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'm on the "whatever" fence. 7th is silly now with the imbalance, i started in 6th and don't remember it being this bad, ever. CSM and Nids could rival other armies okay outside of cheese.

I'd rather take the risk with 8th than keep on with this mess. Even if it ends up worse with a flyer phase etc, least it'll push the locals to house rule.

Remove Look Out Sir. 1 IC per unit. Can not join jump/beast/bikes/MCs etc together.

+1T for bikes shouldn't be a thing. No 3+sv jetbikes.

As said GC, SH, Apoc stuff limited to 2k+ pts.

Run n charge, consolidation charges, hull points, smash atks, etc need addressing. Grav, Haywire, D, need lookin at.

The FOC. Formations. Practically unbound.

I'd be happy with picking psychic powers, but obviously certain powers should be WC3, others 2, etc.

Endless list goes on. But i don't think it needs a full rewrite. Still being a mostly casual player now due to how boring 40k tourny armies are now, 8th couldn't come soon enough whatever it brings.

I am caught between these two sayings:

"Hope springs eternal."

and

"'Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

I would just like a lot more choice and less random for random sake.
That is why list building is such a focus: it is the only thing you can be sure of.

Sadly, GW is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The rules are not perfect, and neither is the community. MANY of the things that make 40k broken, are not directly GW's fault (Yes, they wrote the rules, but no, they were not the ones who abused them.), but by the player base themselves. Point in case: no where does it say you MUST take scatter lasers on every bike, or that you MUST bring 3 riptides to casual games, or that you NEED to play the 'joke' tau list at 700 points with a tau'nar.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ManSandwich wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Footslogging combat will not be viable until the power creep is beheaded.

some minor changes could go a long way to restoring footslogging..or any really.. power back into close combat.

6+D6" run move would be a start. More ways to mitigate overwatch, or just a removal of overwatch would be better.

That'd help a lot, I agree. I'd also like to see a return of the ol' 2+ to hit chance in CC, to me it seems like a needless de-clawing of elite melee troops. WS5 Khorne Berserkers are no more likely to hit a grot than a WS3 guardsman and that's disgusting.

Unrelated note but I kind of wish they'd get rid of the four power weapon variations too, having to decide between aesthetics and crunch really breaks my little heart, especially because taking power maces in Heresy is hilariously useless.

its doubly amusing because, with real weapons, a heavy mace is exactly what you would use against a heavily armored opponent, not a sword or axe, which really are terrible againdt heavy armor.

Yeah I'd love to use maces on my marines along with axes. Weapons that concentrate their impact on a small area would be much more effective in power armoured violence.

The stats are all messed up anyway, swords produce the most lethal wounds of the three types but are the only one that don't have a strength modifier. I feel like they've gone off of a DnD rulebook to decide weapon stats.

 Brennonjw wrote:
Sadly, GW is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The rules are not perfect, and neither is the community. MANY of the things that make 40k broken, are not directly GW's fault (Yes, they wrote the rules, but no, they were not the ones who abused them.), but by the player base themselves. Point in case: no where does it say you MUST take scatter lasers on every bike, or that you MUST bring 3 riptides to casual games, or that you NEED to play the 'joke' tau list at 700 points with a tau'nar.

If the game allows it, people will do it. Especially in a tabletop wargame which, despite its "forge the narrative" ethos, is still fundamentally rooted in pickup/competitive play. If they dont want people doing it, the way you tell them that is to write the rules to not allow it. When they concsiously chose to allow all jetbikes to take a heavy wealon, they did so to allow people to run as many heavy weapons as they wanted, or the would have just left it at the one for three it was previously.

We can be irritated at players who do take advantage of these rules, but ultimately it is GW's fault and responsibility for allowi ng it.

 Brennonjw wrote:
Sadly, GW is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The rules are not perfect, and neither is the community. MANY of the things that make 40k broken, are not directly GW's fault (Yes, they wrote the rules, but no, they were not the ones who abused them.), but by the player base themselves. Point in case: no where does it say you MUST take scatter lasers on every bike, or that you MUST bring 3 riptides to casual games, or that you NEED to play the 'joke' tau list at 700 points with a tau'nar.

So how long have you worked for GW?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
Sadly, GW is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The rules are not perfect, and neither is the community. MANY of the things that make 40k broken, are not directly GW's fault (Yes, they wrote the rules, but no, they were not the ones who abused them.), but by the player base themselves. Point in case: no where does it say you MUST take scatter lasers on every bike, or that you MUST bring 3 riptides to casual games, or that you NEED to play the 'joke' tau list at 700 points with a tau'nar.

If the game allows it, people will do it. Especially in a tabletop wargame which, despite its "forge the narrative" ethos, is still fundamentally rooted in pickup/competitive play. If they dont want people doing it, the way you tell them that is to write the rules to not allow it. When they concsiously chose to allow all jetbikes to take a heavy wealon, they did so to allow people to run as many heavy weapons as they wanted, or the would have just left it at the one for three it was previously.

We can be irritated at players who do take advantage of these rules, but ultimately it is GW's fault and responsibility for allowi ng it.

true enough, but I still feel that the blame should be split both directions: GW for allowing it, and the player base (not everyone, mind you) for abusing it.

 ManSandwich wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
Sadly, GW is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The rules are not perfect, and neither is the community. MANY of the things that make 40k broken, are not directly GW's fault (Yes, they wrote the rules, but no, they were not the ones who abused them.), but by the player base themselves. Point in case: no where does it say you MUST take scatter lasers on every bike, or that you MUST bring 3 riptides to casual games, or that you NEED to play the 'joke' tau list at 700 points with a tau'nar.

So how long have you worked for GW?

 Brennonjw wrote:

true enough, but I still feel that the blame should be split both directions: GW for allowing it, and the player base (not everyone, mind you) for abusing it.

The problem is that abuse is not a strictly defined term. Where is the line? Blaming the players comes with the complicated part of trying to define what is abuse and what isn't.

Blaming everything on the devs comes with no such problems. If there's a fault with the game, its because the devs made a mistake, not because a player wants to play with some cool models that happen to be powerful.

So no, don't blame the players because its essentially you saying to stop having fun in a way you don't like.

The problems aren't even limited to people purposefully abusing the rules.

Imagine a pair of friends were just getting into the game and innocently picked up a box of start collecting Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines or Eldar respectively.

The guy with the CSMs is just not going to be on equal footing.

Power weapons piecing ALL armor was such a a simplistic design. I much prefer individual AP values for classes of melee weapons. If each shooting weapon has this, why not melee weapons?

Because assault is already a complicated mess and the game needs more simplification, not less.

Plus, it was a boost to assault, something I figure you'd be fond of.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Power weapons piecing ALL armor was such a a simplistic design. I much prefer individual AP values for classes of melee weapons. If each shooting weapon has this, why not melee weapons?

I actually liked AoS design. Weapons were either normal or Mortal wounds. Mortal could only be saved against by a ward, or invuln.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Power weapons piecing ALL armor was such a a simplistic design. I much prefer individual AP values for classes of melee weapons. If each shooting weapon has this, why not melee weapons?

I actually liked AoS design. Weapons were either normal or Mortal wounds. Mortal could only be saved against by a ward, or invuln.

Soooo... old power weapons then?

 ManSandwich wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Power weapons piecing ALL armor was such a a simplistic design. I much prefer individual AP values for classes of melee weapons. If each shooting weapon has this, why not melee weapons?

I actually liked AoS design. Weapons were either normal or Mortal wounds. Mortal could only be saved against by a ward, or invuln.

Soooo... old power weapons then?

Sure.

Dont listun to dem. Dey iz jus stoopid humies! If dey dont liek da rulz dey can maek 'em liek da old rulz! Nowon complane! Complane an' I smash'n'bash yur face to bits! Not liek old warhammurs gonn! Old warhammurs still der!

BORK DA ORK wrote:
Dont listun to dem. Dey iz jus stoopid humies! If dey dont liek da rulz dey can maek 'em liek da old rulz! Nowon complane! Complane an' I smash'n'bash yur face to bits! Not liek old warhammurs gonn! Old warhammurs still der!

Its kind of humourous to occasionally speak in Ork when its relevant, but doing in every single reply is just tedious, especially if it adds nothing to the discussion.

I look forward to finding out if Sisters of Battle will share the fate of Dark Elves.

After 8+ years of waiting for an update, I think it would be a relief even to have Sororitas squatted, just so I can finally quit WH40k tabletop entirely and save a ton of space and money.

I'm open to 8th ed. I personally would like to see:

- Less randomness, maybe just picking the Warlord traits and strategies you want instead of rolling or drawing cards for them, I could see more variety of lists and builds with this concept.

- Overhaul on the Psychic phase: In my experiance you either take 7+ Psykers or none at all. To me its just so one-sided its not even funny.

- I like point limitations to certain units although I doubt it will come back but anything is possible

It is a fallacy to blame the users of the game system.
If some players "push it to the max" that is normal for anything that is a competition (you know, win or lose).
If someone is by the rules able to play their OP "cave face" list, that is a rules problem not a user problem.
Anyway, anything above will only change if the rules are made tighter and no use of informal wording to sound friendly but makes the rules vague.

Would it be the actual rules that are the issue or more-so the accompanying Codex's that choose to make their own rules for each faction?
I started off being impressed with 6th edition wanting to list all the special rules within the big rule book but then that went south quickly.

Most games use combinations of "rock-paper-scissors" where one unit has a hard time with another: no unit should be the best at all things (or impervious to harm as it gets to do what it is best at). The Eldar and Tau have been rather successful in amassing a fair number of units that fall in the category of good for all situations though some marine formations are this way.

A hard look at restricting how say a psycher visiting from another codex can then use their abilities on another needs to be done.
Some of the unholy alliances in a list are not quite as bad as the powers and abilities they bring with them.

LESS RANDOM! I cannot stress more. A general or psycher not knowing what skills/powers they have until the day of battle is rather funny and irritating all at once.
I understand that to simulate war you need to add some uncertainty but at least a nod of the head to statistical odds would be nice.

We seem to have moved to an "objective scavenger hunt" as the game of choice since again: we do love our random.
At least it makes it difficult to list tailor but falling back on killing the enemy as fast as possible is still viable.

I would like to see them CAREFULLY continue the idea of creating formations (balanced, appropriately costed!) that do not allow any abilities or powers to extend beyond the formation.
I would see that as a viable future for the game no matter most core rule changes they make to the game.

Removing many of the "fussy" time wasters would be nice like "apply the wound to the closest model" and "fun" mechanics of that nature.

I guess we wait and see.
If the books are not looking good to GW, putting out a new ruleset is always a winner.

Games Workshop is a company that, in terms of gaming, will always be at odds with itself. A game system cannot hope for balance in a dynamic setting. Can you imagine playing a game of chess, except when it was first released there were only pawns and the king? Then black got knights. Then white got rooks. Then white got a queen. Then black got bishops. Then black got the rules changed for knights. Then they added a yellow and blue side, but blue had all rooks and yellow had all knights. You get the idea.

A game is never really balanced or fair, but it should be the skill of the players that determines this. Tennis is a fair and balanced game. Pitting Roddick against a 10 year old that just started playing is not a fair match up, but the game is still inherently fair and balanced. They each have the same set of rules to follow, they each score points in the same manner, and only their skills and abilities as athletes will determine who wins.

40k, in general, has rarely been a game in which the skills and abilities of the general wielding the army has been a deciding factor. The game itself has different rules for different armies. Different armies have varying degrees of access to certain items, come with different restrictions, and yet all fall into a catch-all "point system" to be perceived as balanced.

To which some decry "it is totally fair, this plasmagun is 15 points no matter which army uses it!" True, but is it really fair to consider a static point value for a weapon that is infinitely deadlier in the hands of BS6+ models than in the hands of an ork?

The point system is incorrect, random abilities at large do not make sense, the flow of the game (I do everything, then you do everything) is heavily biased, and the opportunities for fundamental battle tactics to actually play a role in the outcome of a battle are nearly non-existent.

While it can be said that all of this can be fixed among gaming groups and local tournaments with house rules and homebrews, I say to you no, that is not a solution; that is a band-aid. One of the most satisfying aspects of the game, of any wargame really, is the ability to gather my models, head down to where ever I may well please, and find someone new to play a game with, knowing that we can agree on a points limit alone, and the rest will fall into place (regardless of what we field on the tabletop) for a grand battle of hilarity, fun, excitement, and a unique sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

I have not had that feeling playing 40k for many, many years (win or lose), and I long for a time in which it may come to pass again.

 Aipoch wrote:
Games Workshop is a company that, in terms of gaming, will always be at odds with itself. A game system cannot hope for balance in a dynamic setting. Can you imagine playing a game of chess, except when it was first released there were only pawns and the king? Then black got knights. Then white got rooks. Then white got a queen. Then black got bishops. Then black got the rules changed for knights. Then they added a yellow and blue side, but blue had all rooks and yellow had all knights. You get the idea.

A game is never really balanced or fair, but it should be the skill of the players that determines this. Tennis is a fair and balanced game. Pitting Roddick against a 10 year old that just started playing is not a fair match up, but the game is still inherently fair and balanced. They each have the same set of rules to follow, they each score points in the same manner, and only their skills and abilities as athletes will determine who wins.

40k, in general, has rarely been a game in which the skills and abilities of the general wielding the army has been a deciding factor. The game itself has different rules for different armies. Different armies have varying degrees of access to certain items, come with different restrictions, and yet all fall into a catch-all "point system" to be perceived as balanced.

To which some decry "it is totally fair, this plasmagun is 15 points no matter which army uses it!" True, but is it really fair to consider a static point value for a weapon that is infinitely deadlier in the hands of BS6+ models than in the hands of an ork?

The point system is incorrect, random abilities at large do not make sense, the flow of the game (I do everything, then you do everything) is heavily biased, and the opportunities for fundamental battle tactics to actually play a role in the outcome of a battle are nearly non-existent.

While it can be said that all of this can be fixed among gaming groups and local tournaments with house rules and homebrews, I say to you no, that is not a solution; that is a band-aid. One of the most satisfying aspects of the game, of any wargame really, is the ability to gather my models, head down to where ever I may well please, and find someone new to play a game with, knowing that we can agree on a points limit alone, and the rest will fall into place (regardless of what we field on the tabletop) for a grand battle of hilarity, fun, excitement, and a unique sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

I have not had that feeling playing 40k for many, many years (win or lose), and I long for a time in which it may come to pass again.

That sounds terribly dull for playing with friends. If I have two friends and one of them just isn't as good as me he'd never win. Basing the game on luck as much as skill ensures that everyone has a chance to win, which is really what you want for a game like this. The game will never be perfectly balanced but as long as everyone has at least a decent chance of winning that's good enough. If you remove luck from the equation the game would become even more reliant on you playing the right army and using the right list, which is only really fun for people who play only to win.

7th has its issues, specifically D-weapons and incredible firepower in some armies, super heavies, point imbalances, and possibly flyers. Experienced players can correct for that, but it's a problem for newbs. A newbie CSM, 'Nid, Ork, or IG player will quickly become disillusioned after getting his face pounded repeatedly by Tau, Eldar, SMs, and Necrons, with victory not even a remote possibility.

Even experienced players are going to have problems with lots of those things, especially if trying to play something even minimally adherent to the background. A CSM player with a decade of experience can get pounded flat by a newbie running Eldar or Necrons relatively easily simply because the fundamental math and unit functionality is so far in favor of the newbie that skill plays a very small part. It's even worse if that experienced player is trying to run something like a Tsons army.

 ManSandwich wrote:


That sounds terribly dull for playing with friends. If I have two friends and one of them just isn't as good as me he'd never win. Basing the game on luck as much as skill ensures that everyone has a chance to win, which is really what you want for a game like this. The game will never be perfectly balanced but as long as everyone has at least a decent chance of winning that's good enough. If you remove luck from the equation the game would become even more reliant on you playing the right army and using the right list, which is only really fun for people who play only to win.

If you just want a silly game for funsies that allows a RNG to determine the winner, there are far better and dramatically cheaper games that are purpose built for that which will give you a far better experience. A tabletop wargame is a poor place to toss out skill as a determinant for victory.

 ManSandwich wrote:
That sounds terribly dull for playing with friends. If I have two friends and one of them just isn't as good as me he'd never win. Basing the game on luck as much as skill ensures that everyone has a chance to win, which is really what you want for a game like this. The game will never be perfectly balanced but as long as everyone has at least a decent chance of winning that's good enough. If you remove luck from the equation the game would become even more reliant on you playing the right army and using the right list, which is only really fun for people who play only to win.

If you have two friends, and one of them isn't as good as you, AND he never gets better over time and playing more, then no they would probably never win; is that really your fault though? The odds of that happening, assuming he or she is a fairly normal individual capable of learning from mistakes and taking in fresh ideas, seems rather unlikely. Anything anyone is ever really great at (savants and prodigies aside) comes from experience, practice, and learning. Would you help them after each loss, teach them some new tricks or tactics? If it's 40k we're playing, does it seem more likely that you tell them "Yeah, sorry, that army is just crap right now...have you thought about buying a new one? Or allying in this unit/detachment/formation/new hotness that is completely random but absolutely amazing in the rules?"

The game wouldn't fundamentally change, as in there would still be lots and lots of dice rolls. That in and of itself is more than enough "luck" for the games I've played. At least to me, luck (be it good or bad) is simply when something does (or doesn't) happen when it was highly unlikely to (or not to). From failing multiple 2+ saves to hitting like wildfire on 6+ shots, the game has plenty of chances for lucky hot streaks and cold streaks.

As for the right army/list, that comes down to the heinous error in the points system as it currently is. The idea of playing a game with any other purpose than to win redefines what it is you are doing; it isn't so much a game as it is just an activity at that point. A game, be it one of pure luck or absolute skill, still has defined goal(s). Checkmate the opposing king, get a line of 3 X's or O's, highest hand, highest card, closest to the bullseye, longest jump from the mark, fastest time, farthest distance, etc. That being said, I do prefer the tabletop game with goals more interesting than "blast your opponents army to little bits before they do it to you". Take and hold objectives, zone control, capture the flag runs, assassination, survival waves, and numerous other objectives to secure, with the added enjoyment of blasting my opponent in the process. That's my personal cup of tea, and finding new ways to do it each game.

Aye, playing a non-meta army is just not fun at all. Especially when I compare my Guard to things like Skittari and the like.