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.

Good news

I'm not sure about that, daisy chaining right now is a necessity due to how small auras are. I can see the aura needing half the models of a unit inside to avoid abuses, but with 6" range auras you can't really keep a unit under it.


Think of that commissar having to keep 30 conscripts within 6"!

 p5freak wrote:
I was listening to a guy from the rules team/game designer at the warhammer fest, and he said GW is going to tighten up the rules, once all codexes have been released. Examples given were no more daisy chaining, a unit has to be wholly within a given range to get aura buffs, no more plasma blow up after modifiers, its probably gonna be on a natural roll of 1. And natural 6s will still have an effect, even with negative modifiers.

Seems like the stuff they did in AoS. Doesn't really fix much, . all the good auras and re-rolls are army wide. Does hurt weaker space marine armies though. Well at least orcs will now get to hit alaitoc, so it is a plus.

I wonder if tighten the rules also means that they are going to sit down and rewrite the rules for factions like GKs. Because nerfs to top armies are all nice and good, until they boomerang nerf the weakest factions too.

Spoletta wrote:
I'm not sure about that, daisy chaining right now is a necessity due to how small auras are. I can see the aura needing half the models of a unit inside to avoid abuses, but with 6" range auras you can't really keep a unit under it.


Think of that commissar having to keep 30 conscripts within 6"!

Isn't that the point though? You need to be close to the character to benefit from the aura? Daisy chaining looks ridiculous and exploits a loophole in the rules.

 Brother Castor wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I'm not sure about that, daisy chaining right now is a necessity due to how small auras are. I can see the aura needing half the models of a unit inside to avoid abuses, but with 6" range auras you can't really keep a unit under it.


Think of that commissar having to keep 30 conscripts within 6"!

Isn't that the point though? You need to be close to the character to benefit from the aura? Daisy chaining looks ridiculous and exploits a loophole in the rules.

The first part is subjective the second is COMPLETE conjecture. A rule you don't like is NOT automatically an exploit. Daisy chaining worked exactly the same in AoS for a year before 40k came out. It's highly unlikely it wasn't deliberate. Side bar, changing it to 'wholly within' just means you wouldn't see those characters very often anymore. A 6" range is too small to be useful for anything bigger than a dev squad most of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I was listening to a guy from the rules team/game designer at the warhammer fest, and he said GW is going to tighten up the rules, once all codexes have been released. Examples given were no more daisy chaining, a unit has to be wholly within a given range to get aura buffs, no more plasma blow up after modifiers, its probably gonna be on a natural roll of 1. And natural 6s will still have an effect, even with negative modifiers.

Seems like the stuff they did in AoS. Doesn't really fix much, . all the good auras and re-rolls are army wide. Does hurt weaker space marine armies though. Well at least orcs will now get to hit alaitoc, so it is a plus.

I wonder if tighten the rules also means that they are going to sit down and rewrite the rules for factions like GKs. Because nerfs to top armies are all nice and good, until they boomerang nerf the weakest factions too.

No, if they carry through with the Sigmar model they're going to add a bunch of randomly selected tables meant to improve the 'narrative' of the game with """"FUN""""" rules like 'nothing in your army can run anymore' or 'roll a D6. on a 6 you can do the shooting phase AGAIN!' or 'Roll a d6 for every unit on the field, on a 6 it takes d6 mortal wounds!'. All these rules will be stupid and pointless but they'll push for them to be tournament legal by lying about the new CA points costs being 'balanced around which of the FORTY+ options you could roll at the start of the game gives them the most/least power. Even though that would be completely impossible even for a more skilled game designer.

ERJAK wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I'm not sure about that, daisy chaining right now is a necessity due to how small auras are. I can see the aura needing half the models of a unit inside to avoid abuses, but with 6" range auras you can't really keep a unit under it.


Think of that commissar having to keep 30 conscripts within 6"!

Isn't that the point though? You need to be close to the character to benefit from the aura? Daisy chaining looks ridiculous and exploits a loophole in the rules.

The first part is subjective the second is COMPLETE conjecture. A rule you don't like is NOT automatically an exploit. Daisy chaining worked exactly the same in AoS for a year before 40k came out. It's highly unlikely it wasn't deliberate. Side bar, changing it to 'wholly within' just means you wouldn't see those characters very often anymore. A 6" range is too small to be useful for anything bigger than a dev squad most of the time.

Yep, just my opinion, but thanks for spelling that out to me with capitals. I agree that totally within wouldn't work though.

 Brother Castor wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I'm not sure about that, daisy chaining right now is a necessity due to how small auras are. I can see the aura needing half the models of a unit inside to avoid abuses, but with 6" range auras you can't really keep a unit under it.


Think of that commissar having to keep 30 conscripts within 6"!

Isn't that the point though? You need to be close to the character to benefit from the aura? Daisy chaining looks ridiculous and exploits a loophole in the rules.

The first part is subjective the second is COMPLETE conjecture. A rule you don't like is NOT automatically an exploit. Daisy chaining worked exactly the same in AoS for a year before 40k came out. It's highly unlikely it wasn't deliberate. Side bar, changing it to 'wholly within' just means you wouldn't see those characters very often anymore. A 6" range is too small to be useful for anything bigger than a dev squad most of the time.

Yep, just my opinion, but thanks for spelling that out to me with capitals. I agree that totally within wouldn't work though.

As i said, i would like to see something like "A unit is inside an aura if at least half the models of the unit are wholly inside the range of the aura". This would be workable and avoid the most extreme cases of daisy chaining that i indeed don't like. But all unit completely within? Synapse becomes a nightmare.

It will be interesting to see what GW come up with.

Daisy chaining is ridiculous and rules abuse. A medic on one end of the battlefield cant heal a model on the other end 60" away, just because the entire 30 model unit is daisy chained, thats impossible. I know its only a game, but it should make some sense. Maybe they will increase auras to 12" on powerful HQs, and keep 6" on the smaller ones, who knows ?

 p5freak wrote:
I was listening to a guy from the rules team/game designer at the warhammer fest, and he said GW is going to tighten up the rules, once all codexes have been released. Examples given were no more daisy chaining, a unit has to be wholly within a given range to get aura buffs, no more plasma blow up after modifiers, its probably gonna be on a natural roll of 1. And natural 6s will still have an effect, even with negative modifiers.

that'd make plasma a lot more reliable so long as captain re-rolls still effected it.

 p5freak wrote:
Daisy chaining is ridiculous and rules abuse. A medic on one end of the battlefield cant heal a model on the other end 60" away, just because the entire 30 model unit is daisy chained, thats impossible. I know its only a game, but it should make some sense. Maybe they will increase auras to 12" on powerful HQs, and keep 6" on the smaller ones, who knows ?

Could change it to models within 12" get a FnP, still the Ork player is likely removing casualties near the pain boy anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would be nice if they took a look at tournament results last year and tried to equalize power levels too.

Necron player out.

I'd like to see a lot less rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

Or, maybe just build an army list, convert it straight to a number of dice and have one big roll off to decide it.

Terrain rules that modify movement instead of rolling dice for things like running.

The removal of cover saves and replacement with to hit modifiers. Placement of units should matter. A bunch of power armoured goons in cover should be hard to budge.

The return of dangerous terrain. Pits of toxic goo, carnivorous forests, and crumbling ruins for a start.

Zillian wrote:
I'd like to see a lot less rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

So much this.


Other things I'd like to see:

- I actually want the psychic phase to stay roughly the same. I've seen people suggest that it should be like 8th edition WHFB's magic system... but 8th edition WHFB's magic system was bloody awful. There was no point to low-level casters outside of carrying dispel scrolls, and it was basically a game of 'who will be the first to miscast one of the ridiculously overpowered spells and throw a black hole into the enemy army'.

I mean, we basically already tried this in 7th edition and it meant that anyone who couldn't take a ridiculous number of psykers might as well have not bothered bringing any. And if you're playing Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tau, you might as well go make a sandwich while the Daemons player does his psychic phase.

- I think the CP system is badly in need of a redesign. If available stratagems are based on the number of CPs that faction can reasonably generate (i.e. expensive factions have good stratagems but few CPs, cheap factions have mediocre stratagems but lots of CPs), then there needs to be a rule that CPs generated by a particular faction can only be used by that faction. This way, an elite army can't just include some IG or such to generate extra CPs for them.

- The Ally rules are also in dire need of a redesign. Put simply, there needs to be a significant cost to taking allies - so that Soup isn't just outright better. Perhaps factions should only be able to access their regimental rules (or whatever the equivalents are) if their *entire army* is of the same regiment. There might be some exceptions (DE should probably be able to take one each of the Wych Cult, Kabal and Cult types, stuff like Inquisition shouldn't prevent you getting traits etc.). But the point is that if you want a regimental bonus, then your entire army needs to be the same regiment - not just a particular detachment.
- A variation on this would be if you can mix different regimental detachments, but you lose regimental bonuses from all detachments if you include any detachments from different factions. For example, a Space Marine army with an Ultramarines detachment and a White Scars detachment would still get the respective bonuses. However, if it then added an Imperial Guard detachment (of any regiment), then neither the Space Marines detachments, nor the IG detachment would benefit from any regimental abilities. Again, exceptions may be possible for stuff like Inquisition. But the basic idea is that Souping will cost you your subfaction bonuses.

 p5freak wrote:
I was listening to a guy from the rules team/game designer at the warhammer fest, and he said GW is going to tighten up the rules, once all codexes have been released. Examples given were no more daisy chaining, a unit has to be wholly within a given range to get aura buffs, no more plasma blow up after modifiers, its probably gonna be on a natural roll of 1. And natural 6s will still have an effect, even with negative modifiers.

Ohhh praise Gork and let this be true.

Totally within range for an Aura makes a lot of sense and in effect means a character gives the buff to one or two units - will need some adjustment in a few cases (think Ork Painboy, with a 3" Aura), to be all units totally within range or a single unit partially within range - which doesn't seem too broken.

the various effects triggering on natural un-modified rolls only also makes sense and quite why they ever said it was after modifiers baffles me


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally would like to see your warlord have to be a part of the "keyword" faction that has the most points invested in it - you can still bring the IG battery of 500 points in a 2k army, but the IG can no longer include the warlord.

would also very much go with "the faction that generated it, can use it" though this adds a bit more record keeping - could be "solved" by GW releasing "CP Coins" to keep track of such (or just use glass beads or whatever) in multiple colours

No, if they carry through with the Sigmar model they're going to add a bunch of randomly selected tables meant to improve the 'narrative' of the game with """"FUN""""" rules like 'nothing in your army can run anymore' or 'roll a D6. on a 6 you can do the shooting phase AGAIN!' or 'Roll a d6 for every unit on the field, on a 6 it takes d6 mortal wounds!'. All these rules will be stupid and pointless but they'll push for them to be tournament legal by lying about the new CA points costs being 'balanced around which of the FORTY+ options you could roll at the start of the game gives them the most/least power. Even though that would be completely impossible even for a more skilled game designer.

Well those rules are probablly going to be added later on in to 8.5ed, when they decide it is high time to update eldar. And give them those rules in form of farseer rune casting conclaves special rules.

Ohhh praise Gork and let this be true.

Totally within range for an Aura makes a lot of sense and in effect means a character gives the buff to one or two units - will need some adjustment in a few cases (think Ork Painboy, with a 3" Aura), to be all units totally within range or a single unit partially within range - which doesn't seem too broken.

Ok, but what if all your HQs are really slow, or at least much slower then the units they are suppose to to buffing. Moving a unit of interceptors or termintors in a such a way to have one in range of an aura is possible, having the whole unit within 6" of an HQ means the HQ and buffing is no longer an option. They would have add fast moving buff characters to all codex that do not have them as an option.

Ohhh praise Gork and let this be true.

Totally within range for an Aura makes a lot of sense and in effect means a character gives the buff to one or two units - will need some adjustment in a few cases (think Ork Painboy, with a 3" Aura), to be all units totally within range or a single unit partially within range - which doesn't seem too broken.

Ok, but what if all your HQs are really slow, or at least much slower then the units they are suppose to to buffing. Moving a unit of interceptors or termintors in a such a way to have one in range of an aura is possible, having the whole unit within 6" of an HQ means the HQ and buffing is no longer an option. They would have add fast moving buff characters to all codex that do not have them as an option.

Well if you are using a character who is a different movement rate to the unit you wish to buff the answer is pretty simple, they all go at the speed of the slowest, I dare say you may get some faster moving characters, but likewise if they are being used to buff slow stuff they remain tied.

Not really seeing a problem with that to be honest, especially if you have either a strategem to boost the range of an Aura for a turn, or the ability to buff either all within range or a single one only partly within range.

If it stops the 'castles' being built around a couple of buffing characters I'm all for it

Spoletta wrote:
I'm not sure about that, daisy chaining right now is a necessity due to how small auras are. I can see the aura needing half the models of a unit inside to avoid abuses, but with 6" range auras you can't really keep a unit under it.


Think of that commissar having to keep 30 conscripts within 6"!

Guess it's time to start thinking 3 dimensionally and using terrain to form a literal bubble around models like that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Catching up with the rest of the thread, if it's "models within" going forward for auras, then the auras need to double range to stay at the same level of effective.

One thing people forget about the aura abilities is that it's hard to be mobile and keep those bubbles in the right places. Of course you can castle in a corner and shoot, but that gets boring quickly and is easily countered by strong assault. I like the aura abilities because they give your HQ units something to do, some HQs you take only for their auras. That's not bad, it's simply another facet of HQ units, before it was shooty, choppy or a mix of both. Now we have HQs able to contribute in a more thematic way. It's perfectly alright to have a leader who sits behind the lines and directs fire. In previous editions support characters were a thing, but they had to join a unit and then they only buffed that unit. It's not very fluffy to say that a leader can only lead the men in his unit and not the squad a few feet away. That being said there does need to be an 'at vs within' rule, especially when it comes to Deep Striking, charge range and measuring distance for weapons. The wording on DS for example. More than 9" away, so you place your dudes 9 & 1/4" away. Now you're outside flamer range but still only need to roll a 9 or better to charge. Seems counter intuitive when it could read 'at least 9" away'. Then you could place your dudes at 9" exactly and be able to use your flamers.

If you have that kind of range on your flamers, most Imperium flamers are 8" I think, but that's just an example of the at vs within conundrum.

Oh and wishlist. Do something to the FNP. Not worried about it being broken but darn it takes long time to resolve. Especially when entire army has it. Not fun to cause 10 wounds each causing D2 against some stinking dark eldar squad that has then roll those FNP's for every single model.

Figure out some way to get rid of that and lots of games would speed up immediately.

I specifically avoid painboy with orks because I don't WANT to slow down my game. Or if I do take if wound causes more than 1 damage on W1 model I skip my FNP unless it's like 4+ FNP. Just ain't worth the time.

Things I’d like to see:
1. Free rules. Once the rules are free, they can be updated more frequently without alienating your base or confusing them with “core rules v2.3”. You can still sell the books, just add more art and fluff (only the rules would be free). Sure you probably won’t sell as many books, but you will a) make the game better which will make it more appealing to new players and b) still make the same money from a customer who has their hobby budgeted, they can buy models instead of books.
2. Ending the current allies system. Allies have caused problems for 40K since they became universal in 6th. Just cut them out of the core game. However, certain codecies (like inquisition) would have the option to take a few allied units (or be allied in) like the 4th ed Daemonhunters codex, pictures attached. Genestealer cult, Inquisition, and renegades are all good candidates for this treatment.
3. Movement penalties for terrain, just a flat modifier (-1/-2) would do. Adds a lot of depth for a slight tweak.

Spoletta wrote:
As long as we don't go back to 7th edition cover i'm fine.

That one used to advantage light infantry and make power armor useless.

This one does a lot to help elite infantry (and the game has a desperate need for it), while helping light infantry much less.

Wrong. It actually helps cheap infantry better because the +1 save is applied to many more bodies, meaning the buff helps smaller infantry a whole lot more per point.

20 infantry going to a 4+ Does a lot more than 5 guy’s going from a 3+ to a 2+...

Space marines getting a 2+ only gives the illusion of it being better.

I like the idea of movement penalty based on terrain and I think cover could be better handled by a to hit penalty. I know that stacks with -1 to hit armies like Alaitoc and Raven Guard to a lesser extent but what if it just didn't stack? Then you actually have to work to negate cover and weapons that traditionally did so could do so again. Of course this would make cover negating CTs like Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors that much more appealing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think a -1 to hit for cover would also help the AP system make more sense. It seems wrong that cover seems to negate AP. I mean, you're not shooting at the cover, you're aiming for the model, so why would cover impact how hard you are hit? It's either the cover is hit or the model is hit, if it's the cover then why are we proceeding to the wound step?

 darkcloak wrote:
I like the idea of movement penalty based on terrain and I think cover could be better handled by a to hit penalty. I know that stacks with -1 to hit armies like Alaitoc and Raven Guard to a lesser extent but what if it just didn't stack? Then you actually have to work to negate cover and weapons that traditionally did so could do so again. Of course this would make cover negating CTs like Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors that much more appealing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think a -1 to hit for cover would also help the AP system make more sense. It seems wrong that cover seems to negate AP. I mean, you're not shooting at the cover, you're aiming for the model, so why would cover impact how hard you are hit? It's either the cover is hit or the model is hit, if it's the cover then why are we proceeding to the wound step?

Wrong, if you are hiding behind a wall and i have a weapon that can punch such wall, i'm going to target it. This is a common situation both in war and in simulators.

You got a squad in that building? Who cares, when i'm shooting with a 20mm? I'll just maw everything down!

These cover rules are actually more realistic.

What could be done is separating cover, which adds armor such as a stone wall, from concealment which causes accuracy penalties, like hiding in a bush or night fights.

Then perhaps your big gun that shoots through my cover could have a special rule that lets it ignore my paltry wall or crystallized tree stump!

En garde!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But if you're hiding behind a bush and thereby concealed but I can still target you, why wouldn't I aim for the shrubbery? I think that's more a line of sight issue than cover. Now that you mention it, that does need addressing. Why does a space tree give you a better armour save vs a literal rocket propelled bullet? It shouldn't, it should make you harder to hit since there is less of you to aim at, but since you can be seen anyways... Why not use the gun that shoots through the cover.

I think for the sake of simplicity and ease of gameplay a -1 to hit is the best solution for units in cover. I've played a lot of necromunda and Mordheim so that's where I get the idea that it can work in 40k because it seems to work well in those systems and explains most logically how that concept is conveyed on the tabletop.

I mean, if we really want some kind of cover, los, targeting rules that really explain a real life fire fight better than what 8th edition 40k offers maybe we should be looking at 30k instead? Or dare I say it? Another game entirely? Keep it simple, make the rules easy. Seems to be a good motto for a company as notoriously inept with game balance as GW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get what you're saying though. I live in a heavily forested area and in thick woods you really can't see more than a few feet into the trees. A trained soldier would have no problem blending into dense foliage and currently there isn't really any difference between hiding behind a bush and a military grade barricade designed to withstand gunfire.

GW does have rules for prometium pipes and things like that but how many of us use them as opposed to saying this is cover, that is cover, the swamp is impassible'...

leopard wrote:

Ok, but what if all your HQs are really slow, or at least much slower then the units they are suppose to to buffing. Moving a unit of interceptors or termintors in a such a way to have one in range of an aura is possible, having the whole unit within 6" of an HQ means the HQ and buffing is no longer an option. They would have add fast moving buff characters to all codex that do not have them as an option.

Well if you are using a character who is a different movement rate to the unit you wish to buff the answer is pretty simple, they all go at the speed of the slowest, I dare say you may get some faster moving characters, but likewise if they are being used to buff slow stuff they remain tied.

Not really seeing a problem with that to be honest, especially if you have either a strategem to boost the range of an Aura for a turn, or the ability to buff either all within range or a single one only partly within range.

If it stops the 'castles' being built around a couple of buffing characters I'm all for it

@Karol
Dreadknight Grandmasters move 8” and can deepstrike+gate. Other than draigo (who can also gate) those are the only aura units worth taking...ultimately with the actually useful auras other armies have it’s less of a loss for us than them. That said, I actually doubt such a thing will happen because it would ultimately be clunky (measuring the whole squad) and goes against the “list-building is king” approach that FLG/ITC has been pushing for the last several years.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Things I’d like to see:
1. Free rules. Once the rules are free, they can be updated more frequently without alienating your base or confusing them with “core rules v2.3”. You can still sell the books, just add more art and fluff (only the rules would be free). Sure you probably won’t sell as many books, but you will a) make the game better which will make it more appealing to new players and b) still make the same money from a customer who has their hobby budgeted, they can buy models instead of books.

well we're at it I'd like free minis too.

BrianDavion wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Things I’d like to see:
1. Free rules. Once the rules are free, they can be updated more frequently without alienating your base or confusing them with “core rules v2.3”. You can still sell the books, just add more art and fluff (only the rules would be free). Sure you probably won’t sell as many books, but you will a) make the game better which will make it more appealing to new players and b) still make the same money from a customer who has their hobby budgeted, they can buy models instead of books.

well we're at it I'd like free minis too.

I don't think you can compare a public, digitalised ruleset with manufactoring and shipping models for free.

But you're right. It will never happen.

What? Free was an option the whole time?! feth, I'll take six boxes of Berzerkers and four Land Raiders then please!

More aliens vs aliens or Chaos vs aliens. Less Imperium campaign and stuff. I am talking about a Ghazkull vs Imhotek campaign, or Shadow Sun vs Typhus.