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.

jreilly89 wrote:Oh, one other thing: Plasma. Make it actually fething useful, instead of hurting myself.

I never take Plasma. Grav does the same thing (usually), only better and I never risk hurting myself.

Ditto. Grav has almost completely replaced plasma in my lists. The only reason plasma is still in them at all is because of my Ravenwing Knights.

Vaktathi wrote:The game fundamentally needs a total ground-up reboot at this point, probably even more drastic than the 3E reboot. Wipe the rules in their entirety and restart from scratch, with a clearer vision of scale and power level. There's no salvaging 7th.

Incremental change is better than systemic change. GW could do numerous things to the rules that would have overall beneficial results without doing a system reboot. Get rid of either Walkers or MCs, improve vehicle surviveability, condense and clean up special rules, make assault more viable, get rid of or majorly tone down Allies...there's plenty they can do without wiping the slate clean to start over.

Besides, it's not like GW did that good a job in the 2nd-to-3rd transition. 3rd ed was horrendously unbalanced.

All I want to see is Ogryns and rough riders at least somewhat useful. I'm not asking for them to be top tier cheese or anything, just at least not a complete waste of points if you want to use them for fun porpuses.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

jreilly89 wrote:Oh, one other thing: Plasma. Make it actually fething useful, instead of hurting myself.

I never take Plasma. Grav does the same thing (usually), only better and I never risk hurting myself.

Ditto. Grav has almost completely replaced plasma in my lists. The only reason plasma is still in them at all is because of my Ravenwing Knights.

Vaktathi wrote:The game fundamentally needs a total ground-up reboot at this point, probably even more drastic than the 3E reboot. Wipe the rules in their entirety and restart from scratch, with a clearer vision of scale and power level. There's no salvaging 7th.

Incremental change is better than systemic change. GW could do numerous things to the rules that would have overall beneficial results without doing a system reboot. Get rid of either Walkers or MCs, improve vehicle surviveability, condense and clean up special rules, make assault more viable, get rid of or majorly tone down Allies...there's plenty they can do without wiping the slate clean to start over.

Besides, it's not like GW did that good a job in the 2nd-to-3rd transition. 3rd ed was horrendously unbalanced.

For me your comment really illustrates just how difficult a road GW is gonna have for themselves. I think improving vehicle survivability (and changes to stunnes and immobilized) would solve the walker/MC issue and still let them be different things with different strengths.

As for assault, certain setups right now are so crazy strong that improving assault as a whole would destroy the game. I think people think assault sucks because they keep trying to get Tyranid warriors or Khorne berserkers or other bad assault units across the table when they just can't. The units that ARE good in assault are so good it makes playing against them incredibly frustrating. Properly starred up Khorne dogs, screamers, Thunderwolves, ironhand command squads, dark angels superfriends, Wulfen and a few others are so bad to go against for people who aren'y ready for them that you get people quitting the game all together. Getting rid of allies won't stop all of those stars either.

Side Note: Assault, as it is now, is easily the worst most boring part of the game. At least in the psychic phase I get to make decisions. Assault is slow and fiddley and 99% of all combats are decided before they even start. If your models have worse numbers than their models the best you can hope for is to survive long enough to irritate your opponent as much as you've been irritated having to go through the motions when we both know exactly how 10 khorne dogs charging 10 SoB is gonna go.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

jreilly89 wrote:Oh, one other thing: Plasma. Make it actually fething useful, instead of hurting myself.

I never take Plasma. Grav does the same thing (usually), only better and I never risk hurting myself.

Ditto. Grav has almost completely replaced plasma in my lists. The only reason plasma is still in them at all is because of my Ravenwing Knights.

Vaktathi wrote:The game fundamentally needs a total ground-up reboot at this point, probably even more drastic than the 3E reboot. Wipe the rules in their entirety and restart from scratch, with a clearer vision of scale and power level. There's no salvaging 7th.

Incremental change is better than systemic change. GW could do numerous things to the rules that would have overall beneficial results without doing a system reboot. Get rid of either Walkers or MCs, improve vehicle surviveability, condense and clean up special rules, make assault more viable, get rid of or majorly tone down Allies...there's plenty they can do without wiping the slate clean to start over.

the problem is that theyve incrementally changed the core ruleset to death, we're on the 5th version of the same ruleset and arguably the least balanced and hardest to learn, and with all the power ramp up they've introduced, there's no good way to tone that down through product releases that wont take the lifespan of another edition anyway, and a sharp break will help realign player expectations in power levels better (as the game will be a blank slate) than a gradual change that clings to elements that nobody can ever quite seem to kill off.

Besides, it's not like GW did that good a job in the 2nd-to-3rd transition. 3rd ed was horrendously unbalanced.

no edition of 40k has been "well" balanced, and 3rd certainly wasnt perfect nor my favorite, but 3rd was better than 2E or 7E by a longshot.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Besides, it's not like GW did that good a job in the 2nd-to-3rd transition.

3rd ed was horrendously unbalanced.

40k 2E to 3E transitioned about as well as WFB 8E to AoS. Though that one moron burning his DE army was a pretty epic ragequit, I gotta say.

Anyhow, 40k has never been balanced, but I deny that 3E was worse than what we have today, especially if we look at everything using Rulebook lists.

I want troops to be the ONLY scoring troops ever.

And I want Terminators actually be elite troops that are feared again.

Everything should be viable, everything should be usable. That is not to say that every unit must be good at all roles, but every unit needs a defined function that, with proper synergy in an army list (single Codex), it performs its role well.

Obviously, against certain lists, certain units will be less-viable than others (ie, horde infantry vs pie-plate artillery/armor), but that is a case of bringing the wrong tools for the job, not a shortcoming of the unit itself.

As it stands right now, too many codices contain units that actively decrease your chance of winning a game by taking them, regardless of what you put them up against and, at the same time, too many codices contain auto-include units that excel at everything.

 Psienesis wrote:
Everything should be viable, everything should be usable. That is not to say that every unit must be good at all roles, but every unit needs a defined function that, with proper synergy in an army list (single Codex), it performs its role well.

Obviously, against certain lists, certain units will be less-viable than others (ie, horde infantry vs pie-plate artillery/armor), but that is a case of bringing the wrong tools for the job, not a shortcoming of the unit itself.

As it stands right now, too many codices contain units that actively decrease your chance of winning a game by taking them, regardless of what you put them up against and, at the same time, too many codices contain auto-include units that excel at everything.

This so much. We really shouldn't be using allies because all allies does is let the "units not viable" not be used. Remember when it was said some things cost less/more points because other units are not good in the codex so overall everything is pointed correctly.

I really like the ideas of having allies, only thing I don't like is that for a lot of people, they are using allies not for fluff reasons but to replace units that are not "viable" or "cost too much" or are "just plain no good" and only "cherry picking the best" out of both or more codices".

So we will need to either get rid of allies or just have like in Age of Sigmar and say armies are part of a greater "order" and can be used together then. Or if you do take units outside of your codex you loose all your benefits and you get no benefits that you would have had if you just kept to your codex.

ERJAK wrote:
As for assault, certain setups right now are so crazy strong that improving assault as a whole would destroy the game. I think people think assault sucks because they keep trying to get Tyranid warriors or Khorne berserkers or other bad assault units across the table when they just can't. The units that ARE good in assault are so good it makes playing against them incredibly frustrating. Properly starred up Khorne dogs, screamers, Thunderwolves, ironhand command squads, dark angels superfriends, Wulfen and a few others are so bad to go against for people who aren'y ready for them that you get people quitting the game all together. Getting rid of allies won't stop all of those stars either.

The assault units that currently work are fast-moving deathstars. If you're going to try and make the assault phase work, you're forced to play such a list, because it's the only way to deliver an assault unit onto target without investing huge points in an overpriced delivery system (Land Raiders) or exposing assault units to whole turns of being shot at. GW seems to realize the problem, as evidenced by formations whose benefit is to be able to assault out of Deep Strike, something that would have made people's heads explode back in earlier editions. Making assault more viable across the board while simultaneously taking steps to nerf the deathstars (gettng rid of Allies would be a big step in that direction) would be good for the overall health of the game.

Vaktathi wrote:]the problem is that theyve incrementally changed the core ruleset to death, we're on the 5th version of the same ruleset and arguably the least balanced and hardest to learn, and with all the power ramp up they've introduced, there's no good way to tone that down through product releases that wont take the lifespan of another edition anyway, and a sharp break will help realign player expectations in power levels better (as the game will be a blank slate) than a gradual change that clings to elements that nobody can ever quite seem to kill off.

I think 4th to 5th was generally seen as a positive step. 5th to 6th was more problematic, introducing flyers and superheavies to normal 40K. Thus far, flyers don't seen to have drastically altered the state of the game, but superheavies certainly have, though superheavies aren't game-breaking when taken in moderation. They only become a problem when spammed.

Besides, do we really thing GW is going to release a new set of core rules, AND have everyone's dex ready to go in short order? They didn't do that for the 2nd-to-3rd transition, and they had a much smaller amount of armies (with a much smaller selection of units) to accommodate then.

3E-4E and 4E-5E were both cleanups, basically incorporating FAQs into the main rules. Relatively minor changes from 3E-3TE-4E-5E..

6E was a major change. The biggest change before that was the 3E Trial Assault Rules. And then 2E-3E.

8th edition will shake the game up pretty hard. They'll probably make every formation and army book illegal and outdated. A new combat stat system AoS style, and a GHB/Ravenous Hordes book with all points costs for everything straight out of the box.

Might be good for the game too, but it'll be pretty hilarious to see how many people are willing to keep going once half of their 'tournament worthy' models become unusable in the new competitive setting. The amount of Eldar players will suddenly diminish by 80%.

AoS already is a better game than 40K, funnily enough, but with some improvements it could actually be a really good game. If they do that for 40K, good times might follow.

Make railgun Hammerheads better by giving them a way to inflict multiple wounds/HP without making then Str D.
Give Vespids rending or something to make them usable at all.
Give Kroot their 2 attacks back.
Entirely replace the Sun Shark and Razorshark bombers with a link to the FW Tau flyers ()
Nerf the OSC, please.

Vaktathi wrote:
]the problem is that theyve incrementally changed the core ruleset to death, we're on the 5th version of the same ruleset and arguably the least balanced and hardest to learn, and with all the power ramp up they've introduced, there's no good way to tone that down through product releases that wont take the lifespan of another edition anyway, and a sharp break will help realign player expectations in power levels better (as the game will be a blank slate) than a gradual change that clings to elements that nobody can ever quite seem to kill off.

Couldnt agree with this more.

 Therion wrote:
8th edition will shake the game up pretty hard. They'll probably make every formation and army book illegal and outdated. A new combat stat system AoS style, and a GHB/Ravenous Hordes book with all points costs for everything straight out of the box.

Might be good for the game too, but it'll be pretty hilarious to see how many people are willing to keep going once half of their 'tournament worthy' models become unusable in the new competitive setting. The amount of Eldar players will suddenly diminish by 80%.

AoS already is a better game than 40K, funnily enough, but with some improvements it could actually be a really good game. If they do that for 40K, good times might follow.

Supposedly 8E will be a major step toward AoS. As for the outdated books, I've got loads of them dating back to RT/2E, no big deal. If 8E is AoS+GHB/RH in a single, lightweight Rules+Armies book, I will be very, very happy with that. I liked playing 3E Rulebook games.

I played Eldar in 2E, I played Eldar in 3E and 4E, shelved them for 5E, and played them again in 6E and 7E. If the Eldar are nerfed too heavily, I'll switch over to Guard like I did in 5E, even tough I started the army back in 3E and have kept adding to it. Or maybe I'll revisit my SM / CSM. No big deal. If Eldar WKs get dirt cheap, I'll grab another off eBay.

AoS is a good game, and an excellent prototype for radically cleaning up an overbloated GW game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Supposedly 8E will be a major step toward AoS.

Who is saying this that we can rely on? Lady Atia? Sad Panda? I think a lot of people are just guessing or just fanning the flames to get a lot of us nerds/geeks to get our knickers tied in a knot and it's working. Unless this is from Lady Atia or Sad Panda (I think I am forgetting one more trust worthy rumour monger) I don't believe this at all.

Sadly my memory is not there any more so I can't remember if they did say this was the case or not.

Rumor mill. No clue who those people are, don't care. It's all rumors.

That said, 7E is an unplayable gakshow. If 8E is even more complex, I will refuse to play it and go back to 5E.

7E is excellent as it is. I play in many cities and we are having tons of fun with this edition both with tournament, regular play, campaigns and kill teams.

I'll never understand the hate. The complexity is one of the fun part of this game; list building is a great passtime when you want to challenge and bring something new to the table.

AoS sounds like a Dumb and Dumber mode for frustrated players who have hit the glass wall of their local meta. Hopefuly 8th ed won't ruin the game by favoring too much the taste of Pokemon amateurs.

The hate is because of the following things.
•The introduction of so much randomness that games can be won before models hit the table, and the usage of skill is impacted. I routinely roll dice to see how many dice I get to roll. (Ignoring the fact that 40k is basically rolling to see how many dice you roll to see how many dice your opponent rolls to see how many models of his/hers get removed)
•Gak balance between armies. IG are horrible, and Eldar are great. It's incredibly hard to have a fair game without 30 mins of negotiations beforehand.
•Constantly forgetting rules due to the staggering amount of them, and really weird rules interactions such as Khârn hitting invisible units, or straight up horrific failures of the writiers understanding the systems such as the 6th edition Sun Shark bomber.
•The rules are spread over many, many books. To play my Tau list, I need the BRB, Death From The Skies, the Codex, several Forgeworld rules printouts, and Warzone Damocles if I want to run my Farsight list.

With the General's Handbook, AOS currently has a better core ruleset than 40k.

Davor wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Everything should be viable, everything should be usable. That is not to say that every unit must be good at all roles, but every unit needs a defined function that, with proper synergy in an army list (single Codex), it performs its role well.

Obviously, against certain lists, certain units will be less-viable than others (ie, horde infantry vs pie-plate artillery/armor), but that is a case of bringing the wrong tools for the job, not a shortcoming of the unit itself.

As it stands right now, too many codices contain units that actively decrease your chance of winning a game by taking them, regardless of what you put them up against and, at the same time, too many codices contain auto-include units that excel at everything.

This so much. We really shouldn't be using allies because all allies does is let the "units not viable" not be used. Remember when it was said some things cost less/more points because other units are not good in the codex so overall everything is pointed correctly.

I really like the ideas of having allies, only thing I don't like is that for a lot of people, they are using allies not for fluff reasons but to replace units that are not "viable" or "cost too much" or are "just plain no good" and only "cherry picking the best" out of both or more codices".

So we will need to either get rid of allies or just have like in Age of Sigmar and say armies are part of a greater "order" and can be used together then. Or if you do take units outside of your codex you loose all your benefits and you get no benefits that you would have had if you just kept to your codex.

I like the allies idea for fluffy armies but I feel it breaks the game too much. I think it should be removed and go back to how you used allies before. You asked your opponent if it was okay to field a fluffy list with allies and if they said yes you did it and if they said no you didnt

7E has lots of complexity in the wrong places. Army building can be mind bogglingly complex, and the insane number of random rolls and tables eats up game time. Actual gameplay is extremely shallow and simplistic, with risks increasingly reduced (see Dangerous Terrain, Reserves, Deep Strike mishaps, etc) and power levels spiked dramatically over previous editions, all the complexity comes in army building and following the rules rather than the tactical challenge of engaging the opponent, which are barriers to play and results of poor game design.

Yes army building can be fun. When it costs several thousand dollara to legally obtain copies of all current rules including codex books, imperial armor books, rulebooks, supplements, dataslates, White Dwarfs, etc, few of which are designed to be used together in ways the rules allow for, this turns army building into something of a farcical exercise. The insane balance issues layered on top with absurdly powerful books like Eldar competing with fractured factions like AdMech or Scions and hilariously underpowered books like DE and IG, further cheapens the joke.

7E has killed the pickup game and my playgroup, which has people that have been playing since 2E and RT, has basically been killed off by the insanity of this edition.

Sluggfest wrote:
7E is excellent as it is.

You're playing 7E RAW, no house rules? Mysterious Terrain, Mysterious Objectives, straight Maelstrom? Really?

Dreadnoughts. I love the damn things, but they're too fragile.

 kronk wrote:
Dreadnoughts. I love the damn things, but they're too fragile.

Mine are all metal, and they are pinned solid, so not fragile at all.

They could be more competitive, but I like my Eldar Dreadnoughts better, so things are fine right now.

I'd like to see a solid, well-designed ruleset with all the fluff in a separate book, the rules written for clarity instead of in conversational English, a well-defined and consistently-used set of key terms, the rules themselves designed for quick, smooth gameplay, and an absolute minimum of dice-rolling (things like randomly generating your psykers' spells every game are completely absurd).

 kronk wrote:
Dreadnoughts. I love the damn things, but they're too fragile.

I would love to see Melee Dreads actually usable, I would even give to have 5th edition shooty dreads back!

 Jaxler wrote:


Make all the power armored grey Knights less expensive. Make paladins cost less than custodians please.

Paladins should be 100pts each, custodes should be 300pts each, those should be things of legends, not something, some shmuck can deploy a whole army of it on the table...

Less expensives Paladins will happen when Defilers becomes 50pts a pieces and Daemons units are free...

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:


Make all the power armored grey Knights less expensive. Make paladins cost less than custodians please.

Paladins should be 100pts each, custodes should be 300pts each, those should be things of legends, not something, some shmuck can deploy a whole army of it on the table...

Less expensives Paladins will happen when Defilers becomes 50pts a pieces and Daemons units are free...

Do you propose increasing the price of ALL units? If so, then I guess I can get behind it? But if not... Why?

He wants to go back to 2E points costs? OK, fair enough.

Eh, Paladins at 100pts each in 4E wouldn't have been too far off

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:


Make all the power armored grey Knights less expensive. Make paladins cost less than custodians please.

Paladins should be 100pts each, custodes should be 300pts each, those should be things of legends, not something, some shmuck can deploy a whole army of it on the table...

Less expensives Paladins will happen when Defilers becomes 50pts a pieces and Daemons units are free...

O.o

Custodes? In the TTG? Are WH40k battles taking place in the Imperial Palace on Terra now?