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.

For me the most important issue is that the rules are freely available online and continually updated- a living document. I know this seems very likely as confirmed based on the rumours, but i'll still be super hyped if its delivered!

Following on from this (also seemingly confirmed by rumours) is the end of codexes.

What do you most want to see changed or added?

Balance would be nice.

Updated rules for all Factions from day one.

Cover being BS modifiers instead of an actual save.
For Example:
being 25% obscured by Terrain of all types, intervening models, etc = -1 to the firer's BS
Target has Stealth = -1BS
Shrouded = -2BS. Stealth and Shrouded can no longer stack
Anything than makes you snap-fire = -2BS
Target is a Vehicle or MC = +1BS

If BS can never be lowered below 1, than at worse you hit a target on 6. I find than preferable to them having a 2+ re-rollable save.

Making AP be save modifiers instead of having to straight up meet the armour to ignore it.
Example:
AP 5 = -1 Armour save
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5
So a Terminator would still get a 6+ save against AP2, yet Marines would be affected by AP4/5. You could potentially allow Invuls to be taken after failed Armour....maybe

The overall affect of these two changes would mean that things are harder to hit, but easier to wound. This would instantly make melee armies competitive, prevent 2+ re-rollable cover saves and it would speed up the game as units would die faster.

Give vehicles armour saves.
Example:
All vehicle have a 4+ Armour (than can be modified by the above).
Open-topped = -1
Tank/Walker with AV12+ = +1
Any side with AV14 = +1

-

 Galef wrote:
Cover being BS modifiers instead of an actual save.
For Example:
being 25% obscured by Terrain of all types, intervening models, etc = -1 to the firer's BS
Target has Stealth = -1BS
Shrouded = -2BS. Stealth and Shrouded can no longer stack
Anything than makes you snap-fire = -2BS
Target is a Vehicle or MC = +1BS

If BS can never be lowered below 1, than at worse you hit a target on 6. I find than preferable to them having a 2+ re-rollable save.

Making AP be save modifiers instead of having to straight up meet the armour to ignore it.
Example:
AP 5 = -1 Armour save
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5
So a Terminator would still get a 6+ save against AP2, yet Marines would be affected by AP4/5. You could potentially allow Invuls to be taken after failed Armour....maybe

The overall affect of these two changes would mean that things are harder to hit, but easier to wound. This would instantly make melee armies competitive, prevent 2+ re-rollable cover saves and it would speed up the game as units would die faster.

Give vehicles armour saves.
Example:
All vehicle have a 4+ Armour (than can be modified by the above).
Open-topped = -1
Tank/Walker with AV12+ = +1
Any side with AV14 = +1

-

Definitely agree with a lot of these suggestions, especially in terms of getting rid of 2+ re-rollable cover save setups.

Would you like to see a reduction in the number of AP1 and AP2 weapons though?

For example over the editions the prevalance of AP2 weapons has increased, resulting in Terminators becoming more and more ineffective, reaching now a point where you never see vanilla Terminators in any remotely competitive list.

If vehicles were getting an armour save I'd prefer to see something like getting a save against glancing his with Av 14 getting a 2+, 13 is a 3+, 12 is a 4+, 11 is a 5+ and 10 is a 6+.

I'd like to see all the difficult/dangerous terrain rules revamped.

I've always found it stupid that 41st millennia transports can become immobilized for the entire game by some rubble or old fence.

I'd like to see that instead something along the lines of movement phase over for the vehicle, as though the driver is taking extra caution or determining the best route through, but then resuming as normal the next turn for that item of terrain. IMO this would make the game far more fluid and help re-balance the massive advantage skimmer factions have over non-skimmer factions.

I think maybe invuls should work like Ward saves did in the previous version of Warhammer Fantasy.
You get to attempt your (modified) armour save if possible, but if failed, you get your Armour save.
That would mean Terminators almost always get 2 saves.

Coupled with being harder to hit in many cases due to BS modifiers, and I don't think the prevalence of AP1/2 weapons is a big issue anymore

Keep in mind, that the changes I am proposing assume that all the Codices remain valid and unchanged.

If 8th is a full-on reboot, my hope is that:
A) the main rules are simple, like maybe a dozen or so pages. More depth than AoS, but not the complicated mess we have now
B) the rules for all existing units are either printed in the main rules (GW has done this before) or at least the replacement army books are cheap (like White Dwarf cheap), or if they are the same cost as now, they encompass multiple factions. Like a sinlge $50 Space Marine book that includes BAs, DAs, GKs and Wolves, 1 Aeldari book, 1 Chaos book and 1-2 Xenos books.
In short, it should not cost more that $100-$200 to own ALL the rules for EVERY thing playable in 8th edition.

-

#1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary.

#2 - Vehicles & Monstrous Creatures that are tougher, but weaken as they're injured; Let the AoS-ification begin. I know they're saying that this is going to happen, but I'm really looking forward to it. Fundamentally, from a design perspective, there is no reason that these two should have core differences. Any differences between the two should be on their datasheets.

#3 - Stop Ignoring Your Own Rules; Too many things are ignoring the rules of the game, and some of these are important rules! Leadership is important. Snap firing heavy weapons is important. Being slowed by difficult terrain is important. Being able to ignore these things should cost more than it currently seems to, since so many forces have so many ways of ignoring these things. These things may be "unfun", but that's why they become thrilling. I don't remember the million times my Mining Laser normally hits, but I do remember the time where they popped up, and despite snap-firing, blasted a hole straight through the Archon.

#4 - Cover as a Modifier, not a Save; It makes no sense to me that Terminator armour gives you the same protection against a plasma gun as a bush (worse if they duck behind the bush). Normally I'd say to make cover a save modifier (up to a limit), but not a save on its own. However, since we know GW is doing save modifiers anyways, now I'd suggest making cover into something that helps you ignore save modifiers. So if they make a bolter -1 to your save, a bush can help you ignore the -1, a building ignores -2, and a plasteel barrier ignores -3.

#5 - Makes Close Combat Deadly less deadly for winning it; Close combat is already pretty deadly, and I don't know if it needs to be deadlier. The biggest knock against close combat right now are the number of things that ignore the rules (see point #3). For those that don't ignore the rules, close combat is very deadly, with forces often being overrun, which is GREAT. However, what sucks is that doing really well in close combat is often a bad thing, as it leaves you smack in the open for people to shoot back. You need to get lucky and hope to win on the second turn, which feels so wrong I could barely type it. Used to be that you could sweep and advance and hope to hit another squad to get stuck in, which I get a lot of people didn't like, but it did function well. You should be rewarded for wining on your turn, and penalized for winning on your opponent's turn. If we can have fewer things ignoring leadership, how about panic tests for nearby units to see if they also break and run at the sight of their comrades collapsing?

Anyways, just my 2 cents. Won't matter as I'm sure everything's already been finalized for launch.

 Yarium wrote:
#1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary.
.

I'd have serious issues with this. I should not be expection to do ANYTHING that involves online. There is a reason I play 40K and not video games.
Online stuff is great for some, but by no means should it be a mandatory part of the game.

Hardcopy rules need to be an option. And unfortunately that makes "living rules" not very plausible. The other issue with living rules is that is make casual play frustrating as you have to take the time to make sure you know what updates have been made before you play. While FAQs kinda do that now, it would be much harder if the rules could be updated 10 more frequently because they are all online.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
#1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary.
.

I'd have serious issues with this. I should not be expection to do ANYTHING that involves online. There is a reason I play 40K and not video games.
Online stuff is great for some, but by no means should it be a mandatory part of the game.

Hardcopy rules need to be an option. And unfortunately that makes "living rules" not very plausible. The other issue with living rules is that is make casual play frustrating as you have to take the time to make sure you know what updates have been made before you play. While FAQs kinda do that now, it would be much harder if the rules could be updated 10 more frequently because they are all online.

-

You don't play use technology at all?

Playing video games is different than getting some things to read.

As Galef has already explained perfectly my views on cover saves, hit and armour modifiers I won't add to that. However, I feel that certain armour should get 2D6 for saves, including monstrous creatures.

For example, regular terminator armour is 2+ on 2D6 or a 5+ unmodified invulnerable save. This way, the terminator armour becomes proper hard as nails but with 90% of any wounds it will fail on a snake eyes result. Obviously, this would have to be rejigged for variations of terminator armour (such as Ork mega armour) so you need to decide between artificer power armour or terminator armour now.
Monstrous creatures I support getting 2D6 for saving throws. You really need heavy weapons rather than spamming mass low caliber guns to take them out.

I'd also like to see proper anti-psyker defenses added to all armies when possible, both defensively based and weapon based. At the moment, some armies lack them completely unless allying, and Psyker shenanigans are becoming so silly, this is desperately required. The same for AA weapons, some armies have them in droves, while others need flyers for AA, which isn't cheap or reliable.

I don't buy cover as modifiers with a D6, unless there are more things to give +1 BS than the size of the target (almost every time modifiers are suggested, its always reduce BS...)

Anyway, I'd like to be able to put down blasts anywhere, more pinning weapons, shooting in combat, that sort of thing.

I want to see deff dreads to be come totally overpowered. Then we'll see who's stupid for owning 10 of them!

 Bobthehero wrote:
I don't buy cover as modifiers with a D6, unless there are more things to give +1 BS than the size of the target (almost every time modifiers are suggested, its always reduce BS...).

Why not? One of the biggest reasons melee armies suck is because 40k is a "shooting" game. If we reduce the effectiveness of the shooting phase, then those struggling melee armies can shine.
It would certainly tone down Eldar and Tau.

I currently own 6 dreadnoughts. 2 Melta/powerfist, 1 Plasma/powerfist, 2 two powerfist, 1 psycannon/glaive.......

Yeah.. I really want them to be better...

 Galef wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
I don't buy cover as modifiers with a D6, unless there are more things to give +1 BS than the size of the target (almost every time modifiers are suggested, its always reduce BS...).

Why not? One of the biggest reasons melee armies suck is because 40k is a "shooting" game. If we reduce the effectiveness of the shooting phase, then those struggling melee armies can shine.
It would certainly tone down Eldar and Tau.

Bobthehero hates melee combat, Galef.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
As Galef has already explained perfectly my views on cover saves, hit and armour modifiers I won't add to that. However, I feel that certain armour should get 2D6 for saves, including monstrous creatures.

For example, regular terminator armour is 2+ on 2D6 or a 5+ unmodified invulnerable save. This way, the terminator armour becomes proper hard as nails but with 90% of any wounds it will fail on a snake eyes result. Obviously, this would have to be rejigged for variations of terminator armour (such as Ork mega armour) so you need to decide between artificer power armour or terminator armour now.
Monstrous creatures I support getting 2D6 for saving throws. You really need heavy weapons rather than spamming mass low caliber guns to take them out.

I'd also like to see proper anti-psyker defenses added to all armies when possible, both defensively based and weapon based. At the moment, some armies lack them completely unless allying, and Psyker shenanigans are becoming so silly, this is desperately required. The same for AA weapons, some armies have them in droves, while others need flyers for AA, which isn't cheap or reliable.

that would go from a 16.6% to fail to 2 on 2d6 is a 2.7% to fail terminators would have to go way up in price for that to be the case.

also it would tale forever to roll. imagine 30 orks (180 points boyz vs 175 terminators) get the charge off, 2 base attacks plus one for charging and 1 for pistol/choppa. 120 attacks. hit on 4's so 60 hits wound on 4's so 30 wounds. by current standards that would be 4.8 dead terminators by your 2d6 that is 0.81% to get a single wound possibly removing a 35 point model after 30 separate armor save rolls of 2d6. suddenly volume of attacks does not hurt them at all and only low AP effects them which some armies just do not have.

on the what should change front. scrap challenges or at least exempt some armies where orks can say no and still fight. currently what is supposed to be a strong cc army due to a hidden power claw instead the nob gets challenged out and dies before swinging.

I just want balance.

My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.

So instead I'll just hope they can assign a reasonable point cost to units and formations.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
on the what should change front. scrap challenges or at least exempt some armies where orks can say no and still fight. currently what is supposed to be a strong cc army due to a hidden power claw instead the nob gets challenged out and dies before swinging.

If they change it to attackers always swinging first that somewhat ameliorates the nob power claw issue. Of course, it might be the case that unwieldy weapons still strike last.

Challenges seem cool and thematic some of the time, but at other times seem weird, and they generally seem to pretty clumsily implemented.

 Galef wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
#1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary.
.

I'd have serious issues with this. I should not be expection to do ANYTHING that involves online. There is a reason I play 40K and not video games.
Online stuff is great for some, but by no means should it be a mandatory part of the game.

Hardcopy rules need to be an option. And unfortunately that makes "living rules" not very plausible. The other issue with living rules is that is make casual play frustrating as you have to take the time to make sure you know what updates have been made before you play. While FAQs kinda do that now, it would be much harder if the rules could be updated 10 more frequently because they are all online.

-

I tend to agree. I'm really not keen on the idea of an app or a subscription fee. I'll take a hardcopy and the occasional FAQ's over having to squint at my phone any day. I want nice, full page illustrations and pages to flip through/put postet notes on for reference.

And get off my lawn!!

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
on the what should change front. scrap challenges or at least exempt some armies where orks can say no and still fight. currently what is supposed to be a strong cc army due to a hidden power claw instead the nob gets challenged out and dies before swinging.

If they change it to attackers always swinging first that somewhat ameliorates the nob power claw issue. Of course, it might be the case that unwieldy weapons still strike last.

Challenges seem cool and thematic some of the time, but at other times seem weird, and they generally seem to pretty clumsily implemented.

agreed, they make sense in some cases the big close combat guys challenge eachother, luscious the betrayer challenges captain sicarius to a duel, the stadium is sold out. meanwhile though I could not see a nob accepting and instead sending a boy in... now's your chance to shine little boy grug, win this and you may have a future! meanwhile I want multiple oomies on my claw.

another one I can see ignoring a challenge is a guardsman sarg orders a few guardsman in to fix bayonets while retreating to a better firing position so part of the squad survives.

 Blacksails wrote:
My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.

Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?

 G00fySmiley wrote:

agreed, they make sense in some cases the big close combat guys challenge eachother, luscious the betrayer challenges captain sicarius to a duel, the stadium is sold out. meanwhile though I could not see a nob accepting and instead sending a boy in... now's your chance to shine little boy grug, win this and you may have a future! meanwhile I want multiple oomies on my claw.

What?! That's some good ol' Ork cunning right there. I imagine the Nob doing the shifty-eyes right before giving the order.

I may get shot for saying this, but I like the cover save format as it is, that is , having it as a separate save.

I get it that it makes the reality in which a plasma shot is deflected by a bush possible. But, you have to remember that terrain pieces are abstract in 40k, they are representations.

A terrain piece that looks like just a tree grove could be a representation of a tree grove with a crap ton of foliage, a hill, metal debris, and a scarecrow. There is just no feasible way of showing that much detail on the piece. This is why it makes sense to me to make it a separate save. Plus, it cuts down on book keeping. But i do think night fighting should be a modifier to BS, it makes more sense like that

Now as for what I'm looking forward to. I really hope they weren't lying about the movement stat being reintroduced.

Also, I hope they rework the CC mechanic. It makes no sense that Joe Blow ( chaos cultist) from down the street is hitting a physical manifestation of the god of murder, war, and martial prowess (Avatar of Khaine) or a millenia old melee expert gladiatrix (Lelith Hesperax) one time out of three.

Yeah, the weird solutions people have come up with like feeding mekboyz to challenges to keep klawnobz alive doesn't seem quite right to me.

Maybe if they limited challenges to just HQs or even just to warlords and certain special characters like the BT Emperor's Champion? Then give some HQs the ability to ignore challenges without penalty?



I think they should always have hardcopy rules as an option. I think they should keep making the pretty hardcover versions of books. However, I don't think that should stand in the way of making use of technology to update things faster. For some people that could mean paying a subscription fee to always have the latest version of their digital books. For others that could mean having to buy some books every year and review the quarterly changelogs and print out any applicable changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.

Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?

I think that would be cool. On the other hand, since Apocalypse games are generally for fun and planned out in advance they are ideal for negotiating house rules that streamline things.

It would totally be cool if GW came up with a more streamlined version of Apocalypse, but I still don't see people heading down to the FLGS looking for a 10,000 point pickup game.

Or were you thinking of a sort of "mini-apocalypse" set of rules for ~2500-5000 point games or something? That would be cool too.

If I am redoing 40k 8E, I'm restructuring things like AoS GHB:

8E Rulebook
- 12 (illustrated) pages of core rules + USRs
- 12 pages of glorious scenarios / missions, where each scenario is a full spread that shows everything right there.
- escalation campaign
- simplified Army lists for "competitive" play
Basically, it's the 3E Rulebook, redux, updated with beautiful color and photos.

2nd printing after 1 year with cleanup and corrections, then...

8E Codices
- loads of Fluff and artwork and hobby stuff
- recap of rules, scenarios
- recap of Army list, but illustrated and fluffy

If you are a competitive player, you get the 8E Rulebook, and you have everything you need to play the game, with ALL of the rules and ALL of the units in ONE book. It's clean and streamlined, plays fast, without cross-referencing. Or, if you are a fluff player, you just get the Codex, and it has EVERYTHING that you need to play YOUR army (only).


Rules Approach

AoS-like streamlining!

A de-emphasis on extra rules, special rules, and exceptions allows GW to focus on high level design and their miniatures, while modernizing the whole thing.

Clear distinction between "Competitive" vs. Casual play:
- Competitive = NO Allies; FOC or Formation composition
- Casual = Unbound forces, Allies as agreed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
NO allies

Thank you for destroying LOTD, Inquisition, Imperial Knights and a few other armies.

Psh. Play casual then.

It seems like GW is putting out more games using the same models, which I think is a good thing. Going with what BunkhouseBuster was saying, in addition to the "three ways to play" I think it would be good if they had different rules for four different scales of 40k.

Something along the lines of:
Kill Team: ~200 points, ~45 minutes
Combat Patrol/Oldhammer: ~500-1000 points, ~1.5 hours
Newhammer/Mini-Apoc: ~1000-3000 points, ~3 hours
Apocalypse: 3000+ points, a lot of hours

I'm not sure how long SW:A takes, but it might be a replacement for Kill Team. I can see having a game like Kill Team be more focused on fast pick-up games with simpler rules while SW:A has longer games with more complex rules.

Combat Patrol/Oldhammer could have no allies, no LoW, no special characters and much more limiting detachment/formation options. There might need to be rules like being able to split most squads into combat squads, not just SM, or letting small 1-3 units like Tyranid Warriors operate independently of eachother. This might be a good format for competitive play.

Newhammer: Something kind of like what we have now, with multiple detachments, formations, allies and the like. Lords of War could be included, but it would be nice to see a 25% limit. This seems like it would allow for big, fun games with lots of toys but still be something that you could do as a pick-up game on a weeknight.

Apocalypse could be much as it is now, an all-day kind of thing where people bring out all their toys. They might have more streamlined rules to speed it up a bit though.


All of this can easily be done by just talking with people and arranging things in advance, similar to the "three ways to play" but by spelling things out a bit more and including them in a handbook GW can give us a shorthand and set of expectations we can use to better communicate with eachother.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.

Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?

Ideally, yeah. Necromunda MKII is a step in the right direction. Epic at 28mm would be...interesting, but couldn't really be much worse than the slog that is current Apoc. The issue is with normal 40k. In order to alleviate the problems with basic troops and their basic weapons you'd need to do away with most of the massive gribblies. In a game where a whole army can be a bunch of shooty stompy giant robots, it kind of makes you wonder why you brought your basic troops. Even 5th ed had a problem with parking lots stripping away the bulk of anti-infantry firepower as you had to mech yourself before you wrecked yourself.

If we're keeping the feeling of 40k at 28mm, I personally feel a game should be somewhere around a reinforced platoon size. Using Guard as a reference, this would literally be a platoon of various sizes supported by a squadron of vehicles at the largest end. Marines would be a few squads with some specialist support (librarians, some dreads, a vehicle squadron, some small mix of the above). Unfortunately, this would mean the end of most people's current armies, and would surely see the end of many models in 'standard' 40k, like all superheavies/GMCs and even some of the larger, OP MCs. Really, the most durable thing on the battlefield for 40k should be Land Raider-esque/TMC-sized. Leave everything larger for weekend Apoc battles and theme/scenario nights. It would also mean no flyers in their current incarnation. Back to old days of only hover capable 'flyers' who were fast skimmers.

That would be the most sweeping of my perfect world changes.

I know most people would disagree or hate it and I know GW would never do it, but a man can dream.

Ultimately, all I want and can reasonably expect would be balance. I'm not holding out on too much hope, but they've been surprising me, so I remain cautiously optimistic.

*Edit* Dakka Flakka Flame (fething epic name) beat me to it.

I like the cut of your jib.