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.

What about Models are a cylinder perhaps? Seems to be successful in other games.

 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.

Grenade launchers are a whole lot better than lasguns against T6 vehicles, Custodes, etc. You aren’t taking them for the frag mode.

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

They're fine if you make terrain that works with it, but GW's own terrain doesn't fall into that category, so I agree it would be nice if GW either made terrain that works with their rules, or made rules that work with their terrain.

Oh I think most people house rule at this stage. I most certainly do and it works. Its just a bit sad GW didnt put more time into terrain rules, interactions and ideas.

 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.

My apologies, I won't try to help you again.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
My apologies, I won't try to help you again.

My disdain of the grenade launcher is remorseless and unshakeable.

Make it Rapid Fire, like the Space Marine launcher, and then we're in business.

Some basic things that can come down the line:

Make terrain meaningful
Make cover a bit more unique and varying

Things that need to be addressed with 8th edition as a whole:

CP should be a rare and valuable resource. Nothing should allow you to get more CP than what you start with. No relics, warlord traits, psychic powers. You get what you get.

Now with this rework of CP, stratagems should be more meaningful, have a bit more freedom when you can use them, and they should always happen, no more spend a cp to have something on a 4+. I would also remove random dice on stratagems that heal. A bit of reliability would be nice on certain stratagems.

Random damage should be buffed a bit, and random shots for weapons should be increased. Why do I have to roll d3 shots, then hit, then wound, then roll d3 damage for each one as saves are dealt out? GW made things take longer in these cases. A balance to this would be to increase wounds on a lot of models.

I expect we'll see some new suprise armies in 2019. Perhaps sisters of silence?

So another thread reminded me of something from way back when, strategy ratings, so this got me thinking, could the detachments not generate strategic points and factions generate them instead, for example.

Space marines: 10
Guard: 8
Orks 6+d6
Etc.

Each faction generates its own points and can only use its own points, there would also be exceptions to this, taking guiliman for examples could give you his extra points but these could be used for any soup elements in the army too, certain characters would also boost or change the strategy rating.

This is just a simple idea at the moment but I think it has merit.

 Saber wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
My apologies, I won't try to help you again.

My disdain of the grenade launcher is remorseless and unshakeable.

Make it Rapid Fire, like the Space Marine launcher, and then we're in business.

They haved removed rapid fire from marine GL. It now has the same rules as the IG variant

Something I would like to see is a slight change to CP's. Instead of 3 plus whatever your detachment gives you, every player should just get a set number like... 15. That way players might use them for more than just the same handful of stratagems and re-rolls. You might also see the other detachments see more use if they had better CPs to spend.

I'd honestly rather see a small pool of CP you get each turn personally. Of course I'd also like to see stratagems more on the line of +1 to hit, +1 to save, enter Overwatch, activate Deep Strike, fall back, etc. They might not be cool or "fluffy" but having the same stratagems for everyone would limit the creep aspect.

Skaorn wrote:
I'd honestly rather see a small pool of CP you get each turn personally. Of course I'd also like to see stratagems more on the line of +1 to hit, +1 to save, enter Overwatch, activate Deep Strike, fall back, etc. They might not be cool or "fluffy" but having the same stratagems for everyone would limit the creep aspect.

I'd be up for that too. More generic stratagems would be a nice addition.

I didn't think the CP and Stratagem rework would be as popular as it is.

Reemule wrote:
I didn't think the CP and Stratagem rework would be as popular as it is.

Maybe not - but its probably the main element of 8th that is due a re-work once all the codexes are out.

I don't like CP farming - and it seems more less mandatory in competitive lists, so I'd rather it was made baseline or removed entirely - preferably removed entirely. People would then be free to explore other warlord traits and relics.

I think every faction should have Agents of Vect. Maybe its a bit too "game within a game" - but if GW want stratagems to act as this mini version of MTG played over the top I don't see why not. In some ways stratagems could be the interactive psychic phase that GW has supposedly wanted for decades and yet has never managed to create.

Also I think Goatboy read this thread..

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/07/goatboys-40k-thoughts-what-warhamer-40k-8th-2-0-needs.html

And that is fine. Amusing ideas though.

GW wants to encourage more troops. CP is currently their way of doing so and it seems to work out about the way it probably should at this point. I'd probably prefer a "per turn" allotment myself, but the current system is fine. I'd probably yank all the current CP regen Warlord traits out and make them a general ability for keeping your Warlord alive, but again, it's a workable system as is.

Having lots of CP to spend has largely given the game a more universally applicable version of the psychic phase its always kind of needed. It's a pretty terrific addition to the game overall, though it could use a little polish and cleaning. The stack of reminder cards is pretty hilariously thick due to the number of super situational abilities in the pile.

I agree with some of the other people... I would rather see a tweaking of the rules more than new editions.

After all the codices are out I would love to see them release fluffy theme forces/sub armies for different factions. So more restricted unit lists for detachment or things like all detachments must share "x" keyword... with the trade off being that you get access to cool new rules/relics/strategems/Bonus CPs or something similar.

 BlackLobster wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
I'd honestly rather see a small pool of CP you get each turn personally. Of course I'd also like to see stratagems more on the line of +1 to hit, +1 to save, enter Overwatch, activate Deep Strike, fall back, etc. They might not be cool or "fluffy" but having the same stratagems for everyone would limit the creep aspect.

I'd be up for that too. More generic stratagems would be a nice addition.

Funnily enough that's how it works in AoS now. I kinda like that system and wish parts of it were brought to 40K - say, instead of 3 bonus CP, you got 1 each round, some stratagems are tied to specific HQs and you can use them only when they are on the table, factions being only able to use CPs generated by their keyword, etc, etc.

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.

GW aren't in charge of 30k, FW is. And they stated 30k was going to use 7th ed rules for the foreseeable future.

 Irbis wrote:

Funnily enough that's how it works in AoS now. I kinda like that system and wish parts of it were brought to 40K - say, instead of 3 bonus CP, you got 1 each round, some stratagems are tied to specific HQs and you can use them only when they are on the table, factions being only able to use CPs generated by their keyword, etc, etc.

It'd be interesting to see what changes in dynamic a CP allotment per turn would cause. Presumably there'd be no more splurging CPs in the first turn or two to swing the game, instead making CPs more about nudges in a player's favour each turn.

I like the game - mostly - I would really like them to actually finish the codexes before they re do it. having listened in the early stages to months and months of Marines players saying to everyone else - "wait"

Tweek and expand the rules for terrain, usual balance issues, make it so a 6 always hits, esepcially for Orks

Things I abslutely do NOT want to see:

Facings for Vehicles
7th/8th Ed Psychic
Bonus CP for detachments

We'll probably get 50k! A new experience where the entire universe is reset and they get rid of orks.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I like the game - mostly - I would really like them to actually finish the codexes before they re do it. having listened in the early stages to months and months of Marines players saying to everyone else - "wait"

Tweek and expand the rules for terrain, usual balance issues, make it so a 6 always hits, esepcially for Orks

Things I abslutely do NOT want to see:

Facings for Vehicles
7th/8th Ed Psychic
Bonus CP for detachments

I was never fond of facings, and I don’t ever want t see them back. Not only did you get arguments over vehicles that weren’t perfect boxes, but you also had the disparity between Monstrous Creatures(who could shoot wherever and always used a set toughness) and vehicles/walkers(firing arcs for vehicles being a big hindrance). I can understand wanting more granularity in the rules, but find something else other than facings and firing arcs. Especially when you have large swaths of comparable models who will ignore those rules to begin with(monsters).

Facings are weird. On one hand, it feels wrong when a tank is shooting out its back despite having no guns pointed that way. On the other, it makes sense when a flyer zooms past something it should probably have been able to have shot things as it strafed over. I'm probably in the pro-facings camp, but without ways to resolve them easily, I'm happy with it as is.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Funnily enough that's how it works in AoS now. I kinda like that system and wish parts of it were brought to 40K - say, instead of 3 bonus CP, you got 1 each round, some stratagems are tied to specific HQs and you can use them only when they are on the table, factions being only able to use CPs generated by their keyword, etc, etc.

It'd be interesting to see what changes in dynamic a CP allotment per turn would cause. Presumably there'd be no more splurging CPs in the first turn or two to swing the game, instead making CPs more about nudges in a player's favour each turn.

The way you spend them in AoS is very different. I think its rather misleading for GW to have used the same name, as there's far less mechanical overlap than you'd assume. Thus far there's some odd "save and splurg" results of the system. I like it better in theory as a resource system, but I like the strategem system better than the AoS equivalent. I think the generation mechanic could probably be brought over okay, but there would need to be more of it to properly fuel strategems. Granted, 8th editions system has seen several tweaks, so AoS's system might really blossom in time.