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.

Nothing really in concrete terms.
But a simplification of the rule set would be highly welcome.

Neither, really. Whilst I don't see the codices being invalidated as a big deal (they will be invalidated periodically anyway, just not all at once) and think that maintaining the backwards compatibility limits the ways the game can be improved, I don't want to see AOSification either. I think the core of the rules is fine, and better than AOS. Static rolls make everything samey and the target selection matters less, I don't want that. Then again, I want the rules bloat and power creep beaten back, and I want the vehicle rules to be pretty much completely redesigned, so those would require a reboot. I guess I'd want to see 2E to 3E style reboot rather than FB to AOS style reboot. In the former the game was streamlined a great deal, but the core of the mechanics was maintained.

I'm fine with vanilla 7th conceptually, although the execution was lacking in places, which is the one thing GW does consistently. But overall, it was ok.
There is one thing I want to get out of the way right from the start though. What I would want to see first and foremost is LESS FRIGGIN RNG.
Seriously... Random traits, random powers, random rewards, random objectives, random flipping everything! Allow players more agency. I don't want to play an npc commander, I want to play MY commander.

I'm fine with a completely revamped rule system, but don't touch the fething lore other than through campaign books (which still isn't an excuse to blow everything up...). Lore wise I'd be fine with chaos starting a new final crusade that reaches the borders but then stop there and advance the story sideways, not forwards. Simply because, if they reach terra and stop there, well there's not much left for the imperium to do but fight chaos for eternetiy or have one side win. Having chaos at knocking at the gates at least gives room for conflicts that haven't gotten the news yet or so.

As for rules, the BRB is only part of the problem we have now.
I don't mind formations, I think they can add to the game. The problem is that we have been getting nothing but formations over and over again and they're getting bigger and bigger and more and more op.
It's gotten pretty ridiculous. They need need to take a step back and reign that stuff in.
I would also like the roles to matter more. Troops should be objective secured even in formations for example. It's what they do.
Or at the very least give us more role based detachments. There are a gazillion formations...it's ok...we get, now can we go back to roles please? Especially with the forgeworld detachments being quite nice and already a thing.

The game also has become too big for it's own sake. Hell they even added extra phases. I have had people literally fall asleep during my turn, because of how long one person can be playing without requiring any input from their opponent. I mean they were tired after a long week but still. I would appreciate a different approach to the game structure that is more engaging and more importantly, faster. Be that unit per unit, some kind of action point system or whatever. Hell it could be some kind of order system like the guards have, but for players. *Shrug* I just know the game is too clunky right now. Too many things happening that require too many rolls.

I find psychic powers especially slow. Random psychic powers not only mean that before you can even play a game, you have to decide on what disciplines to roll based on your opponent , then roll and re-roll for powers, but you also have to write down who got what power since it changes every game.Then in-game, you roll for warp charges, manage how many charges you want, then roll if you succeed, then your opponent manages his dice and rolls for denying.
Way back when, you showed up to a game with all of that done and if you wanted to cast a spell you made a leadership check, boom, done. I'm sure there's a healthy middle to be found there.
Don't get me wrong, I like rolling dice around like the next guy but the game sure could use a bit less of it.

That also comes back to all the RNG. Not only would it be fluffier with less RNG, but the game would be faster if you can take out some decisions from the actual game and put them into army building. Part of that problem is the whole scale schizophrenia.
Kill team scale could have all kinds of traps and terrain effects and what have you, but when you scale that up to apocalypse it grinds the game to a halt. So I hope 8th tries to be a 1000-2000k game and be good at that and that's it. Or at least offer different game modes and put some work into them. There is no point trying to play epic 40k with basic 40k rules, not unless you are fine playing a several months game...
That also means reducing super heavies and D in normal games or at least disarming them somewhat, like the eldar nerfed D weapons. They're still really strong but not brokenly so.
Hero hammer doesn't make sense when there's no struggle. Here's my super duper primarch aaaand he's a puddle of goo now, thanks D. The fluff is all nice and well but we want to play balanced games too.

But if it's just more of the same with no more rules issues we have now, I'd be happy enough. Just means putting more work into organizing what is ok to play in your local meta.

Recently I've been wondering about what purpose the Force Organization Chart serves, especially with formations and multiple detachments.

There probably does need to be some limitations for competitive play, and to give people looking to have fun some guidelines. I just don't see the need to have different categories for Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support.

I think something based on points but a little more open like the old WHFB would be nice. Maybe something like this:

For every 500 points you can take up to one HQ choice* and must take one Troops choice.
For every 1000 points you can take up to one fortification.*
For every 1500 points you can take up to one Lord of War.*
You can take any number of other units (what would normally be Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support).

One stipulation I would put in is that for every 500 points you can only have one of any given unit, or two if it's a Troops choice. So in a 500 point game you could have up to two Tactical Squads but only one Whirlwind. I don't think this would actually affect most armies, but it could keep people from spamming a bunch of undercosted units. So, no single unit of grots and then fifteen individual Deff Koptas at 500 points.

Formations and detachments would have to fit within the overall requirements.

*There might need to be a further breakdown of HQ, fortifications and Lords of War. A Big Mek and a Mekboy aren't the same level of HQ choice. An ADL and an Aquila Strongpoint are not the same level of Fortification. A Gorgon and a Reaver Titan are not the same level of Lord of War. Making more categories defeats the purpose to a certain extent. One option might be to make certain fortifications and lords of war take two slots while certain "Regimental Advisor" -type troop choices are three-for-one (like a Commissar, Priest and Enginseer might be a single HQ choice).

Just something I've been thinking about.

I sure as hell hope they don't do a super radical reboot of the game. It could completely invalidate a lot of people's army builds that they've put a lot of time and money into, including my own. 7th edition is plenty enjoyable and I'm happy with it, even with its problems. I hope they just smooth out some of the problems and adjust some of the super good and super bad codexes to make a more balanced game with greater variety of competitive army builds.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I sure as hell hope they don't do a super radical reboot of the game. It could completely invalidate a lot of people's army builds that they've put a lot of time and money into, including my own. 7th edition is plenty enjoyable and I'm happy with it, even with its problems. I hope they just smooth out some of the problems and adjust some of the super good and super bad codexes to make a more balanced game with greater variety of competitive army builds.

And? They've completely invalidated armies/models I collected and built several times over the years (Altho we did finally get Genestealer Cult back). Why should I care if they do it again? I personally do not find 7th enjoyable due to the proliferation of uber mega this and that bullcrap. Get rid of formations and datasheets and multiple FOCs/allies and all that crap, get rid of Lords of War, get rid of Super heavies, get rid of gargantuan monstrous creatures, I'd even be willing to see flyers go away. Doing that would level a lot of the playing field... Make it a game about the troops again (and wow, sales of troops models would go up...). But just a grumpy old mans opinion.

Glad you are enjoying the current version. Course, I enjoyed 2nd ed before they came along and completely dumped it and changed all the rules and invalidated every codex...

If a game like 40k is constantly being expanded how long can it go before needing a rules reboot? I've got a lot of old codexes that no longer have valid rules. Their fluff is still fun, though. I've got who knows how many D&D books from previous editions.

It would suck to be someone who picked up the Genestealer Cults codex, I'll give you that. Most other codexes are pretty old. There are supplements, like Traitor Legions, but I'm not sure what a "fair" shelf life would be for them.