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.

I'd like to see the rules for units changed to represent on the tabletop what is in the fluff. For example:

Take eldar aspect units. A unit of dark reapers who should be good at shooting missile launchers would have relentless and bs5 but only need to be ws3 or even 2 and 1 attack even on the charge. They don't need to be better than that in cc. The idea here is that they are fab at what they do (shooting stuff) but because they don't specialise in cc their rules there are awful. It doesn't matter that they may in the past have been something else - the rules for then as dark reapers should represent them as that aspect. I'd like to see a similar thing across all armies.

Also, formations need to have more thought put into them. Right now they just exist to make you put units on the board. Some formations such as the new flyer ones are quite good at representing what they do but others such as the guardian warhost seem to have added rules tacked on because they need to have rules.

Finally, named HQ's shouldn't have points. They should be free upgrades for certain formations. Eg. A howling banshee formation could have jain zar as a free upgrade to really make it fluffy but also powerful in what it does. HQ''s taken in this manner should have area of effect buffs that only affect the units in that formation.

 ColdSadHungry wrote:
I'd like to see the rules for units changed to represent on the tabletop what is in the fluff. For example:

Take eldar aspect units. A unit of dark reapers who should be good at shooting missile launchers would have relentless and bs5 but only need to be ws3 or even 2 and 1 attack even on the charge. They don't need to be better than that in cc. The idea here is that they are fab at what they do (shooting stuff) but because they don't specialise in cc their rules there are awful. It doesn't matter that they may in the past have been something else - the rules for then as dark reapers should represent them as that aspect. I'd like to see a similar thing across all armies.

Also, formations need to have more thought put into them. Right now they just exist to make you put units on the board. Some formations such as the new flyer ones are quite good at representing what they do but others such as the guardian warhost seem to have added rules tacked on because they need to have rules.

Finally, named HQ's shouldn't have points. They should be free upgrades for certain formations. Eg. A howling banshee formation could have jain zar as a free upgrade to really make it fluffy but also powerful in what it does. HQ''s taken in this manner should have area of effect buffs that only affect the units in that formation.

Re the Dark Reapers - well the fluff that you want to reflect would be that they are skilled both in hand to hand and missile combat - Aspect Warriors are extremely effective warriors in general combat but specific in a specific area.

If you want them to be as you describe above (basically Eldar Tau) you need to change the fluff to match the rules you want them to have - which seems to eb counter to your whole point?.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ColdSadHungry wrote:
I'd like to see the rules for units changed to represent on the tabletop what is in the fluff. For example:

Take eldar aspect units. A unit of dark reapers who should be good at shooting missile launchers would have relentless and bs5 but only need to be ws3 or even 2 and 1 attack even on the charge. They don't need to be better than that in cc. The idea here is that they are fab at what they do (shooting stuff) but because they don't specialise in cc their rules there are awful. It doesn't matter that they may in the past have been something else - the rules for then as dark reapers should represent them as that aspect. I'd like to see a similar thing across all armies.

Also, formations need to have more thought put into them. Right now they just exist to make you put units on the board. Some formations such as the new flyer ones are quite good at representing what they do but others such as the guardian warhost seem to have added rules tacked on because they need to have rules.

Finally, named HQ's shouldn't have points. They should be free upgrades for certain formations. Eg. A howling banshee formation could have jain zar as a free upgrade to really make it fluffy but also powerful in what it does. HQ''s taken in this manner should have area of effect buffs that only affect the units in that formation.

Re the Dark Reapers - well the fluff that you want to reflect would be that they are skilled both in hand to hand and missile combat - Aspect Warriors are extremely effective warriors in general combat but specific in a specific area.

If you want them to be as you describe above (basically Eldar Tau) you need to change the fluff to match the rules you want them to have - which seems to eb counter to your whole point?.

I know what you're saying but then we have problems like we do now where eldar are too powerful. They wouldn't be eldar tau though because they would have cc specialists too. They'd have specialists in every area and they'd all be great at one aspect which would force the player to pick and choose his battles. At the moment an eldar aspect is far too flexible in what it can do. I was just trying to think of a way to allow them to remain powerful in keeping with their fluff but also reduce the overall power level of the army...

I would love to see Tanks become really, really, hard to kill again and HP's be removed.

Glancing hits become none lethal

Area terrain becomes a thing again

Strength D becomes stupidly powerful - IE it will kill any none SH/GMC in one hit, no dice rolls needed BUT it becomes really rare and is limited to only a few vehicles/units. No more D flamer Eldar for instance

No more formations

Eldar, Tau and Marines receive a nerfbat to the face

 ColdSadHungry wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ColdSadHungry wrote:
I'd like to see the rules for units changed to represent on the tabletop what is in the fluff. For example:

Take eldar aspect units. A unit of dark reapers who should be good at shooting missile launchers would have relentless and bs5 but only need to be ws3 or even 2 and 1 attack even on the charge. They don't need to be better than that in cc. The idea here is that they are fab at what they do (shooting stuff) but because they don't specialise in cc their rules there are awful. It doesn't matter that they may in the past have been something else - the rules for then as dark reapers should represent them as that aspect. I'd like to see a similar thing across all armies.

Also, formations need to have more thought put into them. Right now they just exist to make you put units on the board. Some formations such as the new flyer ones are quite good at representing what they do but others such as the guardian warhost seem to have added rules tacked on because they need to have rules.

Finally, named HQ's shouldn't have points. They should be free upgrades for certain formations. Eg. A howling banshee formation could have jain zar as a free upgrade to really make it fluffy but also powerful in what it does. HQ''s taken in this manner should have area of effect buffs that only affect the units in that formation.

Re the Dark Reapers - well the fluff that you want to reflect would be that they are skilled both in hand to hand and missile combat - Aspect Warriors are extremely effective warriors in general combat but specific in a specific area.

If you want them to be as you describe above (basically Eldar Tau) you need to change the fluff to match the rules you want them to have - which seems to eb counter to your whole point?.

I know what you're saying but then we have problems like we do now where eldar are too powerful. They wouldn't be eldar tau though because they would have cc specialists too. They'd have specialists in every area and they'd all be great at one aspect which would force the player to pick and choose his battles. At the moment an eldar aspect is far too flexible in what it can do. I was just trying to think of a way to allow them to remain powerful in keeping with their fluff but also reduce the overall power level of the army...

Hmm the other way is to make the units like the fluff and point them appropriately - but then Elite units like the Aspect warriors and Astartes would be a lot more expensive and lot less common.

What I meant by the Eldar Tau thing was that the Dark Reapers would be the equivalent of Tau - good at shooting and Usually (with the exception of Riptides and the like) not very good in h-t-H.

If you want to make say Dark Reapers only missile specialists - you do need to change the fluff and have something along the lines of them being so focussed on shooting that they neglect to study close combat. Its not how I see them but you could do it, but you have to change the fluff to match the new table top unit.

Dark Reapers have no Overwatch and 1 S3 attack for 25-30ppm. I'd say that's bad at cc.

Get rid of formations.

I have a crazy idea - what if all the imperial forces were merged into a single army?

Imperial Guard would compose of the main bulk of the army, and one could add small detachments of marines, SoB, etc to supplement the IG force to represent specialized assistance. There would be pages that cover each of the main SM chapters and regiments, and an army list for forces of the admech.

Think of the 3.5 Chaos codex, how there were fluffy rules for each of the traitor legions, and the alternate army lists could be found in 6th WHFB army books, such as the southlands army.

That sounds horrid. Every IoM player would have to buy a book WAY more expensive just to continue playing. It would make the Codex system seem perfect.

I'm not talking about something that's BRB sized.
The 3.5 chaos book was also thicker than average, iirc.

If you think about it, the current codices only really have a few pages worth of rules, and some of the entries are modified versions of other entries, something that could be summed up with a single page. Like in Chaos 3.5.

The current books are overpriced. The Necron codex is laughable, with barely a few pages of fluff that basically sums up the fluff from the 5th ed book, some rule entries and a bunch of pictures and pages on formations.
Which is a horrible, unbalanced mechanic that's basically pay to win and has no strategic element of list building other than "follow this guide --> ??? -> profit (for GW)"

Well defined intuitive rules written for the current game play.
Not another re-hash of WHFB based rules years after everyone knows they just do not work well for 40k..

No Allies. Just no.

Inquisition, GK, SOB and Assassins should be merged.

AM and MT should be merged.

DA and BA should be given the BT treatment (gonna get hate for this)

Eldar should have limited D weapons.

Chaos get more renegade cultists units.

Cptn_Cronssant wrote:
No Allies. Just no.

This prevents mechanics work-arounds. I know I'm burying myself with this a little, but Black Templars being able to ally with psykers circumvents their Lost Librarius Chapter Tactic (thus making it an effectively useless Chapter Tactic); which shouldn't happen.

Cptn_Cronssant wrote:
Inquisition, GK, SOB and Assassins should be merged.

I can't get behind that mainly because if they're merged, so will their codeces into one codex. What if I only want to play GK? Do I really need to pay for material I don't need (e.g. fluff, units, etc for SOB)?

Cptn_Cronssant wrote:
DA and BA should be given the BT treatment (gonna get hate for this)

Yep, you are haha. BT got shafted by that move, and the fact that not only do they not have their own supplement for 7th but also got next to nothing in the Angels of Death supplement means they've really been thrown under the bus. The DA and BA don't need that sort of treatment.

Rather than Inq, GK, SoB and Assassins being merged into 1 dex, they should go back to the old Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters (and with Deathwatch in a few months, Xenos Hunters combining them, Xenos Inquisitors & Warbands and Assassins).

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Rather than Inq, GK, SoB and Assassins being merged into 1 dex, they should go back to the old Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters (and with Deathwatch in a few months, Xenos Hunters combining them, Xenos Inquisitors & Warbands and Assassins).

Agree. All that fracturing of content should just stop .

 Limeblossom wrote:

Agree. All that fracturing of content should just stop .

8th ed. codices:

-Loyal Marines (all of them)
-Eldar (includes Dark Eldar and Harlequin books as well)
-Chaos (one giant feth off book of daemons and marines and all sorts of stuff)
-AdMech
-"Guard"

And the rest (tau, necrons, nids) are all pretty much contained in one book already and haven't really splintered much so, they're OK.... except I'd nerf the hell out of necrons.

Copy-pasted from my post in another thread:

I'd divide 40k into 4 different game types (and I'm aware that most of these are already/were once a thing):

100-500 pts is Kill Team, a unit-level squad combat game

500-1500 pts is Skirmish, standard FOC-type detachments only. No Formations. No SHVs, GMCs, etc.

1500-2500 pts is Warzone, Formations cost points, and LoW is limited to 25% of points total, otherwise this is the gametype we currently have.

2500+ pts is Apocalypse, More or less anything goes here as far as list building. This is purely for fun.

Serious question.

How do they even balance Eldar? Do they bring up all other armies to their level or do they nerf the hell out of them?

I'm sure a lot of people have spent a lot of money on buying up Eldar just to play the most broken army to win but yeah, how does that work if Eldar just get nerfed into oblivion? Or is that highly unlikely to happen?

We were discussing this in another thread.

Eldar don't really need the "hell nerfed out of them".

Their dominance comes from a handful of mathematical phenomena.

Some fixes:

Windrider: stays troop, stays 3+, stays relentless, but scatterlaser is +20 pts and shuricannon is +13 pts.

Wraithknight: 400 pt base

Wraithguard: under discussion, but a points increase or weapon degrade

Eldar have many other units that are too good for their points, but not so good that it can't be overcome. It's really the synergy between scatterbikes killing AV 12 and infantry and cheap WKs killing everything else.

 WulfenClaw wrote:

I'm sure a lot of people have spent a lot of money on buying up Eldar just to play the most broken army to win but yeah, how does that work if Eldar just get nerfed into oblivion? Or is that highly unlikely to happen?

Elder have always be good because GW was never able to balance them against the rest (in the worst days, they were just "giood" or playable, while others are just really bad).

In general, this is nothing new and happens with every new codex/edition coming out
It is how GW sells stuff.

Of course something will happen with Eldar. Have you ever seen an Eldar list witrh 3 Night Spinner lately or Orks being a top tournament army?
If GW already sold enough WK, expect them to get nerfed, if not they will get a buff and or Eldar become just a good army and something else get into first place instead.

1. Get rid of AV and give everything Toughness and a save.

2. Cut back prevalence of AP 2 by half.

3. Stop stacking multiple USR on one unit. If you have ignores cover you also don't get AP2 or armorbane etc.

4. Per 3 above stop allowing some units to do everything. Units should serve one specific role and thats it. Forcing more diverse armies.

5. Go back to only troops can secure objectives.

Just some things off the top of my head.

PS. I guess what I really want to see is only one layer of USR. There shouldn't be USR to counter other USR. There should be no ceramite plating to counter Melta. No eternal warrior to counter ID. No cover saves given to units as a rule. Cover is literally only available after taking cover in terrain.

I am just frustrated with convolution of the game. Too many rules and rules that counter rules unless you have this other rule.

I'd like to see a radical streamlining of rules and then Codices, back to 3E total rules volume. GW doesn't need to go as far as AoS did (although it'd be nice!), but folding all of the similar things together would be a great start.

I want to see them push the envelope further with more formations, detachments and rules bloat. I also want to see D strength Bolters.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I want to see them push the envelope further with more formations, detachments and rules bloat. I also want to see D strength Bolters.

That's weak. As an IG player, I'd want S(D) lasguns...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I want to see them push the envelope further with more formations, detachments and rules bloat. I also want to see D strength Bolters.

That's weak. As an IG player, I'd want S(D) lasguns...

Not S(DD) Lasguns?

Lasguns rapid-fire up to 12"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


8th ed. codices:

-Loyal Marines (all of them)
-Eldar (includes Dark Eldar and Harlequin books as well)
-Chaos (one giant feth off book of daemons and marines and all sorts of stuff)
-AdMech
-"Guard"

And the rest (tau, necrons, nids) are all pretty much contained in one book already and haven't really splintered much so, they're OK.... except I'd nerf the hell out of necrons.

No problem for me. Chaos was combined too .
I don't think that Necrons should be nerfed. If it's good, don't ruin it.

Martel732 wrote:


Wraithknight: 400 pt base

Personally, I'd separate out the weapon profiles. WK base, with sword could be 350 (slightly more points than a Knight Gallant, but most people will admit, WK is a better unit in CC than Gallant), the light guns, I'm not sure maybe 375 like the other Knights? D-cannon WK being 425 like the
Crusader?

As for outright nerfing Eldar, perhaps it may actually be as easy as changing how Psychic powers work again... Perhaps, if certain keywords in psychic powers were resolved during the shooting phase would help out armies with surviving an Eldar army.



@Limeblossom, IMO, something really needs to give with reanimation protocols because, as it stands, just about the only weapon I've had success at consistently removing infantry models, is D weapons. Perhaps it needs to go back to a single roll per phase or something, instead of being FNP+

No LoW outside of apocalypse.

No allies matrix.

Buff to Nids, Orks, CSM and DEldar

Nerf to Crons (or at least the Decurion), Eldar and Tau

No IK outside of apocalypse.

New Codices for every army.

Roll BA into vanilla marines.

Bring back the FAC

No more detachments but keep formations.

Cptn_Cronssant wrote:
No LoW outside of apocalypse.

Didn't realise Logan and Dante were that cheesy...