have more armor or toughness
Return to the old armorsave and AP system. The new one I was initially a fan of, but I'm less so now based on the way it benefits different units.
Reduced standard game size to 1500 points. It needs to be big enough to have enough on the board and not be too swingy, and small enough to be accessible
Fire Points for transport vehicles.
Imperial Knights are folded into AdMech as LoW choices, thus eliminating the Super Heavy detachment and All-Lord-of-War armies.



Morale and CQC Changes
Morale for infantry as units becoming pinned. A unit tests leadership at the end of the shooting phase modified by casualties, and if it fails it becomes pinned and can't move or charge or conduct defensive fire and shoots much less effectively until the end of your next turn. Artillery, heavy vehicle weapons, and automatic weapons may make pinning much more likely.
Units that have other friendly units and commanders around them have increased leadership so they're less likely to be pinned or rout.
Units that shoot with non-assault weapons cannot charge.
A total rework of overwatch: When charged, a unit may conduct defensive fire. Unsaved wounds/something or other reduces the range of the charge but does not inflict casualties. If the charger no longer can reach it's target, the charge fails and the charger becomes pinned. This should be very likely to happen if it's not suppressed.
A total rework change to the melee phases: After a charge, the unit fights, then the defender fights back, then both roll leadership modified by casualties. Anybody who fails leadership immediately routs [no overrun] and falls back at their movement speed towards their board edge. If both parties are still engaged, repeat until somebody runs away. Any unit that routs counts as being pinned.

This should create a dynamic of unsupported charges usually fail miserably, but if you support your chargers with automatic weapon/artillery fire to pin down the enemy and suppress their defensive fire, you can get in very easily and drive them out in a immediate and decisive action.


Psychic and HQ changes:
New phase for leaders, Command Phase at the beginning of the turn, where all commanders issue Orders they know to troops. Psychic Powers also resolved in this phase
Orders replace aura abilities. Choose a unit and give it an Order from a Leader. most HQ's only know 1 or 2 orders that are their abilities.
A unit can only gain the benefit of one order at a time. 4 guys shouting instructions will just confused people. Psychic powers may be stacked.
Spell-like abilities [Crypteks, Saintly Blessings, etc] are operated as psychic powers.
Universal Orders:
Go to Ground!/Hull Down! This unit may not move or charge, and may not fight in the combat phase, and is hit automatically in the fight phase. In exchange, it is hard to hit in the shooting phase.
Run!/Flat Out! This unit doubles it's move speed, but may not shoot and may not charge.

This should limit death stars and aura stacking, and consolidate buffs to a single buff phase. Some defensive buffs make holding points easier, and encourage charging to dislodge units in good cover against shooting attacks [it may take a lot to suppress them though]


Smoke! All artillery units can fire smoke, some units can throw smoke grenades, and vehicles can fire their smoke dischargers in the shooting phase to create short walls of smoke that break Line of Sight. This can be used to break firing lines, protect units from defensive fire, etc. Artillery smoke shells are obviously the largest smoked area and most versatile, but tanks and infantry can protect themselves or nearby units.


All of these should increase combined arms interdependence rather than making super units, with a special focus on suppressing the enemy with ranged fire [especially artillery fire] and charging to drive them out of key positions.

You know, maybe I should write this up in the homebrew section...



More realistic dream changes/errata:
Measure to vehicle hull, do not count decorations including TC's, aerials, spikes, dozer blades, etc.
Cover for tracing LoS through partially obscuring objects but not being in them
Tanks don't care about infantry in B2B.

-Alternating Activations

-Psychic Phase dice pool like 8th ed. fantasy for risk management. Currently it's a special ability that goes off ~60% of the time. Fun...

-Revamped Cover system

-Command Points are earned throughout the game by capturing objectives and destroying enemies

-Artifacts and unit specific weapons no longer linked to command points

-Strategems are one use only.

-Remove Auras

-Bring Back Independent Character rules

-Rewrite the entire system using USR's and remove Bespoke rules

-Remove ~90% of all re-rolls

-Tone down shooting

-Bring back the old Morale system, this one sucks.

Some suggestions I really like, some I really dislike.

The OP asked for our wish lists, not for us to critque each other's wish lists, so I'm going to try really hard to avoid doing that.

However, what happens regarding AA vs. IGOUGO IS a part of my wish list, but it requires a bit of discussion. Personally, I believe that 9th, with all it's hype on games of all sizes, will eventually lead to the demise of Kill Team and Apocalypse. It's not going to be an instant death- they've already said Kill Team will be unaffected. But they did not say it would continue to be supported once newer rules fill the design space.

That messes with my thinking on AA vs. IGOUGO. I believe that each has it's advantages and each has its disadvantages. For battles of 1500-2000, I personally prefer IGOUGO, but I acknowledge that this is preference and not necessarily the right choice for everyone.

If Kill Team and Apocalypse continue to be supported, it's a far more black and white choice for me. If these games continue to exist and thrive, then the answer is leave 40k where it is, because people who are bent on AA have options to fix their problem by playing the game they want. If on the other hand, these folks got their way, every game in the range would be AA, which would leave people like me with NO OPTION to enjoy the game that we enjoy it.

And before any AA crusaders get indignant, please remember that I already indicated that the demise of KT and Apocalypse would cause me to re-evaluate the situation. I just don't want to turn an everyone wins status quo into some people have to get shafted for the sake of change scenario.

One of the biggest justifications for wanting AA is first strike protection. That's a valid concern. But remember, first strike protection is mostly necessary due to poor cover rules. And they're supposedly fixing cover, so it may happen that you don't need to change a core mechanic that has existed in every version of the game for as long as it has existed in order to achieve the desired effect.

There we go; off my soapbox, sorry about that.

Now I saw a lot of people suggesting things that we already know are being worked on, which also influences the form my wish list will take. Here it is:

I hope that the changes advertised achieve the desired effects without unintended consequences, and that these changes bring satisfaction to those who give enough change to those who wanted change without compromising the game that others love, and that GW never, ever loses the drive to improve by expanding rather than contracting the available options.

It's only one wish, but it's a doozy!

I want fire arcs/armour facings back, the ability to put anything in Reserves for any reason, the "combat airspace" mechanic from 7e so flyers can hop out/in instead of needing to fly a rectangle around the middle of the board. I want Sweeping Advances back to make Morale make a difference and let melee units do something without having to physically roll enough dice to kill every single model in front of them. I want stratagems not to be such a powerful mechanic that they force us to build our armies entirely around efficient use of the card game. I want an overhaul to psykers that stops punishing us for taking multiple psykers. I want all Mortal Wounds to go die in a fire. I want points costs attached to Relics. I want anti-aircraft weapons to be a thing rather than just shooting down planes with flamers and battle cannons. I want to not be punished for liking FW models better than GW models. I want the endless proliferation of random characters to stop and the game to be about my army rather than GW's named characters.

I'm not likely to get any of this, but I thought I'd ask.

I want a game where there is more than one way of fighting, where it's not just 'be a space marine or suck'.

Necrons are basically xenos space marines and therefore are well rewarded by the game as it's built around the same features they have.


But armies that use speed to avoid damage, rather than just high toughness and armour, have been shafted and are continuing to be further shafted.

Loss of initiative meant that soft units like nids and eldar lost their defence against enemy attacks. Now they just die MORE.

Lack of modifiers to hit based on speed means that fast units can't use their speed as defence, so they just die more.


The game is just narrowing in design space so much that if you don't have good T and Sv then you have nothing.

D10 for the wound roll

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Corsairs get any type of support. lol.

Would be nice, but first we need to make sure the chud who did the PA kabal rules isnt allowed to help

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Corsairs get any type of support. lol.

Would be nice, but first we need to make sure the chud who did the PA kabal rules isnt allowed to help

Amen to that.

There are plenty of changes I could think of, but if I am conservative and just pick three, they would be:

- Better entry/exit from combat. Unreliable/random charges are a pain and just don't make sense. A charge should always be a minimum of the unit's movement value at the very least. Falling back from combat is abhorrent as well. Not being able to shoot or charge (which many units can ignore) is not enough of a penalty; it's too easy to just fall back from combat and then leave that combat unit stood still with their dicks or tits in their hands as the whole enemy army pounds them. It could be something simple like to fall back suffer D6 mortal wounds and the attacking unit gets +1 to their save as they're counted as being in cover (due to the army not wanting to hit their falling back allies). Possibly even a change to overwatch - you can shoot or fire overwatch but you don't get both - or a change to WHEN fallback happens. So in this case, you would only be able to fall back in the next melee phase (before attacks) in your turn rather than your next movement phase.

- The return of WSvsWS/Initiative (possibly a combination of the pair). A 50yo Space Marine captain hitting a supposed immortal combat master that's millennia old like a bloodthirster on a 2+? Get outta town!

- Simplified cover rules.

Bonus: Turn all D3s into 2s and turn all D6s into 3+D3 in regards to weapon shots, damage and stat rolls (such as possessed attacks). The only place i'd be fine with it is when determining mortal wounds because mortal wounds are so potent that a bit of randomness is a reasonable trade off.

I agree something needs to be sorted out with morale (as in, some units need to be fearless again - ie Cult Troops and daemons and others need to not be as fearless) and I think there needs to be clarification with the character targeting that means the closest enemy unit needs to be visible. Overall though, I think combat mechanics need the most attention.

the_scotsman wrote:
Based on the "9 things" video, what would be your ideal set of rules changes from 8th to 9th? Keep in mind that 9th is not a full overhaul rules change so all current codexes etc will need to remain legal.

Personally, I'd love to see stuff like this:

-Weapons with random numbers of shots score max hits against units with 15 models or more. Additionally, weapons that hit automatically score max hits against units that receive a cover save.

-Obscurement: When all models targeted by a shooting attack are at least partially obscured by terrain or models not in the firing unit, that attack receives -1 to hit

-Ambush: new movement phase option. A unit chosen to Ambush moves twice its Mv stat, but must end the move within 1" of at least one enemy model. A unit that performed an Ambush move does not count as having charged in the Fight phase. (A new method for close combat units to close with the enemy more reliably than a Charge, avoid overwatch, but comes with the drawback of removing your ability to shoot the unit you Ambushed and your unit does not count as having charged. I can see some increase in the reliability of close combat being extremely necessary with the removal of preventing vehicles from being able to shoot.)

-Take Cover: In the shooting phase, units may be selected to Take Cover. Units that Take Cover may not be selected to shoot or charge in the charge phase, but receive an additional +1 to their save rolls if they receive cover from a shooting attack, and always count as Obscured

-New Ruins rules: Apply to Sector Imperialis and Sector Mechanicus structures. Any INFANTRY, BEAST, SWARM, CAVALRY or BIKER unit that ends its turn wholly within 3" of a structure designated as a ruin may embark upon the ruin. Remove the unit from the board and set them up wholly on or within the ruin. Any number of units controlled by the same player may embark in a ruin as long as all models can fit on or within the structure. Units embarked in a ruin receive Cover.

Line of sight to and from units embarked within a ruin is drawn to the ruin structure. If multiple units are embarked within a ruin, the player who controls those units determines which units are closest when an enemy unit is selected to make a shooting or psychic attack targeting the ruin.

While within a ruin, any ability that a model has with a range value affects all models within the ruin, but no models outside the ruin.

When enemy units declare a charge against a unit within a ruin, they must declare their charge against all units currently within the ruin. Models within 1" of the ruin structure or within 1" of a friendly model within 1" of the ruin structure may make their close combat attacks against any unit within the ruin.

When a unit within a ruin is selected to move in the movement phase, they must first disembark from the ruin. Set the unit up with all models within 1" of the ruin structure. Any models that cannot be placed are destroyed. A unit that disembarks from a ruin structure that has enemy models within 1" counts as having Fallen Back.

I didn't read the post title and got really excited reading your post. These would be great changes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I want fire arcs/armour facings back, the ability to put anything in Reserves for any reason, the "combat airspace" mechanic from 7e so flyers can hop out/in instead of needing to fly a rectangle around the middle of the board. I want Sweeping Advances back to make Morale make a difference and let melee units do something without having to physically roll enough dice to kill every single model in front of them. I want stratagems not to be such a powerful mechanic that they force us to build our armies entirely around efficient use of the card game. I want an overhaul to psykers that stops punishing us for taking multiple psykers. I want all Mortal Wounds to go die in a fire. I want points costs attached to Relics. I want anti-aircraft weapons to be a thing rather than just shooting down planes with flamers and battle cannons. I want to not be punished for liking FW models better than GW models. I want the endless proliferation of random characters to stop and the game to be about my army rather than GW's named characters.

I'm not likely to get any of this, but I thought I'd ask.

Well, we know you're getting "Anything in reserves" and "planes do strafing runs" at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Semper wrote:
There are plenty of changes I could think of, but if I am conservative and just pick three, they would be:

- Better entry/exit from combat. Unreliable/random charges are a pain and just don't make sense. A charge should always be a minimum of the unit's movement value at the very least. Falling back from combat is abhorrent as well. Not being able to shoot or charge (which many units can ignore) is not enough of a penalty; it's too easy to just fall back from combat and then leave that combat unit stood still with their dicks or tits in their hands as the whole enemy army pounds them. It could be something simple like to fall back suffer D6 mortal wounds and the attacking unit gets +1 to their save as they're counted as being in cover (due to the army not wanting to hit their falling back allies). Possibly even a change to overwatch - you can shoot or fire overwatch but you don't get both - or a change to WHEN fallback happens. So in this case, you would only be able to fall back in the next melee phase (before attacks) in your turn rather than your next movement phase.

- The return of WSvsWS/Initiative (possibly a combination of the pair). A 50yo Space Marine captain hitting a supposed immortal combat master that's millennia old like a bloodthirster on a 2+? Get outta town!

- Simplified cover rules.

Bonus: Turn all D3s into 2s and turn all D6s into 3+D3 in regards to weapon shots, damage and stat rolls (such as possessed attacks). The only place i'd be fine with it is when determining mortal wounds because mortal wounds are so potent that a bit of randomness is a reasonable trade off.

I agree something needs to be sorted out with morale (as in, some units need to be fearless again - ie Cult Troops and daemons and others need to not be as fearless) and I think there needs to be clarification with the character targeting that means the closest enemy unit needs to be visible. Overall though, I think combat mechanics need the most attention.

Hmmmmmmmmm....this has me thinking. Overwriting charge rolls would be next to impossible, too many unit datasheets refer to them.

But if charge rolls were "Mv+d6" then they could still technically be "charge rolls" and only a couple of rules on a couple stratagems would need to be rewritten...

Bikes and Jump Infantry charging 13-18"? I think that is a perfectly horrible idea.

At best they could tack on is a rule that the minimum charge distance is some proportion of your Move or Change the Charge distance to something like 4+d6".

 alextroy wrote:
Bikes and Jump Infantry charging 13-18"? I think that is a perfectly horrible idea.

At best they could tack on is a rule that the minimum charge distance is some proportion of your Move or Change the Charge distance to something like 4+d6".

*me, getting shot from 80" away across the diagonal corner through a tiny keyhole in one building, a window in another, and through the leaves of a shrubbery*
"Yeah, it'd be a shame if melee armies could hit the enemy too quickly. Wouldn't want alpha strikes to be a thing."

1: bolt action style activation.
2: cover being useful.
3: no random shots or damage.
4: vehicle fire arcs.
5: vehicle armour values that go higher than 14.

Not that it matters.

My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

remove rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

remove neatly all 're-roll' mechanics, replace with a +/- dice modifier

either remove the 'variable ground scale' or remove 'TLoS' to avoid shooting round corners, also bring in sensible terrain rules, this is the 9th edition, they have by now tried just about every version of terrain that doesn't work - find another game where it works and copy it

seriously cut down the stratagem stuff, give units the abilities they get from them as a base and have the stratagems focus on things commanders can influence, not unit training if they remember how to fight in a vicious way today or not

add a decent reaction fie mechanic to the game, not just overwatch as it is now - e.g. setting overwatch is something you do in your shooting phase instead of shooting (and let stuff start on overwatch), then able to fire during the enemy movement phase at stuff that charges or just stuff that moves

bring in a stat for unit size, used as a "to hit" modifier, normal infantry being "0", small stuff or exceptionally well camouflaged maybe '-1', but critically vehicles getting +1, +2 etc. combine this with a weapon 'accuracy' stat so anti tank guns struggle to hit infantry but can hit larger stuff nicely.

remove 'a six can hurt anything!', replace with the old system for a 6 then a four counting as '7', 6 then 5 as an '8' etc, and open up the toughness so small arms can now hardly miss a battle tank but will seriously struggle to hurt it

allow close in defensive weapons to fire in combat (looks like we are getting this)

allow actual armoured fighting vehicles to drive off from enemy infantry - would have this instead of melee attacks (looks like the dive off bit is happening)

decide what scale the game is meant to be and focus on it, if this is meant to be a massive combat game with knights (multiple) and similar, stop caring if guardsman #453 has a pistol or not in army building, thats for smaller squad/platoon sized games

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

You say this, but we could be. I know quite a few people I've talked to are legitimately looking forward to 9th edition, based off what's been shown. I'm sure they'll also be "voting with their wallets".

Honestly, I'm pretty excited for 9th too. It doesn't sound like my ideal edition, but it sounds pretty good and they claimed to have made some changes that I would be on board with.

I have some things that I wish were done that are also less popular. I really wish they would kill the campaign books, supplements, and splats. But I know people who really love those sorts of things, in fact, I know more people who were looking forward to them in general than I know cranky people like me who don't want to buy a codex, maybe a supplement, and 2 campaign books for my 5 armies and would rather buy 2 indecies and call it a day. I hate the SM supplements, but among IRL people I know they were astoundingly well received and people want supplements for every faction, so like, they're still voting with their wallets that they like this stuff.

Voting against you is still voting.

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

Their financial figures suggest you're the outlier to be honest.

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

I don't know how they would have managed record profits if consumer spending during 8th was lower than any previous edition.

Burn everything that looks gamey.

From silly looking deployments to exploiting things like character targetting restrictions.

I'd like the game to move more towards a simulation (recovering elements they abandoned) and to look less like a board game abstraction.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

I don't know how they would have managed record profits if consumer spending during 8th was lower than any previous edition.

I never said it was. I simply pointed out that wishing people would vote with their wallets is a weird thing to put in a thread like this when that poster has no idea if the people they're speaking to have done just that. It's also pretty presumptuous to suggest everyone should think in the way they do, but I have seen evidence of many of the older gamers around me reducing their spending. I didn't say spending overall has decreased (we know it hasn't). I just don't understand this idea of someone being annoyed that someone else spent their own money on something they enjoy.

Slipspace wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

I don't know how they would have managed record profits if consumer spending during 8th was lower than any previous edition.

I never said it was. I simply pointed out that wishing people would vote with their wallets is a weird thing to put in a thread like this when that poster has no idea if the people they're speaking to have done just that. It's also pretty presumptuous to suggest everyone should think in the way they do, but I have seen evidence of many of the older gamers around me reducing their spending. I didn't say spending overall has decreased (we know it hasn't). I just don't understand this idea of someone being annoyed that someone else spent their own money on something they enjoy.

My point is more along the lines that we have constant complaining over the game, prices, everything basically, but when we get a price hike and a new edition announced, immediately wishlisting for how to rebuy the game starts. For those that find nothing wrong with the state of things, spend away and I hope the new edition is everything you hope for. For those that were endlessly complaining or legitimately dissatisfied, I hope they actually back the talk up.


Oh, and charging more for stuff compensates for fewer units, so it's possible however unlikely that sales could be less but profit still more. Devil's advocate and all that...

 Just Tony wrote:
For those that were endlessly complaining or legitimately dissatisfied, I hope they actually back the talk up.

Now that I definitely agree with. I'm finding myself feeling less and less understanding towards people who do nothing but complain endlessly yet still hang around the forums. Hopefully 9th edition provides a way out for some of those permanently dissatisfied gamers.

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
For those that were endlessly complaining or legitimately dissatisfied, I hope they actually back the talk up.

Now that I definitely agree with. I'm finding myself feeling less and less understanding towards people who do nothing but complain endlessly yet still hang around the forums. Hopefully 9th edition provides a way out for some of those permanently dissatisfied gamers.

I hang around because I'm a stupid optimist that hopes that the games improve or there may pop up some more reasonable model deals as I've definitely felt the sticker shock.

Semper wrote:


- Better entry/exit from combat. Unreliable/random charges are a pain and just don't make sense. A charge should always be a minimum of the unit's movement value at the very least. Falling back from combat is abhorrent as well. Not being able to shoot or charge (which many units can ignore) is not enough of a penalty; it's too easy to just fall back from combat and then leave that combat unit stood still with their dicks or tits in their hands as the whole enemy army pounds them. It could be something simple like to fall back suffer D6 mortal wounds and the attacking unit gets +1 to their save as they're counted as being in cover (due to the army not wanting to hit their falling back allies). Possibly even a change to overwatch - you can shoot or fire overwatch but you don't get both - or a change to WHEN fallback happens. So in this case, you would only be able to fall back in the next melee phase (before attacks) in your turn rather than your next movement phase.

I agree on most of this. Would be nice if charge was Movement x 2, fixed (either entirely done in the movement phase or charge phase). Melee overwatch against withdrawing opponents should be a thing, and there should be a consequence for overwatch in the first place - either you take a penalty to the melee attack for doing impromptu overwatch or you have to relinquish your shooting in the shooting phase to hold your fire for the oncoming charge (and probably a -1 penalty on shooting or somesuch, so armies don't statically stare across the battlefield until someone flinches, ala 2E)

Movement x 2 for running/charging is how Apocalypse handles it, and it works pretty elegantly- you just get double your movement and are free to move into contact with the enemy. I'd be quite satisfied with that system being replicated in 40K, but I'm not sure that GW is willing to write core rules that would invalidate all special rules related to advance or charge rolls.

With regards to fall back being too easy, I think it would be interesting if fall back was something you did during your Charge phase. So it'd be too late to shoot, but you'd be saving your guys from enduring another round of melee on your turn, you'd get to Overwatch if the enemy just charges you again, and you could pull a unit back and then counter-charge with another unit to keep the enemy from doing so.

 catbarf wrote:
Movement x 2 for running/charging is how Apocalypse handles it, and it works pretty elegantly- you just get double your movement and are free to move into contact with the enemy. I'd be quite satisfied with that system being replicated in 40K, but I'm not sure that GW is willing to write core rules that would invalidate all special rules related to advance or charge rolls...

I've tried to implement this system in several homebrew projects and the major problem with it is that you end up with lots of units that can cross the whole table with a double move. If you're going to use this system in something where move stats range from, like, 6" to 12" it works fine, but when you've got units with 4" move and units within 16" move in the same rules system I find it feels better to give units a walk/run stat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

It's got 6 (average) shots with the main cannon.
3 hits
5/2 wounds
5/3 failed saves
So yeah, about 12 damage. 10 with the Aegis.

But two Keepers of Secrets (440 points) who somehow both manage to charge the Shadowsword do only...

12 attacks
10 hits
35/6 wounds
175/36 unsaved
Or about 14 damage from their main attacks.

Plus 8 Snapping Claws...
20/3 hits
20/9 wounds
10/9+25/27 or 55/27 unsaved
About 6 more damage.

So, two unbracketed Keepers do more relative damage to a Shadowsword, if they both make the charge. Which, considering we're talking about an IG Vehicle, is highly unlikely. First off, even on the edge of the DZ, they've only about a 60% chance of making that charge T1, and if it's even as much as 3" back, that drops to about a 1/4 chance. Not to mention, screens.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

A keeper of secrets is 5 and some change times the cost of the Guard Squad it will probably not one-shot in melee once it finally reaches the screen in front of the Shadowsword. And yes, I did mention buffs in my post. All you need is one to-hit buff to kill it, and the Guard have no shortage of those, even for superheavies. Also, shouldn't it be 14 wounds?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

A keeper of secrets is 5 and some change times the cost of the Guard Squad it will probably not one-shot in melee once it finally reaches the screen in front of the Shadowsword. And yes, I did mention buffs in my post. All you need is one to-hit buff to kill it, and the Guard have no shortage of those, even for superheavies. Also, shouldn't it be 14 wounds?

The mode might be 14 wounds, the average is 12.

I'll plug it into Anydice to see some stuff...

Odds of doing X Unsaved Wounds are...

Wounds.....Percent
1...................85.85
2...................53.06
3...................21.57
4...................5.42

Odds of X Unsaved Wounds killing a Keeper of Secrets are...

Wounds............Percent
1..........................0
2........................33.56
3........................90.35
4........................99.62

For the total odds of...

(5.42*.9962)+(16.15*.9035)+(31.49*.3356)=30.56%

So a Shadowsword has about a 1/3 chance of gibbing a Keeper of Secrets, assuming the Heavy Bolter shoots something else.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a Shadowsword has about a 1/3 chance of gibbing a Keeper of Secrets, assuming the Heavy Bolter shoots something else.

Now can you do the Keeper of Secrets' chance of intagibbing a Leman Russ from the opposite side of the table on Turn 1? Since a Leman Russ is a bit more than half the cost of a Keeper (like within 5-10 pts). Don't forget to put the Russ's butt right up against its board edge and put ~10 guardsment or so in front of it.

JNAProductions wrote:It's got 6 (average) shots with the main cannon.
3 hits
5/2 wounds
5/3 failed saves
So yeah, about 12 damage. 10 with the Aegis.

But two Keepers of Secrets (440 points) who somehow both manage to charge the Shadowsword do only...

12 attacks
10 hits
35/6 wounds
175/36 unsaved
Or about 14 damage from their main attacks.

Plus 8 Snapping Claws...
20/3 hits
20/9 wounds
10/9+25/27 or 55/27 unsaved
About 6 more damage.

So, two unbracketed Keepers do more relative damage to a Shadowsword, if they both make the charge. Which, considering we're talking about an IG Vehicle, is highly unlikely. First off, even on the edge of the DZ, they've only about a 60% chance of making that charge T1, and if it's even as much as 3" back, that drops to about a 1/4 chance. Not to mention, screens.

Sure, but the Shadowsword is also a specialized killer of single big things (so the fact that it's relatively more effective at killing a giant daemon than the daemon is at killing it isn't surprising) and does little else, the Keeper of Secrets has a very different role and is going to be better at mulching lighter higher model count units and supporting the rest of the army, and if we're talking about Screens, then we also have to talk about incorporating their cost into that equation.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

A keeper of secrets is 5 and some change times the cost of the Guard Squad it will probably not one-shot in melee once it finally reaches the screen in front of the Shadowsword. And yes, I did mention buffs in my post. All you need is one to-hit buff to kill it, and the Guard have no shortage of those, even for superheavies. Also, shouldn't it be 14 wounds?

Should be ~12 by my math (6*1/2*5/6*2/3*7=11.66+(6*1/2*1/3*2/3)=12.33). If we're incorporating buffs, sure you can increase that, but then that can go both ways, and potentially entail additional costs (and screens aren't free either), and again, we're talking about a dedicated anti-big thing unit that's twice the price of the Keeper of Secrets. With an example that stilted, especially if we factor in a minimal screen, it shouldn't be surprising at almost 500pts of stuff is trouncing a single unit that costs just a bit over 200.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a Shadowsword has about a 1/3 chance of gibbing a Keeper of Secrets, assuming the Heavy Bolter shoots something else.

Now can you do the Keeper of Secrets' chance of intagibbing a Leman Russ from the opposite side of the table on Turn 1? Since a Leman Russ is a bit more than half the cost of a Keeper (like within 5-10 pts). Don't forget to put the Russ's butt right up against its board edge and put ~10 guardsment or so in front of it.

Giving the Keeper of Secrets a Living Whip. It would have to make it within 6" in the movement phase to use it against the Russ, and it would have to do two unsaved wounds to make it require even one less unsaved melee wound to kill.

I will assume, of course, the Keeper advances, so hits with the whip on 3+.

21.92% chance of dealing at least two wounds
4.58% of at least three wounds.
.04% of at least five wounds

One and four were ignored because they don't affect the melee.
Six was ignored because the odds are .001%.

For the melee... And yee gods, it was annoying to calculate the rend!

Wounds..........Percent
1........................97.61
2........................86.73
3........................64.50
4+......................37.75

All damage is flat, so it's pretty simple. 37.75% chance of one-shotting it, assuming no damage dealt at range.

Odds of making a charge at the following distances are...

Range..........Percent
24"..................62.50
25"..................50.00
26"..................37.50
27"..................25.93
28"..................16.20
29"..................9.26
30"..................4.63
31"..................1.85
32"...................46

The Living Whip has a range of 6", with a 14" move, that means it can only hit up to 26" away (with a 6 on advance).

So, with a successful charge, the Keeper has about 25% chance of killing a Leman Russ than a Shadowsword has of killing a Keeper.

Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

EDIT:
So including charge moves, what's the chance? I'm curious now - and we can disregard screens and assume my opponent is a dingus.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I want fire arcs/armour facings back, the ability to put anything in Reserves for any reason, the "combat airspace" mechanic from 7e so flyers can hop out/in instead of needing to fly a rectangle around the middle of the board. I want Sweeping Advances back to make Morale make a difference and let melee units do something without having to physically roll enough dice to kill every single model in front of them. I want stratagems not to be such a powerful mechanic that they force us to build our armies entirely around efficient use of the card game. I want an overhaul to psykers that stops punishing us for taking multiple psykers. I want all Mortal Wounds to go die in a fire. I want points costs attached to Relics. I want anti-aircraft weapons to be a thing rather than just shooting down planes with flamers and battle cannons. I want to not be punished for liking FW models better than GW models. I want the endless proliferation of random characters to stop and the game to be about my army rather than GW's named characters.

I'm not likely to get any of this, but I thought I'd ask.

You are absolutely are getting what you want for fliers leaving the table; that's been confirmed twice.

I can't say that the new uses for CP will offset the importance of strats- to be fair to you, it probably won't. It will help a bit, but not as much as you want. Having said that, if they create more Vigilus style pay CP specialist detachments, that's another offset to strats. Also, because detachments are no longer the thing that generates CP, it will feel less like you're building an army specifically for CP. But yeah, strats are still going to be important to the game.

Good terrain rules have the potential to make melee better; it sounds like they're revisiting overwatch too, which will help. I'm not sure how many cc troops have No Escape, but that helps melee by making the fall back harder.

As for named characters, there are some that aren't as good as their generic equivalents, especially when cost (both points and $) are taken into account. You may not miss out on much by excluding named characters from your army (depending on who you play). I think what you're actually looking for is for everyone else's game to be about the army and not the characters, because you already have the ability to build an army without named characters. Don't get me wrong; I feel you; it sucks to build an army without named characters and feel proud and noble and have that moral high ground, and then get schooled by a Supreme Command full of table breaking monsters. But your army would still be about your army.

As a possible thing to keep in mind, if you play with friends and not strangers, you can probably convince them to play no-names vs no-names every now and again. I would also suggest the coming Crusade system may be good for you because characters would START as generic, but would come to earn their special abilities in battle to become named characters over time. Ready made special characters can feel cheesy, absolutely, but I suspect the characters you build up from nothing will actually be a point of pride, especially because you get choices about how they grow.

As for morale having an impact, isn't that one of the reasons meta is MSU? Because morale kills large units who don't have morale protections. The other thing Ive found about certain strategies is that they don't work really well unless you go all in. Not sure who you play, but if you take every leadership debuff option in your dex, it might actually work for you. If drop your morale to three and drop a strat to make you roll two dice and pick the lesser result, well morale is gonna hurt you, unless you have protection.

Not sure relics need points when you can only take one unless you use CP, and even if you do that, you only get three.

Not sure how you're punished by taking multiple psykers?

I'd like to see Forgeworld disappear, but the ENTIRE FW range converted to plastic and sold and managed directly by GW. Everything in FW range would become more accessible, and higher quality at the same time. I know this will never happen; $500 + models aren't going to sell well enough for GW to invest in them and absorb that risk. But I find FW to be far less accessible than GW, and it's too bad because there are a lot of Forgeworld models I like too.

I like the idea of anti aircraft weapons, but there are concerns: every list needs it, not just freakin marines, and you know that's how it would be rolled out. Also it would create a situation where both aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons becomes a gamble. Imagine loading up on AA weapons, and then your opponent gets to the table and has no fliers. After this happens twenty or thirty times, I imagine that you might wish you hadn't wished for anti aircraft weapons. I think it's actually why GW took them out in the first place.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

But CC is also way easier to shut down-a 40 point Guard unit can spread out over 20", and stop anything without Fly from getting to anything important behind them.

Just as a general question-do you think melee is in a good spot, relative to shooting?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

CC also has major weaknesses - it can only control units it can physically touch, which typically aren't your opponent's best units (as it is trivially easy to put impassable terrain or other less important units between the CC unit and the unit needing protection).

CC does not offer a refuge from shooting any more without some kind of special rule to prevent fallback. Getting into CC now doesn't mean that you are safe; if you plan around that, you're gonna die.

Movement doesn't have much additional utility - if you're talking about standing on objectives, that's true, but you need durability too. Moving onto an objective just to be swept off immediately accomplishes little.

EDIT:
CC also gives the enemy the chance to hit you back. Slaanesh Daemons vs Space Wolves is essentially Slaanesh daemons vs a better assault army that also has shooting, for example. It's an exercise in getting punched in dick for being successful at charging the enemy, lol.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

But CC is also way easier to shut down-a 40 point Guard unit can spread out over 20", and stop anything without Fly from getting to anything important behind them.

Just as a general question-do you think melee is in a good spot, relative to shooting?

You could screen with guardsman in previous editions, that's not terribly new in and of itself. With regards to CC being in a good spot relative to shooting, I don't think so, but I also don't think it's because CC can't cross the board turn 1. Fundamentally I don't think it really should be able to do that, as the implied assumption through every edition has been that it should take a couple turns to get into combat, and the game has usually gone out of its way to ensure that throughout its history. I think bigger issues are a lack of proper terrain/cover rules, some absurdly over-indulgent TLOS and wound allocation rules allowing stuff like sword blades or banners to be used for LoS to wipe out a whole unit, and changes to CC and morale make the stats of a lot of units underwhelming for the killing power they bring, as in previous editions winning combat by even 1 wound could allow a unit to break its opponent and sweep them off the board without having to kill them to the last man, some melee units are absurdly over-killy, but something like a basic Tac/CSM squad isn't nearly the threat it was in say, 3E-5E in close combat. I don't mind the idea of tanks or giant monsters being able to move out of combat, but an infantry unit stuck in blade to blade with the enemy shouldn't just be able to walk out of that without a more appreciable downside, if at all.

The spiking of short range firepower is also an issue. Previous editions had to worry about doubletaps at 12", not quadruple taps with AP bonuses and multiple rerolls and tons of Mortal Wound abilities that affect units in melee or charge distances.

The reason screening with guardsmen wasn't an issue in earlier games is you couldn't fall back, meaning that a unit that made it into combat with Guardsmen was much more likely to survive to make it out of combat with the Guardsmen.

You still had to be careful back then not to blenderize the whole unit on the charge - if you look back, you can see whole guide-threads on how to pull this off.

Nowadays, you slam into the screen, either kill it or not, doesn't matter. Then you die. No chance, if the enemy screens.

Not sure how you're punished by taking multiple psykers?

dismnishing returns. if you have 8-11 casters in your army and still have to cover for utility, you are goint o be left with turns where units could be out of range of smite, but some other unit already cast another units psychic power, leaving it doing nothing in the psychic phase. But you pay for having a psychic ability what ever you can or can not use it. It is a bit like the the melee weapon tax. GW prices stuff as if all units reached melee at full strenght every time, but we all know that is not the case. Making odd situations where intercessors are the best melee unit, because they can melee, but most important of all have good shoting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason screening with guardsmen wasn't an issue in earlier games is you couldn't fall back, meaning that a unit that made it into combat with Guardsmen was much more likely to survive to make it out of combat with the Guardsmen.

You still had to be careful back then not to blenderize the whole unit on the charge - if you look back, you can see whole guide-threads on how to pull this off.

Nowadays, you slam into the screen, either kill it or not, doesn't matter. Then you die. No chance, if the enemy screens.

To be fair, with respect to Guardsmen specifically, not killing them all off, or at least not having them fall back and leaving one exposed, was usually harder than not, and why people would have to go to weird lengths to avoid doing so. I don't think Guardsmen are the worst offenders in this regard personally, I think it's units you genuinely want to engage and fight (as opposed to simply removing a screen) being able to just walk out of combat and not having to worry about a Sweep mechanic that is more of an issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason screening with guardsmen wasn't an issue in earlier games is you couldn't fall back, meaning that a unit that made it into combat with Guardsmen was much more likely to survive to make it out of combat with the Guardsmen.

You still had to be careful back then not to blenderize the whole unit on the charge - if you look back, you can see whole guide-threads on how to pull this off.

Nowadays, you slam into the screen, either kill it or not, doesn't matter. Then you die. No chance, if the enemy screens.

To be fair, with respect to Guardsmen specifically, not killing them all off, or at least not having them fall back and leaving one exposed, was usually harder than not, and why people would have to go to weird lengths to avoid doing so. I don't think Guardsmen are the worst offenders in this regard personally, I think it's units you genuinely want to engage and fight (as opposed to simply removing a screen) being able to just walk out of combat and not having to worry about a Sweep mechanic that is more of an issue.

Sure, that's also an issue. But the main thing is that in earlier edition, screens didn't help much against CC, because being locked in combat meant that the enemy couldn't shoot you. I played a Guard tank company then, and screened with guardsmen plenty of times. It usually ended up with my tank guns being mostly silent because the enemy army was locked up with my screen until they decided to start trying (because they could control what models from what units were in combat with consolidate and pile-in moves) and then they just wiped the screen, usually on my turn, and moved into the tanks.

This edition? You can't do that. Screens effectively prevent non-Fly CC, and Fly CC if they're deep enough. There is no amount of screening that will help against shooting. Nothing to be done except hope the table is set up right, hope your opponent wiffs his dice or your dice are hot, or just permanently stay out of range. Shooting is guaranteed damage on vital units, and the ways to mitigate it are not under my control as the defending player the way it is with CC.

With respect to previous editions, I also played IG mechanized lists and tank companies from 4E onward, I don't recall my infantry living long enough for opponent's units to hide in CC much. A depleted 5 man tac squad charging in would kill 3 guardsmen with 10 attacks on average, I'd usually kill nobody back, take a Morale test at -3 (with an Ld8 sergeant meaning testing on a 5), fail ~72% of the time (or less if I allocated wounds to kill off the Sergeant to test Ld7 on a 4), and then typically be swept or otherwise fall back out of position. I never found units hiding in CC with guardsmen to be a consistent problem I had to deal with, from my experience it was always an "unlucky" outlier. As soon as the guardsmen were out of transports or the enemy got to within 12", the guardsmen disappeared off the table. I found that to be a much more advantageous tactic against my CSM's than it ever was with my Guardsmen.

Of much greater importance was the fact that I couldn't draw LoS to a gun barrel on the one dude in range and allocate wounds to the rest of the unit that was otherwise out of range and LoS.

To break this down to its bare essentials, melee has a couple of really pertinent downsides relative to shooting:

-It has an effective range of 0, so you have to endure shooting and get in close.
-Because you have to get in close, it's easier to block just with screening.
-Your enemy gets to hit you back, even if they'd already shot in their turn. Any time you're hurting the enemy, they're hurting you too.

In previous editions, the main upsides were:
-You get to attack on both your turn and the opponent's turn, so good combat units can do a lot of damage quickly.
-You're safe from shooting, so a good combat unit can inflict damage while mitigating it in return.
-Morale checks for the loser made it easier (relative to shooting) to break the enemy and either wipe them out or render them combat-ineffective.

On top of the increased lethality of shooting (including Overwatch), the above upsides have been mitigated in 8th- Fall Back negates the first two, and morale is easily ignored.

GW has specifically identified Overwatch, Fall Back, and morale as mechanics that are changing in 9th. It's possible that we might be going back to an older version of how things work. Throw in that recent stratagems (eg the new AdMech ones) are focused on durability as much as firepower, and the pendulum might be swinging back.

We'll need to actually see what they've done to those mechanics to draw any useful conclusions, IMO.

 Vaktathi wrote:
With respect to previous editions, I also played IG mechanized lists and tank companies from 4E onward, I don't recall my infantry living long enough for opponent's units to hide in CC much. A depleted 5 man tac squad charging in would kill 3 guardsmen with 10 attacks on average, I'd usually kill nobody back, take a Morale test at -3 (with an Ld8 sergeant meaning testing on a 5), fail ~72% of the time (or less if I allocated wounds to kill off the Sergeant to test Ld7 on a 4), and then typically be swept or otherwise fall back out of position. I never found units hiding in CC with guardsmen to be a consistent problem I had to deal with, from my experience it was always an "unlucky" outlier. As soon as the guardsmen were out of transports or the enemy got to within 12", the guardsmen disappeared off the table. I found that to be a much more advantageous tactic against my CSM's than it ever was with my Guardsmen.

Of much greater importance was the fact that I couldn't draw LoS to a gun barrel on the one dude in range and allocate wounds to the rest of the unit that was otherwise out of range and LoS.

A depleted 5 man tac-squad would charge 2-3 units of guardsmen in my experience, not just one - and then split its attacks. One of them will pass their L6 check

And yes. We'll see how 9th edition handles it.