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.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
2. I disagree, they're entirely separate weapons. I do however wish stormbolters didn't suck.
I think they should function like 2 bolters fired as a single weapon. That way they actually feel like a better version of the combi-bolter which they're supposed to be.

On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?

Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.

Just a simple vote for everything. There is not a single aspect of 7th edition 40K I find remotely attractive.

 Elbows wrote:
Just a simple vote for everything. There is not a single aspect of 7th edition 40K I find remotely attractive.

No joke. I didn't play during 6th, but I've played every other edition of the game and 7th is the worst.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?

I don't think so. I feel that would add too much firepower, especially if they don't repoint things.

 docdoom77 wrote:


Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.

+1 shot would be even worse though I feel, +1 on a lascannon is very different to +1 to a punisher gatling cannon.
When you say you rolled to wound twice is that basically for every successful to-hit with the weapon you actually get 2 hits?

I would have a set game size for competitive matched play. Personally I would put that at 1500 points, or 1750 points. Maybe even have t-shirt sizes for games, like "Small competitive: 1500, Medium Competitive: 1750, Large competitive: 2000."

Once you establish game sizes, you can talk about balance.

I would also modify some of the psychic powers, and add more granularity to the toughness/wound and weapon skill / hit tables.
I would give units an armor rating and adding a rending stat, which would require people use a table to determine their save. For instance, a boltgun might have a rend of -1, and a storm bolter have a rend of -2. So shooting an infantry unit with an armor rating of 10, with a storm bolter, lowers it to 8, which in turn changes the 2+ save to a 3+ save. Just for instance.

I would also do some small balance changes to each unit type and army.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?

I don't think so. I feel that would add too much firepower, especially if they don't repoint things.

 docdoom77 wrote:


Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.

+1 shot would be even worse though I feel, +1 on a lascannon is very different to +1 to a punisher gatling cannon.
When you say you rolled to wound twice is that basically for every successful to-hit with the weapon you actually get 2 hits?

if we are doubling shots wave serpents would be back in vogue as would falcons with their 8 shot scatter lasers. if plus 1 then boy howdy am I investing in TL brightlances everywhere

IIRC wasn't the justification for the player taking wounds getting to allocate them a combination of "Lookout, sir!" and the idea that if you shoot a guardsman off a heavy bolter someone else is going to take his place?

 Strg Alt wrote:
1. Delete the concept of challenges

Challenges are fine for Warhammer Fantasy but not credible for 40K. You just don´t invite your enemy for a chivalric knife fight while battle cannon shells and whatnot are raining down the battlefield. An Imperial Guard Colonels should not be forced to fight Chaos Lords in close combat. There might be instances where this could be justified (Black Templar Captain vs. Chaos Lord) but it just leaves a wrong impression as a whole.

Challenges seem like they could be cool if both players agreed to them in a narrative, fluffy game. It seems like it might require some amount of negotiation, though. Like, if a chaos champion challenges an IG colonel the IG player could demand a better bonus for winning and/or a lesser penalty for losing, and if the players couldn't come to a relatively quick agreement the challenge would be denied with no penalty. That wouldn't really work in tournament games, but I could see it in friendly games.

First and foremost, it needs to be a total revision, on the scale of 2-3e. Burn 18 years of rules cruft to the ground, turn those sacred cows into beefburgers. Taking the rules we've got now and leaving theme essentially unchanged while fiddling around the edges is how we got the horrible mess we have now.

Second, there needs to be better playtesting--you need hardcore power gamers breaking the ruleset over their knees and laughing at the idea of "Rules As Intended". Then you use them as a guideline to fixing ambiguous rules and miscosted units, improving the play experience for both tournament nuts and casual players.

Mitigate the power of alpha strikes--make table-crossing weapon ranges rare. Nobody likes putting down models and then immediately scooping them before they can do anything.

Lastly, true LOS goes away never to be seen again. It can be replaced with a size stat for models (added to the others, or derived from base size), and a keyword system for terrain.

Those are the big things I think need to be in place for 8e to be an improvement. Everything else is just detail.

I think challenges could stay, but you shouldn't have to mind in the back quivering if you turn one down.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

1. Use of special characters should only be possible, if your opponent agrees.
These vips are just out of place when they are seen in every minor skirmish. They really shine in epic battles and therefore their rules can be over the top.

2. Storm Bolters & Kombi-Bolters
Get rid of their superfluous differences, use one profile for the gun and name it whatever floats your boat.

1. I disagree. However I wish they wouldn't emphasis that they are that ONE person, but rather someone like that person.
For example you can have Brother Corbulo in the codex, but be encouraged to have Chief Sanguinary Priest Whatshisface of the Whojacallit chapter (BA successors) or whatever.
So far it's only really the SM codex that prevents you doing this, because you have to play Marnius Calgar the Ultramarine, you can't pretend he's a Flesh Tearer (Personally I think Calgar would make a decent Amit, but NOPE :( )

I'm trying not to be a cranky old man stuck in my 3rd edition ways, but special characters being everywhere in "normal" games still seems really weird to me.

I can see where you're coming from with "Counts As" special characters. That makes sense. Ideally I think that could be done by allowing people to choose/purchase warlord traits, and also by having some more generic relics instead of having everything be really specific. I mean, it can be cool to have a specific piece of named wargear with a high-profile history, but So-and-So's banner really gets around and somehow it ends up on both sides of a battle every once in a while. I can see having named relics just like named characters, but more generic "holy banners" and "sacred weapons" that the player can come up with their own fluff for.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

I'm trying not to be a cranky old man stuck in my 3rd edition ways, but special characters being everywhere in "normal" games still seems really weird to me.

I can see where you're coming from with "Counts As" special characters. That makes sense. Ideally I think that could be done by allowing people to choose/purchase warlord traits, and also by having some more generic relics instead of having everything be really specific. I mean, it can be cool to have a specific piece of named wargear with a high-profile history, but So-and-So's banner really gets around and somehow it ends up on both sides of a battle every once in a while. I can see having named relics just like named characters, but more generic "holy banners" and "sacred weapons" that the player can come up with their own fluff for.

I would really like you to choose warlord traits in some capacity anyway.
You're telling me my leader has no idea what he's like until he's staring into the whites of his enemies eyes? That's a bit late for soul searching at that point...

I've personally never had an issue with unique characters or wargear oddly enough, even now I'm more of a narrative focused player.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think challenges could stay, but you shouldn't have to mind in the back quivering if you turn one down.

I guess if BOTH players agree to a Challenge, sure. However, I'd change allow ANY Infantry, Monstrous Creature or Walker to accept the challenge. Guardsman Bob jumps in because he's just that badass. Or stupid. Maybe the Dreadnought thinks it'd be funny stomping the S5 dude. 40k is tough place.

Yeah, the random thing is really off-putting. It seems like a bad way of dealing with some warlord traits not being as good as others and the potentiality for some traits to create game-breaking combos. In AoS they let people pick their own warlord trait, but the traits are also in the GHB so they can be updated on a fairly regular basis.

As far as unique characters and gear, I don't think there is a right and a wrong way, I just like it when there are options. My Bad Moon warboss should be able to get a pretty spiffy shoota that is better than your run-of-the-mill nob's. At the same time I don't think he would be carrying around the magnum opus of the greatest big mek of the age. My warboss is a big deal to me, but he's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

 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

-

Not entirely keen on the snap-fire suggestion, that could easily make it impossible for some models to even shoot an enemy 6+ snap-fire is fine in my book.

As for the rest, agree wholeheartedly.

There are a couple AoS inspired things that I am hoping make their way into 40k. I think it's likely that some of this will find their way into 40k, and some have already been confirmed. This is what I would like to see make it's way into 40k:

1. Some sort of Rule of One that limits ridiculous combinations of powers or rerolls.

2. Movement values.

3). Rend on weapons (with a narrow range of rend values on most weapons -1 to -3, with some weapons like Melta, Lascannon, Power Fist, etc, getting -5 or some such).

4. Characters being able to be targeted independently but getting a look-out-sir if they are close to a nearby unit (this includes monstrous creature characters like Swarmlord or a Hive Tyrant - but not if you fly).

5. 3" combat radius. If you are within 3" of an enemy unit, you are struck in combat.

6. Summoning. Do it like AoS where you bring in units equal to the points you set aside.


and some things I absolutely hope they don't bring over from AoS:

1. Fixed To Hit and Wound rolls. Losing Strength and Toughness /WS/BS would be dissapointing.

2. Measuring from the model.

3. Shooting in combat.

Purely personal i'd like infantry to actually be worth taking again in so much as they are good not just a horde of bodies you remove while they cling on to holding objectives.

BunkhouseBuster wrote:That said, I would also like to see the Psychic Phase removed or changed. I remember back in 5th edition, it was a Leadership check, and most of the powers were not crazy broken and game altering like they are now. 6th edition brought in the really powerful, army bending Psychic shenanigans, but 7th edition broke it further. Nowadays, it's either bring more Psykers than your opponent to win at the Phase, or have nothing happen because they had more or better Psykers. Summoning is also far too abusable as is. Any time I play Psykers anymore, it's a Librarian on Bike with Biomancy for my Iron Hands Biker list CAD army, that's it!

Oddly enough there were enough Psychic Powers that were abusable, and only available by their own armies in 5th Edition. Remember Lash of Submission or Jaws of the World Wolf? In addition, most Psykers only could use 1, maybe 2 Powers in a turn (admittedly, that's all they had).

Having a general set of powers helps keep things more balanced over all, but it doesn't help when a random roll can make or break the use of such a character before the game even starts. Fantasy 8th was really bad in this case where a couple of Spells available on a setup roll of 6 could just remove almost entire units with no recourse.

But then the designers really don't test their designs with the purpose of breaking them, just to see if they would be fun.

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine.

TLoS is great, so is Area Terrain - a game can use both.

I rather disagree. IGOUGO opens yourself up to either a lot of abuses, or setting up odd rules to avoid those abuses. But then, my first TT game was Battletech which handled it rather well, imo, so that colors my expectations. I actually find it rather abusive that one can be moved against, shot at, and Charged with no ability to even move in response.

Complete True Line of Sight is terrible, especially in situations where the terrain cannot match what you would expect to see out of what is modeled, or the models themselves get in the way. Even more so when people forget that they can make the terrain anything they want it to be in terms of general rules affects, as in, "Yes, that is a forest, even though it is just a weird flat lump of plastic with no trees to get in the way of my models moving through it".

Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?

I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?

I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .

I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?

Get rid of:

- challenges
- nearest model wound allocation system
- LoW only in Apoc games
- no random psychic power or warlord traits, pay and choose

JohnHwangDD wrote:Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?

I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .

Then you don't know Btech very well and how it handles the turns. Battletech does not have IGOUGO, that's how it handles IGOUGO. Battletech has all units for all players handle their Movement in the same Phase. All Shooting for all players is performed in the same Phase.

There is no Deep Striking in, firing off all your guns, and then Charging in to mess someone up. You would Deep Strike in, and your opponent Moves away. You both shoot each other, with the damage being applied at the end of the Phase. Melee Attacks are then handled. Pretty simple, though balancing who goes first in the phase can be a pain.

Reactions are not the same as a response. 40K has reactions in things like Overwatch. Does that allow for a unit to get to Cover or out of LoS if they had a really good Charge? If a Skyhammer Annihilation Force Assault Marine Squad lands next to my Troops, can I move them away from them before they get Charged? Can you get your Dread out of Melta range of that Sternguard Squad that just Drop Podded in before they fire?

I didn't say I have a problem, just that there are many people who do. There are many systems which are more abstract, but still handles things mostly okay. Both Infinity and WarmaHordes use base size to determine these things. Battletech uses a similarly abstract system called "levels", with 'Mechs being 2 Levels high, most Vehicles being 1 Level high, but some having to operate at least one level up or have a chance to be wrecked.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?

First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in Assault.
____

 Charistoph wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?

I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .

Then you don't know Btech very well and how it handles the turns.

There is no Deep Striking in, firing off all your guns, and then Charging in to mess someone up.

Reactions are not the same as a response. 40K has reactions in things like Overwatch. Does that allow for a unit to get to Cover or out of LoS if they had a really good Charge? If a Skyhammer Annihilation Force Assault Marine Squad lands next to my Troops, can I move them away from them before they get Charged? Can you get your Dread out of Melta range of that Sternguard Squad that just Drop Podded in before they fire?

I didn't say I have a problem, just that there are many people who do. There are many systems which are more abstract, but still handles things mostly okay. Both Infinity and WarmaHordes use base size to determine these things. Battletech uses a similarly abstract system called "levels", with 'Mechs being 2 Levels high, most Vehicles being 1 Level high, but some having to operate at least one level up or have a chance to be wrecked.

I don't play Btech at all, but it's now obvious that your reply wasn't useful.

Also, while I've not really played much 40k since 6E released, I don't think you can DS, shoot and assault in the same turn -- IIRC, DS specifically excludes assault.

It sounds like you're just wanting extra movement as a reaction. Meh.

I'm well aware of Magic Cylinder, and height levels. It's categorically worse because air can shoot air.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?

First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in Assault.
____

 Charistoph wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?

I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .

Then you don't know Btech very well and how it handles the turns.

There is no Deep Striking in, firing off all your guns, and then Charging in to mess someone up.

Reactions are not the same as a response. 40K has reactions in things like Overwatch. Does that allow for a unit to get to Cover or out of LoS if they had a really good Charge? If a Skyhammer Annihilation Force Assault Marine Squad lands next to my Troops, can I move them away from them before they get Charged? Can you get your Dread out of Melta range of that Sternguard Squad that just Drop Podded in before they fire?

I didn't say I have a problem, just that there are many people who do. There are many systems which are more abstract, but still handles things mostly okay. Both Infinity and WarmaHordes use base size to determine these things. Battletech uses a similarly abstract system called "levels", with 'Mechs being 2 Levels high, most Vehicles being 1 Level high, but some having to operate at least one level up or have a chance to be wrecked.

I don't play Btech at all, but it's now obvious that your reply wasn't useful.

Also, while I've not really played much 40k since 6E released, I don't think you can DS, shoot and assault in the same turn -- IIRC, DS specifically excludes assault.

It sounds like you're just wanting extra movement as a reaction. Meh.

I'm well aware of Magic Cylinder, and height levels. It's categorically worse because air can shoot air.

Some 7th edition formations, like the Skyhammer Annihilation Force, allow units to assault on the same turn that they deep strike in

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .

Erm....how is TLOS superior at anything, at least with regard to models?

It's not more intuitive, because it gives the impression of soldiers who glide around the battlefield on one knee or with their arm sticking up, and who can never get to their feet to see over a barrier, or break their heroic pose to duck behind cover. And heaven help you if you thought it'd be cool to use a scenic base for your leader, because all you've done is made them a bigger target.

It's not easier in play, because we've all had arguments on the lines of "No, if you bend down at this exact spot, squint reeeeal hard and nearly poke your eye out on this bit of scenery, my guy can totally see your guys hand! What, you don't see it? Okay, thought this was a friendly game but whatevs."

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?

First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in assault.

I'm sold.
The local "playing since 4th edition veteran" AKA "The Grouch" complains that back when he started a 5000 point Apoc game had the same or lower model count than current 1850point matches. As a Space Wolves player hoards are the bane of my existence but since buying into one costs a fortune and they all suck horribly nobody buys them. I wouldn't be opposed to a point and stat overhaul that cuts down model counts across the board and makes hoard armies viable again.

Things I'd like:

Move more towards a squad-based game rather than a model-based game. By which I mean:
squad coherency - all models must be within a certain distance of the squad leader (say, the leader's Ld).
LOS and range is measured from squad leader to squad leader (or nearest model to nearest model; either works). Cover is adjudged on the same basis.

Leaders and special equipment/weaponry is a property of the squad, not the model; remove basic troopers until all that's left is special troopers. Snipers and other special rules can single out specialists if need be.

Shooting at vehicles should work the same as at everything else - S vs T and armour save. it worked in early 1st edition, it works for Monstrous Creatures.

Remove as many special rules as possible. Ideally basic Troops choices shouldn't have any special rules. If there's a way of representing Space Marines without them needing ATSKNF (which doesn't actually help them against Fear), that'd be good.

Consolidate weapons - do Fusion Guns need to be different from meltaguns? Do Space marines need fifteen different variations on "multiple-firing missile launcher" depending on whether it's on a Terminator, a Land Speeder, a fighter aircraft, etc? 0

 Charistoph wrote:

BunkhouseBuster wrote:That said, I would also like to see the Psychic Phase removed or changed. I remember back in 5th edition, it was a Leadership check, and most of the powers were not crazy broken and game altering like they are now. 6th edition brought in the really powerful, army bending Psychic shenanigans, but 7th edition broke it further. Nowadays, it's either bring more Psykers than your opponent to win at the Phase, or have nothing happen because they had more or better Psykers. Summoning is also far too abusable as is. Any time I play Psykers anymore, it's a Librarian on Bike with Biomancy for my Iron Hands Biker list CAD army, that's it!

Oddly enough there were enough Psychic Powers that were abusable, and only available by their own armies in 5th Edition. Remember Lash of Submission or Jaws of the World Wolf? In addition, most Psykers only could use 1, maybe 2 Powers in a turn (admittedly, that's all they had).

Having a general set of powers helps keep things more balanced over all, but it doesn't help when a random roll can make or break the use of such a character before the game even starts. Fantasy 8th was really bad in this case where a couple of Spells available on a setup roll of 6 could just remove almost entire units with no recourse.

But then the designers really don't test their designs with the purpose of breaking them, just to see if they would be fun.

To me, those Pyschic powers weren't broken, just really powerful. Abusable, yes, but not near as game breaking when abused, unlike some 7th edition Psychic powers. My issue is that nowadays we get the powerful powers being used on already powerful units - one of those old 5th edition powers going off would not necessarily ruin your day like Invisibility on a Titan of TWC Deathstar would, at least IMHO. Those previous examples were offensive powers, not defensive buffs for friendly units, and you were limited to how many Psykers you could have, since the FOC only had 2 HQ slots, and most Psykers were HQs back in the day (Grey Knights excluded), and some Psykers has ways to counter enemy Psykers (Psychic Hoods, Eldar shenanigans).

8th Fantasy does have some crazy powers, but I think that might have been intended. What with the way dispelling works, you try to cast your big scary spells to get your opponent to try and dispel it so that you have the rest of your magic dice to cast one of the "lesser" spells. And I get the feeling that is kind of what was intended in 40K as well, considering how Deny the Witch and the Psychic phase are so similar to Fantasy's Magic phase. But just like in Fantasy, I don't want to have to take a Wizard/Psyker is EVERY battle just to use this game mechanic that can almost exponentially the power and effectiveness of my army.

The biggest gripes I have with 7th edition (and any wargame, really) are what can be abused by ultra-competitive players. I don't have issues with the rules, but certain players and how they play the game. I do like having a basic set of powers that nearly every army can use in addition to their own, but as it is, I think it can be abused far too easily.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?

First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in assault.

I'm sold.
The local "playing since 4th edition veteran" AKA "The Grouch" complains that back when he started a 5000 point Apoc game had the same or lower model count than current 1850point matches. As a Space Wolves player hoards are the bane of my existence but since buying into one costs a fortune and they all suck horribly nobody buys them. I wouldn't be opposed to a point and stat overhaul that cuts down model counts across the board and makes hoard armies viable again.

I will say here what I said earlier: GW ought to release different tiers of game sizes for games. Not only could we have Open, Narrative, and Matched Play (like in Age of Sigmar, which is pretty much confirmed by GW already), but we could also have different but similar rulesets for different scales of battle. We already have Kill Team giving us small, unit-scaled battles. How about we break it down further by simplifying and abstracting the rules as we scale up in the game sizes? I mean,, do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less noticeable. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be outright insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW something along these lines, I would buy it in a heartbeat! Think about it: Kill Team, Patrol, Skirmish, Large Battle, and Apocalypse scaled battle tiers rules for different game types.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?

I don't think so. I feel that would add too much firepower, especially if they don't repoint things.

 docdoom77 wrote:


Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.

+1 shot would be even worse though I feel, +1 on a lascannon is very different to +1 to a punisher gatling cannon.
When you say you rolled to wound twice is that basically for every successful to-hit with the weapon you actually get 2 hits?

Yes, you roll to wound/penetrate twice for every hit you score. However, in second edition, Rapid fire (excluding a Marine Special Rule) and Heavy 2/3 etc were not things. If something shot more than once, it nearly always used a sustained fire die to determine how many shots (or if it jammed), so there were less shots fired on average from any given gun. There were, of course, exceptions - the Eldar Scatter laser (which was a big artillery support weapon at the time) shot 6 separate shots and combi weapons could fire both modes together at a penalty to hit.

I do NOT support doubling hits. The last thing we need is doubling the ludicrous amount of firepower coming from some armies right now (Scatter laser TL'd to 8 shots!). Ugh. Unless it came with a "to-hit" penalty... then it might work.

I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:

Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS

Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam

Youn wrote:
I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:

Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS

Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam

I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.