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.

Umbros wrote:

2. Give overwatch shots vs units that fall back from combat

I keep seeing this. Requests to punish units that withdraw from CC.

No. It's not necessary. The unit gets punished fairly already by disallowing charges and shooting unless they can fly or have some specific rule to the contrary, and CC armies got mega-buffed, on average, by the WS changes not relying on a skill-score comparison.

Besides that, if you're going to cite "reality" as your justification (not you Umbros. Other people have been trying in this thread), almost every unit I can find stats for has Grenades. If a unit that's falling back should get hacked as they withdraw (as though they didn't just get hacked to pieces by their enemies just a moment ago) then the retreating unit should be able to cover their retreat with their frag grenades.

I mean, it's how *I* would retreat from chaotic in-fighting, assuming my unit were organized enough to actually still retreat (the other situation being what happens when you fail your roll in the morale phase, so yes, it's already been accounted for).

But I don't think you want your CC unit to eat multiple frag grenade attacks just because they're being disengaged from.

The rules as written work, and are already fair. If you're running a melee-heavy army, you should already know what you're getting yourself into. It's not like the sequence of play is a surprise, or anything.

Besides which, it's not as if 8th edition shooting armies can table you before you get to assault anymore. If that's what's happening to you, then it's your fault for not investing in enough 1st turn charge-capable units to make the things that need to happen, happen.

Indeed. Given the number of armies that can do first turn assaults, and vicious ones at that, the ability to pull out of assaults is utterly necessary.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'd like to see boxes ship with the appropriate range of options. .

Be careful what you wish for... I suspect that units having fewer options, ruleswise (as seems to be happening with the Primaris releases) is the more likely outcome than GW selling bits again.

Umbros wrote:

Firstly I think 8th is an excellent edition. An enormous improvement on everything that's come before. So these are minor tweaks.

1. Flamers being so good vs flyers is unintuitive. Make them roll to hit vs units with fly.

Just introduce a rule for supersonic flyers that you add 12 " to the range.. Problem solved.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
ADD Obscurement rules to cover.

So that if 50% of your model is blocked by terrain you get a -1 modifier to hit. That would make the confustion for large models in terrain AND obscurment less.

Why do people seem to be both complaining about flyers being overpowered, and also wanting to be making them even more powerful?

The flyer rules are there as a balance between rule of cool "hell yeah I get to play with gunships pew pew!" and the need for various armies to be able to damage and destroy flyers. "Realism" is not even remotely a primary concern, nor should it be.

1) Fall Back needs to be rebalanced. Melee-only armies have to endure shooting, then overwatch and then get 1 (one!) round of combat against their target before having to do it again.
The many-units-style armies out there hugely benefit from this, e.g. IG tank armies.
2) Too many weapons that are not on Titans have a huge numbers of shots and/or damage ranges. It makes the game far too prone to gamechanging RNG.
3) Overwatch hits on 6 but if you have a ton of shots you are likely to hit enough anyway. A lot of units can overwatch with unlikely weapons (a Manticore with their huge missiles?). I'm not against vehicles overwatching, but it should be with point-defense weapons only (flamers, bolters, etc.)

Umbros wrote:

Firstly I think 8th is an excellent edition. An enormous improvement on everything that's come before. So these are minor tweaks.

1. Flamers being so good vs flyers is unintuitive. Make them roll to hit vs units with fly.
2. Give overwatch shots vs units that fall back from combat
3. The morale rules are great (they work well in AOS too), but too many armies are insulated against it due to their unit ruling.
4. Pistols should be able to be fired when advancing, like assault weapons (with a -1)
5. The terrain rules are a bit thin. Intervening cover should give armour save bonuses or shooting negatives.

Problem with #1, jump pack units are now great against flamers. I think making it against vehicles in general instead that it's weaker would make more sense.

My main issue with 8th:

-points values

Because I fail to see why 1 group of 5 Lootas requires 8 power, but adding 5 additional Lootas (which can be done twice per unit) costs 4 each. Especially since they have no Nob or anything that would justify the higher cost (and even then, a Nob like any "Sergeant" unit should only cost 1 power more to begin with).

I want to freely have the ability to either use an additonal Elite slot with another 5 models for the same cost that it would be if I shoved those 5 models into an existing unit, because I'd face certain small restrictions in return.

 Arandmoor wrote:


I'd like to point out that if you want armor values, facing, the removal of withdraw moves, and far more complex terrain and LOS rules, there is nothing stopping you from playing 7th edition..

Would have replied to this two days ago, but I got hit by a wild ban for calling someone lazy...

There is something stopping people from going back to 7th. 7th edition is so incredibly bad that the few redeeming factors within it are utterly unable to give anyone any sense of fun in that game. The rules in the BRB , the codexes, the suplements and the dataslates are an utter clusterfeth. Mostly unreadable, often nonsensical, it is full of rules bloat. A viable army in 7th often requires 2-5 separate army books. There is no semblance of balance anywhere. It is by far the least fun thing I have ever tried to play.

That is why people aren't going back. It would be quite the feat of writing to make a ruleset anywhere near as bad as 7e 40k. Even player-made "minor" adjustments are dozens of pages long, it's that bad.

1. Free strikes against units that fall back from combat, forget overwatch. Wanna turn tail and show your back to the enemy you are fighting against you'll pay the price.
2. More engaging terrain.
3. More narrative like missions.

 Brutallica wrote:
1. Free strikes against units that fall back from combat, forget overwatch. Wanna turn tail and show your back to the enemy you are fighting against you'll pay the price.

Okay, in exchange you forsake all first turn assaults and even second turn assaults become difficult.

Because without the ability to leave combat, melee-spam wins every time.

 Brutallica wrote:
1. Free strikes against units that fall back from combat, forget overwatch. Wanna turn tail and show your back to the enemy you are fighting against you'll pay the price.
2. More engaging terrain.
3. More narrative like missions.

I'm okay with the 1st one as long as every model in the falling back unit can throw one frag-grenade each at the attacking unit as they cover their retreat with them. After all, if you're going to take away the abstraction of how the unit disengages, then you have to take away every abstraction.

For me I'd wish GW would adopt a formal "writing language" for their rules like MTG, even if it sounds like ridiculous legalese (like how instead of saying "this unit" it goes "Target Unit" and so forth). A unified language greatly helps with rule interpretations as well as speed up people understanding the rules. Terms like "Natural roll" and "Modified roll" would have really helped with understanding the whole "modifers on rerolls" thing.

Also I really wished they'd make Cover something into a To Hit modifier instead of an armor modifier. It feels more like helping old players transition rather than a way to make it actually useful and make sense (normally I'd say this might raise issues with the Plasma Guns overheating less, but hey that seems to happen in reverse when a Plasma Cannon gunner shuffles slightly to the right anyways).

As for everything else though, it feels less like people trying to "balance" the game and more like they want a return to the old 3rd-ed based system. While that is understandable, I would again advocate people to move on from that line of thinking as this edition of 40k is a new beast. It seems like the new thinking as caught some people offguard (me too, as I forgot more than once that simply being in combat didn't lock anyone in it anymore and I still can't remember how the new psychic rules work). But it just seems like if you give it a few months people will settle back into the groove, and these issues will seem much smaller or disappear entirely. We are moving from one well-worn chair (which has a butt-groove several decades deep) to a brand new one.

Yanno, this thread is the first time I've had more faith in GW's ability to write rules than a player's.

Can't tell if good thing or bad thing.

No idea what this says about us/GW.

 docdoom77 wrote:
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.

Yeah I agree. I am so so so happy to leave behind Firing Arcs and vehicle armour facings. I also don't see anything wrong with Encouraging Hoards, hoards are great!

...that said the only thing I don't like about the terrain/cover is all of the special proprietary rules for different terrain kits... I prefer "area terrain" plain and simple, even if it's just a +1 save.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
For me I'd wish GW would adopt a formal "writing language" for their rules like MTG, even if it sounds like ridiculous legalese (like how instead of saying "this unit" it goes "Target Unit" and so forth). A unified language greatly helps with rule interpretations as well as speed up people understanding the rules. Terms like "Natural roll" and "Modified roll" would have really helped with understanding the whole "modifers on rerolls" thing.

I agree with this concept. In either 6e or 7e there was a thread about a dozen pages long, iirc, where nobody could figure out if FnP was a save or not. This was because the FnP rule described its function as "saving" a wound, but the rest of the rulebook failed to ever mention FnP whenever it referenced saves. I eventually found 2 or 3 pages where it listed types of saves and reasoned that if it wasn't in the "List of Saves", then it can't be a save for the purposes of the rules in contention.
The whole thing could have been avoided if there was consistent terminology.

And GW does have a large enough legal team to spare a few grammar nazis to go over this with the rules writers.

 Selym wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
For me I'd wish GW would adopt a formal "writing language" for their rules like MTG, even if it sounds like ridiculous legalese (like how instead of saying "this unit" it goes "Target Unit" and so forth). A unified language greatly helps with rule interpretations as well as speed up people understanding the rules. Terms like "Natural roll" and "Modified roll" would have really helped with understanding the whole "modifers on rerolls" thing.

I agree with this concept. In either 6e or 7e there was a thread about a dozen pages long, iirc, where nobody could figure out if FnP was a save or not. This was because the FnP rule described its function as "saving" a wound, but the rest of the rulebook failed to ever mention FnP whenever it referenced saves. I eventually found 2 or 3 pages where it listed types of saves and reasoned that if it wasn't in the "List of Saves", then it can't be a save for the purposes of the rules in contention.
The whole thing could have been avoided if there was consistent terminology.

And GW does have a large enough legal team to spare a few grammar nazis to go over this with the rules writers.

Part of the problem is legacy language as well. In basic terminology, FNP is a 'saving throw' in the sense that it is something to which a model is entitled to save itself. Much like how one could say tanks in Flames of War got 'saving throws' or you get a 'saving throw' vs poison in D&D. But FNP was not a 'saving throw' in terms of the rules. It's an equivocation trouble.

 Selym wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
For me I'd wish GW would adopt a formal "writing language" for their rules like MTG, even if it sounds like ridiculous legalese (like how instead of saying "this unit" it goes "Target Unit" and so forth). A unified language greatly helps with rule interpretations as well as speed up people understanding the rules. Terms like "Natural roll" and "Modified roll" would have really helped with understanding the whole "modifers on rerolls" thing.

I agree with this concept. In either 6e or 7e there was a thread about a dozen pages long, iirc, where nobody could figure out if FnP was a save or not. This was because the FnP rule described its function as "saving" a wound, but the rest of the rulebook failed to ever mention FnP whenever it referenced saves. I eventually found 2 or 3 pages where it listed types of saves and reasoned that if it wasn't in the "List of Saves", then it can't be a save for the purposes of the rules in contention.
The whole thing could have been avoided if there was consistent terminology.

And GW does have a large enough legal team to spare a few grammar nazis to go over this with the rules writers.

Iirc the actual rules for FnP explicitly said it wasn't a save only for the next sentence to use the word save when describing its effect .
I could also be remembering wrong, but I can't be to grab my 7th Ed Rulebook from where ever I've out it.

I've played 1 game so far and it was both of our's first game. The below issues were the ones that made us pause and reread the book and felt the most aggravating overall. This could be a mix of frustration with a new edition and simply misunderstanding the rules entirely. But below were the 3 issues we agreed we hated the most so far.

Morale phase feels too important. This needs to have less of an impact on the game as a whole.

The charge phase really should have been movement + d6 just to remove some randomness. It really is annoying getting a charge range of 3" more than once a game.

This edition still needs buckets of dice. There has to be someway to scale back a single unit getting 40 attacks. With such a complete overhaul of the game it would have been nice if fewer units had more than 1 attack. 2 should have been rare. 3 completely unheard of by anything but HQ. 4 for only special characters. Whole units with 4 attacks each is absurd.

Just more balance overall. I couldn't play my Thousand Sons which I've been dying to play more of since I only played half a dozen games with the old 7th rules and haven't used them prior to that in probably 15 years. But right now the units are awful and trying to make them work as an independent faction would be a complete waste of time. I had to play my Dark Eldar against Tyranids.

1. Slightly increase the points cost of everything that is spammed at major tournaments (e.g. the lists present at the ETC) - specifically some are brimstone horrors, conscripts, commissars, stormravens, razorwing flocks. Stuff the community KNOWS is overly strong. While doing this, take a note of the weakest units/options that never get played and lower their points cost slightly. Really hope we see some evidence of this as the codexes come through...

2. Make it so characters can't shield characters by being the closest unit. Maybe a minor change, but it seems dumb that I can't shoot hulking daemon prince A because equally sized hulking daemon prince B is one inch closer to my gunline.

3. Change kill points to a system that scores 'points value of models killed' or even 'power levels of models killed' if it would be simpler. Anything is more balanced than a 30 unit list fighting a 5 unit list on a kill points mission. A MSU ork list could kill 4 out of 5 imperial knights in the opponents army, and could still easily lose the game if even a tiny fraction of its models are killed.

4. Perhaps allow characters within 2 inches of a friendly squad to roll assault distance as one? It's a bit silly when a terminator squad makes a charge but their chaplain trips over his own feet, or vice versa.

5. Blast and flamer weapons have get +1 shot against units with at least 5 models in them, and +2 against units with 15, +3 against units with at least 25 and so on. Currently there are very few weapons that do higher damage to larger units. This would help provide a balance against hordes, just like blasts and flamers did in the last edition.

 DoomMouse wrote:
1. Slightly increase the points cost of everything that is spammed at major tournaments (e.g. the lists present at the ETC) - specifically some are brimstone horrors, conscripts, commissars, stormravens, razorwing flocks. Stuff the community KNOWS is overly strong. While doing this, take a note of the weakest units/options that never get played and lower their points cost slightly. Really hope we see some evidence of this as the codexes come through... .

Alternativley, find a thing that's never seeing tournaments and review its capabilities. Some things are fairly costed but just don't do anything useful. Give out minor buffs to fit the fluff of underpowered units, and if they get spammed at tournaments, adjust the points

 Melissia wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:
1. Free strikes against units that fall back from combat, forget overwatch. Wanna turn tail and show your back to the enemy you are fighting against you'll pay the price.

Okay, in exchange you forsake all first turn assaults and even second turn assaults become difficult.

Because without the ability to leave combat, melee-spam wins every time.

No it wont, because people usually screen with junk anyways. Or melee gets shot to pieces on their way up.

1. Poorly-defined terrain/cover.
Yeah, getting the same bonus for sitting behind a few saplings as sitting in a fortress is a bit nuts. As is the nonsense about when you are in cover.
I'd like to see
*Simplification of when you are in cover, eg. 50% obscured by something means you are in cover.
*Bushes obscure -1 to hit.
*Ruins optional -1 to hit or +1 to save declared as soon as the unit is targeted.
*Trenches and fortifications both -1 to hit and +1 to save.

2. Uneven distribution of options/customizability. This is mostly an issue with the Chambers Militant (Deathwatch, GK, Sisters) and their heavily restricted motor pools/kit options forcing them into mono-build corners.
*I would like to see more options for these being elite usually means being expensive but having more access rather than less.

3. Seize the Initiative. Too random, too swingy.
*It'd be better to make a roll-off after deployment giving the side that finished setting up first some sort of bonus rather than hanging the turn order on a single die roll.

4. Uniform-damage blasts. Too random, and the need to make them good enough to threaten hard targets requires that the number of shots is too low to threaten spread-out targets that they ought to be good against.
*Bring in the rules for the C-Beam Cannon (Contemptor Dreadnaught option) and make all "blasts" one high-power shot that does extra low-power hits if it kills something.

5. Too many Heavy weapons on vehicle platforms. The Heavy type punishes you for moving, and fast options like flyers and vehicles are paying points to move.
*Expand the non-Heavy options or give out more PotMS/CTM/"this weapon counts as Assault when equipped to a vehicle".

6. Psykers seem to have been nerfed by every department.
*Just give us stacking restrictions ("you can only target any unit with this spell once per turn") instead of the one cast attempt per army per turn rule.

7. Return of the Wound Pool.
*7th edition wound pool worked fine.

8. Too easy to just wander out of melee. After running through fire and shrapnel to catch their enemy with an axe what kind of idiot just stands there while the enemy walks away?
*I like the roll-off to escape. For each unit attempting to escape roll off 2D6 against the unit you're attempting to escape from, each player then adds the lowest movement values in the unit onto the result.

9. 8th edition is great.
These are things I would like to see change but overall 8th is great.

 Selym wrote:
Yanno, this thread is the first time I've had more faith in GW's ability to write rules than a player's.

Can't tell if good thing or bad thing.

No idea what this says about us/GW.

Likely that every player wants different things in a ruleset and that thus GW can never do things right.

That, or maybe GW's bad rulewriting skills are just rubbing off on us

I'd like to see a differentiation between cover and concealment
Cover, like a aegis line or ruin, should give a cover save (that can be reduced by AP)
Concealment, like a forest, should reduce a shooting units BS
Additionally, I'd like to see the return of USRs. Common things like deep strike and shred should have common names rather than individually named rules for each unit

 Selym wrote:
Yanno, this thread is the first time I've had more faith in GW's ability to write rules than a player's.

Can't tell if good thing or bad thing.

No idea what this says about us/GW.

All it says is that your average person is not a game designer, and that game design is really really difficult.

None of which is sad, shameful, or surprising.

Seriously, if you think this is bad, go read every FPS, RTS, ARPG, or MMO forum, ever.

You know now that I have played a little and talked with other professional players in my area. They all agree that 8th is kind of stale. It's just about building the ultimate alpha strike list and calling it a day.

Whoever goes first wins the majority of the time.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I find 7th edition more fun than 8th.

The irony is frontline gaming bitched and moaned about D-weapons and how they would just end games when they wen toff right or failed for you. Now the whole meta is like that.

I was actually kind of bored with 8th after 2 games I felt like that was the only way to play. People with many more are saying the same.

Age of Sigmar still seems to be GW's best game from a pure balance perspective as well as fun.

I don't hate 8th, I just find it really boring.

Nvs wrote:

Morale phase feels too important. This needs to have less of an impact on the game as a whole.

Couldn't disagree more. Morale has typically been little more than pointless clutter in the rulebook for most of 40k's history despite morale being far and away the main reason armies win or lose battles. It's nice that it actually plays a meaningful role for the first time in over a decade.

 MarsNZ wrote:

Nvs wrote:

Morale phase feels too important. This needs to have less of an impact on the game as a whole.

Couldn't disagree more. Morale has typically been little more than pointless clutter in the rulebook for most of 40k's history despite morale being far and away the main reason armies win or lose battles. It's nice that it actually plays a meaningful role for the first time in over a decade.

You're finding it meaningful? I haven't seen more than a single conscript at a time removed due to morale. Everyone just builds their squads MSU so that the squad is dead before they get to unmanageable morale numbers, or has a morale ignoring mechanic, or just keeps plenty of CP on hand if they have a good reason not to do the first and don't have a way to do the second. Crons for example, which are HUGELY rewarded for taking big squads. You'll never find a decent cron player empty on CP at the morale step until close to the end of the game.

Admittedly, it sort of is meaningful in the list building stage in that it is single-handedly dictating how most armies are built because people don't want their dudes to run away, but during the game? Pretty much a pointless phase.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:

Nvs wrote:

Morale phase feels too important. This needs to have less of an impact on the game as a whole.

Couldn't disagree more. Morale has typically been little more than pointless clutter in the rulebook for most of 40k's history despite morale being far and away the main reason armies win or lose battles. It's nice that it actually plays a meaningful role for the first time in over a decade.

You're finding it meaningful? I haven't seen more than a single conscript at a time removed due to morale. Everyone just builds their squads MSU so that the squad is dead before they get to unmanageable morale numbers, or has a morale ignoring mechanic, or just keeps plenty of CP on hand if they have a good reason not to do the first and don't have a way to do the second. Crons for example, which are HUGELY rewarded for taking big squads. You'll never find a decent cron player empty on CP at the morale step until close to the end of the game.

Admittedly, it sort of is meaningful in the list building stage in that it is single-handedly dictating how most armies are built because people don't want their dudes to run away, but during the game? Pretty much a pointless phase.

You admit that people are building their lists around avoiding morale issues and then call it a pointless phase? It's hardly pointless if its very existence has caused people to build their lists around it.

Wow, now I think I understand what George Orwell meant by doublethink.