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.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

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.

One of the big reasons why it won't happen Is I don't think it'd be in GW's intreast to abandon the codex format. one of the big appeals of 40k over the compeition is their IP. and a Codex is filled with all sorts of lore, background info and the like. I think it'd be defeating to remove that Also a "rules online" format is bad at bringing new blood in. and 40k tends to be something of a "my first wargame"

Space Marine point cost reductions for :

Aggressors
Terminators
Land Raiders
Inceptors
Devastators
Tactical Squads

Give Space Marines more special rules that make them good.

Make tactical squads better by adding the option to upgrade them into 'veteran' units.

Give all space marine characters +1 wound... (why is shrike worse than a normal captain?)

Lascannon point cost reduction

Increase cost of Primaris Hellblasters or make them not as good....

Allow space marine primaris sarges options to take power weapons / chainswords / combi weapons.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

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.

One of the big reasons why it won't happen Is I don't think it'd be in GW's intreast to abandon the codex format. one of the big appeals of 40k over the compeition is their IP. and a Codex is filled with all sorts of lore, background info and the like. I think it'd be defeating to remove that Also a "rules online" format is bad at bringing new blood in. and 40k tends to be something of a "my first wargame"

I completely disagree. You could still offer the codex, and even a hardcover rulebook, you’d just have the option for “only the rules” downloads. One of the biggest issues with 40k has historically been codex creep/lag, and if your only source of rules is a hardback you can’t update it without re-selling the material or adding a large amount of FAQs as an addendum (we’ve already seen the complaints with chapter approved). So if 40k is to have better rules, it needs a more rapid correction capability. The game will get better, which will in turn draw more players into it.

Increased emphasis on "realism" i.e. less abstraction.

Scalability, with finer grained rules for things like terrain and cover, for shooting and LoS/targeting. for vehicle damage and so on optional and to be incorporated as players wish.

Vehicles that do not get trapped by gretchin in CC.

Continued tightening of army comp e.g. the rule of three.

Optional rules for alternating activation made official, and up to players/TOs to substitute for existing IGYG turns.

More staggered deployment standard to help de-emphasize first turn first strike KOs.

 jeff white wrote:
Increased emphasis on "realism" i.e. less abstraction.

Scalability, with finer grained rules for things like terrain and cover, for shooting and LoS/targeting. for vehicle damage and so on optional and to be incorporated as players wish.

Vehicles that do not get trapped by gretchin in CC.

Continued tightening of army comp e.g. the rule of three.

Optional rules for alternating activation made official, and up to players/TOs to substitute for existing IGYG turns.

More staggered deployment standard to help de-emphasize first turn first strike KOs.

That'd be awesome honestly.

First Turn KOS are honestly very annoying

I will add to this vehicles have to be turned towards their target and take movement points to do so. Or otherwise titans are just a bit too powerful.

Meh GW doesn't seem to be able to write good rules that try to be realistic. I would rather have them go full abstraction, much tighter rules can be writen that way. And better rules make better games. Add model and terrain size to the game, and a ton of its problems are gone. No more sniping banners across three ruins. Woods can actually be used, stuff like rivers or rubble or trenchs can have added rule.

When GW tries to go "realistic" the end game always seems to be someone at the studio having the great idea that eldar should be better at everything for fewer points. Or GW adding some rule, which they think is cool, but it ends up either breaking the game or makes the army borderline unplayable.

 Jaxler wrote:

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.

Double wrong, Jaxler has it right let's see:

3 guardsmen is roughly equivalent to a marine in points. I am ignoring stuff like toughness here for the sake of simplicity, but including that would obviously skew survivability rates in favor of the space marine.

A marine will fail one in three saves, so forcing 3 saves will kill it. Stepping into cover effectively doubles your armor here, as you go from 1/3 to 1/6, so 6 shots will kill one marine. Your expected losses are reduced by 50%.

A guardsmen fails two out of three saves, so forcing 1.5 save will kill one and 4.5 saves will kill three. A guardsman in cover saves 1/2 of hits, so 2 saves will kill one and 6 saves will kill three. Your expected losses are reduced by 33% (this increases to between 35 and 36% if you account for the 1 point the space marine costs more).

This means that increases in armor save actually become more valuable the higher your save already is. This is also why the new (old) AP system is harsher on armies with decent saves than it is for hordes (because this rule works in reverse too!) and finally gives power armored units a reason to stand in cover when facing low AP weaponry.

 greyknight12 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

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.

One of the big reasons why it won't happen Is I don't think it'd be in GW's intreast to abandon the codex format. one of the big appeals of 40k over the compeition is their IP. and a Codex is filled with all sorts of lore, background info and the like. I think it'd be defeating to remove that Also a "rules online" format is bad at bringing new blood in. and 40k tends to be something of a "my first wargame"

I completely disagree. You could still offer the codex, and even a hardcover rulebook, you’d just have the option for “only the rules” downloads. One of the biggest issues with 40k has historically been codex creep/lag, and if your only source of rules is a hardback you can’t update it without re-selling the material or adding a large amount of FAQs as an addendum (we’ve already seen the complaints with chapter approved). So if 40k is to have better rules, it needs a more rapid correction capability. The game will get better, which will in turn draw more players into it.

except if the rules are for download that'd make making a codex a poor propisition. also free rules likely wouldn't enchourage quality.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

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.

Double wrong, Jaxler has it right let's see:

3 guardsmen is roughly equivalent to a marine in points. I am ignoring stuff like toughness here for the sake of simplicity, but including that would obviously skew survivability rates in favor of the space marine.

A marine will fail one in three saves, so forcing 3 saves will kill it. Stepping into cover effectively doubles your armor here, as you go from 1/3 to 1/6, so 6 shots will kill one marine. Your expected losses are reduced by 50%.

A guardsmen fails two out of three saves, so forcing 1.5 save will kill one and 4.5 saves will kill three. A guardsman in cover saves 1/2 of hits, so 2 saves will kill one and 6 saves will kill three. Your expected losses are reduced by 33% (this increases to between 35 and 36% if you account for the 1 point the space marine costs more).

This means that increases in armor save actually become more valuable the higher your save already is. This is also why the new (old) AP system is harsher on armies with decent saves than it is for hordes (because this rule works in reverse too!) and finally gives power armored units a reason to stand in cover when facing low AP weaponry.

You mixed up our names, but yes that's actually how that works. In the old system any save below 4+ was useless, and the same time AP4 weapons didn't mean much since claiming a cover save for infantry was incredibly easy.

Old AP system encouraged chaffe units (Guard, and Tau especially) to just hide in cover all game and never move because if they did they'd likely lose their saves.

It only got worse once terrain giving improved cover saves came out.

Now I don't hate the current AP system, in fact it's definitely more realistic that some weapons are more likely to penetrate armour than others, but at the same time I feel like it means we need to rebalance how much we're charging for those good saves since they're more easily negated into worse saves.

Rather than a new edition, I'd rather them just do updated runs of the codexes/ rulebook with faqs/ previous chapter approve changes rolled in. If they just did this we could stick on an edition for a LONG time.

Hatachi wrote:
Rather than a new edition, I'd rather them just do updated runs of the codexes/ rulebook with faqs/ previous chapter approve changes rolled in. If they just did this we could stick on an edition for a LONG time.

8.1, 8.2, 8.3, ect?

I could live with that as long as we don't do full rulebook changes too often. Say, every 5 years or so to consolidate changes from CA and erratta. Codex updates could happen more regularly with updates for points, rules and new units.

hoping they do points adjustments for balancing of course.

Add in better terrain rules seems likely. maybe if infantry unit is 50% or more obscured up to +2 to save down to a max of 2+ save.

I'd like to see penalties for falling back out of combat like the unit in combat gets a free swing on the retreating unit or for them to make a opposing strength test to see if they get away or are stuck in.

Add back in deep striking turn 1 but do like the deployment only 1/2 deep strikers units rounded down can come in turn 1 within 9 inches of the opponent.

I think falling back should trigger a last strike assault ogerwatch thing, where each model gets one attack, regardless of their normal number, at their normal WS

OR

Full attacks, but only hit on 6's, regardless of modifiers.

Get rid of 'true LOS' for terrain. Make things like woods/forests actually hide models because we are never going to make realistic ones when you have to move models through them! Likewise can only shot a vehicle and vice versa if you can see the hull...
Makes terminators take -1 damage to a minimum of 1 each time they fail their save...
Increase all Astartes bolt weapons save mod by -1 (bigger caliber...)

 Asherian Command wrote:
Space Marine point cost reductions for :

Aggressors
Terminators
Land Raiders
Inceptors
Devastators
Tactical Squads

Give Space Marines more special rules that make them good.

Make tactical squads better by adding the option to upgrade them into 'veteran' units.

Give all space marine characters +1 wound... (why is shrike worse than a normal captain?)

Lascannon point cost reduction

Increase cost of Primaris Hellblasters or make them not as good....

Allow space marine primaris sarges options to take power weapons / chainswords / combi weapons.

Indeed, Space Marines, the draft-horse army of GW, needs an improvement all the way.

Bolters and power armour need some buffing; they weren’t fantastic when I started playing but they’re absolutely abysmal now. Marines getting 4+ saves is more and more common, while bolters don’t deny chaff their saves anymore. Pretty sad.

The current AP system had me somewhat excited initially but a year later I think the current AP system and the overwhelming amount of negative modifiers hurt the game. Even the current S/T table stings a bit. S6 wounding on 2+ used to be so nice.

Also; AV12 becoming T7 and AV14 becoming T8 with AV13 falling to either side of that randomly really sucks. Baal Predators and Furioso dreads have been shafted hard this time around. AV13 should be T8, with AV14 like Land Raider being T9 imo.

Oh another welcome addition would be CP generated by one codex can only be used by that faction. That or allow more allies for xenos. I liked my Orks being able to ally with Chaos marines it helped a lot to patch weaknesses to both armies in 6th and 7th. now in 8th that being taken away stung. Tau should also get guard and possibly marines as allies. Necrons obviously are bros with blood angels etc.

 Blndmage wrote:
I think falling back should trigger a last strike assault ogerwatch thing, where each model gets one attack, regardless of their normal number, at their normal WS

OR

Full attacks, but only hit on 6's, regardless of modifiers.

Would be very happy with each model gets one attack at usual WS with the weapon of their choice - "only hit on a six" starts to skew a fair bit.

In effect Grots pulling back from marines should have more to fear than marines pulling back from grots

its also a pretty simple mechanic to implement and provides a nice tactical choice, a reasonably strong unit (say a tank) pulling back from a couple of grots won't likely care.

BrianDavion wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

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.

One of the big reasons why it won't happen Is I don't think it'd be in GW's intreast to abandon the codex format. one of the big appeals of 40k over the compeition is their IP. and a Codex is filled with all sorts of lore, background info and the like. I think it'd be defeating to remove that Also a "rules online" format is bad at bringing new blood in. and 40k tends to be something of a "my first wargame"

I completely disagree. You could still offer the codex, and even a hardcover rulebook, you’d just have the option for “only the rules” downloads. One of the biggest issues with 40k has historically been codex creep/lag, and if your only source of rules is a hardback you can’t update it without re-selling the material or adding a large amount of FAQs as an addendum (we’ve already seen the complaints with chapter approved). So if 40k is to have better rules, it needs a more rapid correction capability. The game will get better, which will in turn draw more players into it.

except if the rules are for download that'd make making a codex a poor propisition. also free rules likely wouldn't enchourage quality.

Data sheets are included with the 40K models right now, I doubt it’s affected codex sales. Right now, you can download all the War scrolls for AoS - I’d be curious to know how that has negatively affected their Battletome sales - personally, I’d be willing to say it was negligible, or they’d have taken them down or have stopped doing them for new units.

A drop in:
-Volume of fire
-AP
Virtually across the board, with a few targetted killiness nerfs, too.

The game would be so much better if most of the current AP -1/-2 weapons were actually AP 0/-1 instead. Even some of the AP-3 should go down.

Bharring wrote:
A drop in:
-Volume of fire
-AP
Virtually across the board, with a few targetted killiness nerfs, too.

The game would be so much better if most of the current AP -1/-2 weapons were actually AP 0/-1 instead. Even some of the AP-3 should go down.

Agreed. I really like the new AP system, but I feel like there is too much -2 and up. Mostly everything needs to be -1 at the most, there should be almost no -3/4

 Billagio wrote:

Bharring wrote:
A drop in:
-Volume of fire
-AP
Virtually across the board, with a few targetted killiness nerfs, too.

The game would be so much better if most of the current AP -1/-2 weapons were actually AP 0/-1 instead. Even some of the AP-3 should go down.

Agreed. I really like the new AP system, but I feel like there is too much -2 and up. Mostly everything needs to be -1 at the most, there should be almost no -3/4

What would be nice is for a couple or target types to be brought back, like how Space Marine used to do it, so say infantry are much harder to hit with anti tank weapons (but seriously easy to kill with them), while what are currently multi shot weapons perhaps drop a few shots but get a bonus to hit infantry - idea there being the same rough result but less dice rolling.

End goal being to make an anti tank weapon something you fire at a tank, as the chances of hitting infantry are low, while anti infantry weapons are faster to resolve.

You can then give elite infantry a -1 to hit for greater skill, which only offsets the bonus for anti infantry weapons while making them largely immune to anti tank stuff - elite infanty with decent armour becoming seriously harder to shift

Using two melee weapons of the same kind should give a bonus of some kind, i dont mean dual lightning claws, or dual chainswords. Dual power swords or dual thunder hammer, and the bonus should not just be +1 attack.

 Billagio wrote:

Bharring wrote:
A drop in:
-Volume of fire
-AP
Virtually across the board, with a few targetted killiness nerfs, too.

The game would be so much better if most of the current AP -1/-2 weapons were actually AP 0/-1 instead. Even some of the AP-3 should go down.

Agreed. I really like the new AP system, but I feel like there is too much -2 and up. Mostly everything needs to be -1 at the most, there should be almost no -3/4

I disagree. -3/-4 should exist, but only on things designed to kill monsters/tanks/titanic models. Flipside is that those same weapons should have a harder time killing regular guys.

I feel like the former blast/large blast template weapons need a buff too. So many of them don't function as well as they used to.

Remove the free CP for being battleforged. Reduce the CP from Battalions and Brigades back to where they started 8th or maybe halfway in between. Add in free CP if all units in your army share all faction keywords (would need some testing for a good balance, maybe start at 5?). So, for example, you'd get xCP in addition to the detachment CP if your army are all from the same Craftworld, but you'd only get the Detachment benefits and lose the xCP if you added in a detachment from Dark Eldar or a different Craftworld. Should reduce the draw of soup a bit, and especially of CP batteries while rewarding pure lists.

Would also nerf factions that can easily make the big detachments a bit, and guard in particular by making it harder to make a "pure" list with their in faction splintering (do you want Enginseers, Auxilia, and Commisars, or more CP?). Not sure on the effect on Chaos, maybe some kind of bonus for having units from all 4 gods? Whether or not Orks would need something to make up for their faction splintering depends a lot on how their Codex turns out.

And for the mini-factions that are only good as allies without being overboard (Inquisition, Assassins, Ynarri, etc) possibly a smaller CP buff (e.g. +3 CP if your warlord is an Inquisitor) and/or allowing them to still generate detachment CP without needing an HQ for the ones that got hit by that update (Assassins, Sisters of Silence, etc).

Outside of CP and soup concerns, updates and supplements similar to Angels of Death from 7th for multiple factions to get some more representation for the underdog subfactions. E.G. some additional unique relics, warlord traits, or even units for Chapters and the like that got the shorter end of the stick. Maybe some faction specific detachments with other benefits instead of or in addition to a smaller number of CP, but more restrictive unit selections, like a toned down version of formations.

Cap to-hit penalties so a natural 6 always hits.

Things like gets hot or tesla triggering on natural rolls so they don't become nigh guaranteed, extra risky, impossible, or completely safe.

Re-rolls after modifiers.

Some balance against the advantage of going first. Something like a minor penalty during the first player turn; -1 to all hit or wound rolls, can't spend command points, something like that. Or an added benefit to going second, like being able to deep strike turn 1 outside your deployment only if you went second.

 p5freak wrote:
Using two melee weapons of the same kind should give a bonus of some kind, i dont mean dual lightning claws, or dual chainswords. Dual power swords or dual thunder hammer, and the bonus should not just be +1 attack.

Adding attacks is a fairly hefty bonus to damage output, should perhaps not be as cheap as buying an extra sword for a handful of points.

torblind wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Using two melee weapons of the same kind should give a bonus of some kind, i dont mean dual lightning claws, or dual chainswords. Dual power swords or dual thunder hammer, and the bonus should not just be +1 attack.

Adding attacks is a fairly hefty bonus to damage output, should perhaps not be as cheap as buying an extra sword for a handful of points.

Right now you can get a combi plasma gun, which can do up to 6 damage for 15 pts. and its a ranged weapon, which shoots at 24". A second thunder hammer with one bonus attack would only do 3 damage for 21 pts., another power sword with one bonus attack would only do 1 damage, for 4 pts. Those are melee weapons, which means you have to get to the enemy within 1".