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.

Roughly in descending order of "ruining the game" that I would like to see fixed:

--Everything is too close together, both points and statwise
--Poor damage resolution mechanics for the current scale
--Ancient and inappropriate turn structure
--Rules that are extremely binary, something is either completely ineffective or lethal (Keep the D6, but use it better)
--Little to no tactical options (smoke, flanking, poor execution of cover and suppression mechanics, etc)
--Abysmal mission structure, both classic and especially maelstrom
--Shooting has virtually no restrictions while Melee has scores
--Horrible mechanics both for and between monstrous creatures and vehicles
--Pointless randomness
--All information is hard to access, spread out all over books, hidden within other rules, or generally unclear

I would like to see marines cost 25-30 points each, but be much more effective and durable, something between movie marines and what we currently have. This would open up a lot of space for other units to differentiate themselves, rather than being either too expensive for what you get or only being taken for the special weapons.

It would be exciting to see something similar to movement trays from fantasy, but with 3-5 models each instead of blocks of 10-30, which would make horde armies much easier to play and offer some fun opportunities for modeling. This would let small groups of models fit into 40ks varied terrain, while speeding up gameplay, and could form the basis of a new damage system built specifically for a game of 40ks size, somewhere between skirmish and battle games.

Bringing back modifiers would solve a lot of problems at once. Yes the D6 is a limiting factor, but they're cheap and readily available, and a simple system where infantry rarely see net modifiers beyond +1 to -2 offers a shocking amount of variety.

The current turn structure would preferably be changed to alternating unit activations, with some extra detail around reactions, leader models activating multiple units at once, etc. Alternating phases is another good option, but alternating activations would work better for games with 3 or more players, which would be an interesting style to bring more into the mainstream.

The mission system would be changed to focus on a combination of holding classic objectives, killing key targets, and completing secret objectives, with points awarded as these objectives are completed. Scenarios that allow for themed armies to perform more uniquely (ambush missions for infiltrating armies, pincer strike missions for biker armies) that are mandatory instead of fun diversions no one actually plays would be exciting.

---------------------
Edit:
Blast weapons having different profiles at different radii would fix a lot of problems with large blasts especially, in that they're extremely lethal for the full 5" diameter, which is why the ion Cannon is so devastating. As an example, for the demolisher cannon:
--The center hole would have strength (10) AP (1)
--up to 3" diameter (small blast size) has Strength (6) AP (3)
--up to 5" diameter (large blast diameter) has strength (4) AP (5)

A better way of representing unit information would be welcome, the charts+reference table+unit entry system is awful. I like the unit cards used in warmahordes, maybe look into using something like that covering all unit stats, standard weapon stats, and special rules on the back.

I would love to see a lot of codices bunching up- Coedx: Imperial forces (Inquisition, Stormtroopers, Assassins), Codex: Eldar (Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins).

Also, make all rules available online, constantly updated., AoS style. Make cover saves more effective, especially shields.

Tycho wrote:

...ie the saving throw modifier of minus whatever.

No. I keep seeing people advocate for saving throw modifiers as a way to "fix" the current AP system. The *ONLY* way that works is if they scale the game way back. It would need to go back down to a true skirmish level game for that to be effective. Anyone who played 2nd. Ed knows what I'm talking about ... "So you have a 3+ save with a +1 modifier because of your artifact and you're in hard cover so that's another +2 but my gun has a -2 modifier and also I cast misfortune so that's another -2 and .......". At the current scale the game that just doesn't work.

That ain't in practice problem(I play 2nd ed already as it is and with largish battles. Streamlines are not needed here. It's elsewhere that slowed it down). Bigger problem is "oh you have non-terminator armour? Okay just forget it". Even power armour is laughably weak protection. Only really good saving is not getting hit(ie be out of sight or have enough - modifiers to shooting). Armour is of no help unless it's terminator styled(3+ on 2d6)

But funny how lots of people here are wishlisting things that _are not going away for sure_. Specifically superheavies in normal games and allies. These are NOT going away. They were introduced specifically to allow selling more models. GW is not going to RESTRICT use of superheavies(or fliers) out of normal games as that's going to result in less sales.

Similarly allies have shown that it allows them to widen base they sell each kit and as AOS shows they are heading even MORE of "everybody should be able to use every release" style than more limitations...GW is moving AWAY from limitations. They are not going to bring MORE of them.

So maybe hope for something that can actually happen This way you get less of a dissapointment when your wishes don't come true.

I think a lot of the wishlisting here is being unrealistic.

Allies, unbound, super heavies, formations etc. These are all things that help GW sell models, at the end of the day they need to sell stuff. I've got no problem with that, but they need to make sure these rules are well written and strict enough to stop the super friends nonsense that happens.

The idea that someone can ally guard with a bunch of Harlequins is fun, it means they can paint two sets of cool but different models and still play them on the table. I really don't think that should change.

What should change is the ability to use allies to build crazy lists. Make special characters harder to take, make it so an allied detachment can't take special characters. Make certain combos impossible.

It's not impossible to do all this and still have a game that allows people to use all of their cool models.

 General Kroll wrote:
I think a lot of the wishlisting here is being unrealistic.

In all fairness, the premise of this thread is "What would you like to see?" rather than "What do you expect to see?", so whether or not any of the wish-listing going on here is realistic is not entirely relevant.

 General Kroll wrote:
Allies, unbound, super heavies, formations etc. These are all things that help GW sell models, at the end of the day they need to sell stuff. I've got no problem with that, but they need to make sure these rules are well written and strict enough to stop the super friends nonsense that happens.

The former stuff about helping them sell models is true, but it's not the only set of things that is going to help them sell models. As for writing better rules: We're all praying for that but can't realistically expect any better from GW that what we have now, especially since they identify as a modelling company first.

 General Kroll wrote:
The idea that someone can ally guard with a bunch of Harlequins is fun, it means they can paint two sets of cool but different models and still play them on the table. I really don't think that should change.

Remember you can choose to ignore the entire rule book or any part thereof, so outside tournaments, taking allies is a lot simpler than people think: Just ignore the consequences of being anything but Battle Brothers and you'll e fine.

 General Kroll wrote:
What should change is the ability to use allies to build crazy lists. Make special characters harder to take, make it so an allied detachment can't take special characters. Make certain combos impossible.

The problem is that something like this is very hard to do and often requires a lot of specificity. Generic blanket rules are the easier path, and it's also the path I'm willing to bet GW would take. With that in mind, something like this will either never exist or be limited in scope (thus still allowing for at least some of the sorts of shenanigans these general rules are trying to cut down on).

 IllumiNini wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
I think a lot of the wishlisting here is being unrealistic.

In all fairness, the premise of this thread is "What would you like to see?" rather than "What do you expect to see?", so whether or not any of the wish-listing going on here is realistic is not entirely relevant.

 General Kroll wrote:
Allies, unbound, super heavies, formations etc. These are all things that help GW sell models, at the end of the day they need to sell stuff. I've got no problem with that, but they need to make sure these rules are well written and strict enough to stop the super friends nonsense that happens.

The former stuff about helping them sell models is true, but it's not the only set of things that is going to help them sell models. As for writing better rules: We're all praying for that but can't realistically expect any better from GW that what we have now, especially since they identify as a modelling company first.

 General Kroll wrote:
The idea that someone can ally guard with a bunch of Harlequins is fun, it means they can paint two sets of cool but different models and still play them on the table. I really don't think that should change.

Remember you can choose to ignore the entire rule book or any part thereof, so outside tournaments, taking allies is a lot simpler than people think: Just ignore the consequences of being anything but Battle Brothers and you'll e fine.

 General Kroll wrote:
What should change is the ability to use allies to build crazy lists. Make special characters harder to take, make it so an allied detachment can't take special characters. Make certain combos impossible.

The problem is that something like this is very hard to do and often requires a lot of specificity. Generic blanket rules are the easier path, and it's also the path I'm willing to bet GW would take. With that in mind, something like this will either never exist or be limited in scope (thus still allowing for at least some of the sorts of shenanigans these general rules are trying to cut down on).

All fair points. Maybe what GW need to move towards is a tournament ruleset and a casual ruleset idk. 40k is a game with so much scope, I imagine getting the rules in order will be like trying to herd a thousand cats

Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.

Any way to reduce or combine unit types? I'm thinking about those that are very similar, or those that are rarely used. Like maybe combine Beast & Cavalry and Bikes & Jetbikes. Get rid of Chariot.

Change walkers to be MCs. Walkers are rarely used because MCs are just better. There are plenty of "machine" walkers that are classified as MCs now anyway, so really it shouldn't be a huge effort to do.

Tweak Maelstrom objectives. I enjoy Maelstrom a ton as it really encourages a mobile army vrs static gunline, but I'm not a huge fan of the cards sometimes giving you too many poor selections. Also, I'm not a huge fan with Maelstrom encouraging MSU.

Streamline/simplify the rules a bit. I think psychics could be wrapped into shooting.

Help assault out. Too many things going against assault for it to be viable. Can't assault out of a station vehicle, can't run & assault, have to pull casualties from the front, and have to weather overwatch.

Make first turn less important. That'd be tough to do without a huge rewrite. I've seen other games use random activation (Bolt Action?), which I've wondered how that'd work with 40k.

Allies have to be reigned in. Mostly it's the shenanigans like piling in as many different characters as you can into different units to share rules. I don't mind some allies and I even use some myself. Maybe go to a percentage system?

Get rid of the CAD? I like the idea of Formations, and I think with some tweaking, it could replace the CAD. I think the Orcurian is in the ballpark of where I'd like to see Formations at. Maybe have them grant small bonuses, but nothing like free transports or free gear. The bonuses might make it tougher to balance, but I'd like to move away from there being several formations, but there really only being 1-2 worth taking due to their advantages.

Fix Grav. Maybe reduce it's rate of fire? Maybe not strip hull points + immobilize? Right now it basically outclasses plasma, melta and lascannons, which no one weapon should.

Tied to the Grav fix might be adjusting vehicle damage. Right now, for the most part it is just more efficient to take a high ROF weapon and strip 3 hull points off a vehicle than it is to try and 1-shot it with a high STR weapon. I'm not sure if adding a hull point or two would help this, or maybe giving vehicles saves, which if they had saves, then the low AP of weapons like Lascannons and melta would matter more.

Adjust psychic powers. Some are kind of useless, some are too powerful. I'd also like to see the powers not be random anymore, like when you used to purchase them as wargear.

Flush all of the current codices and supplements. On a unit-by-unit basis, post stat sheets for them individually. Then maybe few pages of special faction rules for that army, like their formations, weapons...etc. This would make fixing a problem unit much easier since GW could just upload a new stat sheet for that particular unit.

40K needs more rules and numbers, not less. That's the sad reality with as many models as there are.

Martel732 wrote:
40K needs more rules and numbers, not less. That's the sad reality with as many models as there are.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. There are lots of things that could be simplified.

The ballistic skill / to hit stat could easily be removed and replaced by a stat that just tells you what number on the dice you need to roll to hit. That wipes out an entire page of tables and removes a layer of complexity that doesn't really need to be there.

It could be argued that Weapon Skill could also be replaced with something similar. But I'd still rather it took into account the skill of your opponent. It wouldn't be hard for example to change it to a simpler version of what it is now. Units could have a rating of Good, Average, or Bad, you go up against someone good when your average, and you need a 5 to hit, someone bad and you just need a 3 someone of the same level and it's a 4. That would cut out yet another table.

I know most of us know the tables and can quickly determine the dice roll we need. But for anyone new to the game it can be bewildering, and make the game very slow and hard to get into at first.

There's plenty of fairly superfluous stuff in the rules that could be trimmed down without making the game overly simplistic.

1) reduction in number of AP2 and AP1 weapons on the field
2) reduction of D weapons
3) Better vehicle rules to put them on par with MC

thats about it

What they need is a full redo a la 3rd. Streamline the game, include the core army lists for all factions in one rulebook, and then have supplements/campaign stuff adding formations and the like, but AOS style where you get the rules freely with the models and online and via an app (but still charge for the formations).

Game is too bloated now and it just makes games take forever. It needs a trimming, half of the special rules now don't make sense in a large-scale or even platoon-level game, but are fine for small skirmish type games where individual stuff matters. That kinda thing can be integrated with the game, but does not IMHO need to be the default. The default should be clear and lean, and then have "Advanced Rules" or something that has all this other stuff in there to spice up the game if you want to.

Do you view it problematic that 5 man tactical squads can bring a multimelta, meltagun, plasma gun or plasma cannon?

That in and of itself is not the problem IMO. The real issue is that you can play Marines as a horde army. The fact that you can come close to and in some cases surpass the amount or Orks on the field by playing Marines is what creates the issue in that particular case. If you really limit the number of AP1-3 weapons like I'm suggesting, then having a 3+ save actually means something again and you can raise the points slightly on Marine infantry units and they can go back to what they were suppose to be - a small but efficient and elite strike force.

I see what you mean, but I think that some armies absolutely need to keep their AP weapons in the availability that they currently have. I mean, when people face my guard army, it isn't the 80+ flashlights that people are worried about, it's the 3-4 AP3 battle cannon pie plates they are worried about, or the 2-3 STR 6 AP 4, Ignores Cover blasts that they have to deal with each turn. On the flip side of that, without having the "protection" if inordinate amounts of ordnance, my 5+ save owning guardsmen are generally paste to be wiped off of the underside of a boot, or cleaned off of a sword blade.

See, the army you describe isn't really a problem as I see. Again, I don't want everything taken away - just limited. The strong AP weapons you mention in your post are on vehicles (which makes total sense for a powerful weapon) that are all somewhat fragile. Additionally, they are blast weapons and as such, come with inherent drawbacks. Plus, you at most in your example you would have 7 of them. That's not that bad when you can consider what I could bring in a 2000pt game using Marines/Eldar/Tau, etc etc.

Also, some other changes I forgot to mention -

Assault out of dipstick/reserve and first turn assault.
Shooting into CC (it could be for certain armies only, or, for the "good guys" it could be after a moral check) - this was a fun tactic for my Orks in 2nd ed. Flood the Marine lines with hordes of Gretchen and have the heavy artillery cut loose on the resulting combat while the Marines are pinned down. Orks don't care about Grots anyway.

Make vehicles a little more survivable. They don't have to go back to 5th ed levels, but right now vehicles are way weaker than they should be.

Martel732 wrote:
40K needs more rules and numbers, not less. That's the sad reality with as many models as there are.

Hell no and please no.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
40K needs more rules and numbers, not less. That's the sad reality with as many models as there are.

Hell no and please no.

Then get rid of some model lines.

AoS streamline would be something I'd prefer. More welcoming to new players.

Warp Rider wrote:
AoS streamline would be something I'd prefer. More welcoming to new players.

Depends how they do it. If they do it the same way as AOS it would probably drive away new players with a flood of bitter and angry people.

AoS streamline would be something I'd prefer. More welcoming to new players.

Probably the one and only thing that could actually make me quit for good.

 War Kitten wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.

Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo

Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.

I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.

I think this hits on one of the big issues with 40K these days. ROF for moderate strength weapons has gone up dramatically, making AT weapons far less useful. I really think a lot of weapons should be returned back to firing 1 shot and one shot only. For things like scatter lasers or burst cannons, they need a variant of the burst rules or a new template - something like an arc to represent hitting multiple units. Anything under the template gets hit only once, but whereas a vehicle or walker would take one hit, you could "sweep" a unit to hit multiple targets. This would make the weapons useful against armored columns, infantry squads or other groups, but not the glancing machines they currently are.

Of course, you'd likely need to do something about MC's only taking one wound - but in that regard, I really think that STR 7-8 weapons should deal 1D3 wounds to a single target (no spillover to other models) and STR 9-10 should do 1D6 wounds. Maybe D weapons could do 2D6, and you get rid of the D table.

I think what you see right now is the game of 40K recovering from the massive over-simplification it suffered when going from 2nd edition 3rd edition. Going from a heavy skirmish game with a ton of rules to a "buy more models" game with maybe 15% of the rules remaining. Now as the model lines have expanded (and continue to do so) you have the base underpinnings of 3rd edition being stretch to their maximum.

Look at 2nd edition. You had armour values of 10 through 24 or thereabouts. A huge range which was suddenly reduced to 10-14. That condenses a lot of vehicles into very close proximity. The change in armour penetration also essentially removed the ability of weapons to be strong against infantry but weak against vehicles. Using a simple strength+D6 etc. now required a whole host of additional rules to separate the dozens and dozens of weapons types (which were artificially hamstrung into a narrow performance band by the game mechanics). Weapons (even good ones!) had very varying damage bands against armour. A Lascannon was 3D6+9 for example. Meaning you might flub a roll and fail to penetrate even light armour. There was much larger variation in armour penetration. This allowed vehicles to be very robust and not suffer near guaranteed hits from the majority of weapons. This huge variety in armour penetration rolls allowed a lot of variety in the weapon effects themselves.

If we look at Movement, which used to be a simple statistic...then changed to make everyone move the same. Stupid. Now instead of a simple Move value you need to introduce a whole host of additional rules to artificially increase the pace of various races, creatures. How hard would it be to simply re-introduce a simple "M" to the stat line?

The game doesn't need more rules. It needs better rules. With the right clever mechanics you can introduce a lot of depth with very reasonable rules. The game is suffering from loads and loads of special rules which are currently overloading the overly simple base mechanics which are four generations old.

The main thing to remember...Games Workshop cares far less about wonderful game design, and far more about producing models. They need playable rules which allow people to buy and use their models - that's about it. The way they release codexes once every two or three editions for certain armies is hugely damning and complicates everything even more. I am very suspect about ever getting a really good revision of the rules.

Trebloc wrote:
Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.

GW made clean slate with AOS. What did we get? Even more special rules! Everything has to have special rule.

Don't expect them to trim down number of special rules. Expect even more. Every unit needs to have awesome special rule to make the it stand out!

tneva82 wrote:

Trebloc wrote:
Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.

GW made clean slate with AOS. What did we get? Even more special rules! Everything has to have special rule.

Don't expect them to trim down number of special rules. Expect even more. Every unit needs to have awesome special rule to make the it stand out!

That's all well and good. But for example, do we really need a special rule for rending, and bladestorm? They both so much the same thing, same with the whole ap2 on a 6 with sniper rifles.

There's three rules there where there could be just the one.

Rick Priestley mentioned on a Gates of Antares podcast recently that he got the impression that GW is moving away from Codex books and will offer rules more deliberately in the future. GW already does this with printing datasheets in the construction manuals. Maybe they will release an app like the AoS one for 40k's 8th edition. They can still sell digital and printed campaign books, codices (containing fluff too) with formations and other expansions like Cities of Death to make money. If GW wants to offer a modernized 40k, they must create a way to update rules whenever need be and that only works with digital books and occassional FAQs for players with printed editions. Hastings (reliable rumormonger on Warseer) had heard Codex books could be a thing of the past, too. Not saying this will happen but if GW moves away from their current way of releasing rules then a 40k app seems to be the most obvious next step. I would like 40k to change to a 'Living rulebook' style

However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.

 General Kroll wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Trebloc wrote:
Remove/combine as many special rules as possible. Just too many. Could probably reduce them by around 1/3 without a huge problem. Also, remove/limit the rules that transfer across the entire unit (it's weird that my Sisters of Battle can only walk 6", but slap Saint Celestine in there for Hit & Run, and they can suddenly "jump" out of combat up to 18" away). I think if few/no rules transfer, a lot of unintended combinations would go away.

GW made clean slate with AOS. What did we get? Even more special rules! Everything has to have special rule.

Don't expect them to trim down number of special rules. Expect even more. Every unit needs to have awesome special rule to make the it stand out!

That's all well and good. But for example, do we really need a special rule for rending, and bladestorm? They both so much the same thing, same with the whole ap2 on a 6 with sniper rifles.

There's three rules there where there could be just the one.

But GW hasn't shown any interest in going that way. On the contrary MORE so you could expect to see bunch of units with say rending get own "almost like but not entirely rending" rather than reduce those...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:
However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.

Well the rending difference comes into play mostly vs T8+ stuff...Pretty minor difference.

 Wolfblade wrote:
However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.

They are all very similar though, and I don't think rationalising them all into one rule would take away anything vital from the game. For example it would be easy to give Shuriken Catipults the rending special rule, and the sniper rifle the rending special rule in addition to a special rule that stated something always wounded on a 4+ You could even do away with the poison special rule and rename it the wound special rule. It would perform the same task within the game.

The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.

To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.

I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)

 Runic wrote:
The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.

To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.

I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)

They rewrote the fantasy. Technically nothing prevents them from rewriting 40k. It's not like GW is worried about invalidating older books anyway.

Better reason is "is there anybody competent enough at the GW?"

 Runic wrote:
The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.

To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.

I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)

Yeah, there's really nothing stopping them from redoing all the codices at the start of a new edition. They've certainly done it before.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Runic wrote:
The game being balanced is a fantasy I'm afraid, no one should expect that or they will be sorely disappointed.

To balance the game would require a rewrite of most codices and supplements and FW books, and that's obviously not gonna happen. Unless ofc the designers come up with some clever solution that bypasses that workload somehow.

I expect a cool new whole faction, Imperium of Man getting a nerf allies wise/xenos codices faring better and rules that have been clarified (seems to be happening already.)

Yeah, there's really nothing stopping them from redoing all the codices at the start of a new edition. They've certainly done it before.

3rd ed and fb 6th ed too. Pretty sure my 2nd ed codexes isn't all that usable in 3rd ed

Nothing stops them if they decide they want to do it. Their product, they can do whatever they wish and it's never resulted in game total death(AOS got closest and even that has it's fans...). Hey theoretically it COULD be even move that would win them popularity if done right!

But really what would be reason they couldn't do it? Not going to invalidate recent books? False. They invalidated FB armybook within year or so(vampire counts in 5th->6th ed) and of course every end times book in FB got invalidated with the AOS. Expensive hardbacks and last one invalidated in mere months...

 General Kroll wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
However rending always wounds on a 6 in addition to becoming AP2, bladestorm is only ap2 on a 6, and sniper is not-poison 4+, and ap2 on a 6.

They are all very similar though, and I don't think rationalising them all into one rule would take away anything vital from the game. For example it would be easy to give Shuriken Catipults the rending special rule, and the sniper rifle the rending special rule in addition to a special rule that stated something always wounded on a 4+ You could even do away with the poison special rule and rename it the wound special rule. It would perform the same task within the game.

That might actually be a huge buff for a lot of weapons. Vs everything that isn't a vehicle, it's flat out better than gauss. Instead of JUST wounding, it's also denying any armor save too. Not to mention the D3 extra armor pen on a 6, which allows an S4 wep to glance everything but AV14 with some luck.

There's also a few units (some nurgle stuff maybe? I forget) that cause poison to be less effective besides GMC.