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.

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

Thanks

How far away is Codex: Genestealer Cults?

Sad Panda,
Why would they go through all this Errata process just to scrap it all in a new edition? Or will these Faqs essentially be part of the new rules? Can you speculate?

Also, will they be coming out with brand new codexes for all the factions for 8th edition?

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

7th is considered a lame duck? I'd have to assume 6th was considered much the same since they gutted it in two years. So two poor editions in a row then? Clearly the direction of the game is going to have to shift dramatically if GW wants to avoid more of the same.

Oh, and thank you as always for the info sad panda, it is much appreciated.

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

I honestly wonder if they can make a new system, a completely new engine, that could have tiers of play. Skirmish, then squads then formations?
Because doing the same thing over and over again, just worse nearly each time is sad. GW expects their target demographic, 12 year old boys, to play and stick with what weve seen since fifth?
The kirby years truly were insane.
Bring back sanity, and at least decent game design.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Points don't matter. They really, really, really don't. All the garbage players are the ones who whined and whined about "No points means it's going to be anarchy!"

As someone who's been playing warhammer since 3rd edition and 40k since it existed, this 'garbage player' not only complained at the lack of points, I saw the anarchy and inability to play pick up games and effective tournaments with my own eyes.

I have NEVER spent more than five minutes arranging a pick up game of AoS with no points or comp systems involved. It usually comes down to me dropping down one of the campaign books and letting the other guy pick out a scenario that catches his fancy and playing those instead of standard games. And it's not like you need to use the campaign books for that either, since the individual army books have gone back to the "Good Old Days" where the army books included scenarios.

I've had a wildly different experience than you have I guess, but you know what?
It just highlights anecdotal experiences being anecdotal experiences and how people tend to drift towards those

Points systems have worked for 30 bloody years, they've been worked on and refined for that long.

That's why we have codex creep, and have had codex creep for 30 years?

Your blanket insult and sweeping statements really do not endear you to many people, Kan, and you've been at this a wee while now, one might have assumed you'd have mastered at least the rudiments of polite discourse, to somehow mask your dreary obsession with dwelling in a world of black and white 'I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong' skewed logic you persist in ramrodding into every bloody thread you participate in.

Polite discourse is a give and take.
You want polite discourse? Then don't let people garbage post, and I won't feel the need to do the same.

As for the thread subject, I would strongly suggest that the mistakes of AoS (and boy were there...) have been studied and that when 40k is stripped down (as I feel it must be), the shift will be far less draconian and absolute.

What you consider a mistake is not necessarily a mistake.

For myself, the mistakes of AoS?
-Only doing Stormcast Eternals(basic ones) and Khorne Bloodbound at launch(although Bloodbound were a FAR more interesting release IMO)
-Prices on the Stormcast Eternal units being ridiculous for the number of models.
-Design aesthetics on the Stormcast Eternals. If they'd gone and done certain units with less armor or shifted certain parts to leather instead of metal or any number of things, I would have been far far more interested.
-Not including the Campaign Missions from the first Age of Sigmar book in the AoS app.
-Not including a "Your army may contain only contain one of this model" tag on characters beyond the Celestant-Prime.

That's off the top of my head, mind. I'm sure if I sat and thought about it I could come up with more.

The bloat and churn must be stripped away to make a playable game,

I can agree with you on this. The bloat, in my mind, is a product of designers not being willing to alter old things and instead just copy/pasting and making a few tweaks here and there.
Look at the humble Guardsmen or Cultists. Two of the iconic "We need to put tons and tons and tons and tons of shots downrange to put wounds on anything that isn't us or Orks and we're awful at CC so we tend to hunker down and hope for the best" units, and they don't realistically have a way of doing so beyond spamming the units in excessive numbers.

Change "Rapid Fire" to "Salvo 2/4" or roll the Salvo rules into Rapid Fire and all of a sudden those units are having new life breathed into them.

the genies of LoW, D weaponry etc must be placed back into bottles with 'by mutual consent' clearly labelled on them and the endless removal of gameplay and replacement with 'random chart horrifically affecting entire game' must be taken into the back yard and a bullet put through it's skull. The game should be, I feel, tailored towards pick up and tourney, with the options to add in other things with mutual consent.

Because "the genies of LoW" are what's killing 40k. Those Marneus Calgar, Dante, Azrael, Gabriel Seth, Logan Grimnar, Ghazghkull Thraka, Stompa, Lord of Skulls, and Baneblade variants are what's absolutely ruining the game.

Hell, even D weaponry isn't that bad when on appropriately costed models...but that's the rub isn't it?
The models that are the problems aren't because of them being LoW or touting D weaponry or whatever, but because they're undercosted compared to what amounts to holdout stuff from "the Good Old Days".
Guardsmen don't suck because they're Guardsmen, they suck because they haven't had anything but point tweaks and minor shifts in statlines over the years.
Wraithknights aren't amazing because they're LoW, Wraithknights are amazing because they're undercosted and saw a huge leap in survival capabilities when they shifted from MCs to GMCs.

I also absolutely vehemently disagree that the game should be tailored towards tournament play. I want them to get 40k to a point where pick-up games don't require me to ask someone to please not take multiples of something that I know for a fact my army does not contain a way to counter before they even start thinking about tournaments. Tournaments tend to do their own thing anyway, so why should GW do the work for them?

Points, which aren't perfect, do at least steer people towards a sense of balance for gaming with strangers, without scenarios.

I really don't agree with this, but that's your opinion.

In my opinion?
Armies aren't magically balanced because of points--especially in a game where some books/items can go multiple editions without more than a cursory drop in points with no actual changes to reflect the shift in rules.

An 1850 Guard army versus 1850 Eldar isn't magically balanced because we're the same points. It's not even magically balanced if we both had books from the same edition. It's balanced by the persons playing the armies taking a few moments and discussing things.

With any luck an 8th edition will really streamline like AOS and go the same route (relatively speaking) of having a "play what you want" style (which I guess already exists with Unbound), a narrative style and a "matched" style that hopefully tries better to balance points (which it remains to be seen how balanced, if at all, the AOS points are).

Might I just say that it's going to take a fine and careful touch to streamline 40k without breaking or ruining it somehow? You know how you play an army partly because they do things in the rules that you like? Well that has to be translated into words somehow. And the more unique your army is, the more special rules it's going to need. That's what makes the game fun.

I think of it this way: A rule is a tool, and the BRB is a box. You like having tools, and you like having a tool box, the only problem you have is that at this point you have to spend 5 minutes digging through your toolbox to find the tool you're looking for.

40k doesn't need to be redone ala Age of Sigmar, all it needs it some restructuring. There's some fat to trim, sure. Let's just make sure that GW doesn't accidentally take something important out when and if they start trimming it.

I wouldn't mind a 3rd ed-level streamlining. They don't need to quite go as far as Age of Sigmar, but a streamlined ruleset with a lot less bloat would be great for the game. Part of me would be frustrated because I've only bought a few codices recently, but if they did free rules releases like Age of Sigmar does, that'd be great.

I don't think ditching points is a good idea though. There needs to be some objective constraint on everybody to make a balanced game. While maybe 1850 of Guard vs 1850 of Eldar isn't a perfectly balanced game due to player skill, army composition, and the power of the codices, it's closer than just eyeballing it.

I, for one, would welcome a severe streamlining of 40k.

I've never played a game of 40k, but I must have read the rules for 7th edition four times by now and I still am unable to wrap my head around it all.
I know that playing would likely provide a great dealy of clarity, but the rules are pretty impenetrable for someone with very little wargaming experience.

I've got more of a board gaming background than miniature gaming, but the hobby of miniature-building, the beautiful tables, and the excitement of three-dimensional gaming pieces have won me over.
I came to 40k by way of Space Hulk (1st edition) and a love for the 40k design/races/massive universe.
I've purchased an awful lot of models for someone that doesn't even play 40k proper!
I've also acquired Deathwatch: Overkill and Betrayal at Calth and love them both.
The new WHQ is beautiful and I am sorely tempted to buy it.

And every time I try to go through the rulebook again, I'm overwhelmed and think twice about starting.
I have a full-time job. I have a wife.
The same goes for most of my friends. Warhammer 40K, in its current state, discourages casual players.
The modelling aspect of 40k is already time-consuming enough.
What I want is a system that's relatively quick-to-learn, and doesn't suck away all of my time (or my friends' time) in other ways...
Which I'll now address:

I would absolutely be in favor of them getting rid of the points system. Points to me represent the most unappealing aspect of the game.
As someone totally new to 40k, I don't want to spend hours making army lists. That's meta-game. I hate meta-game. I want to play 40k, not 40k team manager.
If I want to meta-game, I'll play a CCG or an LCG. Magic, Netrunner, etc.
By their nature, miniatures just SCREAM of theme, and immersion in that theme; points take me right out of the fantastical world of Warhammer faster than anything else.

I understand that this is a generalization and does not apply to all, but I have noticed that many of the individuals that love list-building are frequently the same individuals with whom I would have no desire to play the game: rules-mongering bros with less interest in fun than in figuring out the most powerful list they can fit into X points and Y dollars. I'd rather have an opponent that is interested in a thematic, cohesive army, and would prefer to agree on unclear rules by means of a dice roll and a handshake rather than a 5-minute leaf through the rulebookS that requires the game to be put on pause.

Age of Sigmar is looking really, really good to me, but I prefer the sci-fi themes of 40k by a mile.

Just a perspective from an outsider.

Sad Panda wrote:
There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

Thanks for jumping in, adding to the first post.

The only thing I really want to see in a new edition is for Hit and Run to be more like Infiltrate. It will only work if all models in the unit have Hit and Run.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There were a lot more special rules in 1st and 2nd edition. Then it was all rationalised for 3rd edition. 4th and 5th editions developed and expanded on 3rd, partly through optional supplements. Then in 6th/7th the structure became more like 1st/2d again, lots more special rules, lots more psychic, lots more options coded into the core game.

Indeed. A simple example is to look at how Warp Spiders worked in 2E vs 3E vs 7E.

The other thing to do is to look at the number of Codices in 2E vs 7E.

Then look at the number of unit entries in 2E vs 7E.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
You obviously weren't around for a big edition change. 5th invalidated all of the 4th edition codexes , 6th invalidated all of the 5th edition codexes, and some sat for a few years before being updated to the new rules.

That isn't true at all. The last time codicies were invalidated was in the change from 2nd to 3rd. They received errata in the changes you mention, but were still used for play.

They were still used, but they were immediately outdated. For example Tyranid Ravenors had Acute Senses in fourth, but in fifth had no way to outflank so it was a useless rule for them until the updated codex. Or the Carnifex upgrade that doubled its model count for assault- it had zero analogue in 5th. Could also point out that you could no longer two of the same ranged weapon or biocannon on the same model, so suddenly entIre load outs were left by the wayside. They could function(move, shoot, run), but they were not functioning correctly.

I suppose I chose poor wording when I said, "invalidated".

Except, the models were still valid. You could still play the Ravenors and Carnifex. They may not have had the same chromey effects, but they were definitely playable. That happens to various units with almost every Codex changeover. But then again, you pretty much deserve it for playing Nids or Orks or Chaos - those armies get heavily reworked every time, whereas SMs pretty much stay the same. Unless you're Black Templars.

sturguard wrote:
Sad Panda,
Why would they go through all this Errata process just to scrap it all in a new edition? Or will these Faqs essentially be part of the new rules? Can you speculate?

Also, will they be coming out with brand new codexes for all the factions for 8th edition?

Like he said, 7th is a lame duck.

However, they can't rush a new edition out next month, especially if they want to do it right, so in all likelihood this is the tourniquet to keep the patient from bleeding out while you rush him to the hospital to try and reattach his leg.

They can also use it as a test and see if a "7.5" will be enough to please old fans (it won't)

It's the best option they have, and given the drastic, sweeping changes it at least gives us some hope that they're listening

The biggest problem is this- models are GWs lifeblood moreso than rules. People buying the 40k rulebook or the starter dont make them enough money to stay in business. And although new blood will buy existing minis, they need the come out with new minis to sell to the veterans, or even the newer folks that want to expand their armies. There are only so many ways you can make a tank with plasma/lascannon/heavy bolter. What separates this tank from that tank are guns and special rules. So in many scenarios GW has to create some niche for a new model to fit into the game and there goes the special rules snowball. That's where we are. They have done fliers, they have done Knights, I don't think they can do submarines, so each incarnation of models has to have either new guns or new rules as only so many folks are going to buy it as it looks pretty. GW is trying to appeal to both the hobbyists and the gamers and it isnt easy.

In my opinion you can't even compare AOS and 40k. Even if you think AOS has been a success, they simply hit the reset button and have been working on 2 factions. If 40k got the same treatment and for a year all that was covered was Ultramarines and say Chaos Space Marines, I think many folks would walk away and that could spell the collapse of the company.

Fantasy, and subsequently 40K were developed to drive model sales.

So why you're right to a point to say GW need the model sales to make money, they need the games to be popular to drive the sales of those models, Brian Ansell realised this 30+ years ago, Kirby got so overconfident it appears he forgot it.

Equally, they do need to keep expanding the range to drive sales from existing customers, but they're very risk averse, and I bet that a majority of players from most factions would easily identify a kit that they feel needs an update, or a unit that they'd love to own some/more of, but the in game function holds them back from buying. But GW would rather, historically, launch a new kit that nobody has over redesign a kit that perhaps won't be well received most of the time.

There are far more subtle ways of keeping people buying new models, but very little about recent GW could be characterised as subtle.

The good news about Sad panda's info is that this will not be a Kirby product, and might therefore actually get playtested.

sturguard wrote:
The biggest problem is this- models are GWs lifeblood moreso than rules.

No way. I am sure there are loads of people buying Imperial Knights Renegade for the 2 pages of "game" and the 3rd page of scenarios. Same with Betrayal at Calth.

Actually, I am super mad that the 40k rules pamphlet wasn't printed as a separate thing that I can just keep with my CSM codex. Rather than also having to carry IKR rules.

Late second quarter 2017 sounds about right that's 3 years for a new edition which was the old norm and gives them a year to ruminate on the faqs.

If they really want to speed up the game they need to get rid of a lot of random tables, combine a lot of the excessive rolls and counter rolls, and take a sharpie to a lot of the immersive but excessive rules (challenges, tank shock). I realize they have been adding rules to the game since 3rd edition but honestly they need to get back to 3rd/4th edition ruleset minus a few of the more broken issues.

 oni wrote:


Releasing a new edition of the game is more likely to push customers away.

I've been in this hobby a very long time, since 2nd edition, and I can attest that it's when new editions are released that I've seen the most people jump ship.

It's human nature to be apprehensive to change. People who come into 40K (fresh or returning) and like it are more likely to disapprove of the changes a new edition brings and thus stop playing altogether.

I've been playing since 2nd edition as well. The people who are so averse to change are going to quit anyway unless it is a minor update on existing rules, which does nothing to fix the problem with the game as it currently is. So the option is to lose customers who may quit anyway, or reboot and bring in new players with simplified rules that can be picked up and played within an afternoon. There's far too much competition out there that allows people to learn and play a game in one go, and not have to study multiple rule books for days before learning the basics. Casual gamers are the money makers and when there are more options than ever for casual gamers, GW has to address the barriers to entry that currently hinder growth, or they'll continue to lose both players and revenue.

We've seen what GW's decision has been in regards to this with Warhammer Fantasy. You're buying your head in the sand if you don't think 40k will go in a similar direction.

I think if they got rid of a bunch of rules that do essentially the same thing, removed a lot of the random tables, and boosted Assault to be on level with Shooting, they might be on track. Hopefully Blood Angels will be one of the first codexes. Honestly, if they basically do the same thing that they did with Dark Vengeance, my brother and I will probably pick up two boxes.

S'why I play Necromunda...

What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

WayneTheGame wrote:
What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

I kinda like both approaches. I like having a nicely made book full of lavish art and full color photography, but having the thin little pamphlet codices made getting to games easier. There's good points to both approaches.

 Brother SRM wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

I kinda like both approaches. I like having a nicely made book full of lavish art and full color photography, but having the thin little pamphlet codices made getting to games easier. There's good points to both approaches.

Thing is though, is current GW - even moderately improved current GW - capable of putting out a product that isn't, in their view, a jewel-like object of wonderment?

Sure, anyone sane could look at the barriers to entry on GW products and say "hey, black & white softcover rules at a substantially lower price would help a lot with that, and you can still offer the super-shiny-mega-special-limited hardcover versions for folk who care about that sort of thing", but to GW that would be an insult to their amazing product - afterall, they just got done changing to a new format for unit entries(Datasheets/Warscrolls) that use up half the page on glorious high definition photographs of their Ferrari-esque miniatures, and you want them to print those off without colour?!?! A travesty!

Ugh, I would murder someone if it meant a return to the simple, rational, affordable army book formats of 3rd Edition.

They seriously need to crop out much of the over lap in gear, unit types, and USR's. Then clean up the phases a tad. The core of 40k is pretty simple, it is all the cross referencing that kills the game for casuals and new comers.

It's funny to see the game come almost full circle. I remember this exact same issue in 2nd ed, take power weapons for example, they were all different until 3rd ed came in and simply said they ignore armor. Steering the ship back to 3rd ed simplicity would help out loads. I mean, do we really need separate rules for zealot, hatred, fearless or rage, rampage and furious charge? I still forget why strike down was ever written as a USR lol. Why is infiltrate, scout and outflank all separate? You can go through the USR's and crop them down by 2/3rds as well as do away with each codexes special exception, like destroyer protocols and heavy battle servitor, for feths sake can't you just make them relentless and while we are at it get rid of slow and purposeful?

I honestly think the game could be pretty easily streamlined, but it would take a bit of a leap of faith, but no more then back between 2nd and 3rd ed and look how that turned out, exceptional!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
What I miss is the 3rd edition style of books. None of this pay $50 for glossy pages for a book with pretty pictures you can put on a shelf. Make RULE BOOKS cheaper and easy to use for games, and ALSO put out big fluff/picture/artwork tomes for people to buy for the shelf.

Maybe they will go the AOS route and have datasheets included with every model and available for free, and then sell detachments/formations and supplements, along with fluff/artwork/picture books. So the collector can buy all of those and have a shelf full of 40k literature and lore, the gamer can pick and choose if they want to learn more about their army, the narrative player can buy the campaign sets that interest them, etc.

I kinda like both approaches. I like having a nicely made book full of lavish art and full color photography, but having the thin little pamphlet codices made getting to games easier. There's good points to both approaches.

Thing is though, is current GW - even moderately improved current GW - capable of putting out a product that isn't, in their view, a jewel-like object of wonderment?

Sure, anyone sane could look at the barriers to entry on GW products and say "hey, black & white softcover rules at a substantially lower price would help a lot with that, and you can still offer the super-shiny-mega-special-limited hardcover versions for folk who care about that sort of thing", but to GW that would be an insult to their amazing product - afterall, they just got done changing to a new format for unit entries(Datasheets/Warscrolls) that use up half the page on glorious high definition photographs of their Ferrari-esque miniatures, and you want them to print those off without colour?!?! A travesty!

Ugh, I would murder someone if it meant a return to the simple, rational, affordable army book formats of 3rd Edition.

The cynic in me wants to say they would simply cut out the fluff, shift to black and white bound by soft cover and continue to sell it at the current price point. Their current attitude makes me pause though.

Lots of good ideas and discussion here however we are drifting off New & Rumours so may I request people to take the continuation of this to the 40K Discussions Forum?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/690966.page#8658963

 Red Corsair wrote:
They seriously need to crop out much of the over lap in gear, unit types, and USR's. Then clean up the phases a tad. The core of 40k is pretty simple, it is all the cross referencing that kills the game for casuals and new comers.

It's funny to see the game come almost full circle. I remember this exact same issue in 2nd ed, take power weapons for example, they were all different until 3rd ed came in and simply said they ignore armor. Steering the ship back to 3rd ed simplicity would help out loads. I mean, do we really need separate rules for zealot, hatred, fearless or rage, rampage and furious charge?

A better question is do we even need rules for morale in the game AT ALL?

Most armies ignore Morale, so it's a kick in the teeth to the few armies that don't. Far better to simply make EVERYBODY Fearless and just move on.

1.) Too many USR's. Some of which are essentially worthless. Fear anyone?

2.) Too many rolls during set-up. This makes it take way too long. Find a way to integrate into army list creation. This idea is a bit out there but I am thinking of an attached penalty to certain strong formations to balance them. "If you use this formation, opponent deploys first. " it could even work as a means to balance powerful units. It could also be used for board set-up an terrain as well. If both sides have it, then there is a default set-up with everything picked already.

3.) Do we need two separate tables to hit? The assault to-hit table doesn't seem all that necessary with the effect weapon skill has.

4.) Too many phases of the game for "I go, You go."

5.) Warlord traits and psychic powers should be tied to something else besides a roll. Be it a point-buy, tied to specific models or formations, or something else.

6.) Too many different unit types. I am looking at you walkers. Infantry, vehicles, and monsters. Maayyybee flyers. Let the statlines and special abilities differentiate the units within a unit type

7.) Simplify what IC's can and can't do.

8.) Allies. I am not overtly fond of them. But a codex shouldn't have to rely on other allies to fill holes. I understand certain armies will have strengths and weaknesses, but Super Friends makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

9.) Simplify each phase a little or make them share traits. I remember switching from Tau to Space Marines. The assault phase took me awhile to lock down.

I am sure I missed something and I am sure others probably have better insight. But these are my rapid-fire thoughts. I don't want Warmachine or AoS but I shouldn't need a lawyer on retainer to play the game alongside me.

Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.