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.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
People don't buy hoard armies because they're stupidly expensive to purchase, clumsy to deploy and play and they're so compressed by cheap elites that they're awful at any kind of competition, it's a shame because hoard armies look amazing on the tabletop.

I do not expect GW to make hoard armies good again in 8th. Building and collecting a hoard army isn't really what most players want to do. Even most horde players do not like to paint 150+ of the same guys. It is a rare thing to actually see a horde army where every model is painted with love. The shift to lower model count armies tends to make players more satisfied with their models / armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pushing players who would hate building a hoard army into buying into them just because they are strong seems like a thing GW should avoid, if they want to keep their player base happy.

Faster game play! Free rules. Bring back TAC casual games.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
People don't buy hoard armies because they're stupidly expensive to purchase, clumsy to deploy and play and they're so compressed by cheap elites that they're awful at any kind of competition, it's a shame because hoard armies look amazing on the tabletop.

I do not expect GW to make hoard armies good again in 8th. Building and collecting a hoard army isn't really what most players want to do. Even most horde players do not like to paint 150+ of the same guys. It is a rare thing to actually see a horde army where every model is painted with love. The shift to lower model count armies tends to make players more satisfied with their models / armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pushing players who would hate building a hoard army into buying into them just because they are strong seems like a thing GW should avoid, if they want to keep their player base happy.

There was a time when fifty models in a 2000 point match was considered a hoard.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
People don't buy hoard armies because they're stupidly expensive to purchase, clumsy to deploy and play and they're so compressed by cheap elites that they're awful at any kind of competition, it's a shame because hoard armies look amazing on the tabletop.

I do not expect GW to make hoard armies good again in 8th. Building and collecting a hoard army isn't really what most players want to do. Even most horde players do not like to paint 150+ of the same guys. It is a rare thing to actually see a horde army where every model is painted with love. The shift to lower model count armies tends to make players more satisfied with their models / armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pushing players who would hate building a hoard army into buying into them just because they are strong seems like a thing GW should avoid, if they want to keep their player base happy.

while I can agree most people would not want to paint that many models let alone paint them well is rare that is nto a reason to not make them viable again. I would love to run my green tide. I have over 200 ork boyz models all painted to a decent table top finish and the few times I have brought them out since 6th they just autolose.

Alright lets put it in an other way, they don't have to be not viable they can be buffed slightly they just can't be good.
Because a large quantity of players tend do flock towards good armies and good armies being out of reach for them because of huge investments in both time,money and the inability to cope with boredom while painting feels wrong and will likely result in less than ideal situations. Just imagine all those eldar players switching to unpainted ork blobz, thats no fun for any of us.

-Rules like Bolt Action to some extent (or at least a move away from you go I go).

-Cheaper prices on everything. Coming from WW2 miniatures, the high prices of GW was uncomfortable. Why is it that a I can get 40 infantry men for a winter soviet army and special weapons teams (once again referring to BA) for about $50, but one squad of Cadians, 10 men, are $30! Both are in the same scale and plastic!!!

-Support for everything. I want my Sister of Battle plastics, I want a bit more diversity in my Imperial Guard, and what ever model GW is too lazy to make, which goes into my last.

-Support the crap out of third party. Allow OGL to flourish and not have to worry about being sued.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
-Rules like Bolt Action to some extent (or at least a move away from you go I go).

-Cheaper prices on everything. Coming from WW2 miniatures, the high prices of GW was uncomfortable. Why is it that a I can get 40 infantry men for a winter soviet army and special weapons teams (once again referring to BA) for about $50, but one squad of Cadians, 10 men, are $30! Both are in the same scale and plastic!!!

-Support for everything. I want my Sister of Battle plastics, I want a bit more diversity in my Imperial Guard, and what ever model GW is too lazy to make, which goes into my last.

-Support the crap out of third party. Allow OGL to flourish and not have to worry about being sued.

You are backing the wrong horse here. Gw is never going to ramp up production cost while lowering their prices and inviting the competition in.
They are there to make profit, no shareholder will agree to these plans. It might be a good idea to switch back to BA

Removal of d weapons on anything less than a super heavy
Fixing of vehicles so that they are not tissue paper (by removing glances or going aos type system)
Vehicles able to do something in hand to hand combat with a save as well
Removal of emp style weapons
Removal of tau throwing the rule book away
Rebalance of points so that it is fair or as fair as can be
Save modifiers rather than ap
A kicking for any one who worked on the ork codex or who says its fair.
Allowing vehicles to fire all there weapons even at different targets
The removal of favoritism​ on codex releases as in no one should have 3 codecs before others get one
Point cost for formations
Fixing transports rules that allow the people inside it to fire normally when jinking but the stable platforms with soficted targeting computers are snap firing.
Other races getting more love for there model range and the removal of finecast from all ranges

I am sure there is alot more but that will do for now

 oldzoggy wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
-Rules like Bolt Action to some extent (or at least a move away from you go I go).

-Cheaper prices on everything. Coming from WW2 miniatures, the high prices of GW was uncomfortable. Why is it that a I can get 40 infantry men for a winter soviet army and special weapons teams (once again referring to BA) for about $50, but one squad of Cadians, 10 men, are $30! Both are in the same scale and plastic!!!

-Support for everything. I want my Sister of Battle plastics, I want a bit more diversity in my Imperial Guard, and what ever model GW is too lazy to make, which goes into my last.

-Support the crap out of third party. Allow OGL to flourish and not have to worry about being sued.

You are backing the wrong horse here. Gw is never going to ramp up production cost while lowering their prices and inviting the competition in.
They are there to make profit, no shareholder will agree to these plans. It might be a good idea to switch back to BA

Thought as much.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Alright lets put it in an other way, they don't have to be not viable they can be buffed slightly they just can't be good.
Because a large quantity of players tend do flock towards good armies and good armies being out of reach for them because of huge investments in both time,money and the inability to cope with boredom while painting feels wrong and will likely result in less than ideal situations. Just imagine all those eldar players switching to unpainted ork blobz, thats no fun for any of us.

They can be good, they (just like anything else) shouldn't be head and shoulders above anything else as a way to play. The best solution is for GW to offer distinct armies with different playstyles, some of which might be hoard armies. With Orks and Tyranids for instance I would love to see hoard as a playable alternative, and be just as viable as other army styles in those factions.

I wish for the following:

Semi-AoS stat lines:
Move, Wounds, Save, Bravery
Weapons Fixed Values:Range, Rate, Ranged To Hit, Melee To Hit, Infantry To Damage, Vehicle To Damage, Damage
All special rules as per warscrolls.
Point cost in upper right of each warscroll

This would make a Marine look like:
Tactical Squad
Mv: 5" Wnd: 2, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 75 per 5
Bolter: Rng: 24"/1" Attacks: 1/1 ToHit: 4+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: 36"/1" Attacks: 3/1 ToHit: 3+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 3+/6+ Dam(I/V): 1d3/1 Rend: -1

A squad of marines is 5 to 10 models.
Rapid fire: Marines that don't move may rapid fire bolters or heavy bolters for double their number of attacks.
One marine in 5 may swap out his bolter for a heavy bolter.
The marine with heavy bolter may swap out his weapon for Lascannon (Special rules), Multi-melta (special rules), Plasma cannon (Special Rules), Gravcannon(special rules), Flamer (Special rules), Meltagun (Special Rules), Plasma gun (Special rule)....
Keyword: INFANTRY

And a vehicle written as follows:
Rhino
Mv: 10" Wnd: 8, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 35
Storm Bolter: Rng: 24"/- Attacks: 1/- ToHit: 4+/- ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Transport: May carry up to 10 INFANTRY models
Embark: Models that end within 3" of this model at end of movement may Embark on the vehicle. Place on side of table, units embarked may not be shot at or shoot at anything while embarked.
Disembark: Models that start a turn embarked may disembark anywhere along the movement of the vehicle and move upto half their movement away from the exit point on the vehicle. Disembarked troops may not embark on the same vehicle in the same turn.
Keyword: VEHICLE


Dreadnought
Mv: 6" Wnd: 6, Save 4+, Brav: 10 Points: 100
Multi-Melta: Rng: 24"/- Attacks: 1/- ToHit: 4+/- ToDamage(I/V): 4+/4+ Dam(I/V): 1d3/1d6 Rend: -3
Powerfist: Rng: -/2" Attacks: -/2 ToHit: -/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 2+/3+ Dam(I/V): 1d6/1d3 Rend: -2
May change out weapons for following:.......
Keyword: VEHICLE

I really would like to see semi-AoS rules applied to 40k. I think the one that would seriously help current balance is if eldar jetbikes got the following rule:

A squad of jetbikes consists of 3 to 9 jetbikes, every third jetbike may exchange it's twin linked shuriken catapults for a scatter laser.

Have you ever played an horde army and felt like the experience of painting one is something you would like to repeat ?
If not then it isn't that strange that GW somehow agrees with this sentiment and tries to discourage people from going there unless they really want to.

I do not want to see fixed to hit and to wound values. Keep the stat comparisons!

Youn wrote:
I wish for the following:

Semi-AoS stat lines:
Move, Wounds, Save, Bravery
Weapons Fixed Values:Range, Rate, Ranged To Hit, Melee To Hit, Infantry To Damage, Vehicle To Damage, Damage
All special rules as per warscrolls.
Point cost in upper right of each warscroll

This would make a Marine look like:
Tactical Squad
Mv: 5" Wnd: 2, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 75 per 5
Bolter: Rng: 24"/1" Attacks: 1/1 ToHit: 4+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: 36"/1" Attacks: 3/1 ToHit: 3+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 3+/6+ Dam(I/V): 1d3/1 Rend: -1

I know just the game for you can already use 40k models in it ; )
no need in changing the rules for the rest of us just go and play battle for vedros and have the time of your life.

 oldzoggy wrote:
It all depends on how reliable those multi wound weapons are. If they are just a single shot weapon that does 1d6 wounds then it would still be more reliable to just pack high volume weapons. Since those do not have the 1chance to hit nor the 1d6 gamble. Take the current edition as an example, high volume weapons spam such as grav spam and haywire is a thing while melta spam or lascannon spam is usually considered not to be worth it.

It also depends on things like save modifiers. If high rate of fire weapons tend to have worse save modifiers (and vehicles have saves), but single shot 1D6 wound causing weapons don't allow saves or reduce them terribly. It would work just fine.

If for instance a Land Raider had 15 wounds and a 2+ save. A high rate of fire weapon that was hitting on 3s, wounding on 6s and allowing that 2+ would take 810 shots to kill the vehicle

A single shot weapon hitting on 3s, Wounding on 2s and not allowing a save would take about 8 shots to kill the land raider.

So it all depends on execution. If those high rate of fire weapons are ignoring saves, and wounding easily it is a problem. But even if haywire wounds on a 2+ but allows saves, it would still take 162 shots to kill the vehicle.

Allright lets follow your example. Why would you ever use a las cannon that instead of a grav cannon (even without the immob rule).

 oldzoggy wrote:
Allright lets follow your example. Why would you ever use a las cannon that instead of a grav cannon (even without the immob rule).

If a Lascannons Range 48", Att: 1 Rend -3, ToHit: 4+ ToDamage: 3+ Damage 2d3
If a Gravcannon Range 36", Att: 1 Rend: *, ToHit: 4+ ToDamage: Opponents save Modifier Damage 1d6 Mortal wounds

You effectively have two completely different weapons. In which a person would have to make a decision on which is better.

I thought this was a wishlist, not an argument.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Allright lets follow your example. Why would you ever use a las cannon that instead of a grav cannon (even without the immob rule).

AS posted below it depends on the execution of both weapons.

Lets say

Las cannon is 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, no save does 1D6 wounds (completely theoretical) =7.7 shots to kill so 8 lascannons
Grav cannon is 3+ to hit, 6+ to wound (currently on vehicles), no save 5 shots. = 135 shots to kill or 27 Grav cannons

Grav cannons are currently 15 points more expensive than lascannons

Even with grav amp rerolls it is 14 grav cannons.

Even if grav wounds on 2s it is 5.4 grav cannons v 8 lascannons, but grav is almost double the cost


The issue is we don't know how things will work, but in basically every scenario Lascannons are significantly better than they are now, especially when you consider things like monstrous creatures taking multiple wounds as well.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
I thought this was a wishlist, not an argument.

You can't wish for something I don't want!!!

You can but you can't deny me having fun with it.

Most of my wants have been covered but bear restating,

war scrolls,
vehicles getting toughness/wounds/armor saves
Heavy weapons do multiple wounds
AoS style rend replacing AP
Pay for formations
Pay for psychic powers, with points based on usefulness (so Invis will be ruinously expensive)
D-Weapons just do lots of wounds instead of having a completely different wounding mechanic
Change grav weapons in 40k to be like 30k grav weapons, fluffy and effective but not omgwtfbbq things they are now
A more "perfect imbalance" style of balancing where units are balanced points wise, but with special rules to shake up the game and add layers of strategy.

I would like to see a key word system that would state if something was biological, mechanical, and/or ethereal. Then you would have stuff like poison weapons that do more damage to anything biological, and haywire do the same to mechanical, none of this my giant robot is immune to your haywire because reasons.

Warscrolls and all armies updated and posted for free on Day 1. A lot of people are asking for that. On top of that, I want regularly scheduled updates. Perhaps every 3 or 4 months on a pre-announced date updates will be released for the rules and Warscrolls, so that GW can actually respond to issues but the schedule still leaves a guarantee things won't change out of nowhere.

They should also align major releases to this schedule. It would be nice to actually know when stuff is coming out.

I like horde armies, but I will admit that my orks aren't painted to a great standard. (I actually have ~150 boyz still on sprue.) I've recently picked up quite a few Tyranids as well, and I plan to dip them.

I'd like to take up Iron Warriors again, and have a ridiculously small elite force where I can paint up individual models as a cleanser in between batch painting orks.

I think that aesthetics are important in a game like this, but I also think there is aesthetic value seeing wave after wave of orks, 'nids or IG. There are armies where each individual model should be picked up and held close to one's eye to appreciate their fine details, and then there are armies that are meant to be appreciated from a couple feet away.

That's just my opinion.

Yeah I love hordes...

But I painted the vast majority of them in 3rd ed... and then as I expanded in latter editions.. I did less and less painting

I bought IG for a horde.

Lasguns, Bolters, etc becoming more powerful.

Flanking mechanics to be implemented

Suppression to be a factor.

I'd also like running to be a guaranteed 12inc movement.

I only wish for a more fluid gameplay based more on decisions than random dice rolling. Points costs for warlord traits, formations and psychic powers.
Make it more simple. We all know what happens if someone fires at a squad partly in cover with different saves in it and also FnP. It gets very fiddly and you end up rolling saves for every single model individually, with rerolls, look out sir and what have you. I want that to be simplified.
Decide if your character wants to tank all the shots with his 2+ or if you want to save him and sacrifice the whole squad, which only has 4+ saves. No in between, "oh, I'll roll for his saves individually until he has one wound left and then I'll start to make LOS, and then I'll make their saves and their FnP, rerolling ones." This is just an example of things that are tiresome in this game and need simplification.

I just got back 40k after a LONG hiatus (last edition I played was 3rd). The sheer amount of rules is insanity, and they are all cross-referenced.
E.g.: Any MC has AP2 in melee - why doesn't it simply say that? It states that an MC get's another rule, and that rule includes AP2 in melee. This is confusing, unnecessary and makes looking up things MUCH more complicates, especially for new players.

So I absolutely support the AoS-style warscrolls/datasheets/whatever.

Also reduce the amount of rules in general - hammer of wrath, rending, furious charge, counterattack, entropic strike, etc. etc.
why not "this model always gets +1S in the first phase of every melee engagement", or "this model gets +1S in the first melee phase after a successful charge", or "this model always wounds on rolls of 6".

Movement rules: Fleet, move through terrain, fast, battle readiness, jump pack infantry, jet pack infantry, flying, swooping, turboboost, run, charge - jesus christ.
Unit specific movement profiles could remove the need for all that nonsense, while retaining "unique" styles

Personally I enjoyed the save modifiers of the 2nd edition over the "hard counter" AP system. Although my biggest issue here is 2+ saves, and specifically 2+ rerollable. The value of AP2 vs. non AP2 really hurts weapons variety I think.
3+ is no issue, as you can reliable whittle them down... and 3+ units would really suffer from rending rules.

Cover is ridiculous. Make it a save modifier (or a to hit modifier, as someone else stated).

I like the "morale = deserters" system of AoS.

Remove all the random talents! warlord traits, chaos boons, combat drugs, talents here and there - who can remember all that crap? Make it options, make it cost points, and then you can see it in the army builder / warscroll on your phone/tablet.

Any kill the psychic phase, please. Make it abilities.

Oh, and who the f*** came up with D weapons?