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.

Hey folks I came up with a possible solution on how to get 8th to what we really want. List your ten issues with 8th in bullet-point list. Then we send that list to GW. The community always has a hard time coming up with a consensus. So how about we make it simple and easy to communicate to gw. What are your top 10 issues with 8th.


Please keep it to one paragraph per point.

Anything not posted in Bullet Point Forum will not be sent to GW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
1. Non Lore Based drop pods

2. Terrain

3 Shooting from the hull

4. Primarchs in competitive play

5. Encourages Hoards

6. More play tested and balanced armies.

8. Primaris lore

9 . Firing arcs

10. Simplified vehicle armor and upgrades.

I think my biggest issue is falling back, as it currently stands. I hate that anyone can just waltz out of combat without being pursued or challenged. Yes, the unit that fell back can't shoot or charge (unless they can), but that's little consolation as the rest of the army shoots the other unit that was in close combat.

I think there should be some kind of test, like move + D6, only get to fall back if your combined value exceeds the enemy's. Or the enemy gets to consolidate again. Or something besides waving goodbye as the enemy unit just walks away.

My other biggest problem is that cover, as it currently stands, is useless for I'd wager the majority of units. Shooting through cover, shooting through units, means nothing. So, if you can see the tread of a vehicle from around a building, and it's not inside cover, it gets no cover save.

Another gripe is being able to kill out of LOS. If you combine that with the useless cover rules above, you can get in a situation where If you can only see the arm of a single ork boy around the corner of the building, and his entire squad isn't in cover, not only does that squad not get cover, but they can also all get killed.

lastly, they really need address or clarify the rules for how vehicles shoot. I'm 100% ok with vehicles not having firing arcs, but as it stands, if only a vehicle's front fender can draw LOS to a target, all the weapons on that vehicle can shoot unimpeded from that point. That seems a little silly.

 ForceChoke wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
2. Terrain

11. Some point tweaks.
12. The rest of the codexes.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I think my biggest issue is falling back, as it currently stands. I hate that anyone can just waltz out of combat without being pursued or challenged. Yes, the unit that fell back can't shoot or charge (unless they can), but that's little consolation as the rest of the army shoots the other unit that was in close combat.

I think there should be some kind of test, like move + D6, only get to fall back if your combined value exceeds the enemy's. Or the enemy gets to consolidate again. Or something besides waving goodbye as the enemy unit just walks away.

My other biggest problem is that cover, as it currently stands, is useless for I'd wager the majority of units. Shooting through cover, shooting through units, means nothing. So, if you can see the tread of a vehicle from around a building, and it's not inside cover, it gets no cover save.

Another gripe is being able to kill out of LOS. If you combine that with the useless cover rules above, you can get in a situation where If you can only see the arm of a single ork boy around the corner of the building, and his entire squad isn't in cover, not only does that squad not get cover, but they can also all get killed.

lastly, they really need address or clarify the rules for how vehicles shoot. I'm 100% ok with vehicles not having firing arcs, but as it stands, if only a vehicle's front fender can draw LOS to a target, all the weapons on that vehicle can shoot unimpeded from that point. That seems a little silly.

Can you put this into a bullet point form list?


Like thus.

1.

2.

3.

Etc

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I think my biggest issue is falling back, as it currently stands. I hate that anyone can just waltz out of combat without being pursued or challenged. Yes, the unit that fell back can't shoot or charge (unless they can), but that's little consolation as the rest of the army shoots the other unit that was in close combat.

I think there should be some kind of test, like move + D6, only get to fall back if your combined value exceeds the enemy's. Or the enemy gets to consolidate again. Or something besides waving goodbye as the enemy unit just walks away.

Instead of a test, I think the unit should risk taking damage. e.g. roll a d6 for each model that fell back, for each roll of 6+ the unit suffers a Mortal Wound.

You could then add modifiers to this - e.g. add 1 to the roll if the unit is outnumbered by at least 2:1. If there is one or more enemy characters, the enemy unit could have to roll a number of additional dice.

Basically, I think that the unit should be able to escape automatically but will likely take damage in the process.

Why not just "Free Strikes?" Models in melee get to make a free round of attacks, without a pile-in move?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Why not just "Free Strikes?" Models in melee get to make a free round of attacks, without a pile-in move?

I was trying to think of something a bit less time-consuming.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Why not just "Free Strikes?" Models in melee get to make a free round of attacks, without a pile-in move?

Sorry guys. Try to keep it to a bullet point list. So it's easy to send to gw. Keep it simple. Sorry..

 ForceChoke wrote:

3 Shooting from the hull

4. Primarchs in competitive play

5. Encourages Hoards

6. More play tested and balanced armies.

8. Primaris lore

9 . Firing arcs

10. Simplified vehicle armor and upgrades.

I'm sorry but this doesn't actually make any sense? Do you want firing arcs back or something? Do you not want primarchs in competitive play? Do you want the game to encourage hordes or not encourage hordes? Do you want the game somehow retracted so it gets playtested more and do you actually think this will "fix" certain issues with the game? If I was GW looking at this list I wouldn't pay it any mind because it doesn't seem like you put any thought into it.

I honestly don't think I can think of 10 issues I have with 8th. My main issue is issues with the Chaos codex not being fluffy or allowing fluffy things but that should be dealt with via the Codex. My other issues are with the FW indexes being fething messes but they are FAQ'ing those so that'll be fixed soon enough. Everything else that people complain about from cover to falling back to LOS end up being more fringe issues that happen occasionally in games but don't end up ruining them.

Encouraging Hoards is generally what geedubs want

 ForceChoke wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Why not just "Free Strikes?" Models in melee get to make a free round of attacks, without a pile-in move?

Sorry guys. Try to keep it to a bullet point list. So it's easy to send to gw. Keep it simple. Sorry..

Yeah, we know. But I thought it would be useful to at least get a vague consensus on the bullet points first. Otherwise your 'concise' letter to GW is going to end up looking like this:

1) Units shouldn't be able to escape from combat without passing some sort of test.

2) Units should be able to escape from combat but risk taking mortal wounds by doing so.

3) Units should be able to escape from combat but the enemy gets a free fight phase (minus mile-in moves and consolidation) against them.

etc.

Balance Tau. There has been a ton of feedback out there on what feels wrong with them right now so I won't go into details.

I also feel in competitive play the always go first rule should be fixed to simply a +1 like the itc does it.

Until I play 8th at all I won't be able to say anything else for sure.

 vipoid wrote:


Yeah, we know. But I thought it would be useful to at least get a vague consensus on the bullet points first. Otherwise your 'concise' letter to GW is going to end up looking like this:

1) Units shouldn't be able to escape from combat without passing some sort of test.

2) Units should be able to escape from combat but risk taking mortal wounds by doing so.

3) Units should be able to escape from combat but the enemy gets a free fight phase (minus mile-in moves and consolidation) against them.

etc.

You're not going get a concise list to take to GW. You're going to get a hacked up list that almost no one agrees with, because the OP dislikes just about everything about 8th.

 Gamgee wrote:
I also feel in competitive play the always go first rule should be fixed to simply a +1 like the itc does it.

Oh man this. The ITC matched play rules and restrictions should start being added to the rulebook, from the +1 to go first to specific objective placements to discourage stacking objectives on one side on the board. General matched play needs to be tightened up and yes some very high powered units should be restricted like super-heavies. Super-heavy spam isn't very fun to play against.

Oh if I can do non-rules suggestions? Well I want to see more lore on some of the famous Tau Septs. I already know the new Tau dex will have a ton of new lore ect but that is something I would specifically want to see.

 vipoid wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Why not just "Free Strikes?" Models in melee get to make a free round of attacks, without a pile-in move?

Sorry guys. Try to keep it to a bullet point list. So it's easy to send to gw. Keep it simple. Sorry..

Yeah, we know. But I thought it would be useful to at least get a vague consensus on the bullet points first. Otherwise your 'concise' letter to GW is going to end up looking like this:

1) Units shouldn't be able to escape from combat without passing some sort of test.

2) Units should be able to escape from combat but risk taking mortal wounds by doing so.

3) Units should be able to escape from combat but the enemy gets a free fight phase (minus mile-in moves and consolidation) against them.

etc.

That is exactly the idea a concise list to gw that they can read through easily. Bullet point. It's in the OP. Again sorry. But GW is probably not going to want to read paragraphs. A bullet point list will give them a consensus. By seeing simplified repeated request such as.

1. Terrain

2. Lack of armour upgrades.


Then they will know what to focus on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Yeah, we know. But I thought it would be useful to at least get a vague consensus on the bullet points first. Otherwise your 'concise' letter to GW is going to end up looking like this:

1) Units shouldn't be able to escape from combat without passing some sort of test.

2) Units should be able to escape from combat but risk taking mortal wounds by doing so.

3) Units should be able to escape from combat but the enemy gets a free fight phase (minus mile-in moves and consolidation) against them.

etc.

You're not going get a concise list to take to GW. You're going to get a hacked up list that almost no one agrees with, because the OP dislikes just about everything about 8th.

I was planning on sending an unbiased list. ???? Thus Bullet Point form.

I'm more than willing to accept the unfluffiness of vehicles not having facings, fire arcs, etc, because that's a big part of why vehicles were usually garbage in 6e/7e, since nothing else worked that way. Not infantry: that Devastator can fire his lascannon out of his eyes if that's all that can "see" you, regardless of where the gun itself is modeled. MCs, cavalry, bikes, same story. Only vehicles cared about facings and fire arcs, and that was unrealistic and unfluffy for all non-vehicles before.

I'll take the unfluffiness and unrealism in exchange for not having a needlessly overcomplicated ruleset that also makes one type of unit crap because it has restrictions that nobody else has, even if they look like they should.

My beefs are more in line with the following:

1) Terrain
2) Cover (it's wonky right now. Not really useless, but it's odd)
3) Being able to kill models out of range or out of LOS as long as one model can be seen.
4) Mortal wound spam, especially against armies with no psychic defense.
5) A few bizarre point costs (overcosted or undercosted units)
6) Internal balance issues in several forces. (Celestine and Guilliman are no-brainer picks, Skyrays are poop compared to other Tau HS units and they don't have any well-defined role, quite a few others)
7) Modifiers and rerolls are maddening. Apply modifiers before rerolls and clarify "on a 1" or "on a 6" effects to trigger only on a natural 1 or 6. Plasma guns blowing up more often against Stealth Suits seems silly.
8) Make all "overheating" weapons deal the firing unit a mortal wound instead of outright death. Not only is that amazingly annoying now, it's also weird and inconsistent. Maybe things that really do volcanically explode when they overheat should kill whole models, but garden-variety plasma guns aren't it.

My biggest issue with 8th is the players...

*ducks*

 ForceChoke wrote:
Then they will know what to focus on.

"They put terrain on the list, they must want less terrain and more simplified terrain rules!"

The GW community team seems to take feedback into account and communicate well with the community on facebook. The frontline gaming guys communicate directly with the rules teams. If a detailed, specific list as given to either of these two it has a high chance of being seen by GW and either being ignored or looked at. A "simplified repeated request" looks like a 5 year old wrote it. If I was writing rules for something I would pay attention to the people who obviously put time and effort into making clear and detailed arguments to back up their list, and I would ignore people who sent me a bullet point of 10 things with no more information or obvious thought behind it. If you want anyone to take you seriously you have to give them a reason to take you seriously.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My biggest issue with 8th is the players...

*ducks*

I'm a bit of a misanthrope. So I typically detest all people including myself equally. So I can agree to that lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My biggest issue with 8th is the players...

It's more the forums of people who aren't actually playing 8th than the players in general. The players in the tournaments I've been going to are having a lot of fun baring a few small issues that can be fixed via Codex's and FAQs and more matched play rules.

Just terrain. Needs to be fixed badly. I'd love it if for example Space Wolves got a Stratagem to be able to react to a fall back with an extra charge. A costly tactic to use, but very strong to simply continue the hunt and make a charge move out of phase. This would allow some melee heavy armies a counter to Fall Back. But generally, I think Fall Back is great the way it is, specifically because it *allows* for other rules to play and build on it. As long as GW does that stuff, I think the rule is good the way it is.

The Fall Back rule doesn't bother me.

My least favorite games were the rugby-scrum-the middle-on-turn-2-and-roll-dice-for-four-hours games.

Assault takes forever. And in previous editions, being locked in assault meant you couldn't move. So many of the games I watched were: The assault army made it and the shooting army lost, the assault army didn't make it and the shooting army won, or the assault army ran into another assault army and they all just piled in the middle for infinity turns rolling a load of dice until everyone said "right, go home then." at the end of turn 6.

The best games to watch were two shooting armies squaring off, because usually just gunlining didn't work (objective games :3) and so moving was important, but each side was leery of assault so the moves were usually more tactical than "towards the enemy, disembark, charge."

Now, at least, you have to think in the assault phase because you're no longer completely immune to shooting while in assault, and players have more options than 'stand there and roll dice at eachother.'

1) Terrain/Cover rules.

They're garbage. The rest of the rules are pretty darn good. I'd quickly start hating this game if half the stuff on the OP's list were changed.

 ForceChoke wrote:
The community always has a hard time coming up with a consensus.

The 40k community is insanely split up. We have:
- People who don't want balanced armies
- People who think that GW isn't producing enough marines
- People who think that if it beats them it's OP and if they lose with it it's UP
- People who think that 7e was the best edition GW ever made
- People who think that there should/shouldn't be codexes this edition...

Anyways, my list:

1) Lack of army detail (Codexes will probably fix this)
2) The game cannot be played with the Battle Primer alone (never gonna be changed)
3) GW listens to the people who call for vengeance-nerfs and sympathy-buffs to make armies "pay" for success in earlier editions (GW isn't going to wise up to this)
4) SM have most of the releases in the past, present, and future, so much so that more than every other release is marines (GW will never change this)
5) Every army release comes with more destroying of the fluff - trying to make it more kid friendly, and outright ignoring staple facts of the universe (The IOM hates tech-heresy, but loves the Primaris things? Wat?)
6) ULTRAMARINES are still our spiritual lieges (Thanks Mattard. Thank you very much.)
7) Cover rules in the BRB are unintelligible, even after the FAQ (I don't think GW is capable of fixing this)
8) GW keeps remaking the rules instead of tweaking for balance and effect (They seem to be getting around to doing this though)
9) Random price hikes for no reason
10) New kits are stupendously expensive (£35 for a single HQ. Wat.)

1) Terrain and all it sub rule, cover, line of sight and movement impediment

Cover rules don't scale so there is no difference in taking cover behind a bush and a reinforced battlement, they also favors unit with good armor save.

Line of sight is only blocked when nothing from both unit can be seen so only big block actually block it.

I did see any penalty for moving over rough terrain.

2) Lack of initiative, make lightly armored fighter, Witch and Demonette, not able to alleviate their downside by making the opponent take casualty before being hit and the special rule they were given only works on the second round of combat or for every other unit that gets charged.

3) Moral, small unit are virtually immune to hit.

4) Lack of templates, I don't like rolling random number of shot or hits.

5) Multiple wound with a single hit are random, it wound be better if it was base on STR vs THG, witch mean that monster would not need so many wounds and small arm could be a better threat to them.

6) Psychic Powers, the psycher does not affect the role what so ever and the only thing that prevents them from going nuclear is the fact that a spell can only be cast once per turn making it not scalable.

7) Falling back

8) Split Fire on everything, that is just asking to be broken with a super shooting death star that is buff by psy poower

9) No firing arc or facing on vehicle, remove the strategic WW2 feel of outflanking tanks.

10) Flyer, I feel that right now with the rules they are just out of place in the game.

1-10: Id like terrain updated but kept largely simple.

Make woods and ruins give a -1 to hit bonus while bunkers and barricades give the +1 to armor saves. Marines shouldn't get more out of hiding out in the woods than guardsmen do, and it makes more sense that terminators get nothing for being in a bunker because anything that can punch through terminator armor can punch through rockcrete but do get something for being obscured targets in thick foliage.

Bring back terrain that effects movement, just say the difficult terrain has a -2" modifier to moves and assaults that pass through it. Doesn't need to be all terrain but craters and razorwire and mud all make sense.

Probably just drop tanks/monsters getting cover from anything, the whole 50% obscured but only if it's partially on the terrain thing doesn't make sense and brings back the subjective 'yes he is / no he isn't' arguments that everyone hates having. Land raiders and carnifex's aren't really known for hiding in trenches, just have the model position be interpretive of a body in motion and if you can see part its assume the whole thing is lumbering out to take shots and be shot. You can have something like specific tank pits for giving vehicles/monsters cover in advanced terrain rules. Give beasts and bikes back the same cover availability as infantry, it's weird that a 12 foot tall primaris marine gets a bonus for standing by a tree in full view but an ankle high ripper swarm that's by the same tree and 30% obscured by bushes gets nothing.

Drop most of the other advanced terrain rules, we can make up our own house rules for exploding fuel pipes and we certainly don't need whatever the mess of rules imperial statues is supposed to be.

 ForceChoke wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I think my biggest issue is falling back, as it currently stands. I hate that anyone can just waltz out of combat without being pursued or challenged. Yes, the unit that fell back can't shoot or charge (unless they can), but that's little consolation as the rest of the army shoots the other unit that was in close combat.

I think there should be some kind of test, like move + D6, only get to fall back if your combined value exceeds the enemy's. Or the enemy gets to consolidate again. Or something besides waving goodbye as the enemy unit just walks away.

My other biggest problem is that cover, as it currently stands, is useless for I'd wager the majority of units. Shooting through cover, shooting through units, means nothing. So, if you can see the tread of a vehicle from around a building, and it's not inside cover, it gets no cover save.

Another gripe is being able to kill out of LOS. If you combine that with the useless cover rules above, you can get in a situation where If you can only see the arm of a single ork boy around the corner of the building, and his entire squad isn't in cover, not only does that squad not get cover, but they can also all get killed.

lastly, they really need address or clarify the rules for how vehicles shoot. I'm 100% ok with vehicles not having firing arcs, but as it stands, if only a vehicle's front fender can draw LOS to a target, all the weapons on that vehicle can shoot unimpeded from that point. That seems a little silly.

Can you put this into a bullet point form list?


Like thus.

1.

2.

3.

Etc

I
As the steward of this thread that might be your job in the end.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I think my biggest issue is falling back, as it currently stands. I hate that anyone can just waltz out of combat without being pursued or challenged. Yes, the unit that fell back can't shoot or charge (unless they can), but that's little consolation as the rest of the army shoots the other unit that was in close combat.

I think there should be some kind of test, like move + D6, only get to fall back if your combined value exceeds the enemy's. Or the enemy gets to consolidate again. Or something besides waving goodbye as the enemy unit just walks away.

My other biggest problem is that cover, as it currently stands, is useless for I'd wager the majority of units. Shooting through cover, shooting through units, means nothing. So, if you can see the tread of a vehicle from around a building, and it's not inside cover, it gets no cover save.

Another gripe is being able to kill out of LOS. If you combine that with the useless cover rules above, you can get in a situation where If you can only see the arm of a single ork boy around the corner of the building, and his entire squad isn't in cover, not only does that squad not get cover, but they can also all get killed.

lastly, they really need address or clarify the rules for how vehicles shoot. I'm 100% ok with vehicles not having firing arcs, but as it stands, if only a vehicle's front fender can draw LOS to a target, all the weapons on that vehicle can shoot unimpeded from that point. That seems a little silly.

Remember that if you consolidate around a unit they cannot move out of combat as they cannot move through other models (unless they have fly)

My feedback

1. Morale
As the game evolves, it seems like elite armies pay more of a penalty for morale than anyone else. As your points per model goes up, your risk for morale losses increases. Consider a squad of 10 marines, versus a squad of 50 conscripts. For 30 points, the conscripts can become immune to morale. Meanwhile, the marines start losing 10% or more of the squad after 3 die. Does this make sense? If you have a devastator squad of 10 men, in a drop pod, you've just paid over 10% of your list for this squad. If 3 of the tacticals in the squad die - which, is their role really, you might start losing more. Meanwhile, a squad of conscripts can lose 40/50 guys and take exactly 1 morale casualty. That's not balanced.

2. Cover / Terrain
This seems like it was designed for speed and to reduce arguments, but there are some obvious tweaks you could make. For instance, if a model has the ability to fire at another model without line of sight, there should be a -1 penalty to hit. Shooting through ruins, for instance. You can't see what you're shooting. This should come with a penalty. Manticores hiding literally inside a building shooting anywhere on the map - this should come with a -1 hit penalty, too. As it stands right now, cover is opened up for some real gimmicks. Clearly define what "within" cover means. Expand rules for the terrain you ship that has no base.

3. Large Blobs
Anything that determines the number of hits on a dice roll should double when shooting at a squad of 20 or more. Any model that costs less than 4PPM should not have a save, period. Brimstone horrors with a 4++ is ridiculous, for example. As it stands right now, there is 0 disincentive to have the largest blob of cheap units you can. There is no tactical decision making. If you can make your blob larger, do it.

4. 8th is good
8th is a great edition and a step in the right direction. The worst thing you can do is have a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of perceived balance issues. Be methodical. Changes made to the game should be very minor. Think what Duncan says. Multiple thin coats, right? Lots of little, tiny tweaks. A lot of the issues can easily be solved with minor tweaks. It's a good game. Don't mess it up.