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 think the ideal version of 40K would start with a coin flip to decide whether the two players switch armies before the game.

Going to d10 instead of d6.

Going to D10 would be nice. Also, thinning down to two rolls - one by the activating player (combined To Hit and STR) and one by the defending player (combined Toughness and Armor).

Likewise, alternating activation similar to Bolt Action.

Add in a few more terrain rules and I think the game would be about where I'd want it to be.

A swap to D10 or D12 and removal of IGOUGO

I'd like a rule where you could add three inches of charge range by quickly drinking a pint of beer.

Also, It think GW should make a deal in order to make pokemon a playable faction. Pikachu with a Powerfist would seriously wreck.

Lastly, they should introduce a system where psykers rolled for their powers at the beginning of the game, randomly selecting from a set of useless powers sprinkled with some gamebreakingly overpowered ones. That would be funtimes x 40000

pismakron wrote:
I'd like a rule where you could add three inches of charge range by quickly drinking a pint of beer.

A fan of Age of Sigmar, I see. Well, drunkenness is probably a good balancer for reliable charges.

pismakron wrote:
Also, It think GW should make a deal in order to make pokemon a playable faction. Pikachu with a Powerfist would seriously wreck.

You make fluffhammer fans sad :c

pismakron wrote:
Lastly, they should introduce a system where psykers rolled for their powers at the beginning of the game, randomly selecting from a set of useless powers sprinkled with some gamebreakingly overpowered ones. That would be funtimes x 40000

Ah. Sarcasm. The ol' standby.

 Selym wrote:

pismakron wrote:
I'd like a rule where you could add three inches of charge range by quickly drinking a pint of beer.

A fan of Age of Sigmar, I see. Well, drunkenness is probably a good balancer for reliable charges.

pismakron wrote:
Also, It think GW should make a deal in order to make pokemon a playable faction. Pikachu with a Powerfist would seriously wreck.

You make fluffhammer fans sad :c

pismakron wrote:
Lastly, they should introduce a system where psykers rolled for their powers at the beginning of the game, randomly selecting from a set of useless powers sprinkled with some gamebreakingly overpowered ones. That would be funtimes x 40000

Ah. Sarcasm. The ol' standby.

What are you talking about, sarcasm? As many people on Dakka have already said, 7th ed rules were much better than 8th rules.

Yes, I really quite enjoyed rolling for Warlord traits, only to be given a +1 Ld result on an Ld10 HQ, while my opponent gets something useful.
Oh, and that thing where my self-established character just forgets half her abilities each engagement was just so immersive.

Never forged the narrative harder.

 Selym wrote:
Yes, I really quite enjoyed rolling for Warlord traits, only to be given a +1 Ld result on an Ld10 HQ, while my opponent gets something useful.
Oh, and that thing where my self-established character just forgets half her abilities each engagement was just so immersive.

Never forged the narrative harder.

But with the 7th ed system you got to roll more d6s! Random = Fun, don't you know anything?

This is what i would change : Guns on Vehicles need LOS to shoot. Wounds must be allocated to Units actually in CC, or in LOS. Flamers dont autohit supersonic flyers. Artillery cant shoot at supersonic flyers. Infantry can only wound armored Vehicles with AP Weapons. Vehicles can still fire, when an enemy model is within 1". A Vehicle can fallback, even when surrounded by Infantry. Rerolls after modifiers. Rear Armor should still be a weak spot of a Vehicle, AP-1 when its attacked from behind. A Vehicle should be able to fire a heavy Weapon without -1 to hit, when it moves only half of its movement Value.

I also like the D10 Idea.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Yes, I really quite enjoyed rolling for Warlord traits, only to be given a +1 Ld result on an Ld10 HQ, while my opponent gets something useful.
Oh, and that thing where my self-established character just forgets half her abilities each engagement was just so immersive.

Never forged the narrative harder.

But with the 7th ed system you got to roll more d6s! Random = Fun, don't you know anything?

Remember that excellent piece of writing where Chaos Champions could become a Daemon Prince, and how that was also a direct downgrade to allow them to prove themselves to Khorne all the harder? Was so kewl.
I also loved the bit where setting up a game took 1-2 hours at best.

 Selym wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Yes, I really quite enjoyed rolling for Warlord traits, only to be given a +1 Ld result on an Ld10 HQ, while my opponent gets something useful.
Oh, and that thing where my self-established character just forgets half her abilities each engagement was just so immersive.

Never forged the narrative harder.

But with the 7th ed system you got to roll more d6s! Random = Fun, don't you know anything?

Remember that excellent piece of writing where Chaos Champions could become a Daemon Prince, and how that was also a direct downgrade to allow them to prove themselves to Khorne all the harder? Was so kewl.
I also loved the bit where setting up a game took 1-2 hours at best.

I loved the part where shooting enemies with Tzeentchy powers gave the enemy units FnP, "Chaos is fickle" LOL right?

I seriously doubt that anyone thinks 7e >> 8e, so much as 8e fixed some things, and fixed other things that weren't broke. Most notably: squad coherency, casualty allocation, vehicles (flyers particularly) having fire arcs, Overwatch being a *choice* instead of it being a free action no matter how many independent characters charge, not turning the game into pseudo-Unbound, etc.

Add caps to Reserves based on the number of *units* you have in Reserve, rather than the number of Points: Relatively inoffensive lists (Drop Pod armies, Black Legion Speartip Strikes, etc) become illegal for matched play, but it remains legal for Imperials to do a Null army, via solo Astropaths/Acolytes plopping down in a Bastion as their sole on-table drop.

Then add the new DS rules, aka More than 9" away. Not only does this mean an opponent can counter Deep Strike by spreading out (creating giant gamey zones of "can't drop here", the sort of openings DS was meant to exploit), but it hilariously screws over most Specials that Chaos used for said purpose (funny enough. You can never use Flamers for DS (8" range, 9" DS), and you will never be in Melta range. This leaves Combi-Plasma; if you don't use it to Overcharge (fluff retcon btw), you might as well stick to the Combi-Bolter (incidentally: Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters are now the same because reasons). Unlike in 7e, where you got a save vs Gets Hot, a roll of 1 kills a Terminator outright! Don't even bother firing the Bolter alongside, or at night. Ironically, for the trouble of trying to get Chaos Terminators to work, you might as well take another Heldrake. And funny enough, the new Gets Hot rules combined with the Plasma Cannon being D3 shots instead of a Blast, all mean that once again, Grav Cannons are *still* the superior heavy weapon, and arguably moreso with the removal of Salvo.

Independent Characters weren't the problem. Buff-stacking was the issue. The keyword system "should" have been enough (Keywords have their own bugs but that's another issue), but then they made Characters "untargetable except with Sniper Weapons". Several side effects include that characters are less inclined to be melee beatsticks (Berzerkers make the charge, Kharn doesn't) but will either sit in the open to grant Psybuffs (Farseers) or shoot while being untargetable (Tau Commanders), or will sit in the middle of a pile of daisychains to act as a buff-enabler.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I seriously doubt that anyone thinks 7e >> 8e

I've met several people.

so much as 8e fixed some things, and fixed other things that weren't broke. Most notably: squad coherency, casualty allocation, vehicles (flyers particularly) having fire arcs, Overwatch being a *choice* instead of it being a free action no matter how many independent characters charge, not turning the game into pseudo-Unbound, etc.

Is squad coherency refering to the BS with 2 squad members wandering off on their own? Because we all know how that is supposed to work and it is deisgusting to see people trying to use that. Casualty allocations are perhaps one of the few things that aren't as good. I haven't found firing arks to be a problem (although I don't run any tanks) and those who do use tanks don't think it's a problem either. Sorry, what's the problem with overwatch? It's fine. What pseudo unbound? Everything is in detachments now.

Add caps to Reserves based on the number of *units* you have in Reserve, rather than the number of Points: Relatively inoffensive lists (Drop Pod armies, Black Legion Speartip Strikes, etc) become illegal for matched play, but it remains legal for Imperials to do a Null army, via solo Astropaths/Acolytes plopping down in a Bastion as their sole on-table drop.

Chaos can still do these shenanigans with minimum brimstone units, exalted flamers, R&H units, etc.

Then add the new DS rules, aka More than 9" away. Not only does this mean an opponent can counter Deep Strike by spreading out (creating giant gamey zones of "can't drop here", the sort of openings DS was meant to exploit), but it hilariously screws over most Specials that Chaos used for said purpose (funny enough. You can never use Flamers for DS (8" range, 9" DS), and you will never be in Melta range. This leaves Combi-Plasma; if you don't use it to Overcharge (fluff retcon btw), you might as well stick to the Combi-Bolter (incidentally: Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters are now the same because reasons). Unlike in 7e, where you got a save vs Gets Hot, a roll of 1 kills a Terminator outright! Don't even bother firing the Bolter alongside, or at night. Ironically, for the trouble of trying to get Chaos Terminators to work, you might as well take another Heldrake. And funny enough, the new Gets Hot rules combined with the Plasma Cannon being D3 shots instead of a Blast, all mean that once again, Grav Cannons are *still* the superior heavy weapon, and arguably moreso with the removal of Salvo.

It is no longer as easy to alpha strike units with massed DS of flamers and melta, is that a problem? Also, denying DS behind enemy lines is a valid tactic, it isn't bad just because you can't auto drop units behind enemy models. Terminators > Heldrakes, sorry I've taken both and if your opponant lacks flyer units then the Heldrake hits like a wet fish. The plasma situation is HILARIOUSLY overcomplained about, seriously just take plasma and you'll see that there is nothing wrong with it (as long as you don't use it like an idiot). Don't know about Grav so can't comment.

Independent Characters weren't the problem. Buff-stacking was the issue. The keyword system "should" have been enough (Keywords have their own bugs but that's another issue), but then they made Characters "untargetable except with Sniper Weapons". Several side effects include that characters are less inclined to be melee beatsticks (Berzerkers make the charge, Kharn doesn't) but will either sit in the open to grant Psybuffs (Farseers) or shoot while being untargetable (Tau Commanders), or will sit in the middle of a pile of daisychains to act as a buff-enabler.

Have. People. Not. Played. The. Game? Characters not being targeted is not that strong! This edition requires you to think about tactics and positioning, sorry you can't point and click your targets like before.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Is squad coherency refering to the BS with 2 squad members wandering off on their own? Because we all know how that is supposed to work and it is deisgusting to see people trying to use that.

Ambiguous RAW leads to arguments about what RAI is. I played Orks in 5th edition and for the first half of that edition, I got to deal with arguments by salty opponents that "Ramming is a form of Tank Shock. Therefore it is not Tank Shock, and you cannot use Deffrollas on my Land Raiders." The 7e rulebook has an entire page of diagrams showing what Squad Coherency is. Who knows? Maybe GW "did" intend for the buddy system, seeing as this *is* a new edition, it wasn't FAQed, and split-firing and charging a unit you didn't shoot are all separate things.

Keeping this on topic, my ideal 40k wouldn't have these issues come up. Ideally, I would rather have 200 pages of rules and 8 pages of FAQ, instead of 8 pages of rules and 200 pages of FAQ. Granted, 8 and 8 would be ideal but it's a bit much to assume well-defined terms from GW. ("Blue and Brimstone Horrors simply scrabble at anyone that comes too close!" What does it mean to scrabble? Do I break out a Scrabble board and start throwing tiles at my foe? What exactly does "too close" mean?)

 mrhappyface wrote:
Sorry, what's the problem with overwatch? It's fine. 

In 7e, unit A is being charged by unit B and unit C. Unit A must choose whether to Overwatch B or C. In 8e, Unit B attempts to charge, and A Overwatches. If B fluffs the charge, unit C attempts to charge and A Overwatches. This can theoretically continue for quite some time. Even if that chain doesn't happen though, it's one less in-game decision.

Keeping this on topic, I've homebrewed Overwatch as a conscious choice you do in your turn: Forfeit shooting in your turn, to interrupt an opponent's attempt to attack in their turn. I dislike how 40k 6e/7e made it possible for units to fire "more than once" due to assorted shenanigans (Quick math: How many shots can a Stormsurge hit by Shroud of Deception and Treason of Tzeentch fire in your turn? "Hurr, I mind controlled you twice so your guns fire three times as fast!" ), but that issue came up either with a specific Formation for a faction of fringe competitiveness, or as a random power on what was arguably considered the worst Psychic Discipline in the game (and considering Pyromancy was in 7e, that's an impressively low bar). By contrast, multi-shooting is a *core feature* of Overwatch.

 mrhappyface wrote:
What pseudo unbound? Everything is in detachments now. 

The detachments as written have made it trivially easy to run spam builds. In fact, I would argue that 8e encourages spam more than any edition of 40k to date (yes, you could say 7e did this, but in practice very few people or TOs actually used Unbound), and you will see even less unit variety in your average 8e tournament build. It's especially jarring considering just how 8e is supposedly the most "tournament friendly" version of 40k with extensive playtesting.

Keeping this on topic, the game should continue working to promote combined arms/mixed armies over copypaste. When units become too similar in purpose, a "best" will emerge. In 7e, nobody took Mortar Teams because Wyverns>>Mortars. Now, Mortars give far superior DPP to Wyverns. Giving Wyverns "Supporting Fire" mechanisms/better Overwatch, and letting Mortar Teams fire smoke/flare shells to grant/deny cover would be a sample way to give both units distinct roles, while being true to fluff (Stormshard Mortars *are* designed for a very specific type of round...).

 mrhappyface wrote:
It is no longer as easy to alpha strike units with massed DS of flamers and melta, is that a problem?

1) It's now literally *impossible* to alphastrike with Flamers (barring Tau with Homing Beacons, amusingly enough)
2) The main weapons that were used for DS Alphastrikes were Grav Cannons, or Multimeltas. Guess which weapons were not penalized by the new DS changes.
3) It's a hack fix, when other fixes could include: Reworking Overwatch, making DS "Scatter 2d6-X inches, opponent controls scatter direction", etc.
4) Alas, poor melee Dreadnoughts. The Rifleman remains the best loadout this edition.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Terminators > Heldrakes, sorry I've taken both and if your opponant lacks flyer units then the Heldrake hits like a wet fish. 

Flyers are hot this edition. Heldrakes go where you need them to. A 30" Fly move might as well be Deep Strike without the restrictions. You take a Baleflamer, save a Command Point to reroll the number of attacks, and fly close enough to an enemy Character that it becomes the closest target. Then you assault another backfield unit, forcing your foe to deal with it, or the Heldrake withdraws (assuming it hasn't mulched the backfield support), and proceeds to Baledrake a second target.

 mrhappyface wrote:
This edition requires you to think about tactics and positioning, sorry you can't point and click your targets like before.

...The 8e shooting rules directly contradict this statement.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Yes, I really quite enjoyed rolling for Warlord traits, only to be given a +1 Ld result on an Ld10 HQ, while my opponent gets something useful.
Oh, and that thing where my self-established character just forgets half her abilities each engagement was just so immersive.

Never forged the narrative harder.

But with the 7th ed system you got to roll more d6s! Random = Fun, don't you know anything?

Remember that excellent piece of writing where Chaos Champions could become a Daemon Prince, and how that was also a direct downgrade to allow them to prove themselves to Khorne all the harder? Was so kewl.
I also loved the bit where setting up a game took 1-2 hours at best.

I loved the part where shooting enemies with Tzeentchy powers gave the enemy units FnP, "Chaos is fickle" LOL right?

I nearly came when I saw the undercosted Wraithknight get a buff and a points cut.

 Selym wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Yes, I really quite enjoyed rolling for Warlord traits, only to be given a +1 Ld result on an Ld10 HQ, while my opponent gets something useful.
Oh, and that thing where my self-established character just forgets half her abilities each engagement was just so immersive.

Never forged the narrative harder.

But with the 7th ed system you got to roll more d6s! Random = Fun, don't you know anything?

Remember that excellent piece of writing where Chaos Champions could become a Daemon Prince, and how that was also a direct downgrade to allow them to prove themselves to Khorne all the harder? Was so kewl.
I also loved the bit where setting up a game took 1-2 hours at best.

I loved the part where shooting enemies with Tzeentchy powers gave the enemy units FnP, "Chaos is fickle" LOL right?

I nearly came when I saw the undercosted Wraithknight get a buff and a points cut.

Those were the days...

 Galas wrote:
Derived from a thread in News and Rumours (Sorry Alpharius) I open this to know whats your ideal version of Warhammer 40k!

5th edition. Bring it back, write the codexes for it, don't touch it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

The detachments as written have made it trivially easy to run spam builds. In fact, I would argue that 8e encourages spam more than any edition of 40k to date (yes, you could say 7e did this, but in practice very few people or TOs actually used Unbound), and you will see even less unit variety in your average 8e tournament build. It's especially jarring considering just how 8e is supposedly the most "tournament friendly" version of 40k with extensive playtesting.

It goes further than this. Unbound has been virtually written into matched play nowadays, as it's almost impossible to construct any sort of army and not justify it in some sort of combination of detachments. I don't honestly know if it can be done with auxiliary detachments being a thing in the game. Sure, you'll have no comamnd points, but you have your army. It used to be that you had to take something resembling an actual army of some sort. You had your foot soldiers, maybe some vehicles, maybe some fancy units, and then a leader. Now I could build an army of nothing but servitors if I wanted to.

4th Edition hands down. Codex's had lots of great options and customizations. LOS was levels, not 'true LOS'.

5th edition was fun with 4th ed codex's.

The honest answer: whatever system the army I'm currently playing is over powered in.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
The most common answer to this is "Some grognard-y bullcrap that sounds nice in my head but is either so vague it's useless (I'd do a better cover system! How? Uh...) or breaks down under even slight scruteny (I'd offer a 4+ save to units 25% or more obscured by ruins! Oh fine models then! What do you mean that makes infantry an enormous pain to get and/or resolve cover for?!.). See anything magic juggler posts for examples of that second one.

Look dude. I don't know you and you don't know me. We have differing views of what 40k is, and to each their own but that attitude doesn't do you any favors.

Totes. Dude has angry keys.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Is squad coherency refering to the BS with 2 squad members wandering off on their own? Because we all know how that is supposed to work and it is deisgusting to see people trying to use that.

Ambiguous RAW leads to arguments about what RAI is. I played Orks in 5th edition and for the first half of that edition, I got to deal with arguments by salty opponents that "Ramming is a form of Tank Shock. Therefore it is not Tank Shock, and you cannot use Deffrollas on my Land Raiders." The 7e rulebook has an entire page of diagrams showing what Squad Coherency is. Who knows? Maybe GW "did" intend for the buddy system, seeing as this *is* a new edition, it wasn't FAQed, and split-firing and charging a unit you didn't shoot are all separate things.

This was FAQ'd several days ago. Granted, there should have been diagrams and an explanation of what it meant so that ambiguity would not enter into the discussion, but in the end it was FAQ'd in less than 2 weeks from release.

Heavily influenced by Bolt Action but with alternating activations instead of random dice draw.

Bolt Action has such a great ruleset for the most part.

My ideal version is the one where you only need a rule book and one codex to play because it got thoroughly beta tested before release. I have a hard time committing to a system that has only been out for a month and you already need the rules (edited with an faq, of course), an index, and a codex. And if you want to use these other cool models from ForgeWorld, well...

I would really like it if they removed IGOUGO from 40k and made most options more or less viable in a casual setting. I prefer a Codex to have greater internal balance than external balance to be honest.