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.

Im much more in favour of the more flexible living ruleset that involves gradual changes adressed with FAQ's and Suppliments. There has been a hard lean towards this method recently and I personally think it is a much better than complete reforms and changes to the rules. Drastic changes such as new editions often fix old problems while creating new ones for everyone to complain about. Whereas this new format not only can be applied to rulesets but also codecies. Lets look at some examples so far that have worked well.

7th Edition Rules -
So not only has the FAQ refined the ruleset for the better, not many people have noticed but there has also been large additions to the current ruleset as well. Death from the skies is the perfect example in adding to the ruleset and even adding whole other aspects and stats to the game without a new edition. I would welcome any clarification or small additions in White Dwarfs or even online annotations.

Codecies -
Two good examples of updated codecies through suppliments are CSM and Daemons, CSM got two suppliments that gave them new formations that gave them interesting viability and adressing a few issues with CSM, while daemons also got their own upgraded suppliment that was recently combined with the original codex making them even better than they were.

I'm not sure why everyone complains so much about the current edition. I find the new direction GW are heading towards is much better

Reavas wrote:Codecies -
Two good examples of updated codecies through suppliments are CSM and Daemons, CSM got two suppliments that gave them new formations that gave them interesting viability and adressing a few issues with CSM, while daemons also got their own upgraded suppliment that was recently combined with the original codex making them even better than they were.

The supplements didn't fix the core problems of the CSM codex.

For example: Chaos space marines are still 13 ppm, come with no special rules, require the purchase of what is, in effect, a veteran sargeant and require a full 10 man squad to bring a heavy weapon (without the benefit of the combat squads special rule, mind you).

The supplements didn't fix that. Chaos Space Marines are in need of a wholesale re-balancing to be in line with other 7th edition codices.

Making superficial changes to something doesn't fix it. It might make it somewhat better. But it's not a fix.'

Thus the problem with the "just tack stuff on" mentality.

At some point, you'll have a 7th edition rulebook with all sorts of addenda/errata in various locations, and reading the rulebook, in and of itself, won't actually be a reliable way to teach you to play the game.

The rulebook should be the one stop shop for rules. Period.

Nah, I'd rather they just make a new rule set, THEN go for the updates/tweaks. 7th is a fething mess.

 Traditio wrote:

Reavas wrote:Codecies -
Two good examples of updated codecies through suppliments are CSM and Daemons, CSM got two suppliments that gave them new formations that gave them interesting viability and adressing a few issues with CSM, while daemons also got their own upgraded suppliment that was recently combined with the original codex making them even better than they were.

The supplements didn't fix the core problems of the CSM codex.

For example: Chaos space marines are still 13 ppm, come with no special rules, require the purchase of what is, in effect, a veteran sargeant and require a full 10 man squad to bring a heavy weapon (without the benefit of the combat squads special rule, mind you).

The supplements didn't fix that. Chaos Space Marines are in need of a wholesale re-balancing to be in line with other 7th edition codices.

Making superficial changes to something doesn't fix it. It might make it somewhat better. But it's not a fix.'

Thus the problem with the "just tack stuff on" mentality.

At some point, you'll have a 7th edition rulebook with all sorts of addenda/errata in various locations, and reading the rulebook, in and of itself, won't actually be a reliable way to teach you to play the game.

The rulebook should be the one stop shop for rules. Period.

The suppliments for CSM adressed the issues of their cost with flexible formations that give the units powerups that justify the cost, such as FNP on all your troops in the crimson slaughter formation or even prescience on your chosen and posessed. They even made maulerfiends and forgefiends viable together in the new Black Legion

I agree in part that you shouldn't need 5 suppliments to play the game, but thats why I mentioned what they did with Daemons, releasing a new codex including the wulfen suppliments changes. Same can be done with the rulebook, releasing differant volumes with differant annotations such as the FAQ or death from the skies rather than throwing away all the old rules

Reavas wrote:


The suppliments for CSM adressed the issues of their cost with flexible formations that give the units powerups that justify the cost, such as FNP on all your troops in the crimson slaughter formation

So long as they are in a 12" Bubble around the Dark Apostle, who has to forgo shooting in order to confer the bonus. Hardly a buff that justifies cost.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Reavas wrote:


The suppliments for CSM adressed the issues of their cost with flexible formations that give the units powerups that justify the cost, such as FNP on all your troops in the crimson slaughter formation

So long as they are in a 12" Bubble around the Dark Apostle, who has to forgo shooting in order to confer the bonus. Hardly a buff that justifies cost.

FNP on 1-3 units on CSM is nothing to turn your nose up at, and thats one of the many formations in CS and BL suppliments

Reavas wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Reavas wrote:


The suppliments for CSM adressed the issues of their cost with flexible formations that give the units powerups that justify the cost, such as FNP on all your troops in the crimson slaughter formation

So long as they are in a 12" Bubble around the Dark Apostle, who has to forgo shooting in order to confer the bonus. Hardly a buff that justifies cost.

FNP on 1-3 units on CSM is nothing to turn your nose up at, and thats one of the many formations in CS and BL suppliments

It takes a formation for CSM and a character not to shoot for a turn within a small bubble. SM just need to claim they're iron hands and have the same buff for all units all the time.

Dudeface wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Reavas wrote:


The suppliments for CSM adressed the issues of their cost with flexible formations that give the units powerups that justify the cost, such as FNP on all your troops in the crimson slaughter formation

So long as they are in a 12" Bubble around the Dark Apostle, who has to forgo shooting in order to confer the bonus. Hardly a buff that justifies cost.

FNP on 1-3 units on CSM is nothing to turn your nose up at, and thats one of the many formations in CS and BL suppliments

It takes a formation for CSM and a character not to shoot for a turn within a small bubble. SM just need to claim they're iron hands and have the same buff for all units all the time.

Im not saying CSM are on par with SM, Tau or Eldar but these changes make them more viable as an army when taking any of these armies on in a game. Some of the other formations like the cabal make a nifty librarious with re-rolls with spell familiars and are better than the FNP formation in CS suppliment, the FNP was just an example how they have been brought up to speed, not cheese for the most part but balanced

Reavas wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Reavas wrote:


The suppliments for CSM adressed the issues of their cost with flexible formations that give the units powerups that justify the cost, such as FNP on all your troops in the crimson slaughter formation

So long as they are in a 12" Bubble around the Dark Apostle, who has to forgo shooting in order to confer the bonus. Hardly a buff that justifies cost.

FNP on 1-3 units on CSM is nothing to turn your nose up at, and thats one of the many formations in CS and BL suppliments

It takes a formation for CSM and a character not to shoot for a turn within a small bubble. SM just need to claim they're iron hands and have the same buff for all units all the time.

Im not saying CSM are on par with SM, Tau or Eldar but these changes make them more viable as an army when taking any of these armies on in a game. Some of the other formations like the cabal make a nifty librarious with re-rolls with spell familiars and are better than the FNP formation in CS suppliment, the FNP was just an example how they have been brought up to speed, not cheese for the most part but balanced

Sorry but I cannot agree, CSM in particular are so far behind the curve that even with these formations they aren't great. The cabal is a lifeline they were offered, but look at it from this angle: their loyal counter parts get everything that chaos gets for no negatives or requirements, then their formations give them even more putting them further ahead again.

The same week chaos got their 2 supplements, marines got 4 new psychic disciplines and access to half a dozen unique decurions; I. E. Free upgrades. Chaos have 0 decurions.

Please note, using marines as they're an easy comparison.

Daemons got a solid boost that's fair play.

CSM, sisters, and IG need a significant boost

7th Edition is maybe playable if you are using a 7.5 edition (over) power Codex:

Space Marines, Eldar, Tau, Necrons.

Everyone else got the shaft. Fact. Some Codexes still have zero formations.

If they gave everyone a similar Codex than those codexes would not be OP - but they have not and apparently will not.

And its getting worse as the Power Codexes just keep getting more and more stuff - Marines got yet another Codex -with shock horror more OP stuff, followed by Death from the Skies - which gave - guess what Marines yet another flyer and formations to abuse...sorry use all they already have.

What armies do you use Reavas???

Better not. Nothing will get better.

I get the feeling people are missing the point here. It's not about what csm got, but how they got it. Without having to redo the codex, they got quite a few more options than before (regardless of what you think of them).
The same for 7th. They added an entire new phase complete with "formations", without having to create a new edition to do so. Like campaign books introducing new units.
I think he/she's just saying that they prefer those kinds of gradual changes/additions over "reboots" like we had in the past.

That much I can get on board with, but we still need an 8th edition regardless. It should be more than just an update of 7th mind you. They should at least separate apocalypse from normal 40k, even if it were just a different way to play the game. Like you could play 40k and apocalpyse and no superheavies were allowed in 40k, but you then also have ruleset that allows bringing anything. Like now, many people don't allow unbound armies, likewise people could choose to play 40k on a more sane level this way.

More importantly though (for me anyway), would be to give us more choice in building your army. Let us choose powers, traits, that kinda stuff, which requires rebalancing some spells etc. Introduce some kind of updated pass on strategic assets, maybe even some sort of light deck building. Give us something to do in the opponents turn. One of the reasons my playgroup stopped playing was because of that. But that's just me. Oh and for the love of god, combine properly with forgeworld. Even if its what they did with cataphractii.

Of course, they have to to it properly, unlike the example you chose. The discrepancy between the CSM supplements and the C:SM supplements+spells just makes the csm update look like a joke.

Reavas wrote:
I'm not sure why everyone complains so much about the current edition. I find the new direction GW are heading towards is much better

Whether or not it's better is debatable; however you can't argue with the fact that GW's current method means that you need excessive amounts of rules manuals to play a game now. And once you FAQ the rules enough, they stop being the "core" rules. The problem is that under the current model and what you are proposing is that you have to pay for all these updates.

 Mr Morden wrote:
7th Edition is maybe playable if you are using a 7.5 edition (over) power Codex:

Space Marines, Eldar, Tau, Necrons.

Everyone else got the shaft. Fact. Some Codexes still have zero formations.

If they gave everyone a similar Codex than those codexes would not be OP - but they have not and apparently will not.

And its getting worse as the Power Codexes just keep getting more and more stuff - Marines got yet another Codex -with shock horror more OP stuff, followed by Death from the Skies - which gave - guess what Marines yet another flyer and formations to abuse...sorry use all they already have.

What armies do you use Reavas???

I use a mix of crimson slaughter and daemons, sometimes individually sometimes on their own, and I don't often have any problems and my opponents often uses wraithknight eldar, SM or Necrons.

Roknar wrote:
I get the feeling people are missing the point here. It's not about what csm got, but how they got it. Without having to redo the codex, they got quite a few more options than before (regardless of what you think of them).
The same for 7th. They added an entire new phase complete with "formations", without having to create a new edition to do so. Like campaign books introducing new units.
I think he/she's just saying that they prefer those kinds of gradual changes/additions over "reboots" like we had in the past.

That much I can get on board with, but we still need an 8th edition regardless. It should be more than just an update of 7th mind you. They should at least separate apocalypse from normal 40k, even if it were just a different way to play the game. Like you could play 40k and apocalpyse and no superheavies were allowed in 40k, but you then also have ruleset that allows bringing anything. Like now, many people don't allow unbound armies, likewise people could choose to play 40k on a more sane level this way.

More importantly though (for me anyway), would be to give us more choice in building your army. Let us choose powers, traits, that kinda stuff, which requires rebalancing some spells etc. Introduce some kind of updated pass on strategic assets, maybe even some sort of light deck building. Give us something to do in the opponents turn. One of the reasons my playgroup stopped playing was because of that. But that's just me. Oh and for the love of god, combine properly with forgeworld. Even if its what they did with cataphractii.

Of course, they have to to it properly, unlike the example you chose. The discrepancy between the CSM supplements and the C:SM supplements+spells just makes the csm update look like a joke.

I agree there needs to be some changes like being able to choose powers instead of rolling, but I still think changes needed could be added in mini-rules like the death from the skys book but for the psy phase. A book that includes the new powers and rules reguarding the psy phase that would be included in later rulebooks, meaning we have the option to buy a mini codex or just a better rulebook, or even online annotations like the FAQ as an option if you don't want to buy. Because this is something more easily changed over time if there are problems while whole new editions could be worse than 7th or flawed in certain areas or maybe even favour assaulting or shooting making it imbalanced.

Reavas wrote:
Im much more in favour of the more flexible living ruleset that involves gradual changes adressed with FAQ's and Suppliments. There has been a hard lean towards this method recently and I personally think it is a much better than complete reforms and changes to the rules. Drastic changes such as new editions often fix old problems while creating new ones for everyone to complain about. Whereas this new format not only can be applied to rulesets but also codecies. Lets look at some examples so far that have worked well.

7th Edition Rules -
So not only has the FAQ refined the ruleset for the better, not many people have noticed but there has also been large additions to the current ruleset as well. Death from the skies is the perfect example in adding to the ruleset and even adding whole other aspects and stats to the game without a new edition. I would welcome any clarification or small additions in White Dwarfs or even online annotations.

Codecies -
Two good examples of updated codecies through suppliments are CSM and Daemons, CSM got two suppliments that gave them new formations that gave them interesting viability and adressing a few issues with CSM, while daemons also got their own upgraded suppliment that was recently combined with the original codex making them even better than they were.

I'm not sure why everyone complains so much about the current edition. I find the new direction GW are heading towards is much better

I tend to agree that 7th should not be totally replaced with a new ed. It is kind of hard on players to have to keep buying new rulebooks and codice every few years. An "8th" might be in order though but it should be basically 7th rules with the errata and FAQs included. Like the way the 6th ed Tau book is still relevant with the Kauyon book whilst there is an 7th codex for newer players that has material from both. The 40k rulebooks and codice are no longer cheap and flimsy softbacks they are expensive long lasting hardbacks so to justify that expense they should remain relevant longer.

I don't find the core rules of 7th to be that bad given the scope of the game. On the issue of balance the problems are in the army specific books not the core rules.

I use a mix of crimson slaughter and daemons, sometimes individually sometimes on their own, and I don't often have any problems and my opponents often uses wraithknight eldar, SM or Necrons.

So no-one uses:

Orks?
Guard?
Sisters?
Blood Angels
Nids?
Chaos Space Marines?

Non (O)Power Dexes?

One of my first games was against sisters of battle (they kicked my ass as I had never encountered that much artillary) and not including me one or two people play orks or CSM in my local meta but other than that its mainly SM, necrons, tau and eldar, havn't gone up against tau at my LGS yet but not looking forward to it with a melee heavy army haha. That being said I find it all the more satisfying when I beat people using wraithhosts, librarious' or necron Decurion's when I play CSM as I feel it helps me adapt to the meta and I find the tools given to me in the CS suppliment perfect for my playstyle and just enough to put me on equal ground. Going from around 30% winrate to around 50 to 60%.I find that after each loss I look at my list and tweak and improve it, sometimes adding more posessed or daemon allies, maybe some cultists.

For me atleast, playing as an average to below average army keeps me on my toes and always theorycrafting and trying to find the perfect combination with what I have that can combat various types of armies is what I find to be the best part of 40k, the imbalance is part of any stratagy game that keeps it interesting and difficult. I love losing as much as I love winning as it pushes me back to the drawing board and I love writing new and never before seen lists to surprise my opponents.

Im currently working on a Disiples of manon/tzeench daemonic incursion list that I find crazy fun and crazy fluffy... but I digress

I enjoy the rules of 7th ed and I have played since 5th, there are a few gripes such as the randomness of psyker powers making psykers less reliable and GMC's and their crazy rules but other than that things are fine and I feel minor tweaks will solve a lot of problems and that the current direction of GW is great

 Griddlelol wrote:
Nah, I'd rather they just make a new rule set, THEN go for the updates/tweaks. 7th is a fething mess.

This. I think with today's tech, living rulebooks are great. But for the love of god don't use the overcomplicated, millions-of-special-rules-to-cover-weak-rules-design 7th edition as your base.

Reavas wrote:
Going from around 30% winrate to around 50 to 60%.I find that after each loss I look at my list and tweak and improve it, sometimes adding more posessed or daemon allies, maybe some cultists.

IoW: "I don't actually play Chaos Space Marines."

The formations didn't fix Chaos Space Marines, and not even you think so. If you did, you'd be telling us that you beat your Eldar opponents with 13 ppm spiky dudes in power armor.

Again, CSM don't need formations (and the black legion warband "formation" is a complete joke; it doesn't even give objective secured). They need a re-balancing and "de-taxing" of their rules. As it stands, a CSM "tactical squad" has to take a 10 man unit to take even a single heavy weapon. And if they opt for a second non-bolter in that 10 man squad, it's going to be a special, not a heavy weapon.

And they can't combat squad to maximize use of both.

And again, a havoc squad requires an expensive aspiring champion that serves basically no purpose other than to take up space?

That's just poor design. Formations won't fix that.

Vanilla marines aren't better than CSM just because we get cool formations and special rules. We don't have to take taxes that Chaos Space Marine players do.

I can bring a bro sarge (basically, a normal marine for 14 ppm), 3 dudes with bolters and a dude with a heavy weapon. No tax.

Reavas wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Reavas wrote:


The suppliments for CSM adressed the issues of their cost with flexible formations that give the units powerups that justify the cost, such as FNP on all your troops in the crimson slaughter formation

So long as they are in a 12" Bubble around the Dark Apostle, who has to forgo shooting in order to confer the bonus. Hardly a buff that justifies cost.

FNP on 1-3 units on CSM is nothing to turn your nose up at, and thats one of the many formations in CS and BL suppliments

It takes a formation for CSM and a character not to shoot for a turn within a small bubble. SM just need to claim they're iron hands and have the same buff for all units all the time.

Im not saying CSM are on par with SM, Tau or Eldar but these changes make them more viable as an army when taking any of these armies on in a game. Some of the other formations like the cabal make a nifty librarious with re-rolls with spell familiars and are better than the FNP formation in CS suppliment, the FNP was just an example how they have been brought up to speed, not cheese for the most part but balanced

There's nothing "balanced" to that formation. It adds a slight perk that has a built-in cost applied to units that are laughably sub-par in comparison to just about every other army out there. FNP is nice, but it's not really a game-winner, and when you have half the armies in the game laden with cheddar, slight tweaks to the worst armies does not create balance. In order to reach balance, the bottom-most armies need to be brought up to the mid-tier, and the top-most armies need to be brought down to the mid-tier. That is going to require a complete re-write of just about everything, and a careful eye kept on future publications from that point forward to ensure that balance is maintained.

 Traditio wrote:

Reavas wrote:
Going from around 30% winrate to around 50 to 60%.I find that after each loss I look at my list and tweak and improve it, sometimes adding more posessed or daemon allies, maybe some cultists.

IoW: "I don't actually play Chaos Space Marines."

The formations didn't fix Chaos Space Marines, and not even you think so. If you did, you'd be telling us that you beat your Eldar opponents with 13 ppm spiky dudes in power armor.

Again, CSM don't need formations (and the black legion warband "formation" is a complete joke; it doesn't even give objective secured). They need a re-balancing and "de-taxing" of their rules. As it stands, a CSM "tactical squad" has to take a 10 man unit to take even a single heavy weapon. And if they opt for a second non-bolter in that 10 man squad, it's going to be a special, not a heavy weapon.

And they can't combat squad to maximize use of both.

And again, a havoc squad requires an expensive aspiring champion that serves basically no purpose other than to take up space?

That's just poor design. Formations won't fix that.

Vanilla marines aren't better than CSM just because we get cool formations and special rules. We don't have to take taxes that Chaos Space Marine players do.

I can bring a bro sarge (basically, a normal marine for 14 ppm), 3 dudes with bolters and a dude with a heavy weapon. No tax.

And at least our Dev Sergeants come with a Signum, so he serves a purpose in the squad other than a small LD boost

War Kitten wrote:And at least our Dev Sergeants come with a Signum, so he serves a purpose in the squad other than a small LD boost

You actually pay the 10 points to increase the LD of your dev sergeants?

I don't waste the points.

 Traditio wrote:

War Kitten wrote:And at least our Dev Sergeants come with a Signum, so he serves a purpose in the squad other than a small LD boost

You actually pay the 10 points to increase the LD of your dev sergeants?

I don't waste the points.

I don't either. I'm saying the Sergeant of the Squad does something for his squad other than give them a LD boost, like in most other faction's squads.

This is really third edition.

Rouge Trader, 1.0.

Second Edition, 2.0. So different from Rouge Trader.

Third Edition, 3.0. So different from Second Edition.

Fourth Edition, 3.1 just a few tweaks from 3.0

Fifth Edition. 3.2

Sixth Edition 3.3

Seventh Edition 3.4.

So basically OP you are having what you wanted, but we have to pay for each "living" or "gradual changes".

Seventh edition is basically third edition but with more supplements and tweaks.

Reavas wrote:
Im much more in favour of the more flexible living ruleset that involves gradual changes adressed with FAQ's and Suppliments. There has been a hard lean towards this method recently and I personally think it is a much better than complete reforms and changes to the rules. Drastic changes such as new editions often fix old problems while creating new ones for everyone to complain about. Whereas this new format not only can be applied to rulesets but also codecies. Lets look at some examples so far that have worked well.

7th Edition Rules -
So not only has the FAQ refined the ruleset for the better, not many people have noticed but there has also been large additions to the current ruleset as well. Death from the skies is the perfect example in adding to the ruleset and even adding whole other aspects and stats to the game without a new edition. I would welcome any clarification or small additions in White Dwarfs or even online annotations.

Codecies -
Two good examples of updated codecies through suppliments are CSM and Daemons, CSM got two suppliments that gave them new formations that gave them interesting viability and adressing a few issues with CSM, while daemons also got their own upgraded suppliment that was recently combined with the original codex making them even better than they were.

I'm not sure why everyone complains so much about the current edition. I find the new direction GW are heading towards is much better

I would consider agreeing with you, after 7th was burned to the ground and its ashes were thrown into a black hole.

7th has grown increasignly bloated as more expansions have been added and the recent round of FAQ's that has more rules contents than most books isnt helping. In order to fix this, you need an 8th edition, there's simply no other way around it. In order to field some armies you could be carrying 3-4 army codexes, the main ruleset, and a leaflet containing your FAQ's, which overrule things in your books.

Simply put you NEED to cut the bloat and the only way to do that is a new edition, aka a "3rd edition style" reboot. Anything less is just stacking more on a rotten foundation. At the absolute bare minimum, you're going to need new books to implement the massive amount of FAQ's being released.

After the reboot? Yeah I'd be ok with a living ruleset, provided it was good of course. Dropzone Commander and X-Wing do that and theyre alright, although X-wing is getting a bit ridiculous with the amount of expansions they have.

 Traditio wrote:

Reavas wrote:
Going from around 30% winrate to around 50 to 60%.I find that after each loss I look at my list and tweak and improve it, sometimes adding more posessed or daemon allies, maybe some cultists.

IoW: "I don't actually play Chaos Space Marines."

The formations didn't fix Chaos Space Marines, and not even you think so. If you did, you'd be telling us that you beat your Eldar opponents with 13 ppm spiky dudes in power armor.

Again, CSM don't need formations (and the black legion warband "formation" is a complete joke; it doesn't even give objective secured). They need a re-balancing and "de-taxing" of their rules. As it stands, a CSM "tactical squad" has to take a 10 man unit to take even a single heavy weapon. And if they opt for a second non-bolter in that 10 man squad, it's going to be a special, not a heavy weapon.

And they can't combat squad to maximize use of both.

And again, a havoc squad requires an expensive aspiring champion that serves basically no purpose other than to take up space?

That's just poor design. Formations won't fix that.

Vanilla marines aren't better than CSM just because we get cool formations and special rules. We don't have to take taxes that Chaos Space Marine players do.

I can bring a bro sarge (basically, a normal marine for 14 ppm), 3 dudes with bolters and a dude with a heavy weapon. No tax.

When I say adding posessed I mean tweaking my formations and making certain aspects stronger and finding the best balance between units. Such as wondering if I should field 5 more posessed or 10 more marines etc etc. I have played matches with just CSM, don't get me wrong it harder than with daemons but I have won against top tier armies and for me I have used these formations for all their worth and it works.

Also, everyone keeps being critical of 1 of the formations that gave FNP, saying it dosn't bring it up to par, but focussing on just one of like 15 formations is a bit ill reprisentative. Other formations like the Cabal and the cult of slaughter are much more on par with higher tier armies. Having squads of 20 respawning cultists with better leadership than normal space marines is possibly one of the best and cheapest units for camping objectives in game! Not to mention they have zealot, so if you grab some CC cultists you can hit an ungodly amount of times. And although their stats may be a pile of turd they are inexpensive which is what makes it worth it.

Everything should be contained within as few books and updates as possible. It is already impossible to keep up with all the releases being pumped out of different sources.

+ A new, single, rules only 8th edition rule book
+ A single codex for all Marines except Grey Knights
+ A single codex for all Chaos (including rules for legions, traitor guard, daemons, etc)
+ A single codex for Eldar/Dark Eldar/Exodites
+ A single codex for IG/all the other codexes they have at the moment that should be in the main IG codex...
+ A single codex for all the cogboys
+ A single codex for the misc inquisitorial forces, including Sisters, GK, Inq Storm Troopers, etc... including the ability to run pure Sisters or GK lists

etc...

Everything planned out and balanced against GEQ, preferably with a MASSIVE trimming of special rules to combine as many of them together and write bonuses directly into stat lines.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Everything should be contained within as few books and updates as possible. It is already impossible to keep up with all the releases being pumped out of different sources.

+ A new, single, rules only 8th edition rule book
+ A single codex for all Marines except Grey Knights
+ A single codex for all Chaos (including rules for legions, traitor guard, daemons, etc)
+ A single codex for Eldar/Dark Eldar/Exodites
+ A single codex for IG/all the other codexes they have at the moment that should be in the main IG codex...
+ A single codex for all the cogboys
+ A single codex for the misc inquisitorial forces, including Sisters, GK, Inq Storm Troopers, etc... including the ability to run pure Sisters or GK lists

etc...

Everything planned out and balanced against GEQ, preferably with a MASSIVE trimming of special rules to combine as many of them together and write bonuses directly into stat lines.

I disagree with simplifying or nulling all the special rules, if you simplify too much then the game will lose its variety and become more simple and by the book like chess. I personally enjoy the originality in the rules for each model, and codexs like daemons with their warpstorm, or SM with chapter tactics. I agree that there is bit too much variety, such as knights having a whole load of stuff that I just take my opponents word for and I imagine other models with similar problems but I feel if you over-simplify 40k will lose a lot of flavour.

Like I said before, true balance will kill the game and although it will become a better competative game I feel over time it will lose its crazy aspect that I find endearing. Just my opinion tho

knights don't have all that much stuff though beyond what's normal for a super heavy walker.