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.

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

Got it-my style of play is badwrongfun and I should feel horrible for daring to have a different opinion. /s

Yes, you can play this narratively, but the system is set up as a head-to-head competition. I don't NEED to win to have fun or anything like that, but my focus is on the game. Is that wrong?

Fun is fun. If you have fun with competitive games then all the power to you. But, it should be noted that 40k is not balanced enough to allow true competition between players. In fact, narrative games assume an imbalance of forces, which is actually what happens in war. You should give scenario driven games a try if you haven't already.

again it just to me (in my head) feels bad. What is fun about abusing game systems to beat someone who just came to have a fun time? Is it funny to watch them not have a fun time? Because that's extremely childish... I'm not saying you're like this but I genuinely know people who are in 40k and it's one of the reasons I am very much against this! Again... like i said earlier... I would be like a DM in D&D who just kills you character off in the first 10 minuets because they find it funny... like pulling the legs of a spider.

Vect model plus good rules representing his awesomeness.

And fix the terrain rules.

Removal of arbitrary Australia Tax (Flash Gitz cost $71!)
Custom character rules
A Games Workshop endorsed Battlescribe like app

and as an aside...

Balance within the force.

People need to be aware that the game is balanced separately between Matched and Narrative play - as different people play games differently.

I would like more wounds. I think the least wounds you should have is 2 wounds per model, gretchins etc. can have 1.

Wow people are super serious about toy soldiers on the internet.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I would like more wounds. I think the least wounds you should have is 2 wounds per model, gretchins etc. can have 1.

I'm pretty sure that would throw weapon balance out the window, as suddenly D1 weapons are worthless as they can't kill their intended target (infantry) in a single turn.
Escalation is what killed the game before. It doesn't need to be escalated again.

 lolman1c wrote:


again it just to me (in my head) feels bad. What is fun about abusing game systems to beat someone who just came to have a fun time? Is it funny to watch them not have a fun time? Because that's extremely childish... I'm not saying you're like this but I genuinely know people who are in 40k and it's one of the reasons I am very much against this! Again... like i said earlier... I would be like a DM in D&D who just kills you character off in the first 10 minuets because they find it funny... like pulling the legs of a spider.

Typically if you're being competitive you're playing against someone else in the same boat. When I was more into card games, I'd usually pack both a meta-teched and tweaked competitive deck and a 'fun' deck that tried out a combo idea or cards I just liked using. Nothing worse than creaming a new player with a miserable game when they show up, but a match between two people who have put a lot of thought into their decks can be really interesting and exciting to watch!

Rules added to 8th edition?

Well, i'm going to say that i'm disliking more and more of the 8th edition as it is being shaped. So i would change a lot of it, instead of adding:

- The basic rules are ok-ish, but...
Psychic phase and psychic powers need a lot of more work into them. As they are now, is just a matter of allocating randomly mortal wounds and some minor buffs. I would like to have a bit more fleshed out powers, with different damage output and different effects. And back to have points per psychic power and not a generic absurd increase in price points per model if it can cast powers. Powers as are right now are useless also because they are restricted to one by turn, except smite. So then you have things like smite-spamming lists... It would be better to fine tune them and let the less powerful powers to be casted multiple times per turn (like buffs).

Mortal wound mechanic itself is a bit of a "cheating" mechanic for me. I would remove it altogether, or make it exceptional.

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Terrain rules and cover mechanics are non-existant as well. Playing in a table full of terrain that doesn't block full line of sight is like playing in a table without terrain. Forests and ruins and other types of terrain should have better rules and have some impact in the shooting mechanics (like for example, -1 to hit if firing thru some ruins), and much better cover rules and line of sight rules for the vehicles (LOS rules for vehicles should return to the LOS from every weapon)

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

- Where it is really bad is in the organization section. As it is, the different categories of units (HQs, Troops, etc.) do not matter at all. Because you can have all the detachments you want and you have detachments of every flavour, so if you want an army of all Heavy Support units, you can have it... Why having at all the different categories then? And why having different codexes and armies if one can mix and match all of them as he sees fit? I find it pretty absurd.

I would go back to one codex = one army = one Force Organization Chart. Minor factions and units could have then their own rules to be attached to some armies and not anothers (like inquisitors). I would go back to the 0-1 restrictions of units as well (like imperial assasins or obliterators).

Something i specially dislike is the proliferation of flyers, mega-monsters and war engines that in my opinion, don't really have their place in a game of W40k. I would like to play W40k and not EPIC 40k in 28 mm. I would ban them altogether, but i understand that some people could like them, so perhaps it could be better to restrict them according to the size of the game, like for example, one lord of war every 1500 pts or 2000 pts, or one flyer every 1000 pts or things like that. Or things like special characters and primarchs, it should be only one for army, no matter which one (so not more Magnus and Mortarion in the same army, for example).

- The stratagems mechanic. At the beginning i liked it, but with every codex released is bringing more nonsense to the game. I don't know how to improve it or change it or restrict it, but i dislike it.

- Finally, the codexes. I find all of them pretty bland, dull and uninspired. The policy of "no model - no rules" is hurting them badly, as well as absurd army wide rules, like for example the eldar craftworlds specific craftworld rules, are simply incoherent with the fluff of each craftworld and don't match them at all. The most hurting of these rules are the -1 to hit to the ENEMY, so it is a rule for your army that actually forces your opponent to have an unadvantage. It is not fluffy for an entire army... It is too powerful and too punishing. An army bonus rules should be that, a bonus for your own army, not a penalty for the other player. Most of the people are making lists with those specific advantages (alaitoc, alpha legion, etc.) so it is unbalancing as well. It could have been balanced and fluffy if it would be restricted to specific units known to be stealthy, like the Alaitoc rangers. That unit would make sense to have that -1 to hit. But a superheavy eldar grav tank...?


So... Yes, it seems that i really don't like this edition of the game

Personally, I'd like to see better rules for vehicles, there are a lot of silly/backwards things happening right now.

1. Exploding transports should hurt the occupants, I believe an emergency disembark should happen before the vehicle explodes, representing them bailing out as its exploding.
it's rare enough on a 1 in 6 that it explodes why should the guys in the tank be immune.

2. Transport fliers, emergency disembarkation deaths should be on a 1 or a 2; after all how many people disembark just fine from a passing transport helicopter ?
Its much riskier and there may be some falling involved.

3. Stupid Vehicle cover and line of sight from the Tip of the Gun barrel . Rules, as written and played at tournament level, means It can fire all its weapons... and get a cover save provided just the tip of the barrel is showing
" also known as , No you cant deploy / move your shadowsword like this. I don't care its either a dangerous terrain roll or you cant get there at all ... rules, as written this tank, has Los and cover...
https://youtu.be/Ev6ps-hpeYo?t=1137

Definitely revised terrain/cover rules! I'd prefer something solid like in 4th edition where everything has a defined level of height and you can't shoot through area terrain unless you're inside it.

Also, just a niggle, but I would change the new Chapter approved missions to remove "seize the initiative." If I'm already rolling to determine who gets first turn, I don't need to turn around and do it again.

 Warpspy wrote:
Rules added to 8th edition?

Well, i'm going to say that i'm disliking more and more of the 8th edition as it is being shaped. So i would change a lot of it, instead of adding:

- The basic rules are ok-ish, but...
Psychic phase and psychic powers need a lot of more work into them. As they are now, is just a matter of allocating randomly mortal wounds and some minor buffs. I would like to have a bit more fleshed out powers, with different damage output and different effects. And back to have points per psychic power and not a generic absurd increase in price points per model if it can cast powers. Powers as are right now are useless also because they are restricted to one by turn, except smite. So then you have things like smite-spamming lists... It would be better to fine tune them and let the less powerful powers to be casted multiple times per turn (like buffs).

Mortal wound mechanic itself is a bit of a "cheating" mechanic for me. I would remove it altogether, or make it exceptional.

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Terrain rules and cover mechanics are non-existant as well. Playing in a table full of terrain that doesn't block full line of sight is like playing in a table without terrain. Forests and ruins and other types of terrain should have better rules and have some impact in the shooting mechanics (like for example, -1 to hit if firing thru some ruins), and much better cover rules and line of sight rules for the vehicles (LOS rules for vehicles should return to the LOS from every weapon)

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

- Where it is really bad is in the organization section. As it is, the different categories of units (HQs, Troops, etc.) do not matter at all. Because you can have all the detachments you want and you have detachments of every flavour, so if you want an army of all Heavy Support units, you can have it... Why having at all the different categories then? And why having different codexes and armies if one can mix and match all of them as he sees fit? I find it pretty absurd.

I would go back to one codex = one army = one Force Organization Chart. Minor factions and units could have then their own rules to be attached to some armies and not anothers (like inquisitors). I would go back to the 0-1 restrictions of units as well (like imperial assasins or obliterators).

Something i specially dislike is the proliferation of flyers, mega-monsters and war engines that in my opinion, don't really have their place in a game of W40k. I would like to play W40k and not EPIC 40k in 28 mm. I would ban them altogether, but i understand that some people could like them, so perhaps it could be better to restrict them according to the size of the game, like for example, one lord of war every 1500 pts or 2000 pts, or one flyer every 1000 pts or things like that. Or things like special characters and primarchs, it should be only one for army, no matter which one (so not more Magnus and Mortarion in the same army, for example).

- The stratagems mechanic. At the beginning i liked it, but with every codex released is bringing more nonsense to the game. I don't know how to improve it or change it or restrict it, but i dislike it.

- Finally, the codexes. I find all of them pretty bland, dull and uninspired. The policy of "no model - no rules" is hurting them badly, as well as absurd army wide rules, like for example the eldar craftworlds specific craftworld rules, are simply incoherent with the fluff of each craftworld and don't match them at all. The most hurting of these rules are the -1 to hit to the ENEMY, so it is a rule for your army that actually forces your opponent to have an unadvantage. It is not fluffy for an entire army... It is too powerful and too punishing. An army bonus rules should be that, a bonus for your own army, not a penalty for the other player. Most of the people are making lists with those specific advantages (alaitoc, alpha legion, etc.) so it is unbalancing as well. It could have been balanced and fluffy if it would be restricted to specific units known to be stealthy, like the Alaitoc rangers. That unit would make sense to have that -1 to hit. But a superheavy eldar grav tank...?


So... Yes, it seems that i really don't like this edition of the game

Pretty much this.

7th was a burning tire fire at the end, but the base system was IMO better about a lot of things.

Add a -1 to hit penalty for indirect fire that doesn't have line of sight. If the unit is more than 48" away and firing without line of sight there is a -2 penalty.

Delete army-wide -1 to hit penalties/tactics/etc. Replace them with units have cover if they do not advance or charge.

Adjust detachments such that the maximum number of non-troop slots for any given role was 3. So a spearhead could bring 3 heavies, and only 3 heavies, not 6.

Allow the use of allies, but only in a patrol detachment. All detachments would be monofaction, except for specific units which would be given keywords to allow this, like assassins would be given "Agents of the Imperium," or something, to allow them to join a detachment of something that they did not share a specific keyword.

No invulnerable save can be better than 3+.
No Feel No Pain save can be better than 5+.

Allow models to take a "Primaris" power in place of smite, which can be cast multiple times and is thematic with the army or Craftworld/Chapter/Hive Fleet/Regiment of choice.

I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

Better rules for Inquisition. Miss beating on them with my Chaos Space Marines and Grey Knights could use a suitable companion.

* The concept of "natural dice roll" versus "modified dice result" when it comes to re-rolls and modifiers.
* Reworked Character targeting rules (for example: limitations only apply if the enemy Character is within 6'' of another enemy unit)
* Reworked Cover rules for vehicles (e.g. just a plain "must be covered 25/50%" instead of adding "and has to be in a piece of terrain)
* Rework toHit modifiers - being able to stack up to -3/-4 is ridiculous in a D6 system, especially when there're many armies that average to a 4+ or 5+ to start with. Even +2 is too much, it should be reduced to something like either you are -1, 0 or +1, and that's it.

Pink Horror wrote:
I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

That works right up till two people have honestly different ideas of what the "spirit of the rules" actually is.

I'd like to see a return of TDA not having to take the -1 to hit for moving and firing heavy weapons. It just seems weird to me that this ultimate combat suit can't keep a weapon mount steady or on target.

Only had a few games myself and enjoying more than 7th ed

- The basic rules are ok-ish, but...
Psychic phase and psychic powers need a lot of more work into them. As they are now, is just a matter of allocating randomly mortal wounds and some minor buffs. I would like to have a bit more fleshed out powers, with different damage output and different effects. And back to have points per psychic power and not a generic absurd increase in price points per model if it can cast powers. Powers as are right now are useless also because they are restricted to one by turn, except smite. So then you have things like smite-spamming lists... It would be better to fine tune them and let the less powerful powers to be casted multiple times per turn (like buffs).

Pts per power is fine if they are worked out ok, I prefer them not being an overwhelming powerful element.

Mortal wound mechanic itself is a bit of a "cheating" mechanic for me. I would remove it altogether, or make it exceptional.

Happy with it as is

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Personally I would go Move +D6 but still max 12" but that would probably make it far too reliable as would double move? It also adds a little uncertainty which is (for me) enjoyable in a game.

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Not sure about this but can see where you are coming from.

Terrain rules and cover mechanics are non-existant as well. Playing in a table full of terrain that doesn't block full line of sight is like playing in a table without terrain. Forests and ruins and other types of terrain should have better rules and have some impact in the shooting mechanics (like for example, -1 to hit if firing thru some ruins), and much better cover rules and line of sight rules for the vehicles (LOS rules for vehicles should return to the LOS from every weapon)

Hmm there are more advanced terrain rules in the book, we also use "no LOS through terrain which helps a great deal.

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

Not unless the same applies to monsters and pseudo monsters - Wraith Knights, baby carriers, Riptdies etc etc.

- Where it is really bad is in the organization section. As it is, the different categories of units (HQs, Troops, etc.) do not matter at all. Because you can have all the detachments you want and you have detachments of every flavour, so if you want an army of all Heavy Support units, you can have it... Why having at all the different categories then? And why having different codexes and armies if one can mix and match all of them as he sees fit? I find it pretty absurd.

I would go back to one codex = one army = one Force Organization Chart. Minor factions and units could have then their own rules to be attached to some armies and not anothers (like inquisitors). I would go back to the 0-1 restrictions of units as well (like imperial assasins or obliterators).

Not sure about this.

Something i specially dislike is the proliferation of flyers, mega-monsters and war engines that in my opinion, don't really have their place in a game of W40k. I would like to play W40k and not EPIC 40k in 28 mm. I would ban them altogether, but i understand that some people could like them, so perhaps it could be better to restrict them according to the size of the game, like for example, one lord of war every 1500 pts or 2000 pts, or one flyer every 1000 pts or things like that. Or things like special characters and primarchs, it should be only one for army, no matter which one (so not more Magnus and Mortarion in the same army, for example).

That's really a matter of taste. there s an equally valid argument that Marines should be restricted as they are so rare and valuable.

- The stratagems mechanic. At the beginning i liked it, but with every codex released is bringing more nonsense to the game. I don't know how to improve it or change it or restrict it, but i dislike it.

Strongly disagree - one of the best things about 8th IMO

- Finally, the codexes. I find all of them pretty bland, dull and uninspired. The policy of "no model - no rules" is hurting them badly, as well as absurd army wide rules, like for example the eldar craftworlds specific craftworld rules, are simply incoherent with the fluff of each craftworld and don't match them at all. The most hurting of these rules are the -1 to hit to the ENEMY, so it is a rule for your army that actually forces your opponent to have an unadvantage. It is not fluffy for an entire army... It is too powerful and too punishing. An army bonus rules should be that, a bonus for your own army, not a penalty for the other player. Most of the people are making lists with those specific advantages (alaitoc, alpha legion, etc.) so it is unbalancing as well. It could have been balanced and fluffy if it would be restricted to specific units known to be stealthy, like the Alaitoc rangers. That unit would make sense to have that -1 to hit. But a superheavy eldar grav tank...?

Yep too much rush / lazy writing.

Rework toHit modifiers - being able to stack up to -3/-4 is ridiculous in a D6 system, especially when there're many armies that average to a 4+ or 5+ to start with. Even +2 is too much, it should be reduced to something like either you are -1, 0 or +1, and that's it.

#

Yep - or maybe just always hit on a 6.

Add a -1 to hit penalty for indirect fire that doesn't have line of sight. If the unit is more than 48" away and firing without line of sight there is a -2 penalty.

Having played against 3 basilisks and 4 Manticores at the weekend its hard for me to disagree.

* Slightly improved cover mechanism. Doesn't have to take the granularity to the max, but at least some cover rules that can be used.

* Remove the -1 to hit army benefits. They make people favor one sub-faction. I don't mind them being unit rules like Venomthropes or Dark Shrouds, but at least there you are paying for the benefit.

* Add plastic sisters.

Scrap 8th and just make a proper 9th edition. 8th is 40k with the nitty gritty details gutted to reduce bloat but the foundation of the game is so weak that piling more complexity onto the 8th system will just start to break the game apart more. Contract some technical writers who understand how to make a functional and extensive game system that can be played in a simplified manner for beginners while also having an in depth rule set for advanced play.

Armor facings
Old cover system of 50% obscured.
Templates back, but no scatter.
No deep strike turn one in any form.
Old moral system.

 Elemental wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:
I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

That works right up till two people have honestly different ideas of what the "spirit of the rules" actually is.

Well then it's a good thing everyone always agrees on what the "rules as written" actually are!

I have played a few games of 8th edition and the last 2 ones i won. Every game i played i dislike the game more, even when winning (i dislike it more then, actually...). I didn't play since 2 months ago for these lackluster rules. And between them and the recent TS debacle, i think i'm not going to play much at all for the remainder of this edition...

 Mr Morden wrote:

Charge phase is too random. It makes no sense at all that a swift monster fail a charge because a double 1 dice roll. I would make a double move characteristic, so the first value would be the move in the movement phase and the second value would be the range of charge in the charging phase. A quick and agile creature would be reflected that way, and a slow and lumbering one as well. It would be a better advantage to have better move value, and one would not have stupid situations like a deep-striking terminators charging 12" despite having a move value of 4"...

Personally I would go Move +D6 but still max 12" but that would probably make it far too reliable as would double move? It also adds a little uncertainty which is (for me) enjoyable in a game.

Well, for me it is better if the game has not random nonsense. The less randomness has the game, the more value has the skill of the player in that game. For example, Chess. In 40k there are more than enough random factor with the dice rolls to decide what happens in the game. And from the strategic and tactic point of view unknowing what distance your troops move is absurd, so in my opinion it is a limiting factor and rewards the people that have more luck in dice rolls and not the ones that actually have more tactical thinking and skill in the game.

Besides that, are unnecesary. All the superfluous randomness of the game does not add anything to it, as i said, i think it detracts from the experience of the game. So previous editions were better in that regard, having only randomness in the actual dice rolls to decide the actions of the game (to hit, to wound, etc...). I think moving, choosing powers, determining characteristic of the units and so on should all be known factors.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Morale phase is non-existant. It would need a lot of more work to reflect real morale effects. Right now, many imperium units are basically inmmune to it, while other fearless units (per the fluff) still are vulnerable to it (like the berserkers of khorne, crazed blood-thirsty psychopats fleeing, really?? )

Not sure about this but can see where you are coming from.

Don't know if you didn't understand my post, apologies if that is the case. English is not my primary language and i'm not good writing it.

I meant that the actual morale effects are reduced to some more casualties in the end of each turn. A bit more depth would be greatly appreciated. As well as more coherency with the background of each unit. It makes no sense to me that the Space marines or the Dark Angels can reroll morale tests or outright ignore them, but 10,000 years experienced chaos space marines are as prone to flee as a bunch of imperial guards (or even more). In my opinion, morale should be much more nuanced and stepped, like having units inmmune to morale, some others with limited effects (like maximum of 1-2 casualties from it), some others with more effects and some units so fearful that could run the moment they get shot at.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Hmm there are more advanced terrain rules in the book, we also use "no LOS through terrain which helps a great deal.

That's a house rule. The "more advanced terrain rules" actually have little to no effects. I was speaking of them as well.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Vehicles should return to have facings. They should have some sort of "weakspots" and be much tougher to the shooting from distance, but much more vulnerable to short range fire (as they are in reality).

Not unless the same applies to monsters and pseudo monsters - Wraith Knights, baby carriers, Riptdies etc etc.

Fair point. Agreed.

 Mr Morden wrote:

That's really a matter of taste. there s an equally valid argument that Marines should be restricted as they are so rare and valuable.

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

Actually, speaking of that, i think FW uses the core 7th edition for their game. But it is a balanced game despite all the flakk that the previous edition of 40k has. How is that?

Another point i would change is the mechanic of "rerolls before modifiers" and all the dice mechanic they have done in this edition. I find them counter-intuitive, and actually i think in all the games i have seen, nobody has done it right. People always do it the intuitive way, that is, modifyng the dice roll needed before rolling.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:
Scrap 8th and just make a proper 9th edition. 8th is 40k with the nitty gritty details gutted to reduce bloat but the foundation of the game is so weak that piling more complexity onto the 8th system will just start to break the game apart more. Contract some technical writers who understand how to make a functional and extensive game system that can be played in a simplified manner for beginners while also having an in depth rule set for advanced play.

I think the basics of the 8th edition are interesting. Only that it seems "unfinished" and lazy rushed. It needs a lot of changes to work as a representation of the background, and specially it needs a lot more restrictions and "safeguards" to avoid players exploit the system or play the game breaking it. I think that in the basic rules GW usually does an ok-ish work, it is with all the Codexes and FAQs and expansions when they screw it.

In this case, 8th edition needs, in my opinion, proper fleshed out morale phase, terrain rules, psychic powers, charging phase and LOS rules. Then erase all the "detachments" free-to-all nonsense and go back to one Force Organization Chart to all armies, to give back the meaning to the different unit roles (HQ, Troops...), and then make properly restrictive Codexes, going back to 0-1 and similar mechanics and actually giving advantages to fluffy list building.

 Eldarsif wrote:

* Remove the -1 to hit army benefits. They make people favor one sub-faction. I don't mind them being unit rules like Venomthropes or Dark Shrouds, but at least there you are paying for the benefit.

Agreed. Too powerful.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Armor facings
Old cover system of 50% obscured.
Templates back, but no scatter.
No deep strike turn one in any form.
Old moral system.

Agreed. Deep strike mechanic is just lame. And one should not be able to charge after deep striking.

- Return Orks to WS 4+/BS 4+ so they're not one dimensional.

- Any time 30 or more dice are to be rolled, an average result is assumed.


EDIT:

Also abandon the current detachment system, in favour of:

- If an army is Battleforged, you have 6 CP.
- All units in an army form a single detachment.
- The detachment must 50%+ Troops
- No more than 25% can come from each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, Dedicated Transports, Flyers or Lords of War.

Since the army is all one detachment, the trade off for mixing in soup elements is you lose whatever Chapter/Legion/Craftworld trait you'd get if you played a more restricted list.

The -1 to hit needs to not stack. I have no idea what devt were smoking when they thought that having a possible -3 to hit was a good idea.

Back to invisibility levels of broken.

Monthly balance updates for competitive play.

As far as i know, Marines exist as a unit since the first game. Mega-zorgs and company only existed in Epic and were brought to 40k only in the last few editions, making 40k an "Epic in 28 mm." Before they were restricted to "Apocalypse games" (that nowadays makes no sense to have, because every 40k game is an Apocalypse one... ), and even before they were only in Epic and didn't exist in 40k proper. Warhammer 40k always has been a more or less skirmish-sized game. So to me it would make sense to have a "size" limitation and allow the bigger monstruosities and vehicles only in the bigger games. I think FW actually does this in their Horus Heresy game, and it is much more reasonable and balanced.

There were rules for big things in Rogue Trader as well as for Marines

Pink Horror wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:
I just want one little tweak. I'd like a new "most important rule" that attempting to play by the letter of the rules instead of the spirit of the rules is not allowed.

I doubt it would make the actual game any better, but it would mean thar any attempt to play by pure RaW would be against the RaW, which would add a delightful twist to the rules discussions here.

That works right up till two people have honestly different ideas of what the "spirit of the rules" actually is.

Well then it's a good thing everyone always agrees on what the "rules as written" actually are!

One of them can be made clear with competent rules writing, the other will always be subjective.

Exodites

Save Squats for the end of the edition and the beginning of 9th.


Bring in more 2nd edition elements

simplify the amount of dice.....dramatically.


Terrain, overwatch, ranges of weapons and units that move faster than bullets. Targeting stationary vs super fast units, and a host of other things need revamped.

8th is good.....it just becomes the same old same old.

The spice is in the details. They made it simple to have bigger armies for profit and needed faster game play.

They can still do that but things need to change. A couple years of 8th and I will have used up all my 6 armies and will be getting bored.

Dandelion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I'd like people to stop trying break / bend the game and play it for the narrative / story telling game it is

Well said.

Got it-my style of play is badwrongfun and I should feel horrible for daring to have a different opinion. /s

Yes, you can play this narratively, but the system is set up as a head-to-head competition. I don't NEED to win to have fun or anything like that, but my focus is on the game. Is that wrong?

Fun is fun. If you have fun with competitive games then all the power to you. But, it should be noted that 40k is not balanced enough to allow true competition between players. In fact, narrative games assume an imbalance of forces, which is actually what happens in war. You should give scenario driven games a try if you haven't already.

The problem I see with the competitive side is this constant drive for balance. 40k isn't the best wargame out there. It isn't balanced and won't ever be. What makes it my favourite by miles us the story, the models, the universe it us set in. If you want to play a competative game there are loads out there better then 40k rules wise. I watched a game from the LVO and the lists and styles of play had nothing to do with any of the universe. So my question is this. Why play an unbalanced game with only its background going for it when you ignore that very background. They could've been playing any game out there it was just the models made it 40k. I couldn't imagine any of the battles happening, couldn't picture cinematic scenes as loads of dark reapers hid in a corner behind to wave serpents while 7 hive tyrants flew around.

This pressure from the competitive "side" of the hobby is what broke fantasy. Right now I think GW have got the narrative/competitive balance right. Keep the game open and simple as you want it and faq any crazy competative none sense regularly to stop it getting out of hand but don't ignore that side. It's keeping everyone happy (ish). Too much heading for balance could ruin a very good universe and story.

On topic id say optional more in depth terrain rules is a must in the next chapter approved. I like the idea of AA but haven't seen a system that will work well enough, I like the old epic 40000 style best I think. Bug again it should be optional. I think 8th might benefit rom being olayed an a bigger field, wider than 48". Maybe a six foot by six foot. Everything is so much quicker this edition.