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.

 Elbows wrote:
Nope, the entire point of them NOT being actual defined USRs is so that they can be custom tailored in future edits/FAQs/errate etc. It's the price you pay for a "living ruleset". They're attempting to future-proof stuff so they can edit it easier...but the result is the bizarre names.

I think it's worth the trade off. I don't think any new player would have a hard time realizing "hey, most of these are the same rule...".

I actually kind of agree with this. Privateer Press did a thorough job of consolidating special rules going into their second edition, and it wound up causing problems when fixing one of those USRs to address an overpowered unit caught other things in the crossfire.

I wouldn't say no to having some clarification on natural versus adjusted dice roles for some things. It's dumb that a plasma gun explodes more often if the target is hard to hit. It's even dumber that it works that way but a bonus to-hit doesn't make it explosion proof.

I also wouldn't say no to slightly more abstract LoS rules. It's dumb that your comissar can shoot over a solid wall of base-to-base Guardsmen because he's holding his sword up in the air.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
More complex terrain and cover rules.

I'd like fire points to return to vehicles, everything else about them has been a vast improvement compared to prior editions.

The big thing would be an activation system, but that would be quite a big step to do and probably needed a new edition...

Everything else are just small imbalances that can be fixed in CA. Overall 8th ed. is fine.

I second this, sans the firing points. I'd also really like it if being caught in a crossfire or being flanked had any effect, and if some sort of incomplete information mechanic were implemented (say regarding objectives) I'd be happy as can be.

The Allfather wrote:
I just want my armor facings back.. and bolter drill.

And templates..

And to stop this madness of inclusivity dumbing down the game for people that feel it's to complex. Everyone I knew at age 13 that played could understand the rules. If you're slower than a 13 year old. Maybe it's not the game that's to complex. Maybe your really not competent enough to play.

I don't want 40k to turn into the last Jedi.

Temporary fans don't keep Warhammer 40k alive. Long term players do. Once the Justin bibbler fans find a new fidget spinner they will jump ship.

Less dice and less re-rolls and to be honest less rolls altogether.

Unify wound and save rolls into a single roll.

Remove or at least minimise the rolling for number of shots...Its insane to roll and reroll the number of rolls your gonna do...

I want Imperial Guard grenade launchers to be worthwhile. They've been bad since 3rd edition.

I want to see moral fixed, its so devastating failing moral its ridiculous, especially when you sink so many points into multi-wound units, its completely unbalanced, Killing models for moral is just stupid, at least if they only took wounds off rather than models, but still its a game and it isn't fun losing models because said models fell back, armies are trained and trained in how to fall back, they 'fall back' they don't just run away flailing their arms in the air, without covering their backs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soulless wrote:
Less dice and less re-rolls and to be honest less rolls altogether.

Unify wound and save rolls into a single roll.

Remove or at least minimise the rolling for number of shots...Its insane to roll and reroll the number of rolls your gonna do...

That's a horrible idea. You couldn't express the different types of armour or multi-wound untis like carnifex's etc. I'd rather find somewhere else to lessen the roles, but is rolling to wound and to save really such a chore? 40k will always have lots of rolls, it can't be like other games because it fields armies rather than squads etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Nope, the entire point of them NOT being actual defined USRs is so that they can be custom tailored in future edits/FAQs/errate etc. It's the price you pay for a "living ruleset". They're attempting to future-proof stuff so they can edit it easier...but the result is the bizarre names.

I think it's worth the trade off. I don't think any new player would have a hard time realizing "hey, most of these are the same rule...".

I actually kind of agree with this. Privateer Press did a thorough job of consolidating special rules going into their second edition, and it wound up causing problems when fixing one of those USRs to address an overpowered unit caught other things in the crossfire.

I wouldn't say no to having some clarification on natural versus adjusted dice roles for some things. It's dumb that a plasma gun explodes more often if the target is hard to hit. It's even dumber that it works that way but a bonus to-hit doesn't make it explosion proof.

I also wouldn't say no to slightly more abstract LoS rules. It's dumb that your comissar can shoot over a solid wall of base-to-base Guardsmen because he's holding his sword up in the air.

Yeah 1 in 6 always seemed far too frequent to me. 1 in 6 every time you shoot the thing, how on earth are you going to last a single battle. Shoot it 6 times and statistically you're dead lol

 Saber wrote:
I want Imperial Guard grenade launchers to be worthwhile. They've been bad since 3rd edition.

Reece from Frontline Gaming was talking about how he prefers Grenade Launchers to Plasma Guns recently.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/06/11/astra-militarum-go-5-0-at-the-london-gt-part-1/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/06/20/astra-militarum-go-5-0-at-the-london-gt-part-2/

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Soulless wrote:
Less dice and less re-rolls and to be honest less rolls altogether.

Unify wound and save rolls into a single roll.

Remove or at least minimise the rolling for number of shots...Its insane to roll and reroll the number of rolls your gonna do...

That's a horrible idea. You couldn't express the different types of armour or multi-wound untis like carnifex's etc. I'd rather find somewhere else to lessen the roles, but is rolling to wound and to save really such a chore? 40k will always have lots of rolls, it can't be like other games because it fields armies rather than

Its probably a horrible idea if implemented with the game as is, but with adjustments I dont see how it wouldnt work. Mainly this would be through a raised toughness for many units.

But armor types are represented by the toughness of a target, and wounds represent their ability to endure pain and damage.
So the bigger the armor, the higher the toughness.

Attacker rolls to hit, and then defender rolls saves (that is basically the wound roll) and what remains is the wounds applied. The only difference in concept is that we would now assume that any shot that punches through a units armor is enough to wound that unit instead of rolling yet another time to see if any of the shot that hits isnt causing damage.

If anyone did the math on this you could probably get a system that offers more or less the same end results as now but removing a roll.


This is just my opinion though, some like the amount of dice and rolls and thats great for them but I dont.

Ally limitations - no sharing stratagems, or gaining CP's from allied detachments. Mono-faction benefits. You should only get CP and Stratagems from the faction containing your warlord.

Blastaar wrote:
My list is:

Firing arcs returned
Terrain impacting movement
Somewhat more abstracted LOS
Double moves on run/turbo boost/charge
Return of templates
Removal of allies
Cover that prevents models from getting hit in the first place, instead of interaction with saves
Removal of mortal wounds
A reworking of the degrading statline mechanic for high-wound models that is more intuitive and doesn't involve consulting a chart every turn.
Drastically reduced number of weapons with random shots and/or random damage.

this. IMO this is spot on

The Newman wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Nope, the entire point of them NOT being actual defined USRs is so that they can be custom tailored in future edits/FAQs/errate etc. It's the price you pay for a "living ruleset". They're attempting to future-proof stuff so they can edit it easier...but the result is the bizarre names.

I think it's worth the trade off. I don't think any new player would have a hard time realizing "hey, most of these are the same rule...".

I actually kind of agree with this. Privateer Press did a thorough job of consolidating special rules going into their second edition, and it wound up causing problems when fixing one of those USRs to address an overpowered unit caught other things in the crossfire.

I wouldn't say no to having some clarification on natural versus adjusted dice roles for some things. It's dumb that a plasma gun explodes more often if the target is hard to hit. It's even dumber that it works that way but a bonus to-hit doesn't make it explosion proof.

I also wouldn't say no to slightly more abstract LoS rules. It's dumb that your comissar can shoot over a solid wall of base-to-base Guardsmen because he's holding his sword up in the air.

Yeah. For all my complaints about the wonkiness of abstract assault rules (your base is everything unless you're a unit that doesn't have a base, then you have super powers) the real reason they chafe is because of how un-abstract shooting is.

We should just be at "bases are line of sight" at this point. introduce some actual tactics to the shooting phase with regard to screening, LOS management, maneuvering.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
All rules active on a 6 to hit change wording to unmodified 6 to hit.

So basically you want Death Guard to be totally re-written, because it makes any +1 to wound effects meaningless.

Well you would still wound better - would you not? On hit/wound effects should be unmodifiable - it is the only way they can be balanced.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Saber wrote:
I want Imperial Guard grenade launchers to be worthwhile. They've been bad since 3rd edition.

Reece from Frontline Gaming was talking about how he prefers Grenade Launchers to Plasma Guns recently.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/06/11/astra-militarum-go-5-0-at-the-london-gt-part-1/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/06/20/astra-militarum-go-5-0-at-the-london-gt-part-2/

Is he high? A grenade launcher is barely any better than a lasgun, especially if you're giving out the First Rank Fire! order frequently. And there's the opportunity cost of losing out on a weapon which might actually hurt something.

I'll still take them because I fancy the models, but it's the principle of the thing.

The Allfather wrote:
I just want my armor facings back.. and bolter drill.

And templates..

And to stop this madness of inclusivity dumbing down the game for people that feel it's to complex. Everyone I knew at age 13 that played could understand the rules. If you're slower than a 13 year old. Maybe it's not the game that's to complex. Maybe your really not competent enough to play.

I don't want 40k to turn into the last Jedi.

Temporary fans don't keep Warhammer 40k alive. Long term players do. Once the Justin bibbler fans find a new fidget spinner they will jump ship.

EVERYONE is a temporary fan. one of these days you're going to stop playing warhammer 40k. NO ONE plays forever. And part of marketing a game is to ensure the churn has more people coming in then going out.

I want the rule of 3 to die a painful death and I would like to see them improve the cover system. I'd personally also like it if they got rid of all but the 3-5 strategems in every army people actually use.

Most of 8th edition is fine, they just need to stop trying to cram narrative junk into every codex and fix the cover system.

I'd also like to point out that fire-arcs are tedious nonsense that never made a difference because being a vehicle that had fire arcs that mattered meant being a vehicle that sat on the shelf; templates, most especially blast template were terrible, tedious, and led to an argument every single time they got shot. Removing allies just removes most of the imperial and chaos armies from the game, especially if you don't also axe the rule of 3; mortal wounds are great and necessary but should have been more evenly distributed and not so much associated with psykers.

I want improved terrain/ cover rules amd different toughness values for vehicle facings.

ERJAK wrote:
I'd personally also like it if they got rid of all but the 3-5 strategems in every army people actually use.

Maybe you don't use all of your stratagems but other people do. Personally just in my last game I used 6 different ones from my codex. There are also another 6 I use regularly and 5 that I use occasionally depending on the situation. That leaves 10 that I don't use, 4 of which are because I only ever run Ulthwe and they are for different craftworlds and 4 because they only work on overpriced units but would be good in more casual games where those units were taken. That leaves a grand total of 2 that I don't use because they are bad.

yeah, but that has more to do with the fact that GW went ham with eldar and gave them so many good stuff. GK for example have maybe one good stratagem, and it works when your HQ dies.

Make current matched play rule as yhe intermediate rules.
Come up with more refined, advanced play rule for real matched play. Update it every month or after a major event.

The Allfather wrote:
I just want my armor facings back.. and bolter drill.

And templates..

And to stop this madness of inclusivity dumbing down the game for people that feel it's to complex. Everyone I knew at age 13 that played could understand the rules. If you're slower than a 13 year old. Maybe it's not the game that's to complex. Maybe your really not competent enough to play.

I don't want 40k to turn into the last Jedi.

Temporary fans don't keep Warhammer 40k alive. Long term players do. Once the Justin bibbler fans find a new fidget spinner they will jump ship.

Agreed.

When I picked up rogue trader as a young lad it was the sheer possibilities and complexity (to a kid) that drew me in.

Karol wrote:
yeah, but that has more to do with the fact that GW went ham with eldar and gave them so many good stuff. GK for example have maybe one good stratagem, and it works when your HQ dies.

So really its not that every codex should have their Strats trimmed, but that GKs need a better codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing I’d like to see is an Inquisitorial codex, where Ordo Cenos can choose Deathwatch units, Ordo Malleus can choose Grey Knights, and Ordo Hereticus can choose Sisters of Battle. Perhaps even make a single Imperial Agents book a home for the separate codexes. Would save GW a few SKUs, and we’ve already seen a similar 3-in-1 setup with Dark Eldar.

Several people said.. what is this the end of?

I think the end of the 40K 8th edition releases for a bit.

I think GW should declare it the year of 30K and start releasing 8th edition 30K Codi. 30K Ultramarines, 30K Eldar, 30K Orks, 30K Lunar Wolves, ect.

Reemule wrote:
Several people said.. what is this the end of?

I think the end of the 40K 8th edition releases for a bit.

I think GW should declare it the year of 30K and start releasing 8th edition 30K Codi. 30K Ultramarines, 30K Eldar, 30K Orks, 30K Lunar Wolves, ect.

Why?

When 8th takes its next step I would like to see

1. More comprehensive terrain rules. I do like how terrain doesn't really slow down 8th all too much I do agree that there needs to more in-depth rules.

2. Id like to see more scaling for unit size to weapons (or at least special rules that make certain weapons more useful). I'm glad to see templates gone as they slowed down the game such a tremendous amount and lead to the dumbest arguments, but i would like to see certain weapons have bonuses. Something like flamethrowers getting 2D6 against units over x or like 2D6 on overwatch. Rules like this to make some weapons more common

3. Something with transports. I'm not sure exactly how to make them good without breaking them, but id like to see them more prevalent on the board. Maybe something as simple as not taking casualties when disembarking when they die.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Several people said.. what is this the end of?

I think the end of the 40K 8th edition releases for a bit.

I think GW should declare it the year of 30K and start releasing 8th edition 30K Codi. 30K Ultramarines, 30K Eldar, 30K Orks, 30K Lunar Wolves, ect.

Why?

Why not?

I've laid out what might happen. Its a path of least resistance as I see it.

Whats your thoughts?

Well, I'm not exactly thrilled to see more marine armies getting pure things.. Honestly though if we go in that vein I wouldn't mind little subcodexs like they used to kind of like Death Guard did.

Though.. I'd rather not focus on 30k for a while, just focus on 40k! Give differing stuff to Craftworlds, Chaos Legions, heck maybe even show off different types of Genestealer Cult factions.

What "end" is coming into view exactly?

For me:

My #1 issue is the fall back mechanic. I get why it exists, but the fact that it happens automatically and unchallenged really gets under my skin.

My thought - either:

If you want to fall back - the units in combat roll a die, and add it to their base move value. In order for a unit to successfully fall back, they compare their combined move value to the enemy's.

If it's double their enemies, fall back succeeds on a 2+.
If their move value is greater, fall back succeeds on a 3+
If it's equal, fall back succeeds on a 4+
If it's less, it succeeds on a 5+
If it's half, 6+.

Having the fly keyword adds +1 to your result.

So, having fast units like stormboyz or bikes actually helps, because it makes it harder for enemies to run from you.

Alternatively, and more boring, just if you fall back, roll a dice for every model that falls back, on a 1 you lose a model, like getting out of a destroyed vehicle. Flying units are immune.

I'd prefer they add both, personally. This nonsense of waltzing out of combat at will is pretty frustrating, and there needs to be an actual reason to not want to do it.

My #2 complaint is that characters, at least ork characters, are paper thin. It's beyond embarrassing to charge a warboss into combat, get singled out by anything even remotely dangerous in combat, and instantly annihilated without saves. Bring back look out sir, or something like it.

 oni wrote:
What "end" is coming into view exactly?

All codexes updated to 8th. Should be in 2019 sometime, unless SoB get pushed back.

 Saber wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Saber wrote:
I want Imperial Guard grenade launchers to be worthwhile. They've been bad since 3rd edition.

Reece from Frontline Gaming was talking about how he prefers Grenade Launchers to Plasma Guns recently.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/06/11/astra-militarum-go-5-0-at-the-london-gt-part-1/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/06/20/astra-militarum-go-5-0-at-the-london-gt-part-2/

Is he high? A grenade launcher is barely any better than a lasgun, especially if you're giving out the First Rank Fire! order frequently. And there's the opportunity cost of losing out on a weapon which might actually hurt something.

I'll still take them because I fancy the models, but it's the principle of the thing.

It's Reece - he's a known... enthusiast. You have to take what he says with a grain of salt, a big one. He's one of the people that "wow, this is so amazing and great"; for EVERYTHING. Go read the beginning pages of the Ork tactica thread for easy examples.

...that said, as far as things I want for new rules:

-Better terrain rules.
-Better LoS/targeting rules - someone brought up that bases are the only parts we should draw LoS from/to, and I agree completely with that. After that, models can become models, and modelling for advantage/disadvantage are a thing of the past; and walls get to be, you know, walls; not just terrain decor.
-Better close combat rules, mostly regarding Fall Back movements/attempts
-NO templates - I understand that template rules were fun to use; but they caused constant disagreements as to what is in vs what isn't. Also, the moment you bring templates back is the moment every horde player needs to spend hours spacing their squads to maximum coherency, for protection against templates (golly, what fun THIS was).
-Nightfighting rules that significantly limit first turn shooting, as first turn deep striking is limited as well

That said, it seems like most people in this thread just want to play 3rd edition - I know I do.

Also, how can this edition be ending... some armies haven't even gotten to play with a codex yet. [Rhetorical question; I understand that as the codecii come to a close, so too do we begin to move onto the next edition, but...]

I'd echo terrain rules improvements. At the moment they simply suck.