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.

1. Terrain. It was bad enough in 7th ed, and its horrendous in 8th.
- It is stupidly difficult for things to be 100% obscured.
- It is very difficult for things to be 50% obscured
- In the cases where things are 50% obscured, most of the time it doesn't matter because after AP you have no saves or your invulnerable is better anyway.

2. Morale. The only thing wrong with Morale in 7th ed was that everything that mattered was immune to morale. And it doesn't seem like anything is changing.

3. Fall Baclk. Fall Back is the new 'Fearless' in that anything that matters can fall back & shoot. Combat armies are already at a disadvantage in that they have to cross the field, braving multiple rounds of shooting & overwatch - the tradeoff was supposed to be that you're safe once you reach the enemy. But now you just end up facing guns at point blank again.

4. Codex creep. This isn't technically an issue yet... but its going to be a rough few months as the latest & greatest list is released with all the new rules and strategems that other armies don't have.

Trasvi wrote:

3. Fall Baclk. Fall Back is the new 'Fearless' in that anything that matters can fall back & shoot. Combat armies are already at a disadvantage in that they have to cross the field, braving multiple rounds of shooting & overwatch - the tradeoff was supposed to be that you're safe once you reach the enemy. But now you just end up facing guns at point blank again.

I wish close combat in my armies played the same 8th edition you do. Around here, top of Turn 1 they're balls deep in my lines (thanks Genestealers + Swarmlord / SOB Acts of Faith / Deepstrikers with CP re-rolls / anything fast at all ever!).

Trasvi wrote:
1. Terrain. It was bad enough in 7th ed, and its horrendous in 8th.
- It is stupidly difficult for things to be 100% obscured.
- It is very difficult for things to be 50% obscured
- In the cases where things are 50% obscured, most of the time it doesn't matter because after AP you have no saves or your invulnerable is better anyway.

100% agree, it feels like terrain isn't there most of the time.

Has the OP been banned or given up on this? I only ask because while he's welcome to email whatever he likes to whoever he likes (within the realms of common decency and the laws of the land, so no unsolicited saucy images or attempts to organise an uprising against the crown, for example) I personally wouldn't be comfortable with some odd list of disjointed bullet points being emailed to Games Workshop and presented as being the work of the Dakkadakka forum as a collective. I suspect the OP was intending to present his list of demands (well, strange words and phrases lacking in context or meaning if we're honest) as some kind of official communication from the forum, or representative of the forum's views.

As long as the OP doesn't claim to be operating on behalf of us all though, I'm all for this idea. Not because it would "fix" 40K, which isn't actually broken in my opinion, but because it would be hilarious for some poor bugger at GW to receive these lists. One says "more shooting" the next says "less shooting" the one after that says "Donald Trump" or "female Doctor Who" and none have any real explanation of the problem or what fix is desired. Even the OP's list is a little confusing. If you don't mind, I'll illustrate how someone reading it might have trouble understanding what it is you want.

 ForceChoke wrote:

1. Non Lore Based drop pods

2. Terrain

3 Shooting from the hull

4. Primarchs in competitive play

5. Encourages Hoards

6. More play tested and balanced armies.

8. Primaris lore

9 . Firing arcs

10. Simplified vehicle armor and upgrades.

Non lore based drop pods - I can't figure out what this refers to, never mind why it is a problem and what needs to be done about it.

Terrain - What about terrain? You want terrain? There are rules for terrain, I think. Do you want them to sell terrain? Is the whole concept of terrain a problem?

Shooting from the hull - Again, you need to explain what you mean by this. I guess you mean you don't like line of sight being drawn from any part of a vehicle. But you need to explain why it is a bad thing in the context of the game, from a rules perspective and ideally come up with a solution or an alternative way of doing it, which hasn't already been tried and rejected.

Primarchs in competitive play - you want there to be primarchs in competitive play? Why not friendly games as well? Or you don't like them but again aren't going to explain why.

Encourages hordes - I can't for the life of me figure out why you would consider this to be a bad thing. The game should be designed to discourage horde armies? Ork players should be trodden upon, and anything that might make the game enjoyable for them should be flagged up as a problem?

More play-tested and balanced armies - The format up until now seems to have been to simply list the things that you consider to be a problem, so going by that, it appears that you are saying that having more play-tested, balanced armies is a problem. If you are saying that you want more play-tested, balanced armies, then that is completely facile. As if that's something that has never occurred to them. At least give some examples of poor balance!

Primaris Lore - Again, you're not detailing a problem, you are just saying, "primaris lore." The person reading would not know what it is that you don't like about the primaris lore, whether you like primaris marines but think the lore is iffy, or don't like primaris marines at all because of the lore, or maybe there's some specific part of the lore you don't like. It isn't very clear, so I don't know how you expect them to "fix" it.

Firing Arcs - They're gone, aren't they? So problem solved! Or do you want them back? Why? Or is there some other issue which is somehow related to firing arcs?

Simplified vehicle armour and upgrades - You want them to be simplified further, right? It's again very hard to tell. They are already pretty simple and easy to understand. I agree that it is better, but you need to explain why you feel it should be simplified further, and how it should be done. Or again, maybe you are saying the opposite, and you consider the simplification to be a problem? It's very unclear. You might say, "of course that's what I'm saying!" but it only seems that way to you because to you whatever it that you are seeing as a problem seems self-evident to you. The reader most likely wouldn't have the same perspective as you, especially if that person is someone who worked on the new edition!

Please don't think I'm being "hostile" or unnecessarily mean, I'm trying to help. It's good to have your work proof read and constructive criticism given. I'm trying to stop you simply sending GW a huge list of complete nonsense, which is what it currently looks like you're about to do. I don't begrudge you your right to give GW feedback on the game, and I hope you haven't been banned. I haven't seen anything I personally would consider ban-worthy in this thread. I agree that trying to reach a consensus is impossible, so the compilation of lists of individual suggestions isn't a bad one (although don't expect anyone to bother reading it - they are busy people and such a list would be a massive pain in the bum to wade through.) This criticism is nothing to do with my own views of 40K, incidentally - I'm just trying to help. The fact that I disagree with every one of your criticisms is neither here nor there.

 feltmonkey wrote:
Has the OP been banned or given up on this?

I think he got a 2 day ban, which is what tends to happen when you backchat a mod or have one of your posts edited by a mod. But he's been gone for 4 days now...

Maybe he's left like how he left Bolter & Chainsword for having "fascist" mods who won't let him verbally abuse everyone all the time.

X) SM CT's are not balanced between themselves, and the IF one is unfluffy.
X+1) Any army with a new codex is going to be solidly "Your Army +1" until everyone else gets a codex.
X+2) The Codex release schedule is too fast to implement balance changes or to come up with sensible CT-equivalents for armies that didn't have them last edition.