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.

A new CSM codex that works well.

A new Ork codex that is in line with other 7e codex power levels.

 Grimskul wrote:

Orks need a new plastic warbuggy and deffkopta kit, as well as a proper Ork Warboss plastic HQ with potential Mega-Armour options.

This. Jesus. GW released plastic Deffkoptas in the AOBR set, just stamp out more of those! What, is there a huge vault of surplus metal Deffkoptas they want to sell before they'll make more? Do the execs swim around in them like Scrooge McDuck?

Yes, it would be nice to get plastic models for all armies (Sisters), and if all armies had updated Codexes. FAQ's would be helpful. One can dream.

I don't want an 8th edition, as I don't find the rules that bad if you use the ITC faqs. Is the game balanced, no, no 16 plus faction 100 of unit game ever will be. The problem I've seen and my game group and local tournaments have avoided for the most part is it's not just meh rules, but meh players. The rule book for 40k makes it pretty clear that this is not meant to be a super competitive game and all supplemental releases from GW support that vision. Part of what hurts communities is players who want to win no matter fluff, logic or narrative and I don't think that's a fun way to play or healthy for a community.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want an 8th edition, as I don't find the rules that bad if you use the ITC faqs. Is the game balanced, no, no 16 plus faction 100 of unit game ever will be. The problem I've seen and my game group and local tournaments have avoided for the most part is it's not just meh rules, but meh players. The rule book for 40k makes it pretty clear that this is not meant to be a super competitive game and all supplemental releases from GW support that vision. Part of what hurts communities is players who want to win no matter fluff, logic or narrative and I don't think that's a fun way to play or healthy for a community.

Ugh, more pro-GW nonsense.

A game that charges £50 for a rulebook and £30 for each codex has no right whatsoever to hide behind any "it's not meant to be played competitively" drivel.

Moreover, winning is the entire purpose of the game. Wanting to win is not wrong.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want an 8th edition, as I don't find the rules that bad if you use the ITC faqs. Is the game balanced, no, no 16 plus faction 100 of unit game ever will be. The problem I've seen and my game group and local tournaments have avoided for the most part is it's not just meh rules, but meh players. The rule book for 40k makes it pretty clear that this is not meant to be a super competitive game and all supplemental releases from GW support that vision. Part of what hurts communities is players who want to win no matter fluff, logic or narrative and I don't think that's a fun way to play or healthy for a community.

War Game Red Dragon (a strategy video game) has over 1000 units in it and I think 17 factions, and most of them are perfectly balanced. Then again not every game can be as amazing a strategy game as that. I would kill to see a Warhammer 40k epic scale game done by Eugen Systems. Screw Dawn of War. We could actually have titans fight on the maps and make sense. (25x25 miles IIRC).

Lowering of prices by at least 25%.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want an 8th edition, as I don't find the rules that bad if you use the ITC faqs.

The rule book for 40k makes it pretty clear that this is not meant to be a super competitive game and all supplemental releases from GW support that vision.

All the more reason for GW to simplify things with an 8E version that is at least as simple as 3E, if not more like AoS. After all, if we're just playing for gaks & grins, why do we need a huge rulebook?

 vipoid wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want an 8th edition, as I don't find the rules that bad if you use the ITC faqs. Is the game balanced, no, no 16 plus faction 100 of unit game ever will be. The problem I've seen and my game group and local tournaments have avoided for the most part is it's not just meh rules, but meh players. The rule book for 40k makes it pretty clear that this is not meant to be a super competitive game and all supplemental releases from GW support that vision. Part of what hurts communities is players who want to win no matter fluff, logic or narrative and I don't think that's a fun way to play or healthy for a community.

Ugh, more pro-GW nonsense.

A game that charges £50 for a rulebook and £30 for each codex has no right whatsoever to hide behind any "it's not meant to be played competitively" drivel.

Moreover, winning is the entire purpose of the game. Wanting to win is not wrong.

I think it's more appropriate to look at 40k as being the "House League" level of table top gaming myself, while the better 'competitive' systems like Warmahordes would be the "Rep/Competition" level of gaming.
Just like in minor house league sports, while it's nice to win the game, the main goal is to simply have fun and enjoy the experience.

40k is simply not balanced in the slightest - never has been, and it never will be. As mentioned, there's too many factions and near infinite unit/wargear combination possibilities. The only way to achieve proper 'balance' for truly competitive play, would be to effectively remove the majority of each army's individuality and half or more of their upgrade options. Or else everyone can just play mirror lists.

If you want truly competitive table top gaming, then look to games like Warmahordes or any of the other systems that are designed from the ground up to be generally more competitive than 40k is.

I'm not pro GW, I find most of there recent business decisions baffling and have pretty much switch to buying things used or from amazon. What I am pro is 40k, as I enjoy the Fluff, the models and I actually have fun playing this game. My group avoids a lot of the things that we find broken and the game ends up being decent balance wise.

What I do want to see in 2016 is every codex pre Necron getting updated. utterly broken things aside, the main issue i see in the game right now is that GW radically changed there design philosophy a year into 7th and that's hurting a lot of armies. However all the codexes released post Necron are fairly strong and do well against each other.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Just like in minor house league sports, while it's nice to win the game, the main goal is to simply have fun and enjoy the experience.

And I would enjoy the experience a lot more if it was a well-balanced game with good rules, rather than about 300 pages of convoluted nonsense vomited out my a man with his head stuck in a filing cabinet.

Experiment 626 wrote:

40k is simply not balanced in the slightest - never has been, and it never will be.

The only reason it will never be balanced is because the design team can't be bothered trying. It will never be perfectly balanced, but it really wouldn't be hard to make the balance *much* better than it currently is. And, if GW is going to charge premium prices for its rules, then it should be prepared to put the effort in to actually make them even remotely worth that price.

 vipoid wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

40k is simply not balanced in the slightest - never has been, and it never will be.

It will never be perfectly balanced, but it really wouldn't be hard to make the balance *much* better than it currently is.

And, if GW is going to charge premium prices for its rules, then it should be prepared to put the effort in to actually make them even remotely worth that price.

If it will never be balanced, then at least make it simple enough that people can always play without making mistakes or having arguments over how things should be played.

Nobody is really paying a premium for the rules, they are mostly paying for the background and pretty pictures. The rules have always been secondary. Nobody is saying "40k has the best fething ruleset and army lists, bar none, and I'm going to spend several $100s of my hard earned money because GW did such a damn fine job on the rules!" It's been about putting pretty models on the board and having a rollicking good time. If someone is paying for the rules, they are making a big mistake.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nobody is really paying a premium for the rules, they are mostly paying for the background and pretty pictures.

Sorry but I don't care what else is in there. A £50 rulebook is a £50 rulebook, and £50 most certainly is a premium.

Nope, it's a $50 illustrated storybook with "free" rules.

I would like to see all codices updated to 7th edition, for SOB to get plastic models, and for gee-dubs to release more 30k stuff in plastic. (probably won't do a 30k army now, but I do want to use some Sicarans in my Marine army)

Honestly I would like a halfway between 7th and AoS. Make the rules simpler, but not pants on head stupid like shoot from inside melee into another unit outside the melee. Have the points all be multiples of 5, or lower the points to models being cheaper and options that change the model significantly alters the points, but switching a boltgun for a power ax should just be the same. Make fliers more common and its own rule, bit make them like back in fantasy. It's stupid that harpies and plague drones aren't considered fliers. Make the rules all free, but go AoS in reproducing the rules into a book with scenarios and big Lore sections. Make casters/psykers simplified, but not AoS level of only one unique power hardcast to one model only ever. My Nurgle sorcerer can't use death magic? Gtfo. And most importantly? Encourage making your own rules for casual games. Explain forge the Narrative, and make it a hard rule so GW lovers can't yell out RAW only. If I want to use a model from tyranids as a giant chaos spawn in fluff then I shouldn't be slammed by the rules unless it would be broken in mechanics

Ill be happy with a good internally balanced CSM codex with some vision behind it... and I will never ask for anything else from GW

Also bring back the £60 battalion boxes they were great for new starters! Hey you wanna start 40k?? Have all you need AND a rhino for a decent price!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope, it's a $50 illustrated storybook with "free" rules.

In that case, why not make the rules free and just sell the fluff and pictures?

Is it because virtually no one would buy the fluff and pictures if the rules were free? I'm thinking it's because virtually no one would buy the fluff and pictures if the rules were free.

aronthomas17 wrote:
Ill be happy with a good internally balanced CSM codex with some vision behind it... and I will never ask for anything else from GW[/quote

...until you want the rest of the daemonkin books xD I know I will be banging on there door for Nurgle and slaanesh

Miniatures I can afford?

Plastic Sisters.

Every army updated to the current edition.

More larger boxed sets (like strike force ultra or the Demi Company). It's been easier getting friends on the fence about playing to jump in since the creation of these boxed sets. They're fantastic.

To see GW declare bankruptcy.

Why i'd love for some of GW's practices to change, if GW goes down that is pretty much the end of the game. I don't know why anyone would want to see that.

 vipoid wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope, it's a $50 illustrated storybook with "free" rules.

In that case, why not make the rules free and just sell the fluff and pictures?

Is it because virtually no one would buy the fluff and pictures if the rules were free? I'm thinking it's because virtually no one would buy the fluff and pictures if the rules were free.

Black Library shows that people will pay good money for fluff alone.

 Filch wrote:
To see GW declare bankruptcy.

Lol. I guess it will not happen anytime soon.

However, id like to see GW making market research.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Filch wrote:
To see GW declare bankruptcy.

Lol. I guess it will not happen anytime soon.

However, id like to see GW making market research.

This. Exalted

GW is not as well-off as people imply.

Their IPs are the only things they own that keeps the lights on and the doors open. If they declare bankruptcy, it is likely they will need to auction their IP rights to pay their creditors.

That means that someone with an interest in the IP will buy it, whether that's WOTC, FFG, Hasbro or someone else entirely. They will buy it because they have an interest in using it to market products.

 vipoid wrote:


- A Dark Eldar codex written by people who actually care about the army and are willing to put some actual effort into the book.

I absolutely agree. I've played 2 games of 40k in the past 12 months; I used to play a few games a week. In all honesty the harlequins "codex" looks like it had more thought and care put into it than the latest DE codex.

I used to spend about $3,000 a year on GW products; this year I spent maybe $100, and that was many months ago.

In order to bring me back, GW needs to focus on the game. Specifically, be consistent in execution for an entire edition across the product line. There are some great ideas in the game, but the execution on way too many pieces is just not there. It feels more like a product even they don't actually care about and is passed around through way too many hands. In other words, it's just a half assed attempt. So, I'll continue moving on and check back in every once in awhile. Maybe they'll surprise me one day; I hope so anyway.

Experiment 626 wrote:


40k is simply not balanced in the slightest - never has been, and it never will be. As mentioned, there's too many factions and near infinite unit/wargear combination possibilities. The only way to achieve proper 'balance' for truly competitive play, would be to effectively remove the majority of each army's individuality and half or more of their upgrade options. Or else everyone can just play mirror lists.

If you want truly competitive table top gaming, then look to games like Warmahordes or any of the other systems that are designed from the ground up to be generally more competitive than 40k is.

Oh, cute. Another person that doesn't understand balance.
Hint: Balance =/= sameness.

 namiel wrote:
Miniatures I can afford?

From your flag I see you are American. I have some bad news for you. We here in Australia are seeing $50 clampack characters. Those $30 ones you just got (the assassins) are $53 for us. You might not have $53 characters in 2016, but our prices aren't more than 2 years of rises ahead of you so you can look forward to 2017

I want GW to finally acknowledge true scale space marines in all their glory and begin releasing models of them like this: