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.

This is a follow up question to that of "If 40k 8th drops and disappoints will you stay with 7th or what else will you do?"

The way I see it 40k could go one of two broad directions:

A) 40k 7th but with refinements (faqs and errata) such that it played essentially the same way and did not break existing codices, expansions and campaign supplements.

B) Radical reboot as in the manner that AoS was on WFB. Totally different game play (for better or worse) but with the catch that all existing codices, expansions and campaign supplements are rendered void and useless.

Some of us have spent non-trivial sums on codices, expansions and campaign supplements. If you didn't think 7th rules were too terrible then that will be a big loss if they are shortly to become obsolete.

On the other hand if you are desperate for a radical change in the game and don't have a substantial investment in existing rules material then option B might look really good.

For myself I am returning to GW's games and TT gaming in general from a long absence. I initially wanted to play WFB bought a number of books and models (on ebay and cheap) then discovered AoS had killed it. I floundered for a bit thinking I could still play WFB since AoS didn't seem to be unpopular, but ended up drifting into 40k instead. So now i have acquired quite a number of game books (codices and the like) for 40k and some models (also from ebay) when now the rumour comes of a 8th ed coming in the summer with the possibility of it being a similarly radical break as that of AoS. Once again all the books I acquired look in danger of obsolescence before I had a chance to really use them. It is a bit of a bummer.

I am a returning noob but the rules don't look too terrible to me and anyway to me the largest problem with 40k is the model scale but that is something which no new edition is going to fix unless it is a reboot of epic scale (which is also rumoured to be coming).

So I guess I am hoping 8th will just be 7th + FAQs and errata.

The bones that have been with us since 3rd (phases, attack resolution), but with a radical overhaul to the psychic phase and special rules bloat incorporated more naturally into the system of the game.

7th+FAQ/errata wouldn't address the extra steps that keep getting stuck into attack resolution, the proliferation of randomness/high weight on single die rolls, or the wild growth in model size/power.

And I'd really like to see Instant Death and the vehicle damage table get overhauled in favour of a multiple-damage mechanic to make the vehicle/MC division less weird.

People to stop saying that 8th edition is coming until we have hard evidence in hand. The number of BS threads over in the News and Rumors section is staggering.

 jreilly89 wrote:
People to stop saying that 8th edition is coming until we have hard evidence in hand. The number of BS threads over in the News and Rumors section is staggering.

And/or people to stop saying "8th IS THE AOS REBOOT ARMAGEDDON PANIC."

It isn't worth panicking until we know actual things.

Elimination of power creep.

A balanced/competitive ruleset where ALL armies are viable.

Return of updating/balancing codices and the elimination of formations.

Fixing MC/vehicle imbalance.

Less space marines, more xenos (Orks, Nids, Deldar) & SoB/IG.

I'll show myself out

I'm expecting a 7th + FAQ/tweaks.

The psychic powers need a major overhaul, some are just stupidly OP (I'm not looking at you, Invis) while others are rubbish. Summoning IMHO is a broken mechanic.

Nerf eldar jetbikes. A good way to do this might be to remove relentless - so scatterbikes become much less effective. This also reduces the effectiveness of grav bikes.

Nerf grav (remove the immobilise result). I suspect this is why Graviton is a USR.

Combine/simplify some of the USR's. Make Fear better. Make Poison back to the old way.

Give chainswords AP5. Maybe some of the other weapons need a slight tweak? (any suggestions? storm bolters could be a valid one - thus making Terminators better).

Go back to area terrain rules.

I'm hoping for an AoS style reboot. The current rules bloat is one thing that's been keeping me out of the game, and I don't see that changing unless there's a clean sweep of the core rules. I liked the effect of some of AoS's simplifications and think it would do 40k some good.

I'd be glad with a simplified less time-consuming aosified version.

To quote the artist known and Eminem

I got a list, heres the order of that list thats its in. It goes

-Removal of D from sub 2k games
-Removal of SH and GMC from sub 2k games
-No single unit or model may account for 25% or more of your standing army, Deticated transports do not count toward this (IE if your running a 1k game you cant bring a knight as it makes you like 46% of the total army cost, at 1k your most expensive unit could be 250 point total. prevents deathstarts a bit)
-nuke the ally matrix chart into the void
-Lower the amount of AP 2
-Remove HP or give vehicles an armor save
-Remove weapon skill and replace wit ha you hit on x in combat
-condense like rules into a single rule, IE Relentless and Slow and purposeful
-allow charging from deep strike with out a charge bonus.
-Charge for a formation, no free lunch
-bring in rites of war from 30k

There are a ton of tweaks that could happen that would improve the game but wouldn't break existing codices.

A clean sweep and start again from scratch with a completely new system sounds like an easy fix but actually you will setting yourself up for new but also unknown problems. At least with 7th countless hours of playing by the punters has revealed where the problems are.

 SolarCross wrote:
There are a ton of tweaks that could happen that would improve the game but wouldn't break existing codices.

A clean sweep and start again from scratch with a completely new system sounds like an easy fix but actually you will setting yourself up for new but also unknown problems. At least with 7th countless hours of playing by the punters has revealed where the problems are.

From what i have heard from the rumor mill is there are going to be 2 versions of the game a more rule heavy 30k kinda style, and a slimmed down AoS style.

Moving to a AoS style datasheet and profile system. Everything should move to a wounds and armor save based system so we can end the MC versus vehicle nonsense once again and for all. I also would love a damage profile like AoS to finally differentiate weapons.

I also would want summoning to cost points and something finally done about making sure invul and cover saves never being RE-rolled (regular armor saves is fine).

Them to move to a warscroll system like AoS for 40k.

 buddha wrote:
Moving to a AoS style datasheet and profile system. Everything should move to a wounds and armor save based system so we can end the MC versus vehicle nonsense once again and for all. I also would love a damage profile like AoS to finally differentiate weapons.

I also would want summoning to cost points and something finally done about making sure invul and cover saves never being RE-rolled (regular armor saves is fine).

If your suggesting we get rid of strength and toughness, GOD NO! they can do that in AoS, but 40k is to far ingrained in S and T to get rid of it. Since there are so many weapons and 40k is still using a D6 system, you cant use a simple wounds on system because you would run out of options.

I mean think of it this way, the following weapons in lore all have a diffrent power level

Melta
Flamer
Bolter
Heavy bolter
Lazcannon
Assault cannon
Heavy flamer
auto cannon

So then you run into the issue of weapons needing the same to wound, i mean should a laz cannon be wounding the same as a auto cannon? if not, then should it be wounding like a heavy bolter would? or what about a heavy bolter and a assault cannon? There are way to many diffrent weapons in 40k to be represented equally on a D6. You could say, well use the rending, but even still you are going to run out, a laz cannon would need to be a wounds on 2 and like rending -4. It would turn into issue like in AoS where you would never take some options, flamers would be over powered as hell as well.

Just a rules diet, and perhaps greater formalisation of play.

What do I mean?

Alpha Level Engagement - FoC only. No Lords of War

Gamma Level Engagement - FoC and 'single' Formations only - No Lords of War

Omega Level Engagement, FoC, all Formations, Lords of War and Unbound

Essentially, simple, codified short hand for the sort of game you're looking for.

 jreilly89 wrote:
People to stop saying that 8th edition is coming until we have hard evidence in hand. The number of BS threads over in the News and Rumors section is staggering.

So since sources more accurate than white dwarf are saing it is coming guess you don't believe wd either. Would be silly to trust less accurate source.

As to what i hope is that hh books still works. 40k don't care as 2nd ed is but hh books don't work with 2nd ed

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Moving to a AoS style datasheet and profile system. Everything should move to a wounds and armor save based system so we can end the MC versus vehicle nonsense once again and for all. I also would love a damage profile like AoS to finally differentiate weapons.

I also would want summoning to cost points and something finally done about making sure invul and cover saves never being RE-rolled (regular armor saves is fine).

If your suggesting we get rid of strength and toughness, GOD NO! they can do that in AoS, but 40k is to far ingrained in S and T to get rid of it. Since there are so many weapons and 40k is still using a D6 system, you cant use a simple wounds on system because you would run out of options.

I mean think of it this way, the following weapons in lore all have a diffrent power level

Melta
Flamer
Bolter
Heavy bolter
Lazcannon
Assault cannon
Heavy flamer
auto cannon

So then you run into the issue of weapons needing the same to wound, i mean should a laz cannon be wounding the same as a auto cannon? if not, then should it be wounding like a heavy bolter would? or what about a heavy bolter and a assault cannon? There are way to many diffrent weapons in 40k to be represented equally on a D6. You could say, well use the rending, but even still you are going to run out, a laz cannon would need to be a wounds on 2 and like rending -4. It would turn into issue like in AoS where you would never take some options, flamers would be over powered as hell as well.

They could toss everything into the multiple wounds system of AoS then do stuff like:
Melta: 3+, -2 rend. Does D3 bonus damage and to Vehicle keyword otherwise it does 1
Flamer: just use template 4+ to damage
Bolter: 2 shots 4+ -1 rend
Heavy bolter: 3 shots 3+, -1 rend
Lascannon: 3+, either 2 or D3 damage, -2 rend
Assault cannon: 4 shots, 3+ -1 rend
Heavy flamer: Template, 3+
Auto cannon: 4 shots, 3+ Does 1 bonus damage to Flyer and Flying Monsterous creature keyword (on the assumption both of those stay relatively fragile to balance their added mobility.


Now the thing is when people try to compare AoS to 40k is there's 2 big differences; AoS has relatively few... like maybe 4-5 max, vehicles in the entire game I think and the weapon ranges for shooting are far shorter lending to a more melee focused game. 40k is quite the opposite having a more longer ranged focus to it's playstyle. So a couple things could likely happen I think if it really were to try to follow along;
1. Either the weapon ranges would be shortened drastically or shooting in and out of combat isn't allowed due to the high amount of shooting available
2. Focus would be shifted towards assault and shooting weakened significantly leading to more cookie cutter gun builds

I'm hoping for competent writers.

I'm expecting less balance and more complication.

I don't have any expectations. 7th is such a massive turn-off for me that they'd have to do a massive 180-degree reboot. However, AoS doesn't interest me in the slightest. I think it's safe to say I'm well off the GW reservation for large battle games. I'll stick to playing the old ones.

I cannot feasibly imagine what they could to bring me back into the market for their actual game.

New to hit tables, better vehicles and MUCH MORE BALANCE!

Dont taint it with sigmar warscrolls.

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
People to stop saying that 8th edition is coming until we have hard evidence in hand. The number of BS threads over in the News and Rumors section is staggering.

So since sources more accurate than white dwarf are saing it is coming guess you don't believe wd either. Would be silly to trust less accurate source.

As to what i hope is that hh books still works. 40k don't care as 2nd ed is but hh books don't work with 2nd ed

Sources more accurate than WD being? And WD hasn't mentioned anything. Hell, GW was "supposed" to debut or tease 8th edition at the GAMA trade show and guess what? It was another board game and an AoS starter set.

The only "evidence" I've seen is a screenshot of a damn 4chan post. So yeah, I'm hesitant.

All really ask, is that all the current codexs not be invalidated.

I'd actually like the warscrolls (as in the rules for the units and models not being hidden behind mountains of fees). Take away the surcharge of rule books and I might actually be able to afford playing again. I have models. I just don't have money to keep up with t cycle of rule books.

I actually like formations, not in how OP they are. I'm terrible at this game and I can look at the Necron Ducerion(sp) and recognize the ludicrousness of it. But I like the fluffiness options it offers. Traitor Legions is the first rulebook I've bought in years and I love the format of it. The breakdown of "faction" "force/style" "this is your army format' is fun, but damn does it need balancing from what I can see.

The rules bloat though I can see just in Traitor Legions is staggering. There's too many complications. Too many exceptions. It could seriously use some streamlining. I'd love to see free rules, and instead of "armies" having "factions" with different units and special rules available to them. It's fluffier imo and by breaking units out of the limitations of their own army codex it opens the board to more options and makes balance a more unit to unit concern instead of a codex concern. Plus it would be easier to release new rules for a bad unit than new rules for a bad codex in this format so imbalance could be more readily addressed.

 jreilly89 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
People to stop saying that 8th edition is coming until we have hard evidence in hand. The number of BS threads over in the News and Rumors section is staggering.

So since sources more accurate than white dwarf are saing it is coming guess you don't believe wd either. Would be silly to trust less accurate source.

As to what i hope is that hh books still works. 40k don't care as 2nd ed is but hh books don't work with 2nd ed

Sources more accurate than WD being? And WD hasn't mentioned anything. Hell, GW was "supposed" to debut or tease 8th edition at the GAMA trade show and guess what? It was another board game and an AoS starter set.

The only "evidence" I've seen is a screenshot of a damn 4chan post. So yeah, I'm hesitant.

Hastings, attila etc have made less errors than wd has. Just compare their track record and wd's.

Neither Hastings nor atia nor sad panda said about gama. So sorry your point is irrelevant

I voted for 7th+. Admittedly, I started in 7th, so that might just be me nervous about change.

I'd just like to see the forty first millennium burn at this point.
I've played 40K for 20 years now and for me the only high point for 7th edition has been Maelstrom missions. Prior to that maybe 4th edition. Only because close combat in 3rd was not as good. ( I'm not even mad about random charge ranges in 7th.)
as things I've been excited about in 40K. I very nearly quit during 5th edition, maybe I should have. I'm in camp B.
As far as 8th goes, I'll bee looking for the small starter set rule book. No limited edition anything.
One of the Key things from AoS, which I doubt will happen but I like, is that the rules for the game are in every army book and Supplement.
Also, can we have less Space Marines next time.

I'm hoping the absence of any model that costs more than 200 points, with the exceptions of transports, in games that are lower than 2500 points.

And options that allow troops to take weapons that should belong only to specialists should go too, see grav spam (only devastators and centurion allowed to be equipped with grav weapons) and scatter lasers on troop bikers.

A psychic phase that is limited to a maximum number of dice like 10-15 + D6, no matter how many psykers do you have, and the complete dice range when rolling to hit in close combat, not only 3s,4s or 5s.

Bye bye free transports too, or at least a similar formation for everyone.

And, of course, the use of current miniatures, not a complete restyling of models like in AOS.

Burn it down and start afresh.

I'm struggling to think how they can make 40k's rules worse, so it can only really get better? Right...? Right...?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
To quote the artist known and Eminem

I got a list, heres the order of that list thats its in. It goes

-Removal of D from sub 2k games
-Removal of SH and GMC from sub 2k games
-No single unit or model may account for 25% or more of your standing army, Deticated transports do not count toward this (IE if your running a 1k game you cant bring a knight as it makes you like 46% of the total army cost, at 1k your most expensive unit could be 250 point total. prevents deathstarts a bit)
-nuke the ally matrix chart into the void
-Lower the amount of AP 2
-Remove HP or give vehicles an armor save
-Remove weapon skill and replace wit ha you hit on x in combat
-condense like rules into a single rule, IE Relentless and Slow and purposeful
-allow charging from deep strike with out a charge bonus.
-Charge for a formation, no free lunch
-bring in rites of war from 30k

I agree with all this stuff, good ideas. I've really wanted armor saves for vehicles for a long time.

For an agreed points value pickup game to be a reasonably close battle without a bazillion treaty rules applied to try to get a fair scrap.

1) Take the rules to their core mechanics.
1a) If it is clunky, get rid of it.
1b) Please kill "AP"
1c) I would like to see armor just become a toughness bonus so armor save is done away with altogether. If you must have a "invulnerable save" just say it is an unmodifiable toughness (or minimum value).
1d) The only time you can "interrupt" the other player's turn is with an ambush/overwatch applied to a model/squad/formation for things like shooting or psychic powers.
2) Lump a multitude of special rules (temporarily) to a core mechanic (specialish rule) so there are few as possible of "special snowflake" stuff other than an overall army buff.
3) As previously stated: refine rules for the 3 modes of play and never the three shall meet.
3a) Kill-team, Necromunda, a single gang / squad based combat that can afford to have more detail: each model is individually activated/targeted and models get upgrades.
3b) "Normal" multiple squad based combat where a squad is activated at a time. Most upgrades are assigned to the squad.
3c) Armageddon, selections by "formations" and super heavies. Activation is on a SH or formation basis (as well as targeting) and upgrades assigned to the formation or SH.
4) Please have a form of alternating activation (Bolt Action dice draw ideal) rather than the I-go-you-go turn one I go first all or nothing.
5) No units from differing armies/races may be able to use the other's powers to be enhanced or use their transport vehicles or have their models join with other units.
6) Finally with all that, start applying a new list of points now that all the insane power level changes had been addressed.

I have been sucked away from 40k because I have been playing Bolt Action and find the mechanics are what 40k should have been.
It makes for a fast and tactically fun game.
I have seen 40k since the early 2nd edition days all the way up (I had not stopped playing at any given revision) but found 6th and 7th more "burdensome" due to so many sources for rules that to get them all is rather an expensive and difficult to stay current on.
I suppose that only matters if you are "competitive" but as long as I see people "complaining" of some unfair match-up even playing casually can break if there is no perceived fairness.