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.

Breng77 wrote:
Majority save is a terrible idea as it makes better saves on characters irrelivant, and by making it alwasy basic troopers you nerf the ability for a better save to tank wounds etc....I could see maybe just letting the controlling player choose but it seems overly complicated.

I dont think in real life a terminator would ever say "Get behind me boys, I got this". Rather the other way around - your lives mean nothing, the Emperor wants that objective and I am the only one able to take and hold it.

When wound allocation would place a save on the terminator model, then he can use his better armor, as used to be the case in the older edition.

Breng77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the save sytem I want to see it moved to after the hits are rolls. Roll to hit, roll to save vs anything with the best save you can (so ap would still work the same) roll to wound. Only real other change is Rending would need to lose the AP value or make the target reroll successful saves or something to balance it out a bit.

What exactly would be the point of that, besides a bit of extra effort in passing the dice back and forth? Rolling hit -> save -> wound is exactly the same as rolling hit -> wound -> save, except that now instead of just picking up your failed hits and rolling the rest of the dice to wound you have to count the hits, have your opponent roll saves, count the saves, then roll to wound.

Mostly reflects armor better than the current system does, and it engages both players more since you don't have to just sit and watch while they roll and reroll dice and then tell you how many saves to roll. It doesn't really change the odds (and if it does, it's not likely much) but keeping both players engaged is always a good thing, is it not?

One issue with the Hit - Save - Wound system would be that it will potentially slow the game down due to different Armor Savees and AP. If I shoot at a Grey Hunter Squad with a wolf guard terminator in it with 10 Hot shot Lasguns. Say I roll 5 hits and there are 2 Grey Hunters in front of the wolf guard. How do I resolve this. Since I get no save on the Grey Hunter do you then roll wounds until you make 2 then I remove those guys then I start making saves on the terminator....

It doesn't really slow things down much in most cases, just like it doesn't know for mixed saves. Easiest fix would be take the majority save, or a change to wound allocation (like it always picks off the basic troopers first because even if it killed a guy with equipment his buddy just picks it up, dusts it off and away they go).

It's not like the current system isn't a bit too complicated as is anyways.

Majority save is a terrible idea as it makes better saves on characters irrelivant, and by making it alwasy basic troopers you nerf the ability for a better save to tank wounds etc....I could see maybe just letting the controlling player choose but it seems overly complicated.

Honestly I hate the idea of sticking your valuable HW model up front to "tank wounds", but that's just me.

Wound allocation is one of those things that needs to be simplified no matter how you slice it honestly.

I think allies are a fantastic way to add flavour to an army that has been collecting dust on a shelf. They also help prevent older codices from getting destroyed by more recent ones as you can bolster your forces with some stop-gap measures.

Allies only become an issue when you get into very competitive play and people try to abuse the system. In which case if you were worried about fluff.... well most tournament lists are extremely unfluffy to begin with even if they are using a single codex.

I'd rather have more options (even if some are quite silly) then be further restricted in the hobby.

My gripe with the allies chart is that it is fluffy in some cases (see tyranids) and quite unfluffy in other cases (BT and Eldar)

If they would have gone for all fluff and no balance or all balance and no fluff I would have been fine with that but they decided to sprinkle a little bit of both in random spots which makes for some nasty combos with other armies being left out.

The Black Templar ally chart is dead. Codex: Space Marines says that in all instances, any references that say to use Codex: Black Templars, you use Codex: Space Marines, but with Black Templars Chapter tactics.

The ally chart says to use the "codex" of your primary detachment to determine allie. There is no Codex: Black Templars anymore.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The Black Templar ally chart is dead. Codex: Space Marines says that in all instances, any references that say to use Codex: Black Templars, you use Codex: Space Marines, but with Black Templars Chapter tactics.

The ally chart says to use the "codex" of your primary detachment to determine allie. There is no Codex: Black Templars anymore.

However the Primary Detachment when you use Black Templar says to refer to any older publication (Rulebook), have them refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics.

Thus if you use Black Templar as a Primary Detachment, you still use their old ally chart.

Wasn't there some big thing about this in YMDC?

I love sixth. Flyers are becoming more balanced due to updated codices. There is a wide range of armies that are introduced thanks to allies and I think the game is progressing FORWARD. Relax guy, this edition has only been out for less than a year and a half, and will be around for a little under another 3 years. ALOT of changes have occurred to this edition in the last year, give it a chance. Things will balance out, and at the rate the codices are being released we'll be looking at probably a couple of years of updated armies and tabletop carnage.

No. No you don't.

Some Black Templars players have been unwilling to let go of the fact that they no longer have their own book. But the wording is very clear.

Codex: Space Marines is very explicit about the fact that all references to Codex: Black Templars now being to Codex: Space Marines with Black Templar Chapter Tactics. Chapter tactics are not a codex.

"Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes, consider these references to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics special rule."

The Ally Chart is very explicit about using the Ally Row for the Codex of your primary detachment. There is no spoon, and there is no Codex: Black Templars.


Remember, the order of actions:
Determine the codex.
Find that codex on the chart.

It's not:
Look on the chart.
Find the row for your codex.

"All rules purposes." I mean, I can see where there could be confusion, but the language is explicit. And if that isn't enough, the fluff makes it fairly clear. Black Templars are good buddies with the Sisters, and they no longer hate witches and aliens as much.

If the fluff talks about how much the Sisters and Black Templars are totally friends now instead of being Catholics vs Protestants like they used to be, why would they still use an ally chart that makes them Desperate Allies? They don't.

Makumba wrote:

Would go something like - Stand and Deliver - any nonvehicle space marine that did not move in the movement phase and is equipped with a bolter, bolt pistol, stormbolter, heavy bolter, hurricane bolter, or assault cannon may fire an additional shot. Space marine dreadnoughts also gain this rule. So bolters could be fired 3 times in a round, a hurricane bolter on a centurion/dreadnought would give 9 shots. Help make up for the perceived weakness in space marine tactical squad shooting.

So a DA land raider crusader with a dakka banner would be doing 20+shots per turn at max range , after movment ?

Nobody in our group plays DA, and I don't have access to a DA codex so I don't know the example you give, but since you mention land raider in specific, the rule specifically does not apply to vehicles with the exception of dreadnoughts. And notice it also says if the unit didn't move. Specific number of shot would per model including the effects for rapid fire on bolters would be - bolt pistols 2, boltguns 3, storm bolters 3, heavy bolters 4, hurricane bolters 9, assault cannon 5. Looking at it I think I will suggest we drop assault cannons from the list, assault cannons are already good enough.

strange to make the same weapons work different for different models .

kb305 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
The whole paper-scissors-rock nature of the game is pretty disappointing to me.

Fliers are hard countered into the ground by skyfire. Terminators get shat on by AP2. Tanks get reamed by lance and melta. Etc etc.

It's just like buying a dozen little papers and a dozen little rocks and pretending to play war with them. The real deal is a hell of a lot faster and cheaper IMO, and more balanced as well =/

That's how real war works though too. Your enemy designs something, you design something to counter it, and then they try and counter your counter and so on. It's just one endless game of rock, paper scissors.

and then they built nukes that could destroy the whole planet. what is your point again? sorry but your argument is pretty irrelevant. it's a game.

So you want a game that contains units that have no effective counter??? That sounds like fun....

Also, all this talk about bringing back modifiers is crazy. All modifiers accomplished in 2nd edition was to completely negate the effectiveness of anything less than terminator armour. The vaunted power armour of Space Marines was as effective as tissue paper against the majority of small to medium arms fire. You paid a premium for MEQ level of armour on units, but never got any real benefit from it. While the AP system is simplistic, it is a realistic approach when it comes to a modern warfare style game. Body armour is rated to stop a certain caliber of shot. Anything above that and the armour is ineffective. A failed save represents the shot getting lucky and finding a seam. The real problem is not with the core rules, but it lies at an army level were a select few armies are loaded with AP2 firepower, while other armies have very little.

On a final note, I find it humorous that so many say that 2nd edition 40K was a Skirmish game...while the rules certainly fit the style better than later editions, the games I played were never "skirmish" level. Our FLGS rarely hosted games less than 2000 points with the veterans, and a typical game was higher than that. The model count didn't really get any higher with newer editions, the points for the games just got lower. Now, I normally play 1500-1750 compared to 2000-2500 with 2nd edition.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
While the AP system is simplistic, it is a realistic approach when it comes to a modern warfare style game.

And that there is why it should be scrapped, 40k is in no way related to realistic modern warfare.

 jonolikespie wrote:
And that there is why it should be scrapped, 40k is in no way related to realistic modern warfare.

Did you really just attempt to argue that the AP system should be scrapped because it's too realistic? Why is realism such a bad thing?

If the modifier system came back, I'd quit right there. 2+ armor on non-MCs needs to be strengthened, not weakened due to wound spamming.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

kb305 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
The whole paper-scissors-rock nature of the game is pretty disappointing to me.

Fliers are hard countered into the ground by skyfire. Terminators get shat on by AP2. Tanks get reamed by lance and melta. Etc etc.

It's just like buying a dozen little papers and a dozen little rocks and pretending to play war with them. The real deal is a hell of a lot faster and cheaper IMO, and more balanced as well =/

That's how real war works though too. Your enemy designs something, you design something to counter it, and then they try and counter your counter and so on. It's just one endless game of rock, paper scissors.

and then they built nukes that could destroy the whole planet. what is your point again? sorry but your argument is pretty irrelevant. it's a game.

So you want a game that contains units that have no effective counter??? That sounds like fun....

Also, all this talk about bringing back modifiers is crazy. All modifiers accomplished in 2nd edition was to completely negate the effectiveness of anything less than terminator armour. The vaunted power armour of Space Marines was as effective as tissue paper against the majority of small to medium arms fire. You paid a premium for MEQ level of armour on units, but never got any real benefit from it. While the AP system is simplistic, it is a realistic approach when it comes to a modern warfare style game. Body armour is rated to stop a certain caliber of shot. Anything above that and the armour is ineffective. A failed save represents the shot getting lucky and finding a seam. The real problem is not with the core rules, but it lies at an army level were a select few armies are loaded with AP2 firepower, while other armies have very little.

On a final note, I find it humorous that so many say that 2nd edition 40K was a Skirmish game...while the rules certainly fit the style better than later editions, the games I played were never "skirmish" level. Our FLGS rarely hosted games less than 2000 points with the veterans, and a typical game was higher than that. The model count didn't really get any higher with newer editions, the points for the games just got lower. Now, I normally play 1500-1750 compared to 2000-2500 with 2nd edition.

I never said that. id like a more balanced game, no more hard counters. everything should be atleast somewhat effective against everything else.

yes i'm well aware that second edition also sucked, all youve highlighted is that they couldnt write rules back then either. i remember the cyclone missile launchers, vortex grenades and other stupid crap of that edition clearly.

this is what im thinking off the top of my head if you must stay with a D6 system (which i would also get rid of right away):

krak missile: -3
plasma: -2 (since it's not quite as good now you can get rid of gets hot)
lascannon: no save
melta: no save
bale drake flamer: -2
power weapons: -2 or maybe -3
autocannon: -1
bolter: nil (maybe give it some other minor special rule to make up for this fact since it's supposed to be a more powerful weapon)
lasgun: nil

 DarthOvious wrote:
The rules need to be changed every few years or so in order to keep the game fresh and interesting.

Campaign books and new armies can keep the game 'fresh and interesting' without the need to drastically change the core rules every few years.

4 years is few enough.

Tried 6th ed, thought it was a complete mess and a blatant money-grabber with the fliers and allies so now I only play 2nd ed, which can be just as bad as 6th but at least I'm not dishing out loads of money on goofy fliers. I play very little 40k now anyway, most of my time and attention is now focused on Dust Tactics and Infinity.

I've been playing since Rogue Trader and 6th is easily my favorite so far. Yes, things change every edition. Some things will get better, others will get worse. Is it perfect? Not hardly. I really dislike fliers and not being able to assault out of vehicles. There are also still some serious balance issues. Over all, I'm pleased with 6th edition.

9) the new wound allocation rules. Your special weapon guy has to make a save for getting hit and failed it? Too bad, he is dead. While I agree that this makes *not* fielding special weapons, i.e. barebones squads, a sensible choice now (literally everyone would load up on special weapons and such in 5th edition), I still think that it takes the fun out of the game when you have to constantly keep your special weapon guys in the back ranks or risk it and lose them prematurely. There are already enough variables to worry about when playing a game of 40k, do we now also need to micromanage our miniatures' position within their squad at all times???

Well, i actually rather like this aspect of the game, makes it much more important to hide my meltagun dudes from fire


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm fine with units having somewhat unbalanced stats, I.E Riptides, because it makes the game rather fun. But i'm not fine with strange and cheesy tactics, if we're going to spam bikers, drakes or pods, at least make them less irritating to play against. Assaulting out of transports would be nice too....

kb305 wrote:


I never said that. id like a more balanced game, no more hard counters. everything should be atleast somewhat effective against everything else.

yes i'm well aware that second edition also sucked, all youve highlighted is that they couldnt write rules back then either. i remember the cyclone missile launchers, vortex grenades and other stupid crap of that edition clearly.

this is what im thinking off the top of my head if you must stay with a D6 system (which i would also get rid of right away):

krak missile: -3
plasma: -2 (since it's not quite as good now you can get rid of gets hot)
lascannon: no save
melta: no save
bale drake flamer: -2
power weapons: -2 or maybe -3
autocannon: -1
bolter: nil (maybe give it some other minor special rule to make up for this fact since it's supposed to be a more powerful weapon)
lasgun: nil

To be fair,wanting soft counters is all well and good - warmachine does it very well (everything is effective) - but a guy with a rifle or a knife shouldn't be 'somewhat' effective against a tank. Especially when he can get a lascannon.

Regarding your suggestion - IMO modifiers can work, but you're doing it wrong. The 40k mechanics don't really work with it - unless you deal with a very small number of -1s across the whole range of weapons like Andy chambers' old starship troopers game, armour becomes worthless. Giving every gun a modifier just means more book keeping for the sake of it. The three roll system doesn't help either, but that's an argument against the resolution mechanics in 40k, as opposed to modifiers in general.

If you ask me, a simpler, and far more elegant solution is to look at infinity, and see how they implement armour and weapon power. Weapons have power, but no silly dual stat of ap.You roll to hit (modified by both distance and cover), and provided you hit, the other guy rolls an armour save against the power if what hit him. Two rolls. Roll to hit. And roll to save.

In 40k terms, it means rather than bob having a 4+ save for example, his armour gives him +1 to his save. (Or more. You'd have to port things over. ) you roll to hit bob with an s4 bolster and hit him. Nob gets his armour save, and saves on a 5+, modified by his armour of +1 so he saves on a 4+. Basically your armour gives the same several of protection against all weapons, but with more powerful weapons having higher str, your overall ability to resist is lessened. Bob will save on a 4+ to a bolter, a 5+ against a pulse rifle and a 6+ against a multilaser.

Forget ap, and simply Roll your saves against the power|strenth|insert term here. No need for modifiers but you still end up with a similar effect.


Check out infinity.

kb305 wrote:

I never said that. id like a more balanced game, no more hard counters. everything should be atleast somewhat effective against everything else.

yes i'm well aware that second edition also sucked, all youve highlighted is that they couldnt write rules back then either. i remember the cyclone missile launchers, vortex grenades and other stupid crap of that edition clearly.

this is what im thinking off the top of my head if you must stay with a D6 system (which i would also get rid of right away):

krak missile: -3
plasma: -2 (since it's not quite as good now you can get rid of gets hot)
lascannon: no save
melta: no save
bale drake flamer: -2
power weapons: -2 or maybe -3
autocannon: -1
bolter: nil (maybe give it some other minor special rule to make up for this fact since it's supposed to be a more powerful weapon)
lasgun: nil

But hard counters ARE a form of balance. How many war games don't have some form of hard counter for various unit types? I'd much prefer specific hard counters that make you choose between anti-armour, anti-infantry, or anti-air before the battle, as opposed to armies just being able to counter any unit with any other unit (which makes for an incredibly dull game). Again, the problem here isn't with the core rules, its with the individual armies. Some armies are designed as a form of hard counter to other armies, and thus makes the game more difficult for those armies being countered.

A modifier system is far more flawed than the AP system, as it makes weak armour more powerful and makes strong armour less so. With your system, an autocannon shell (which is designed to penetrate light tanks) can potentially bounce off an IG troopers flak jacket....and you feel this is a BETTER system? To me, AP combined with To Wound rolls is a more simplistic AND realistic approach as opposed to modifiers.

The only modifiers that should be brought back into the game are To Hit modifiers brought on by cover. To me, if I go through the trouble of getting my unit into cover, the difficulty doing damage to the unit should be on the opponent, not my ability to roll a save. This would also help heavier armoured units because they can actually get benefit from cover for all incoming fire, not just that which negates their base armour. While I certainly understand WHY GW went with the cover save system (how do you determine To Hit modifiers when only a portion of the unit is in cover), I feel it could use some work. Maybe give an extra type of save in the same way as FNP. You get hit/wounded, take your normal armour save, and then take your Cover Save (if necessary).

There's nothing wrong with hard counters. They just shouldn't hard counter 80% of the game like the wave serpent.

I will go out on a limb to state the current AP/armor save system is the best yet. And I have played since back Rouge Trader days. I like the fact that your armor protects you, or the weapon hitting you makes it worthless. Simplicity and realism, I like it!

I disagree with quite a bit of the original posters points. but I have to agree on a couple.

The allies thing is... problematic in so many ways. It is EASY to see why people don't like this mechanic. i have found that the meta is adjusting to it now, but newer players are going to get somewhat baffled in early games by the dizzying array of ways an enemy can come at you and frankly, the cost that necessarily entails to adjust. I am blessed to have made a pretty good living at times and so my collection is enormous and I am somewhat spoiled. all that aside, the other problem is that the fluff just is ridiculous.

so on cost, fluff and the allies thing I think the OP is right on the money. I'd say the rest of it is just failure to adjust. I'm a "tactics guy" and so if anything, a lot of these other changes he mentions added to that and I see them as yet more challenging ways to exert my brain on the subject matter.

Rhino's would be useful if they were considered Assault Vehicles... They aren't... And that's the main reason C:SM players sooner bring Razor Backs and CSM players don't take them unless they are running Plague Marines... and Even then, in a lot of cases it's sometimes better to just foot slog the dirty guys...

I personally hate how in 6th Ed Shooti armies vary in ranged weaponry for their troops... Look at Tau... 30" str 5 rapid fire guns on their troops.. I cannot explain in words the frustration of simply walking back 6" every turn, and still being in range of shooting your opponent wihtout him being able to shoot back at you, with Boltguns.. The most common weapon profile in game... 24" range weapons on models by comparison, costing an arm and a leg to field...

Another problem I have, Is DE venom spam... For no reason can I see, a vehicle being a DT ever being able to get Splinter cannons x 2!!! With the members inside being able to shoot as well as moving their 12" then assault... I call total mouth breather on this... Disembarkation should be maintained within base contact of your vehicle.. 6" is bloody stupid.

Back to Rhino's the fact they aren't assault vehicles means you simply take a 35 point str 4 blast on yourself or what ever troops you decided to bomb-box and put inside the bloody thing... It's AV11, CSM versions can't even get good weaponry nor convert to Razor Backs themselves and your best hope is to simply use it as a cover save or block LOS... 35 points....for repositioning LOS

35 points METUL BAWKSES I see them as terrain pieces like the ADL, but destructible, but repositionable.

I. I agree and disagree with this. A. In for fun games, it can allow you a wider range of models to chose from. B. Do away with battle brothers altogether. C. Remove them from events like tourneys as it is too easily abused.

2. I see your points but to me they aren't as bad to me as they are to you. No insult intended. My thing on them is that you should get a deny the witch roll on ALL psychic test powers instead of just the offensive ones targeting your units.

3. I kinda like this for the coolness value. Instead of only having imperial stuff, sell stuff for other armies or create templates for them to build their own without having to convert imperial stuff. You pay through the nose in points for it so I don't find it a gamebreaker.

4. Meh, I would have no issues with shooting at flyers be at BS2 instead of needing a 6 if the points were lowered a tab for flyers. With the abundance of ways to take them down, I don't find them too op.

5. I haven't really seen this affect games. Of course, I usually only play tourneys so it could be that I just havnt gotten to play against that tactic (although we do have an abundance of taur and necron players.

6.I agree. made me hafta convert axes onto models and made rough riders TOTALLY worthless. lol

7. Totally agree. They could sell the codexes for $10 and still make a hefty profit on each one. Of course, the same goes for the models.

8. Again, I agree.

9. I kinda disagree with you there. That being said, flamers are only usefull in the front so are usually one of the first killed. I'd like a point reduction for that.

10. This actually makes sense. It makes assault armies actually THINK now instead of just assuming the win. Guys trip over rocks (or their own feet), Bob up front gets cold feet and slows down in front of the guys behind him and so forth so is also kinda fluffy.

11. I can take it or leave it.

12. I agree with you on this.

13. TOTALLY agree with this. of course, it keeps people always wanting to buy a new army every time it comes out.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

kb305 wrote:

I never said that. id like a more balanced game, no more hard counters. everything should be atleast somewhat effective against everything else.

yes i'm well aware that second edition also sucked, all youve highlighted is that they couldnt write rules back then either. i remember the cyclone missile launchers, vortex grenades and other stupid crap of that edition clearly.

this is what im thinking off the top of my head if you must stay with a D6 system (which i would also get rid of right away):

krak missile: -3
plasma: -2 (since it's not quite as good now you can get rid of gets hot)
lascannon: no save
melta: no save
bale drake flamer: -2
power weapons: -2 or maybe -3
autocannon: -1
bolter: nil (maybe give it some other minor special rule to make up for this fact since it's supposed to be a more powerful weapon)
lasgun: nil

But hard counters ARE a form of balance. How many war games don't have some form of hard counter for various unit types? I'd much prefer specific hard counters that make you choose between anti-armour, anti-infantry, or anti-air before the battle, as opposed to armies just being able to counter any unit with any other unit (which makes for an incredibly dull game). Again, the problem here isn't with the core rules, its with the individual armies. Some armies are designed as a form of hard counter to other armies, and thus makes the game more difficult for those armies being countered.

A modifier system is far more flawed than the AP system, as it makes weak armour more powerful and makes strong armour less so. With your system, an autocannon shell (which is designed to penetrate light tanks) can potentially bounce off an IG troopers flak jacket....and you feel this is a BETTER system? To me, AP combined with To Wound rolls is a more simplistic AND realistic approach as opposed to modifiers.

The only modifiers that should be brought back into the game are To Hit modifiers brought on by cover. To me, if I go through the trouble of getting my unit into cover, the difficulty doing damage to the unit should be on the opponent, not my ability to roll a save. This would also help heavier armoured units because they can actually get benefit from cover for all incoming fire, not just that which negates their base armour. While I certainly understand WHY GW went with the cover save system (how do you determine To Hit modifiers when only a portion of the unit is in cover), I feel it could use some work. Maybe give an extra type of save in the same way as FNP. You get hit/wounded, take your normal armour save, and then take your Cover Save (if necessary).

No, hard counters and terrible game balance make for a dull game. many of the match ups are so bad why bother unpacking the models. If even the bad lists had atleast a fighting chance it would still be worth playing. Having counters to stuff is fine, currently its more about broken/overpowered units. A hard counter to 80% of the game isnt a hard counter anymore, it's just broken/unbalanced game design.

Actually if you bothered to read my modifiers it was actually a buff to strong amour. power armour now gets a 5+ against plasma, bale drakes and power weapons.
the guardsman gets what, save on a 6 vs an autocannon? I hardly think that's going to break the game.

@OP, I have just recently come back to 40k after three years.
When I left, I had literally just began to feel comfortable
playing 5th Ed.

Long story short:
I have been in the position recently of
having to learn all the new rules and meta changes, and
obviously forming my own opinions about them along the way...

The ones I agree with:

- hull points
- wound allocation to closest models.
- pre-measuring

The ones I disagree completely with and it makes me depressingly upset:

- warlord traits (there's already enough randomness)
- flyers (belong in epic)
- challenges (belong in role-play)
- psychic everything (magic belongs in warhammer fantasy)
- random assault lengths (there's already enough randomness)
- ADL (should only be for special missions)


I also think the space marine FOC has too many units, but
obviously space marines are like a money tree for GW.
That's what I think it comes down to in the end: as much as we like the game and the hobby, GW is a business and they are trying to make cash-money...

:(

PS I don't think it will be long until we see an entirely new race, with super powerful new units that everyone wants to play (and buy).