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.

Some friends and I were talking (read: commiserating) about 40k and the state of the ATC and we came to a couple of realizations. There are some problems with 40k 8th edition that need to be addressed and I think we can all agree on a few of them.

1. Power Armor means very little in this edition. The titular 3+ save is often reduced (even in cover) by many weapons to a 4+ or 5+ save. Since many of these same weapons deal more than 1 damage, even having additional wounds isn't keeping Power Armored (or even Terminator Armored) units on the table.

2. Cover means very little. See above, but tack on the fact that GW doesn't seem to understand the definition of 'line of sight blocking terrain' and continues to make tiny windows that can technically still be seen through. The ITC rule of 'first floor LOS-blocking' is only a half fix. Making cover a +1 to your save doesn't help against many popular weapons, and turning it into a -1 to hit is only going to shift the problem to forces that have stacking abilities like this.

3. Allies are broken. You're either part of the 'in' crowd (Imperium, Eldar, Chaos) or you're out of luck (Necron, Orks, Tau, etc). Allies allow the 'in' crowd to shore up weaknesses in their lists from an incredible amount of options, or straight up break the rules as intended, like taking 9 Daemon Princes in a single list. Meanwhile, the 'out' crowd suffers, not having access to cheap forms of CP generation (or regeneration in the case of Kurov's Aquila and similar traits/relics), and often not having enough options to shore up the native weaknesses of their Codex.

So, we came up with a few ideas to address these concerns. Let's start at the top and work our way down.

1. Make Power Armor (and thereby Space Marines) tough. Actually tough. Make them the survivable super soldiers that they're supposed to be, head and shoulders above an Imperial Guardsman. The question is, how do we do this?

My answer: Flatten the AP system.

There are weapons that have an incredibly high AP, and rightfully so! Lascannons, Melta Guns, Blasters, Dark Lances, all the way up to devastating Volcano Cannons and the like. These weapons should still feel like the tank-busters that they were made to be, but against individual troops these weapons are simply too powerful of an elite killer. Here's just my one idea of how we can help keep our poor, flimsy Astartes soldiers from getting pasted too quickly.

--Ranged Weapons that have an AP value that is greater than or equal to 2 that target a model with the 'Infantry' keyword can only reduce the armor value of that unit to a 5+. If the target is counted as being in cover, the weapon can only reduce the armor value of that unit to a 4+ instead.

The aforementioned weapons are anti-tank weapons. They're made to vaporize tank armor, and of course they should still be deadly, but let's try to encourage the use of these weapons against their intended targets: tanks. Of course, these weapons will still do plenty of damage to infantry models if they get through and will therefore be great terminator killers, but at least things like Space Marines will still get some sort of save, and cover may actually mean something! We see a bit of this flattening of AP in Age of Sigmar where VERY few weapons have an AP greater than -2 and most have 0 or -1 at best. This means that even the greatest weapons won't deny most other units a save, which means that everyone has a chance to roll dice. There's one phrase that keeps testing even the best sportsmen: "I don't get a save against that." It's not fun.

2. I can't come up with a set of rules that would cover (ba-dum-tish) all of the different types of terrain that people use. Some people use the power of their imagination to turn cans of soup and cereal boxes into sprawling hive cities, while others use GW terrain that has a plethora of problems from a game-standpoint, and yet others prefer designing their own terrain in uncountable ways. Even so, we've seen some improvement from GW, and that's in the treatment of cover in Kill Team. It's simple: If a model is obscured, it counts as being in cover. Let's bring that over to 40k. If we improve the AP system as in the above, then that alone would go a long way to making cover count for something. If we DON'T change the AP system, then something needs to change with cover.

--Models counted as being in cover treat their armor save as being 1 better (ie, a 4+ armor save is counted as 3+ armor save). In addition, if a model in cover is the target of a ranged weapon with an AP value greater than 0, treat the AP value of that weapon as 1 lower (ie, a weapon with an AP of -2 is instead treated as -1).

This does a few things. It doesn't ignore weapons that have an already outrageously high AP value. A Melta Gun, for example, will punch through the rock that the guardsman is hiding behind, and then punch through the guardsman with just as much ease. It does, however, give tanks a reason to try to hide behind some cover, to put a bit of extra wall between them and the lascannon that's targetting them. This does make tanks tougher against long-ranged shooting, but if you specify against ranged weapons, then it still gives power fists, chainfists, thunder hammers, and the like a role in tank-busting, as they should have. Anything that nerfs long-ranged I-can-see-you-through-this-tiny-window type of shooting is a good thing in my mind. It gives tanks, troops, anything a chance to move up the field to engage gunlines. This also gives models with armor a reason to stay in cover against things like plasma guns, autocannons, and things like that, meaning, you guessed it, Space Marines are a little more survivable against massed plasma and the like!

3. Finally, we come to allies. To be honest, I'd love to say 'just get rid of the whole system', but that wouldn't sell models, right? You know what else doesn't sell models? People leaving 40k to go play a different company's game. That's pretty exaggerated, I know, but I do notice a lot of people jumping from 40k to Age of Sigmar. That may be a win for GW, but probably not in the way that they would like. Why are people jumping to Age of Sigmar? Well, there aren't as many ally shenanigans as in 40k. Yes, Order is the largest faction and Stormcast Eternals can ally with just about anything, but even then you're limited to allying only 20% of your force.

There's a few things to allies that make them troublesome. The first is Command Points. The way they're generated and used is unbalanced. I've seen many games where even armies with 12+ command points eat through them by the end of turn 2. This front-loading of command points encourages a problem that I hear about a lot in 40k: alpha strikes. Especially in the shooting phase. Even if it's gunline vs. gunline, using a ton of stratagems and command points at the front of the game means you're often truly playing a 2000 vs. 1500 point game after Player 1 gets through their shooting phase.

This can be fixed by adopting the same system that is working for Age of Sigmar and is being used in Kill Team: Start the game with 1 command point and generate maybe 1-2 more at the start depending on how your army is composed (or if your leader is still alive). GW has shot themselves in the foot a little bit with this by adding stratagems that allow you to take multiple relics or warlord traits by spending 1-3 command points, along with stratagems that are used before the battle begins to affect deployment that often cost 2-3 command points as well. This means that the demand for command points is much higher in 40k, especially at the beginning of the game, than it is in other games. In the case of allies, though, this is only further problematic, since it encourages multiple game-changing relics to be bought. My solution? Start by getting rid of stratagems that give you more warlord traits or relics. Relics are... relics! When 15 different Imperial Guard regiments are all bringing Kurov's Aquila to the field of battle, it doesn't feel like a relic any more, does it? What's more, stratagems that cost 3 command points are now even more dire when you're only generating 1-2 command points per turn! That's a good thing, as it means that players will really have to consider whether that Command Re-roll is really worth it...

The other difficulty is the detachment system. Limiting allies to a point value won't even really stop a lot of the abuse that we see. You can still fit a Blood Angel Slam-captain and 180 points of CP generating Guardsmen into a 400 point limitation. So how do we get around this while still allowing people to use detachments and without limiting points?

Encourage other kinds of behavior. Let's start by tiering out the faction Keywords.

Tier 1 - Imperium, Xenos, Chaos - these are the great tiers, much like in Age of Sigmar, that, if your army is battle forged and made entirely with units that share this keyword, you get access to a few weaker relics and warlord traits. These won't generate additional CP and they won't give you any great bonuses, but if there's a combination you want that relies on having a bunch of different factions working together, then this is what you get.

Imperium Tier 2 - Astra Militarum, Adeptus Astartes, Adeptus Mechanicus, etc - If your army is battleforged and made entirely of detachments that share a keyword in this tier, you get access to your faction-specific stratagems. What? You mean if I take only Tier 1, I don't get faction-specific stratagems? Yep. You heard me right. If your army is all over the place, how do you expect a commander to efficiently issue orders? How would one commander be able to tell a Custodes Bike Captain to use their specific stratagems while simultaneously asking an Imperial Knights warlord to use a faction-specific stratagem there, too? Not only is it not fluffy, it's just bonkers, to be honest.

Imperium - Adeptus Astartes - Tier 3 - Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, etc - If your army is battleforged and made entirely of detachments that share a keyword in this tier, you get subfaction-specific relics and warlord traits, as well as a few bonus command points to spend on all of your spiffy stratagems.

This system encourages players to use one codex to get access to some of those fancy things. Really want to have Kurov's Aquila in your list? Well, you better make a battleforged army of units entirely from a Cadian regiment. Want to be able to Sally Forth! with your Imperial Knights? Then you better at least make an army that's all from Imperial Knights, if not from the same household. If you truly want to still bring Slamguinius and a CP farm of Imperial Guard, then you're going to miss out on a lot of stratagems, warlord traits, and relics.

THESE ARE JUST SOME IDEAS. These are not gospel. I am not so beholden to these ideas that I will defend them to Internet death. I am shooting things out there to see what sticks. Don't like these ideas? I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR OWN. Critique is fine, but let's keep things civil. If you think I'm an idiot, you can think that all you want, but please don't say it, that's just rude.

So, what do you think? How would you improve 8th edition to better balance it? How would you bring some of the lower-performing Codexes up while keeping the higher performing Codexes in check?

Alternate answers:

1. Throw out Primaris != Marines. Primaris infantry feels tough in a way that normal Marines really don't, and needing to play the puny Marines to get some equipment that the tough ones can't get sort of throws cold water on my experience of playing Space Marines. Print one T4/2W statline for "Space Marines" in general and the feel of power armour comes back some. Not all the way, but some.

2. I don't see this one as GW's problem; if you need more LOS-blocking terrain build more LOS-blocking terrain.

3. "An army may only use Stratagems from a Codex if all models in the army have the appropriate faction keywords." Allied Guard to feed CP to other armies stops working (because you also take away your ability to use the stratagems those CP could be used on), splash allies pumped up with Relics stop working (because you can't use the CP to get the extra Relics), and you need to think long and hard about whether taking those three Shield-Captains is worth losing all your Stratagems.

As I read the OP, some other solutions came to mind:
1. Give every weapon an AP value that allows it to “penetrate” every value equal or less than it. So an AP4 weapon ignores armor saves 4+ or worse, while 3+ and 2+ units get their normal saves.
2. Make cover a separate save, like invulnerable saves. Terrain can give a 5+, ruins a 4+, and some weapons like flamers will have an “ignores cover” special rule.
3. Instead of keywords, have a table in the rulebook of possible alliances with varying tiers (similar to the OP). We’ll call them “battle brothers”, “allies of convenience”, and “desperate allies”. And for the really casual types, “come the apocalypse”.

Like these? Then find a group that’s still playing 7th edition, because all of those (except for allies, which started in 6th) had been rules since 3rd edition.

I don't like 1 at all. Lascannons are just fine against marines. If someone really wants to use 15 lascannons to kill 10 marines that's just fine. The problem weapons are the ones that have multiple shots to boost their effectiveness which have, as a side effect, now become squad killers.

New weapon attribute - Anti tank: all attacks made with this weapon are resolved against one model in the target unit selected by your opponent. A volcano cannon murderizes one marine in the squad but only one while its effectiveness against monsters and vehicles is unchanged.

As for 2, the only scenery with windows is the ruins and if you didn't think to build at least one ground floor wall solid in each ruin then I don't know what to tell you. Even in previous editions being in cover in a ruin and being out of LoS in a ruin were not the same thing.

drbored wrote:
These weapons should still feel like the tank-busters that they were made to be, but against individual troops these weapons are simply too powerful of an elite killer.

Nope. If a Shadowsword's main gun hits you you're dead, period. No save, no cover, anything infantry sized is just vaporized. Why should your space marine's armor be more effective than a titan's against that kind of firepower?

There's one phrase that keeps testing even the best sportsmen: "I don't get a save against that." It's not fun.

Speak for yourself. Models die. Play IG/orks/etc until you learn this concept and stop caring about removing your models from the table. And no, rolling dice isn't fun just because you're rolling dice. This is a concept GW fails to understand, we as players shouldn't join their insanity.

Hmmmm...

I'm not sure how many lascannons your group uses to wipe infantry squads but I think the AP system works fine. I do think something has to be done about overcharged plasma, but this is mainly because there are so many ways to re-roll the dreaded ones.

The terrain rules need an overhaul in that area terrain should affect movement and I'd be in favour of bringing back 4th Edition's abstract LoS rules. However, the easiest fix to sole the current LoS nonsense is to board up the windows. Get some lollipop sticks, or matches. Wash them with Agrax Earthshade, glue them over the gaps. No more Line of Sight.

I actually want GW to rip off Mantic's design for Kings of War and removed the 'Save' step completely. Toughness and Armour save are combined into a single stat. If the attacking weapon beats that stat (which can be modified up or down depending on the weapon or unit abilities) then the model takes a wound.

GW may make radical changes with the launch of a new edition.
This was always my critical point.
They tend to change the basic game mechanics from edition to edition.
This includes among others cover and disembarking from transports.

1. In my mind the idea of survivability is better reflected in the Wound pool rather than saves. This is something I feel GW hasn't completely realized that instead of modifying saves back and forth they should be looking at giving elite units more wounds rather than always fiddling with points or saves.

2. I wouldn't mind a bit more elaborate cover system. Currently it is a bit too binary. It's not the end of the world for me though.

3. I would not want to see allies removed as I love being able to mix forces. However, something like 25%-30% of your points can be spent on allies would be interesting to explore. The 20% in AoS works only because you can pick whatever unit you want without worrying about detachment slots for the allied unit. Ie. my DoK can take a Dark Elf Sorceress on a Black Dragon in a 2000 point game and nothing else as an ally. Ie. the alliance system is much more freeform than the ally system in 40k.

The 3 "problems" you mentioned are some of the best changes 8th made.

1: The AP system is finally working fine. You want power armors to feel more sturdy? Give them a rule specific to power armored models that decreases ranged attacks strenght by 1. Fixed.

2: +1 to save is the perfect bonus for cover, as it encourages almost all models of the game to be in cover and is even a better rapresentation of it. Sorry, your guardsman behind a wooden board will not have a save against a volcano cannon. We can discuss about being a bit more lenient with the LoS blocking stuff, that is true.

3: The ally system has been in the game for the last 3 editions, deal with it it's a core element. Thanks to the keyword system that element is finally working correctly. There is a problem with the CP sharing, but i'm quite sure that we are going to see it fixed in the next round of FAQs.

The AP system really doesn't work very well. At the very least they need to reduce the points cost of high AP weapons and units that rely on good armor saves.

The sweet spot of AP is about AP2. After that you are usually paying more than you need to for AP. It's better just to have more shots.

Right now 2+ and 3+ armor is overpriced across the board.

Invul saves, particularly 4++ or better, are too cheap for the damage reduction they offer against high AP weapons, especially against high wound models.

Other than just points changes, the way to fix this IMO is to add a new special rule called something like " tough" that lets you ignore the first point of AP you run into. Pretty much all Marines would have this rule, but so could many other units of any save value, as it effectively creates a new layer of save values. Necrons an Tau can both have a 4+ but the necrons would also have the tough rule, for example.

You would also want a ability like "rend" on some weapons, which cancels out the "tough" ability. This creates light and heavy versions of each AP value. An assault cannon might have AP1, for example, but an auto cannon could have AP1 with rend.

This effectively creates 10 possible saves (2+, 2+T, 3+, 3+T, etc) and a wider spectrum of AP values (AP1, AP1R, AP2, AP2R, etc). It's basically moving the save system to a D12 system without having to use new dice.

I just want to say one thing. I have enough of people whining for alliances and soups. Damn stop already. In the old edition we had even the complete freedom to form alliances. Whanted necrons and tiranids in the same list? Whats the problem, just keep your distances during deployment and we are all good. did you whant guard and knights? You even got to cast invisibility on knights and trasform it in ustoppable forces of nature. You have to understand( I mean the people who doesn't like alliances only because they play the non alliable ones, and, believe me, I also play tau and never had problems, or the ones who simply whant to play "pure" marines for instance) that this edition is based on Factions and not single codexes. You can surely nerf something like removing or tuning things like AM grand strategist and so on, you can increase some points costs or nerf some op things, but there is nothing to say about alliances per se. Dams, fluff whise, marines and knights fight so many times alongside guard you can loose the count. The problems are given by op things, not "soups". Damn, actual drukhari play lot's of times just their codex because is so damn broken they don't care about eldar or arlequins. When I play tau, I never felt limited cause I always have a lot of stuff to play thats good with their codex alone. Orks stil need the codex. The only thing I agree with concerns necrons, but only because they lack everiting that mades this edition great: They lack versatility, they lack variety, they lack alliances and they lack(thoug this is my opinion) characterization fluff whise and rule whise. We change the game for necrons and whiners?( with all due respect, maybe I sound harsh or bad, but, believe me, I'm neither bad nor irrespectfull) No thanks, cause there are lot of people who, despite I agree on the fact that cover and some other things need to be changed or improved, are really enjoyng this edition in all it's aspects( and yes, I mean alliances too as the top of all the things). I end saying that, only in this edition, I felt so much variety and bought so many kits of diffent armies, tinkering on how to enjoy(not cheesing) merging and playing with it in different conbinations. Ofc, these are my own and personal opinions.

Good day to all

napulion wrote:
I just want to say one thing. I have enough of people whining for alliances and soups. Damn stop already. In the old edition we had even the complete freedom to form alliances. Whanted necrons and tiranids in the same list? Whats the problem, just keep your distances during deployment and we are all good. did you whant guard and knights? You even got to cast invisibility on knights and trasform it in ustoppable forces of nature. You have to understand( I mean the people who doesn't like alliances only because they play the non alliable ones, and, believe me, I also play tau and never had problems, or the ones who simply whant to play "pure" marines for instance) that this edition is based on Factions and not single codexes. You can surely nerf something like removing or tuning things like AM grand strategist and so on, you can increase some points costs or nerf some op things, but there is nothing to say about alliances per se. Dams, fluff whise, marines and knights fight so many times alongside guard you can loose the count. The problems are given by op things, not "soups". Damn, actual drukhari play lot's of times just their codex because is so damn broken they don't care about eldar or arlequins. When I play tau, I never felt limited cause I always have a lot of stuff to play thats good with their codex alone. Orks stil need the codex. The only thing I agree with concerns necrons, but only because they lack everiting that mades this edition great: They lack versatility, they lack variety, they lack alliances and they lack(thoug this is my opinion) characterization fluff whise and rule whise. We change the game for necrons and whiners?( with all due respect, maybe I sound harsh or bad, but, believe me, I'm neither bad nor irrespectfull) No thanks, cause there are lot of people who, despite I agree on the fact that cover and some other things need to be changed or improved, are really enjoyng this edition in all it's aspects( and yes, I mean alliances too as the top of all the things). I end saying that, only in this edition, I felt so much variety and bought so many kits of diffent armies, tinkering on how to enjoy(not cheesing) merging and playing with it in different conbinations. Ofc, these are my own and personal opinions.

Good day to all

Massive wall of text aside, I think it's not so much the concept of allies in general that's the problem but the implementation of them. As they are right now, allies are entirely a bonus for factions that can use them. There's no real downside to taking allied detachments. I think the decision about whether to take allies or not should be a meaningful choice with benefits and disadvantages. The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

Slipspace wrote:

napulion wrote:
I just want to say one thing. I have enough of people whining for alliances and soups. Damn stop already. In the old edition we had even the complete freedom to form alliances. Whanted necrons and tiranids in the same list? Whats the problem, just keep your distances during deployment and we are all good. did you whant guard and knights? You even got to cast invisibility on knights and trasform it in ustoppable forces of nature. You have to understand( I mean the people who doesn't like alliances only because they play the non alliable ones, and, believe me, I also play tau and never had problems, or the ones who simply whant to play "pure" marines for instance) that this edition is based on Factions and not single codexes. You can surely nerf something like removing or tuning things like AM grand strategist and so on, you can increase some points costs or nerf some op things, but there is nothing to say about alliances per se. Dams, fluff whise, marines and knights fight so many times alongside guard you can loose the count. The problems are given by op things, not "soups". Damn, actual drukhari play lot's of times just their codex because is so damn broken they don't care about eldar or arlequins. When I play tau, I never felt limited cause I always have a lot of stuff to play thats good with their codex alone. Orks stil need the codex. The only thing I agree with concerns necrons, but only because they lack everiting that mades this edition great: They lack versatility, they lack variety, they lack alliances and they lack(thoug this is my opinion) characterization fluff whise and rule whise. We change the game for necrons and whiners?( with all due respect, maybe I sound harsh or bad, but, believe me, I'm neither bad nor irrespectfull) No thanks, cause there are lot of people who, despite I agree on the fact that cover and some other things need to be changed or improved, are really enjoyng this edition in all it's aspects( and yes, I mean alliances too as the top of all the things). I end saying that, only in this edition, I felt so much variety and bought so many kits of diffent armies, tinkering on how to enjoy(not cheesing) merging and playing with it in different conbinations. Ofc, these are my own and personal opinions.

Good day to all

Massive wall of text aside, I think it's not so much the concept of allies in general that's the problem but the implementation of them. As they are right now, allies are entirely a bonus for factions that can use them. There's no real downside to taking allied detachments. I think the decision about whether to take allies or not should be a meaningful choice with benefits and disadvantages. The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

He's right though...40K is a game of FACTIONS more than Codices.

Slipspace wrote:
The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

It's because CPs and detachments are backwards - you should start with CPs based on the size of the game and then have to buy the FoCs to fill out, with specialised FoCs (such as supreme command) costing more to buy than those with heavier requirements like battalions.

Whatever CPs you would have left after that are yours to spend on stratagems.

A.T. wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

It's because CPs and detachments are backwards - you should start with CPs based on the size of the game and then have to buy the FoCs to fill out, with specialised FoCs (such as supreme command) costing more to buy than those with heavier requirements like battalions.

Whatever CPs you would have left after that are yours to spend on stratagems.

I completely agree. Armies should become less strategically and tactically flexible as their organisation becomes more convoluted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Massive wall of text aside, I think it's not so much the concept of allies in general that's the problem but the implementation of them. As they are right now, allies are entirely a bonus for factions that can use them. There's no real downside to taking allied detachments. I think the decision about whether to take allies or not should be a meaningful choice with benefits and disadvantages. The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

He's right though...40K is a game of FACTIONS more than Codices.

I know...and as I pointed out, I have no problem with that as a general approach. But since this entire thread is talking about radical changes to 40k there will be discussions related to changes to the game. One such change could be the rebalancing of faction vs Codex power level.

Slipspace wrote:

napulion wrote:
I just want to say one thing. I have enough of people whining for alliances and soups. Damn stop already. In the old edition we had even the complete freedom to form alliances. Whanted necrons and tiranids in the same list? Whats the problem, just keep your distances during deployment and we are all good. did you whant guard and knights? You even got to cast invisibility on knights and trasform it in ustoppable forces of nature. You have to understand( I mean the people who doesn't like alliances only because they play the non alliable ones, and, believe me, I also play tau and never had problems, or the ones who simply whant to play "pure" marines for instance) that this edition is based on Factions and not single codexes. You can surely nerf something like removing or tuning things like AM grand strategist and so on, you can increase some points costs or nerf some op things, but there is nothing to say about alliances per se. Dams, fluff whise, marines and knights fight so many times alongside guard you can loose the count. The problems are given by op things, not "soups". Damn, actual drukhari play lot's of times just their codex because is so damn broken they don't care about eldar or arlequins. When I play tau, I never felt limited cause I always have a lot of stuff to play thats good with their codex alone. Orks stil need the codex. The only thing I agree with concerns necrons, but only because they lack everiting that mades this edition great: They lack versatility, they lack variety, they lack alliances and they lack(thoug this is my opinion) characterization fluff whise and rule whise. We change the game for necrons and whiners?( with all due respect, maybe I sound harsh or bad, but, believe me, I'm neither bad nor irrespectfull) No thanks, cause there are lot of people who, despite I agree on the fact that cover and some other things need to be changed or improved, are really enjoyng this edition in all it's aspects( and yes, I mean alliances too as the top of all the things). I end saying that, only in this edition, I felt so much variety and bought so many kits of diffent armies, tinkering on how to enjoy(not cheesing) merging and playing with it in different conbinations. Ofc, these are my own and personal opinions.

Good day to all

Massive wall of text aside, I think it's not so much the concept of allies in general that's the problem but the implementation of them. As they are right now, allies are entirely a bonus for factions that can use them. There's no real downside to taking allied detachments. I think the decision about whether to take allies or not should be a meaningful choice with benefits and disadvantages. The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

Only thing that bugs me as a non-competetive player about the factions and allies mechanics is the lopsided way they now work, where Imperium and Chaos get a ton of choices, Eldar and Tyranids get a few, and the rest get nothing, nada, zip. It just limits creativity and coolness, and while people say its more fluffy this way to, say, represent knights and marines working together, there is no way to show many of the things that are in the lore on the tabletop, like say, ork mercenaries or necrons using mindshackle scarabs to control entire worlds or dark mechanicum ect.

Well eventually gw will release 9th(and 10,11,12 etc) with some steps forward, some backwards and lots sideway changing things but not really aiming for "perfection". Just different from previous

So first off, I'd say that GW probably don't share your view that 8e is fundamentally broken. They will continue to tweak for sure, but I don't think we'll see massive changes until they do a 9e. It'll happen I'm sure, but I'm sure they'll also make change people don't like. That's just how it goes.

I'd also add that while everyone in your group might agree on certain things, that doesn't mean it's a problem for the wider player base. People with similar views naturally band together, and in smaller groups the view of the whole group is heavily influenced by the best debaters or loudest group members regardless of what their opinion actually is. It's the whole echo chamber effect. So while you may see the game in a poor state, we know for reasonably sure that sales are very healthy, and there's loads of new people in the game.

Anyway, to your actual suggestions:

1.
Yes, power armour is in trouble right now and it would be nice to fix it. I think your idea is a little fiddly and instead would suggest simply having all power armour or equivalent ignore the first 1 AP of any attack. This helps against the true enemy of marines, plasma. A Lascannon should gib a marine, the trade-off is that you are wasting a lot of damage by targeting marines in the first place.

2.
I don't think cover as a mechanic is too bad as is to be honest. I have issues with true line of sight, but if we take that as a given then current cover can be very powerful. One of my regular opponent's always sticks Havocs in cover, and they are a real pain to shift without dedicating huge firepower to it. Basically, I don't think cover needs to be stronger, I think terrain and targeting in general needs a rethink. I think 40k could take a page out of Kill Team's book in this regard, I quite like what they're doing there!

3.
Soup is strong. As you say, it's not going anywhere though not just due to sales, but because so many people have built their armies around soup being a thing and would be incredibly pissed off if the army they'd already bought was suddenly void. Sure, maybe in a new edition, but not within an edition. I still think soup needs a touch of toning down though, and what I would suggest is that you can only generate CP from one faction in your army, not counting IMPERIUM, CHAOS, ELDAR, OR TYRANIDS. This way souping is a decision with real consequences. If you soup too many detachments, it will hurt the CP of your army. This might be just enough to take the edge off soup armies.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

napulion wrote:
I just want to say one thing. I have enough of people whining for alliances and soups. Damn stop already. In the old edition we had even the complete freedom to form alliances. Whanted necrons and tiranids in the same list? Whats the problem, just keep your distances during deployment and we are all good. did you whant guard and knights? You even got to cast invisibility on knights and trasform it in ustoppable forces of nature. You have to understand( I mean the people who doesn't like alliances only because they play the non alliable ones, and, believe me, I also play tau and never had problems, or the ones who simply whant to play "pure" marines for instance) that this edition is based on Factions and not single codexes. You can surely nerf something like removing or tuning things like AM grand strategist and so on, you can increase some points costs or nerf some op things, but there is nothing to say about alliances per se. Dams, fluff whise, marines and knights fight so many times alongside guard you can loose the count. The problems are given by op things, not "soups". Damn, actual drukhari play lot's of times just their codex because is so damn broken they don't care about eldar or arlequins. When I play tau, I never felt limited cause I always have a lot of stuff to play thats good with their codex alone. Orks stil need the codex. The only thing I agree with concerns necrons, but only because they lack everiting that mades this edition great: They lack versatility, they lack variety, they lack alliances and they lack(thoug this is my opinion) characterization fluff whise and rule whise. We change the game for necrons and whiners?( with all due respect, maybe I sound harsh or bad, but, believe me, I'm neither bad nor irrespectfull) No thanks, cause there are lot of people who, despite I agree on the fact that cover and some other things need to be changed or improved, are really enjoyng this edition in all it's aspects( and yes, I mean alliances too as the top of all the things). I end saying that, only in this edition, I felt so much variety and bought so many kits of diffent armies, tinkering on how to enjoy(not cheesing) merging and playing with it in different conbinations. Ofc, these are my own and personal opinions.

Good day to all

Massive wall of text aside, I think it's not so much the concept of allies in general that's the problem but the implementation of them. As they are right now, allies are entirely a bonus for factions that can use them. There's no real downside to taking allied detachments. I think the decision about whether to take allies or not should be a meaningful choice with benefits and disadvantages. The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

Only thing that bugs me as a non-competetive player about the factions and allies mechanics is the lopsided way they now work, where Imperium and Chaos get a ton of choices, Eldar and Tyranids get a few, and the rest get nothing, nada, zip. It just limits creativity and coolness, and while people say its more fluffy this way to, say, represent knights and marines working together, there is no way to show many of the things that are in the lore on the tabletop, like say, ork mercenaries or necrons using mindshackle scarabs to control entire worlds or dark mechanicum ect.

You can say Imperium and Chaos gets more choices(thats not something new, considering GW always focused a lot on these two), but, allow me to say that nids, with the cult, the chance to ally even with the guard and the fact they still are waiting for the cult codex, put's them in a spot where they don't need more. Eldar? Few choices you say? You have base Eldar, Harlequins and drukhari( even ynnari), so, how come they have few choiches? As I said, certain codexes, like Tau, can be good even without allies( and there was a rumor about a codex kroot for istance). Orks are still waiting like I said for the codex and the only army that sits really bad are the necrons for all the aforementioned bad things they have. Certain armies, like custodes, GSC, Knights, Harlequins and so on, where created for a greater purpose then being played alone. Sure a knight army is playable alone, but it's alot about counter completely or be completely crushed. Harlequins where made for being good supports for haeldari armies. Some says lot's of cp makes some armies op cause they usually have a few. The fact is that certain armies can't use their strats cause, taken alone, they would generate such a pitifull number of cp that you can even rip off the page of strats. the complexity of the game lies in the interactions between codexes, factions and opponents with their combinations or single lists. Consider that, aside from cp's, another army gives to you only their units. You can count on your fingers the number of models that actually have Faction based abilities. For the remaining of it, all abilities and auras works only on your army. The broken thing is not having lot's of cp's( damn, gw with the big faq even buffed the amount you gain), but having lot's of things than allowes you to regenerate them. The problem is not a single relic that gives you a single 5+ to gain a cp on your's or opponent's strats, but traits like grand strategist given to armies like AM or drukhari. if you fix this without getting the rage of the people who enjoys the actual alliance sistem(balanced by keywords) and that are buying diffentent things to paint and play, everyone around would be really pleased. Nerf the units that are actually broken, nerf too easy cp gain back and then we will see if a custodian biker at 200+ points is still good or not to spam, either you play it in a soup or in a custodes only army. the problem is not the soup or alliance, but the op single units that populate it. I'm good with changing to 5 the cost for IG infantry, raising drukhari costs, custodes biker captains and so on. If you balance the units, you balance the soups and all are happy

Why would they bother ?

It's selling as it is and trying to slice 'n' dice it into a 'better' game is a hiding to nothing as 'better' games already exist

Well the question is would there be more people buying stuff, if the rules were tighter. Having sales build around something that works the same way micro transactions work for mobile games, is not very healthy. Because as long as the whales are going to be chasing the dream of a perfect army all is good, but if you do something to piss them off, and it can be anything ranging from a fluff change to change to some mechanic, the company could expiriance drastic drop in sales. Stuff like Star Wars was once seen as too big to fail too.

KurtAngle2 761088 10081766 wrote:


He's right though...40K is a game of FACTIONS more than Codices.

Only if your codex is good to begin with. If GW decides to grace you with a god aweful book. Then what ally do at best is to turn your army in to 2-3 models and 1700pts of "ally".

How good or not good something is is a subjective belief.

This means that for every person that thinks 8th is good, there is probably one that thinks 8th is bad, and visa-versa. The only measure of a game is popularity, really, because that means it does or does not conform with more people's idea of "goodness" than it did before.

1) Power Armor reduces the AP of a weapon by 1. TDA reduces the AP by 2 and Armored Vehicles with T7+ reduce AP by 3. Models with Invuln saves get to add 1 to their saving throws.

This still makes Infantry vulnerable to high AP weapons but means that you really want to save those weapons for the armored vehicles that they are meant to destroy.

2) Cover would mean that their is a substantial something between you and the shooter. Concealment means that the LoS is obscured by something not very substantial. If you have cover then you get +1 to your save. If you have concealment then the shooter is -1 to hit. If you have both then both effects apply.

This would mean that darkness would make it harder to see some one but offer no cover. A wall could offer either or both depending on how it is made and what it is made from (A typical coral fence that has been overgrown with vines would give concealment. A solid ruin wall would give both).

3) I've seen this suggested on numerous occasions but it seems like a good idea: You can only spend CPs on the units that generate them. For example if you have an IG battalion and a SM patrol you can only spend your Battle Forged CPs on the SM since they didn't generate any points on their own. For relics that generate/regenerate CPs only the units that the relic belongs to can use them.

I don't believe radical changes are necessary. Sure by and large defensive stats are overrated in points and offensive (mostly volume rather high AP) are underrated.

Allies should be all or nothing pretty much. Imperium/chaos/Xenos should be all allowed or none. Weirdly in open and narrative this is already the case. the requirement for your entire army to share a keyword is specific to matched play.

There are a few outliers that need nerfing (IG CP battery for one)but by and large I do believe 8th to be at the core a good system.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
1) Power Armor reduces the AP of a weapon by 1. TDA reduces the AP by 2 and Armored Vehicles with T7+ reduce AP by 3. Models with Invuln saves get to add 1 to their saving throws.

This still makes Infantry vulnerable to high AP weapons but means that you really want to save those weapons for the armored vehicles that they are meant to destroy.

2) Cover would mean that their is a substantial something between you and the shooter. Concealment means that the LoS is obscured by something not very substantial. If you have cover then you get +1 to your save. If you have concealment then the shooter is -1 to hit. If you have both then both effects apply.

This would mean that darkness would make it harder to see some one but offer no cover. A wall could offer either or both depending on how it is made and what it is made from (A typical coral fence that has been overgrown with vines would give concealment. A solid ruin wall would give both).

3) I've seen this suggested on numerous occasions but it seems like a good idea: You can only spend CPs on the units that generate them. For example if you have an IG battalion and a SM patrol you can only spend your Battle Forged CPs on the SM since they didn't generate any points on their own. For relics that generate/regenerate CPs only the units that the relic belongs to can use them.

i don't think those AP system changes do what you think they do. In that situation a -3AP weapon is better pointed at a marine as it reduces him to a 5+ save, while a tank would get it's full 3+ where as bolters and pulse rifles are better shoot at the tank as it gets it's 3+ but so would the marines.

I also don't think radical changes are necessary. Heck, I don't even agree with points #1 and #2, and #3 is loose at best.

#1/#2 - These are kind of both the same "problem". Right now, admittedly, tough armour doesn't mean much, but that's really only the case in tournament-style lists or if you're always playing against the pointy-eared ones or their robotic enemies. Those two factions put down so much -4AP it's crazy, and that level of AP makes a 3+ save exactly as effective as a 6+ save. This is why Horde Lists have come to dominate the meta; their models, worth so few points per model, are exactly as survivable against this kind of stuff as the beefy/tough T4 and 3+ save models. In the current system and meta, that means your horde infantry units should cost more points per model, and/or your -3 and -4AP weapons should cost more points per weapon as well (in fact, I would lean towards the latter rather than the former, but a bit of both would go a long way).

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with 3+ saves and cover. What's wrong is the gaming environment around those models. Make these changes, and 3+ will be seen on the table once again, as -4AP weapons become less abundant, and horde lists become smaller. This is something that really can only be seen now after 1 year of constant games where a pattern can emerge.


#3 - Okay, Soup isn't really the problem. The problem is CP spam, and we all know which legendary group of 32 Guardsmen are responsible for that. Outside of that, I haven't had much a problem with Soup, even of the Chaos and Eldar variety. Chaos, as a whole, share many of the same weaknesses and strengths across their factions, as do the Eldar. The worst offenders outside the legendary 32 are psychic powers cross-faction buffing, and Vect's Agents being just absolutely everywhere, but those are pretty minor compared to "all the CP, every game". The fix here, in my opinion, should be made to the way CP is generated. There's a lot of options there, and each will take time to figure out as well, so there's no quick end-all-be-all fix. Any fix here will generate new problems, but we'll have to wait and see what those problems are.

napulion wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

napulion wrote:
I just want to say one thing. I have enough of people whining for alliances and soups. Damn stop already. In the old edition we had even the complete freedom to form alliances. Whanted necrons and tiranids in the same list? Whats the problem, just keep your distances during deployment and we are all good. did you whant guard and knights? You even got to cast invisibility on knights and trasform it in ustoppable forces of nature. You have to understand( I mean the people who doesn't like alliances only because they play the non alliable ones, and, believe me, I also play tau and never had problems, or the ones who simply whant to play "pure" marines for instance) that this edition is based on Factions and not single codexes. You can surely nerf something like removing or tuning things like AM grand strategist and so on, you can increase some points costs or nerf some op things, but there is nothing to say about alliances per se. Dams, fluff whise, marines and knights fight so many times alongside guard you can loose the count. The problems are given by op things, not "soups". Damn, actual drukhari play lot's of times just their codex because is so damn broken they don't care about eldar or arlequins. When I play tau, I never felt limited cause I always have a lot of stuff to play thats good with their codex alone. Orks stil need the codex. The only thing I agree with concerns necrons, but only because they lack everiting that mades this edition great: They lack versatility, they lack variety, they lack alliances and they lack(thoug this is my opinion) characterization fluff whise and rule whise. We change the game for necrons and whiners?( with all due respect, maybe I sound harsh or bad, but, believe me, I'm neither bad nor irrespectfull) No thanks, cause there are lot of people who, despite I agree on the fact that cover and some other things need to be changed or improved, are really enjoyng this edition in all it's aspects( and yes, I mean alliances too as the top of all the things). I end saying that, only in this edition, I felt so much variety and bought so many kits of diffent armies, tinkering on how to enjoy(not cheesing) merging and playing with it in different conbinations. Ofc, these are my own and personal opinions.

Good day to all

Massive wall of text aside, I think it's not so much the concept of allies in general that's the problem but the implementation of them. As they are right now, allies are entirely a bonus for factions that can use them. There's no real downside to taking allied detachments. I think the decision about whether to take allies or not should be a meaningful choice with benefits and disadvantages. The main thing I hate about allies is the way it makes more disjointed armies somehow better able to co-ordinate through the access to an use of extra stratagems and CPs.

Only thing that bugs me as a non-competetive player about the factions and allies mechanics is the lopsided way they now work, where Imperium and Chaos get a ton of choices, Eldar and Tyranids get a few, and the rest get nothing, nada, zip. It just limits creativity and coolness, and while people say its more fluffy this way to, say, represent knights and marines working together, there is no way to show many of the things that are in the lore on the tabletop, like say, ork mercenaries or necrons using mindshackle scarabs to control entire worlds or dark mechanicum ect.

You can say Imperium and Chaos gets more choices(thats not something new, considering GW always focused a lot on these two), but, allow me to say that nids, with the cult, the chance to ally even with the guard and the fact they still are waiting for the cult codex, put's them in a spot where they don't need more. Eldar? Few choices you say? You have base Eldar, Harlequins and drukhari( even ynnari), so, how come they have few choiches? As I said, certain codexes, like Tau, can be good even without allies( and there was a rumor about a codex kroot for istance). Orks are still waiting like I said for the codex and the only army that sits really bad are the necrons for all the aforementioned bad things they have. Certain armies, like custodes, GSC, Knights, Harlequins and so on, where created for a greater purpose then being played alone. Sure a knight army is playable alone, but it's alot about counter completely or be completely crushed. Harlequins where made for being good supports for haeldari armies. Some says lot's of cp makes some armies op cause they usually have a few. The fact is that certain armies can't use their strats cause, taken alone, they would generate such a pitifull number of cp that you can even rip off the page of strats. the complexity of the game lies in the interactions between codexes, factions and opponents with their combinations or single lists. Consider that, aside from cp's, another army gives to you only their units. You can count on your fingers the number of models that actually have Faction based abilities. For the remaining of it, all abilities and auras works only on your army. The broken thing is not having lot's of cp's( damn, gw with the big faq even buffed the amount you gain), but having lot's of things than allowes you to regenerate them. The problem is not a single relic that gives you a single 5+ to gain a cp on your's or opponent's strats, but traits like grand strategist given to armies like AM or drukhari. if you fix this without getting the rage of the people who enjoys the actual alliance sistem(balanced by keywords) and that are buying diffentent things to paint and play, everyone around would be really pleased. Nerf the units that are actually broken, nerf too easy cp gain back and then we will see if a custodian biker at 200+ points is still good or not to spam, either you play it in a soup or in a custodes only army. the problem is not the soup or alliance, but the op single units that populate it. I'm good with changing to 5 the cost for IG infantry, raising drukhari costs, custodes biker captains and so on. If you balance the units, you balance the soups and all are happy

Yeah, I'm not arguing over game balance. I'm just saying that it would be cool to be able to, say, use the carnifex rules on an ork controlled carnifex, or an imperial assassin rules for a tau assassin, in matched play games, in some capacity with appropriate checks and balances.

A) Would GW make radical changes to fix 40k? Yes, but very slowly over a span of many years.

B) Power armour is fine with the primaris statline, or if tac-marines were 11 points per model. Solution: All space marines should have primaris stats, and then overcharged plasma should be Damage 1.

C) The cover rules sucks, but they sucked even more in last edition. I think that a +1 to T would be better, but I am not sure. Buildings and area cover should block LOS to anything behind it, meaning that if LOS is traced into and then exits area cover, then LOS should be blocked.

D) CPs should only be granted for detachments from the same faction. So if you have three detachments from three different codices, then only one detachment should grant CP.

The big problem for marines is that the game's power scale has shifted so fundamentally that they're just left behind.

Look at how amazing the deathwatch special ammo is. Imagine if marines had that. Well they do, in deathwatch, and it amounts to nothing.

There is a fundamental problem here, but i don't think there's a solution.

What I don't get is why the AP system worked fine in 2nd edition, but it has broken down now in 8th. Is it just because the scale has grown exponentially from 2nd? Although vehicles still had armor facings then.

Just an interesting observation. I also agree absolutely GW needs to learn what LOS-blocking terrain means. All their 40k terrain has tiny windows/cracks/etc. that basically means it ends up for decoration only. It's a little ridiculous.