Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really hope they completely revamp everything. Really shake it up. It might actually be worse (somehow?) It's just become so stale playing this Frankenstein's monster version of 3rd.

It doesn't capture the lore or universe very well. It is clunky and bloated. Start fresh. It would be nice to let your playerbase rediscover the game instead of spending 10 or so Dakka pages parsing the new broken.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

It'd be like Apocalypse was originally, where to get formation special rules you had to pay the points.

Current formation rules are GW handing out more in-game power 'cause you bought more miniatures.

and were is the difference to now if SM pay 50 points to get 500 points free and other formations pay 200 for useless special rules?

GW is not able to balance point values inside a faction book
why do you think point value on formations will be better

Kroem wrote:
- use unit amount caps for flavour instead of formations (For example Skarboyz are 0-1 unless you are Goffs etc)

No thanks. That just makes very inflexible army structure that scales badly with point sizes. And btw drives toward deathstars when rather than 2x5 you have to go for 1x10 etc.

0-1's were crappy when they were first introduced and still are except what obviously are unique(not many Dante's running around)

And then GW would probably do something stupid like justify lower point cost because "you can only have 1 of them" which is like mind bogglingly stupid reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
My local store manager (and good friend with contacts to good ol' england) told me some nice informations/rumors.

He said the 8th Edition for 40k will have two seperate rulesets. The first one will have streamlined rules with simplified army lists, like AoS Warscrolls (one page with all needed profiles, options, special rules) but still with mostly familiar 40k rules. The second one will be a streamlined 7th Edition which will be compatible and used with Forgeworlds Horus Heresy rules. Last one is maybe compatible with 7th Edition Codices and Suppliments too.

I think this one has a hefty element of truth to it, keeping in mind streamlining is (to me) removing all the layers of game with flyers, D weapons, apoc, superheavies, etc. and keeping a simpler rules system where you can then find synergies with datasheets and make the good combos and plays without having to take 16 steps through the rules to figure out how X works in this case. The synching with HH will be a thing to watch, indeed.

Whatever happens you can be sure flyers, any model with D weapons, superheavies etc will be usable in game as standard. Removing those from game will require players to house rule them out like now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

Same that adding point cost to more powerful model adds. One model is better but costs more. Other is worse but you have more of them.

Similarly if you take good formations good for you but your army shrinks in size. Opponent is fighting with quantity vs quality.

Or do you think adding point cost to space marine over IG trooper is meaningless? "What would adding points to SM change?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Tbh all they need to do is put a tax on formations instead of just free rules and war gear. Because not all formations are created equal.

So I take it the Tyranid tax will cost as much as a Tau tax. So how is that going to change things?

You have formation A. It costs 50 pts. Then you have formation B that's more powerful but costs 100 pts.

So if you take formation B you get better rules but have 50 pts less to spend to your army.

Compared to now where formation B has better rules AND same amount of points to spend on army...

Yeah I really don't know why people are having such a hard time getting their head around formation points costs. We're not suggesting a set 'tax' that applies equally and evenly to all formations. It would be points costs based upon relative effectiveness, just like points for units are done now (in theory, at least...).

It's something they've done before, in Apocalypse, the first time around.

 kodos wrote:
and were is the difference to now if SM pay 50 points to get 500 points free and other formations pay 200 for useless special rules?

Well obviously getting free transports/upgrades is pants-on-head stupid to begin with. Obviously a 50 point formation cost to get free transports wouldn't work.

tneva82 wrote:

Same that adding point cost to more powerful model adds. One model is better but costs more. Other is worse but you have more of them.
Similarly if you take good formations good for you but your army shrinks in size. Opponent is fighting with quantity vs quality.
Or do you think adding point cost to space marine over IG trooper is meaningless? "What would adding points to SM change?"
[...]

You have formation A. It costs 50 pts. Then you have formation B that's more powerful but costs 100 pts.
So if you take formation B you get better rules but have 50 pts less to spend to your army.

You got it.
We are still talking about GW here, and the Point costs are already meaningless
Or do you think IG Troopers are worth 10 points when Marines cost 12?
The whole reason why specific armies are better than other is because point costs are random values. Models without ranged weapons cost more points because of their good BS value.

Will 40k be a better game if Tau Fire Warrior Formation pay 100 Points to get Furious Charge, and Space Marines pay 50 to get a free Land Raider?

Point Costs of Formation is a good idea for it's own.
But it is still GW who writes the rules and for the current 40k you can already remove point values at all and just play Formation against Formation (because first Formation get models worth 1000 points for free while the other one get special rules for free, so why talking about points if your 1500 point games are in real 3000 VS 2000).
If GW adds points cost to formations nothing will change at it will be a random value that never represents what you get.

Compared to now where formation B has better rules AND same amount of points to spend on army.

Compared to now we will end that formation B has better rules and pay less points for it than formation A which pays extra for getting nothing.

 kodos wrote:
... and Space Marines pay 50 to get a free Land Raider?

They wouldn't pay 50 points to get free units, because that doesn't make sense and is bad rules design.

Again, this isn't rocket science. They did it before, and the idea that points costs are random is simply false.

 General Kroll wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

It'd be like Apocalypse was originally, where to get formation special rules you had to pay the points.

Current formation rules are GW handing out more in-game power 'cause you bought more miniatures.

Until people can learn to accept that this is part of GWs business model, and reconcile this fact within their heart of hearts, then they will forever be disappointed with whatever rules or codices/ army books they release.

Most collectible miniatures games or card games have this kind of mechanic built into them to an extent. It's how companies like FFG, GW etc. Keep themselves afloat.

Anyone who thinks this kind of thing will be disappearing with 8th edition should make a head start of being disappointed.

Wrong. In age of sigmar match play you pay a point tax on warsroll armies, and the costs are reflective of how powerful the warscroll is.

If their is no point cost it's only for unbound and campaign play. GW added point costs to AOS terrain so you can buy and use it in match play.

These are changes GW made to that game in response to community feed back.

I'm expecting the current "free" formations to get dumped into unbound /campaign play, with 40k match play only allowing ones with attached point costs.

These sort of changes improved the health of the game for the better, and have been praised.

And the point tax in AoS favours some Warscrolls over others and free items/rules that make the army better than others if specific formations are used are already there

AoS is not different to 40k
Units/Warscrolls have more balanced points because they were all done at once than 40k, but are still aiming to sell stuff.
While Army Formations get bonus stuff without paying for it which give them an advantage over other factions.

 kodos wrote:
And the point tax in AoS favours some Warscrolls over others and free items/rules that make the army better than others if specific formations are used are already there

AoS is not different to 40k
Units/Warscrolls have more balanced points because they were all done at once than 40k, but are still aiming to sell stuff.
While Army Formations get bonus stuff without paying for it which give them an advantage over other factions.

Not really. Ironjawz' most competitive formation up to date is the Ironfist, which, in theory, could be run with just a unit of each type. Likewise, there's plenty of good formations that do not require unit spam. Kunnin' Rukk is extremely powerful (as in, it has won tournaments-powerful) and it doesn't require unit spam either (at most, if you wanted to, buy two boxes of arrer boyz, but that's nowhere close to buying ten rhinos). Some do, like the dual-gautfyre but honestly, it's a bit all over the place.

tneva82 wrote:

Kroem wrote:
- use unit amount caps for flavour instead of formations (For example Skarboyz are 0-1 unless you are Goffs etc)

No thanks. That just makes very inflexible army structure that scales badly with point sizes. And btw drives toward deathstars when rather than 2x5 you have to go for 1x10 etc.

0-1's were crappy when they were first introduced and still are except what obviously are unique(not many Dante's running around)

And then GW would probably do something stupid like justify lower point cost because "you can only have 1 of them" which is like mind bogglingly stupid reason.

Those are some fair points, its interesting to see a more competitive viewpoint as I usually play more easygoing games.
Haven't 0-1's always been in Warhammer? I'm sure Rogue Trader Ork armies had 0-1 Big Mobs.

I do think think that inflexibility is a cool way to theme and army though, if every army is very flexible then it doesn't present as interesting a challenge in army building or bring across the strengths and weaknesses if a particular faction as well for me.

I actually really like the idea of having a formation where you can have a completely different army composition to represent a specific faction, but in their current incarnation they are so numerous, disparate and laden with special rules that they present a big barrier to people entering the hobby.

 Lockark wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

It'd be like Apocalypse was originally, where to get formation special rules you had to pay the points.

Current formation rules are GW handing out more in-game power 'cause you bought more miniatures.

Until people can learn to accept that this is part of GWs business model, and reconcile this fact within their heart of hearts, then they will forever be disappointed with whatever rules or codices/ army books they release.

Most collectible miniatures games or card games have this kind of mechanic built into them to an extent. It's how companies like FFG, GW etc. Keep themselves afloat.

Anyone who thinks this kind of thing will be disappearing with 8th edition should make a head start of being disappointed.

Wrong. In age of sigmar match play you pay a point tax on warsroll armies, and the costs are reflective of how powerful the warscroll is.

If their is no point cost it's only for unbound and campaign play. GW added point costs to AOS terrain so you can buy and use it in match play.

These are changes GW made to that game in response to community feed back.

I'm expecting the current "free" formations to get dumped into unbound /campaign play, with 40k match play only allowing ones with attached point costs.

These sort of changes improved the health of the game for the better, and have been praised.

I'd prefer points for formations - or at the very least for them to re-made in the new mould ala Fall of Cadia - want the snackiest rules, you need to max out the formation. Prevents bare bones formations benefitting from the filthier rules.

Kroem wrote:
Haven't 0-1's always been in Warhammer? I'm sure Rogue Trader Ork armies had 0-1 Big Mobs.

Yes and it was bad at then. Sure it works at the specific point value but what about higher or lower? Lower point cost and the 0-1 has bigger impact than in bigger game and at that point we hit into oddity that their numbers in % starts to drop dramatically. So somehow in smaller games 0-1 units are more common than in bigger...Go figure.

tneva82 wrote:

Kroem wrote:
Haven't 0-1's always been in Warhammer? I'm sure Rogue Trader Ork armies had 0-1 Big Mobs.

Yes and it was bad at then. Sure it works at the specific point value but what about higher or lower? Lower point cost and the 0-1 has bigger impact than in bigger game and at that point we hit into oddity that their numbers in % starts to drop dramatically. So somehow in smaller games 0-1 units are more common than in bigger...Go figure.

You could do like GHB: the number of spefic units allowed (and minimum battle-line) scales according to the points level. Thus you can't bring more than 4 artillery/behemoth at 2k points. 2 of each at 1k. And so on. Make it evolve according to the points level instead of a unique set.

Lord Kragan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Kroem wrote:
Haven't 0-1's always been in Warhammer? I'm sure Rogue Trader Ork armies had 0-1 Big Mobs.

Yes and it was bad at then. Sure it works at the specific point value but what about higher or lower? Lower point cost and the 0-1 has bigger impact than in bigger game and at that point we hit into oddity that their numbers in % starts to drop dramatically. So somehow in smaller games 0-1 units are more common than in bigger...Go figure.

You could do like GHB: the number of spefic units allowed (and minimum battle-line) scales according to the points level. Thus you can't bring more than 4 artillery/behemoth at 2k points. 2 of each at 1k. And so on. Make it evolve according to the points level instead of a unique set.

Better though then you need formations etc to cover some fluffy combos like all-deathwing armies.

Still prefer simply that points were fixed so there would be less issue of somebody going all-X. Albeit harder to do but better than artificial restrictions.

Honestly, I think a big tweak to the FoC would make an absolute world of difference to 40k.

Imagine if Lords of War become 1 per full 2,000 points for instance (values purely for demonstration!)

Or if you had to take 1 Troops per 500 points.

Any serious oddities can be addressed by shifting things around the FoC allocations in the main rulebook as a stop-gap.

I really feel that whilst a useful tool when it first came about, the FoC is out of date. And I'd like to use my favourite comparison - Epic Unit cards.

See, in 2nd Edition Epic, you picked your army in a set way. First, you chose a Company Card. These were set formations - so for instance a Wind Rider Company, Tactical Company etc. Each of these then opened up the chance to take 0-6 (may have been 5!) Support Cards - typically a tank squadron or small infantry force, and a Special Card (Titans for the most part!).

All find and dandy for most. Orks shifted those rules slightly, and Tyranids? Wow, they did things completely differently.

For Nids, their cards were hexagonal. You kicked off with a Synapse Creature. The bigger the creature, the more units it could look after - so the more you could attach for it to babysit. Some additional units (Tyranid Warriors) would allow further units to be added - all tessellating in a web, represented by the unit cards themselves.

Imagine Nids done that way in 40k. Big part of their problem is the FoC is just too restrictive - they've got whole sections massively oversubscribed in terms of unit choice - which perhaps perversely means armies tend to look the same, because some choices are genuine no-brainers (poor, unloved Pyrovore!)

Imagine Nid selection re-imagined, taking cues for old Epic. Rather than individual units, you formed mixed broods. So perhaps a Brood of Tyranid Warriors, leading two units of Termagants, with Pyrovores and Venomthropes as support - all acting as a single unit. Termies soak up the wounds, Warriors keep everyone together, Venomthropes and Pyrovores do the damage. It would likely open up a variety in armies being fielded, no?

You could do like GHB: the number of spefic units allowed (and minimum battle-line) scales according to the points level. Thus you can't bring more than 4 artillery/behemoth at 2k points. 2 of each at 1k. And so on. Make it evolve according to the points level instead of a unique set.

Not really, again. Do like GHB: you can bring in those formations BUT they must fit into the FOC. You may even make adjustments (within the realm of reason) such as making Battleline X unit if you bring an all X faction. You want all termies? Okay, you WILL run all termies but nothing else from outside.

Kroem wrote:
Yea true. It seems like it is actually quite difficult to fit everything in without making a complex system.

It doesn't have to be complex. "Balanced point costs". There. Done. System is actually simple. Problem is balancing points.

If not nigh-on impossible given the high number of variables within 40k, including stuff you just can't legislate for.

For instance - an assault army attacking Planet Bowling Bowl, which is largely devoid of cover is going to have a damned hard time against an army that relies on ranged shooting.

Likewise, the shooty army fighting a pure assault army where there's very little line of sight is facing an uphill battle.

Some units within a Codex are suited to more open ground, others really excel in City Fights - so pointing them right is difficult straight off the bat, as it all depends what sort of board a given group typically favours.

If the terrain is fully 3d, with gantries etc, a tank heavy army may not be able to get anyone in their arc of fire, reducing each tanks potential effectiveness - and that's without considering that really dense terrain may severely limit where the tank can even go.

I truly don't believe a game with as much variety as 40k can ever be perfectly balanced - but that's not to say they can't make a better job of it than present.

tneva82 wrote:

Kroem wrote:
Yea true. It seems like it is actually quite difficult to fit everything in without making a complex system.

It doesn't have to be complex. "Balanced point costs". There. Done. System is actually simple. Problem is balancing points.

Haha well yea that would be bloody brilliant but that's hard to do with so many different armies and combinations.

However, 30k is reportedly much better because of balanced point values, so maybe it can be done.

That Epic unit card thing sounds amazing. Honestly I would just love a visual way of planning an army, cards with cool art on them that tessellate only in ways to construct a legal army would be easy to understand and let you have the complexity required to field unique and fluffy armies.

Mikhael on 2-1-2017

40K 8th Edition Ruleset

The new rules are streamlined but retain the core of current 7th edition 40k rules.
Age of Sigmar style Warscroll-datasheets are in.
Look to find unit stats, special rules and rules on these Warscrolls-datasheets, in short everything you would need to play in one place.
Most of the core rules’s complexity is staying, with only some fiddly peripheral rules and a percentage of the unit special rules being phased out.

30K Horus Heresy Ruleset

The 30K rules will allow use of current Forge World books without alteration.
Technically the ruleset is not new.
It is the current 7th edition ruleset, with 40th millennia portions removed and the 30K Age of Darkness sections added in their place.

How would the warscroll datasets affect codex and supplements currently released?

It won't them affect at all because we have the Warscroll/Datasleet release since a year in 40k now

in the end we will not see the classic Codex book any more but just the collection of recent Datasleets (like the actual campaign books)

Dunno about that. AoS has it's Battletomes, which as of Tzeentch have pretty much everything, barring campaign released formations.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I truly don't believe a game with as much variety as 40k can ever be perfectly balanced - but that's not to say they can't make a better job of it than present.

No disagreements but then again same reasons means artificial limitations won't help either. They are as much subject to variables as points.

tneva82 wrote:

Kroem wrote:
Yea true. It seems like it is actually quite difficult to fit everything in without making a complex system.

It doesn't have to be complex. "Balanced point costs". There. Done. System is actually simple. Problem is balancing points.

I totally agree, the only issue that 40k can have is that there are 4-5 overpowered armies because some units/wargear are too cheap and some formations too cheesy. But keeping Riptides, Centurions, Strormsurge, Wraitknight, free points Drop Pods and Rhinos/Razorbacks point-wise cheap means that a lot of people is going to buy those boxes. I know that balancing the game could increase the general profit too, after all armies like tyranids or orks cost a lot of money and if GW promotes them their stuff would be sold in better numbers, but the strategy that GW adopted is to overpower some specific armies because they think they will generate more profits this way.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If not nigh-on impossible given the high number of variables within 40k, including stuff you just can't legislate for.

For instance - an assault army attacking Planet Bowling Bowl, which is largely devoid of cover is going to have a damned hard time against an army that relies on ranged shooting.

Likewise, the shooty army fighting a pure assault army where there's very little line of sight is facing an uphill battle.

Some units within a Codex are suited to more open ground, others really excel in City Fights - so pointing them right is difficult straight off the bat, as it all depends what sort of board a given group typically favours.

If the terrain is fully 3d, with gantries etc, a tank heavy army may not be able to get anyone in their arc of fire, reducing each tanks potential effectiveness - and that's without considering that really dense terrain may severely limit where the tank can even go.

I truly don't believe a game with as much variety as 40k can ever be perfectly balanced - but that's not to say they can't make a better job of it than present.

You're like a false dilemma machine, Grotsnik, acting like balance (or rather imperfect balance, because perfect balance is not attainable) is some sort of myth so impossible to achieve that we (or they) shouldn't even try. You can type endless meaningless examples/anecdotes about what's balance and what's not, and make it out as if GW is doing us a favour with the way they write rules, but it'll never make any of it true.

Did you read my entire post? Clearly not.

Here's the bit you seemed to have missed....

Me. Just there. wrote:I truly don't believe a game with as much variety as 40k can ever be perfectly balanced - but that's not to say they can't make a better job of it than present.

Perfect balance is not achievable. But GW can do better.

Please try to read whole posts dude.

Thebiggesthat wrote:

 miniholic wrote:
1 ruleset for 40k + 1 ruleset for 30K

Anything else is bs!
Played my last warhammer game before AoS was released and am selling my armies ever since.
If they do that stupid thing with 40K I'm out !

More cheap models on eBay

Then when the sky doesn't fall in and 40k is just as playable as AoS, I'll have all the armies

I would prefer them to make the rulesets more like 30k. No constant superfriends, and extremely limited formations.

Eldarain wrote:I really hope they completely revamp everything. Really shake it up. It might actually be worse (somehow?) It's just become so stale playing this Frankenstein's monster version of 3rd.

It doesn't capture the lore or universe very well. It is clunky and bloated. Start fresh. It would be nice to let your playerbase rediscover the game instead of spending 10 or so Dakka pages parsing the new broken.

I fully agree. And please put in movement stats as well. Makes the units more unique as well.

tneva82 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Tbh all they need to do is put a tax on formations instead of just free rules and war gear. Because not all formations are created equal.

So I take it the Tyranid tax will cost as much as a Tau tax. So how is that going to change things?

You have formation A. It costs 50 pts. Then you have formation B that's more powerful but costs 100 pts.

So if you take formation B you get better rules but have 50 pts less to spend to your army.

Compared to now where formation B has better rules AND same amount of points to spend on army...

Hmmmm. Azreal from the Dark Angels codex is a Lords of War (could be wrong on this part), cost 230 points if not more and doesn't offer a lot. Cawl is what 200 points, way more durable and does a heck of a lot more and is not a Lord of War (again could be wrong about Azreal).

So please forgive me if I don't have faith in GW cost pointing the "tax" properly especially when a lot of Tyranid units are way over costed as well.