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.

Blastaar wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
1. I think it would be better and make more sense to remove saves altogether. If a model gets wounded, its armor clearly didn't protect it. Done. Make the game more reliant on being in cover and general good decision making than rolling dice for survivability.

2. Make being in cover impose a negative modifier to the shooter's to-hit roll, or increase the target's evasion stat. Cover does not make you more physically resilient, it makes you more difficult to hit in the first place. LOS also needs to be reworked and somewhat abstracted (but not to warmahordes 2d terrain level) so that every little opening doesn't grant LOS.

3. Remove allies. Period. There are too many factions and units in the game for it to be balanced and allow meaningful decisions if people can mix-and-match units. It may sell more models, but it isn't good for gameplay. Unless you prefer a very bland game to compensate for 20-something different factions and their combinations.

1) This is silly. A child behind glass is more well protected against fists than an adult in football pads, but the adult in football pads can take more hits from a baseball bat.

2) Cover does, in fact, sometimes make you more physically resilient. You are talking about concealment, which is different from cover. Hiding in a bush is concealment, but doesn't make you more physically resilient. Hiding behind a concrete berm is cover - because it absolutely does make you resistant to bullets. Incidentally, most cover is also concealment (you can hide behind the concrete berm from observation as well as bullets) but not all concealment is cover.

3) IOW: Fluff should die that rules may live, despite the only attraction of 40k being the fluff.

1. And that has what to do with removing saves? SvT IS armor penetration. It's silly that there could potentially be a weapon with high strength and but poor AP, wounding models easily but somehow they make their 5+ or 6+ and walk away unscathed. A powerful blow can deal damage without piercing armor, y'know. All the save mechanic does is shrink the dice pool and reduce the number of wounds, which can be achieved in a better way that gives the player agency.

2. Depends on the cover. Hiding behind a bush makes you more difficult to see, hiding behind a wall makes you more difficult to see and provides a barrier between your body and the other guy's bullets. The point of cover is that the cover gets hit, not you. Do you really want separate rules for concealment and cover in 40k?

3. Nice overreaction. There is very little fluffy about mashing together units from 5-6 different codices to create your super-strong Justice League with no weaknesses so you can steamroll your opponent, which allies allows. If you want to do that, do it in narrative play. This is, ostensibly, a game, and the experience of playing said game should come first. If only GW could write rules on par with (most) of their fluff.....

1) Consider the following: Shooting at a tank with a high-explosive shell, and shooting at a man wearing tank armour with a high explosive shell. That's the difference in Toughness - one dies because his innards are pulped, the other doesn't. That's toughness. Consider the following, now: Firing a handgun at the man wearing tank armour, versus firing a handgun at a man not wearing any armour. Same toughness, but one will live and the other will die/be injured. That's armour.

2) No, I don't want separate rules. I was merely pointing out that your assertion that cover does not make you more physically durable is outright wrong. You meant concealment.

3) You know, the highest level tournament lists actually look pretty fluffy indeed. Take the example a friend is building: 3 Custodes Jetbike Captains, Blood Angels BN, IG BN. The Blood Angels are the warlord, representing the Marines being in overall charge of the operation, while the Custodes captains have arrived from Terra to aid in this crucial fight, providing their individual and godlike prowess where it is most needed, while the Imperial Guard hold the line and do the things Blood Angels can't be assed to do themselves. That's actually something straight out of a novel, imo.

CassianSol wrote:

Why not just give marines/terminators all one additional wound? Seems an elegant solution to me.

Plus, make it so that you pick a lead army on a list and can only generate and use strategems from that list.

Because Plasma still heavily counters 2 wound models and then both Terminators and Primaris become 3 wound models which should push the Custodes up to 4 wounds to keep the difference between model types consistent. And that's not even getting into the balance of other armies and their units who should be as durable as Marines (Necron Immortals namely).

jcd386 wrote:

Stux wrote:

JmOz01 wrote:
A simple fix to the stratagems (This is really simple, but kind of rough)

You can only use the (Chapter/Regiment/etc...)stratagems of your Warlord and only on units that share the right keyword

So My Company Commander can only issue Voystag Stratagems to other Voyst units. Astra Militarium Stratagems to other Astra Militarium, etc...

My space marines with him can only use the basic stratagems in the main book. However if there were Imperium Stratagems then they could use those also

This is easier said than done. You'd need a wording that still allows strats to target enemy units as appropriate. If you just say 'can only target Voystag' that breaks some Stratagems in this way.

You may end up needing to mass errata strats, which would greatly put off GW from using the idea.

It's pretty easy, actually: "if your warlord is a <faction> model, you unlock <faction> strategems found in this codex in addition to the ones found in the rulebook."


Then you just follow the strategems as normal.

Ofc it's so simple but it won't change ANYTHING, I'd be still taking Guard for CPs and leaving their stratagems at home.
THINK before SPEAKING

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Ofc it's so simple but it won't change ANYTHING, I'd be still taking Guard for CPs and leaving their stratagems at home.
THINK before SPEAKING

Agreed. Think before posting inflammatory knee jerk posts in response to a proposed solution you don't agree with. There are definitely better ways of pointing out flaws in the way something is worded/proposed.

As for CP restrictions, I feel like tying it to the power level of the models in your warlord's detachment might be the neatest solution. 1 CP for every 10 PL for example. That encourages you to go more heavily on your warlord's army over supporting factions taken to support your army. Add in restricting relics and stratagems to being from your warlord's army and that'd force allies down to being purely support elements that fill holes in unit roles (like some anti-tank from Guard to support a more melee focused Blood Angels army) or being more flavor based.

I actually think giving marines 2 wounds and terminators 3 wounds is the least effective change. For one thing, it punishes basic AP0 damage 1 weapons like bolters and lasguns, which currently kill marines just about as well as they should (especially when you have cover). The issue with marine durability is 90% an issue with AP1 weapons like heavy bolters or assault cannons reducing their durability by 50% if they have a 3+ save or 100% if they have a 2+. I think having marines ignore the first point of incoming AP that effects their save works much better, as you start needing AP2 to start degrading their durability without making them more durable against small arms fire.

They also probably need 2 attacks base, but that's all I'd do to the tactical statline.

What they'd need after that is special rules and strategems that are actually good and flexible.

jcd386 wrote:
What they'd need after that is special rules and strategems that are actually good and flexible.

That's the biggest thing they need. Right now they suffer from having a large portion of their stratagems being based around the formation bonuses they lost in the edition change when formations were taken away and that isn't enough to make the army function in an interesting or flavorful way, much less an effective one.

Martel732 wrote:

"Bad people"? How about bad rules that allowed them to do this?

Have you missed the various people proclaiming that past editions were perfectly balanced when you didn't take all of the stuff that was OP?

That's how it works, apparently

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

"Bad people"? How about bad rules that allowed them to do this?

Have you missed the various people proclaiming that past editions were perfectly balanced when you didn't take all of the stuff that was OP?

That's how it works, apparently

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Why not just give marines/terminators all one additional wound? Seems an elegant solution to me.

Plus, make it so that you pick a lead army on a list and can only generate and use strategems from that list.

Because Plasma still heavily counters 2 wound models and then both Terminators and Primaris become 3 wound models which should push the Custodes up to 4 wounds to keep the difference between model types consistent. And that's not even getting into the balance of other armies and their units who should be as durable as Marines (Necron Immortals namely).

IMO, marines should all just have the primaris statline as a base. This split down the middle is silly. Termies should get 3 wounds but Custodes should stay at 3 as well. Custodes have other stats that make them better than termies alrready, so consistency is not an issue.

As for plasma, it's supposed to counter marines, it is the ideal weapon by design for killing heavy infantry. 2W marines keeps them safer from small arms but still counterable by heavy weapons. That is good design in my eyes.

As for other units: I'm all for 2W immortals, AND orks. The new damage system allows these previously 1W models to now have 2W without being exactly twice as durable.

CassianSol wrote:

Why not just give marines/terminators all one additional wound? Seems an elegant solution to me.

Plus, make it so that you pick a lead army on a list and can only generate and use strategems from that list.

I'd actually prefer that they change the point cost to make them worth it over messing with Stat lines. Messing with data cards is so undesirable.

AP isn’t the issue, it is working as intended. The real problem is weight of fire and all the really nasty weapons getting pointed at the tin can troops. I’d be more willing to rejigger the cost of heavy weapons and larger-than-infantry models upwards in price so that they’re less prominent on the battlefield. Likewise, aggression is heavily favored in this version - if you want things to live longer, the number of attack dice being thrown around needs to be significantly cut down.

As for cover, I think GW needs better terrain rules, and having cover simply provide a bonus to Armor save is a poor way of handling things. I’d like to see them go back to Area terrain rules and a simplified method of drawing LOS through said terrain (and maybe so many inches completely blocking LOS, like the old 4” of woods in 2E). Likewise, could have it so that hard cover provides a bonus to Toughness (the bullets get stopped by brick walls and such) and concealment giving a bonus to Armor or perhaps Invulnerable saves (Zing! That should have hit but missed)

Soup exists because GW made the mistake of making a monolithic Imperium that encourages the different factions to work together, instead of being at each other’s throats. If you really want limits on allies, the factions need to be more adversarial and/or you need to put into place some arbitrary hard limits to restrict it. I’m not against a fluffy rendition of allies, but I think the <IMPERIAL> keyword needs to die.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


1) Consider the following: Shooting at a tank with a high-explosive shell, and shooting at a man wearing tank armour with a high explosive shell. That's the difference in Toughness - one dies because his innards are pulped, the other doesn't. That's toughness. Consider the following, now: Firing a handgun at the man wearing tank armour, versus firing a handgun at a man not wearing any armour. Same toughness, but one will live and the other will die/be injured. That's armour.

2) No, I don't want separate rules. I was merely pointing out that your assertion that cover does not make you more physically durable is outright wrong. You meant concealment.

You know, the highest level tournament lists actually look pretty fluffy indeed. Take the example a friend is building: 3 Custodes Jetbike Captains, Blood Angels BN, IG BN. The Blood Angels are the warlord, representing the Marines being in overall charge of the operation, while the Custodes captains have arrived from Terra to aid in this crucial fight, providing their individual and godlike prowess where it is most needed, while the Imperial Guard hold the line and do the things Blood Angels can't be assed to do themselves. That's actually something straight out of a novel, imo.

1. Toughness V. Armor, especially at the scale of present 40k, with so many models on the table, just isn't a useful distinction, and it's probably better to roll toughness
and saves into one stat- let wounds represent physical hardiness. That's kind of their job.

2. No, I meant cover. Cover protects you by preventing your person from being hit to begin with, and I think the better way to represent that is by affecting accuracy, not armor/cover saves. The idea being that that wall in front of you is taking some of the hits.

3. That's fine, let allies live in Narrative play, where people don't have the expectation or desire for competition and an emphasis on tactics. If your buddy's list is a high-end tournament list, then it is almost certainly unbalanced, knowing 40k. Restricting unit options to a single codex for matched play would, GW's rules not withstanding, be the way to go for balance and more decision-based gameplay. Taking the best units from various books works against that, fluff or no. The only way to balance a game with as many armies and unit choices as 40k is to either write a deeper core that can support that diversity, or greatly simplify the game and make it more bland.

The problem I see with a lot of the suggestions to boost basic SM up is that they often don't take into account that their are other armies that have equal stats because GW says they are the best of the best of the best, with honors (most other codexes often say the same about their elite troops as well).

SM should get extra shots with their Bolters because they're so good and primarily a shooty army. Ok, but couldn't the same be said for the SoB or any other unit that has a BS of 3+?

SM should knock 1 point off AP thanks to their power armor. What about other equally tough 3+ armor? Or is his because they are T4 as well? Should units with a higher toughness and 3+ armor knock off more AP off? Or just consider for a moment a Daemon Prince getting this bonus as a CSM, if it was just limited to SM.

An extra wound is similar. Should Orks get it too for being T4 and very damage resistant in fluff? Or isit a combo of Toughness and armor again? If so would you do something like scouts only get 1 wound because they don't have a 3+ save or would you lower the requirements to a 4+ armor save so scouts and similar units?

I don't think tacking on changes like this will do anything except boosting SM in the short term. Long term it will just lead to rules bloat and codex creep. If you want to look into making the game actually better, you need to look at the game wholisticly instead of just ways to make an army better.

Also, as a CSM player, keep your Primaris stats. If I wanted them I would buy a SM army.

ValentineGames wrote:
GW sells models. Not rules.
They don't care that 8th edition is a mess.
Because they know you'll still buy stuff.
So why bother fixing a system that quite obviously received 0 playtests.

Get rid of the D6.
Fix cover saves to be worth taking cover.
Fix the AP system.
Scrap random shots.
Scrap random damage.
Bring back fire arcs.
Stop solving everything with invulnerable saves.
Fix bogging the game down with so many rolls.
Fix CP.
Fix stratagems.
Stop codex creeping with the goal of earning money off each release instead of adding to the game.
Stop adding a £20 game pass every 6 months.
Stop treating the fans like rabid fanboy idiots just because some of them are.

Someone really has there grumpy pants on . Maybe I like 8th because I’m Avery casual/narrative gamer and the rules at the minute are a great frame work to create house rules and make the game your own. I appreciate not everyone plays in a group where you can do this or wants to. But I dint see any of the things you listed as a major problem.

Skaorn wrote:
The problem I see with a lot of the suggestions to boost basic SM up is that they often don't take into account that their are other armies that have equal stats because GW says they are the best of the best of the best, with honors (most other codexes often say the same about their elite troops as well).

SM should get extra shots with their Bolters because they're so good and primarily a shooty army. Ok, but couldn't the same be said for the SoB or any other unit that has a BS of 3+?

SM should knock 1 point off AP thanks to their power armor. What about other equally tough 3+ armor? Or is his because they are T4 as well? Should units with a higher toughness and 3+ armor knock off more AP off? Or just consider for a moment a Daemon Prince getting this bonus as a CSM, if it was just limited to SM.

An extra wound is similar. Should Orks get it too for being T4 and very damage resistant in fluff? Or isit a combo of Toughness and armor again? If so would you do something like scouts only get 1 wound because they don't have a 3+ save or would you lower the requirements to a 4+ armor save so scouts and similar units?

I don't think tacking on changes like this will do anything except boosting SM in the short term. Long term it will just lead to rules bloat and codex creep. If you want to look into making the game actually better, you need to look at the game wholisticly instead of just ways to make an army better.

Also, as a CSM player, keep your Primaris stats. If I wanted them I would buy a SM army.

Skaorn wrote:
............. If you want to look into making the game actually better, you need to look at the game wholisticly instead of just ways to make an army better......

Well said! Adjusting numbers can only go so far.

Skullphoquer wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
The problem I see with a lot of the suggestions to boost basic SM up is that they often don't take into account that their are other armies that have equal stats because GW says they are the best of the best of the best, with honors (most other codexes often say the same about their elite troops as well).

SM should get extra shots with their Bolters because they're so good and primarily a shooty army. Ok, but couldn't the same be said for the SoB or any other unit that has a BS of 3+?

SM should knock 1 point off AP thanks to their power armor. What about other equally tough 3+ armor? Or is his because they are T4 as well? Should units with a higher toughness and 3+ armor knock off more AP off? Or just consider for a moment a Daemon Prince getting this bonus as a CSM, if it was just limited to SM.

An extra wound is similar. Should Orks get it too for being T4 and very damage resistant in fluff? Or isit a combo of Toughness and armor again? If so would you do something like scouts only get 1 wound because they don't have a 3+ save or would you lower the requirements to a 4+ armor save so scouts and similar units?

I don't think tacking on changes like this will do anything except boosting SM in the short term. Long term it will just lead to rules bloat and codex creep. If you want to look into making the game actually better, you need to look at the game wholisticly instead of just ways to make an army better.

Also, as a CSM player, keep your Primaris stats. If I wanted them I would buy a SM army.

I agree with this! The problem is not that Space Marines only need to be boosted, but other sorts of 'elite' troops that get tabled by overwhelming lasgun firepower are... underwhelming.

I get that plasma and melta are made to make things like Marines (and MEQ) evaporate. The problem that we have is that it's not just those weapons that are making those MEQ models evaporate. It's the fact that you can only take so many MEQ models (because of their expense) while the enemy can throw down hundreds of guardsmen with regular old lasguns and the guardsmen, despite everything, will win.

Increasing wounds would be one thing. Bumping toughness up would help, but only so far. I still think that the AP system needs to be flattened. There's no need for AP -5 in the game. There's really not even a need for AP -4, and in my opinion, AP -3 is pushing it. I'd rather see a weapon that has AP -2 and also ignores cover if you want to show that the weapon has incredible punching power.

I also agree that invul saves are becoming a crutch in 8th edition. I went from playing Space Marines to playing Imperial Knights, and being able to roll a dice for a 5+ invul save was REFRESHING. It was a breath of fresh air. Before that, I would fight against Admech and Custodes that have all sorts of sources of invul saves and it's so incredibly frustrating when my weapons just don't do anything. I see the problem from both sides. You know what game doesn't have invul saves? Age of Sigmar. Why? They don't need them. The AP and armor system is flatter, with 'heavy' armor around a 4+ or 3+ at best. There's no 3+ invul saves. There's 4+ armor that ignores rend, but it tends to be on squishy units (like cheap ghosts).

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more I think that GW has just bloated 40k to be too big. It's showing signs of Warhammer Fantasy 8th, when you needed an inordinate number of models and big expensive units in order to fill your army. Here, though, the problem is the bloat. Fliers, Lords of War. In a game which represents a skirmish between factions, we have Baneblades and Imperial Knight superheavies running around the field. A lot of you guys are right. A volcano cannon should delete anything it shoots. But isn't that also the problem? It means that my squad of devastators with missile launchers matters diddly squat against that Shadowsword or Knight Castellan.

I dunno. It's easy to see why GW has a hard time balancing this game when there are just so many things that can go wrong. I definitely don't feel that the AP system, cover system, or allies systems are fine. The more I see how allies are abused, the less I like it. If allies couldn't be abused like they are, then I'd have no problem with people taking them, honestly. The trouble is when I keep seeing 2-3 slamguinius's in every Imperium army because it's just the thing you have to do to be competitive. That's lame.

The current ap system is too simplified they seem to have missed the mark in simplification.

Space Marines and just in general all these 'elite troops' are just all over the place. They are either far too expensive or are too low in wound counts to really matter for their cost. A 200 cost terminator squad should be as effective as 200 points of guardsmen.

The issue i've found is that they keep adding these massive walkers into the base game. What they could do is limit it so people cannot take Lords of War in matched play. It doesn't make sense for Gulliman or Celeste being used in every single combat. They wouldn't be there in the fluff.

This means expanding the trait systems and adding complexity maybe a return to a wargear system for characters. Maybe create a more deep system of customization while also making units feel more valuable and justified for their cost. While reducing the effectiveness of AP weapons. By having less of them or increasing the costs of AP weapons. If you have an Ap of 1 and have a +5 save you don't get a save. The old AP system was designed to allow for troops with power armor to have a distinct advantage. This current system just makes it abusable for high wound and multi-wound characters to take advantage of this.

Invulnerable saves are also waaaaay too common, They should be EXTREMELY rare, yeah a Terminator or a Wraith Guard can have it, but not a regular troop choice.

Making troops and weapons more worth it. While I do enjoy the simplification of weapons, vechiles and walkers (like Knight Titans) Are just far too effective for their points cost in comparision to a troop choice. While some other models are far too expensive for their worth (AKA land raiders)

 greyknight12 wrote:
As I read the OP, some other solutions came to mind:
1. Give every weapon an AP value that allows it to “penetrate” every value equal or less than it. So an AP4 weapon ignores armor saves 4+ or worse, while 3+ and 2+ units get their normal saves.
2. Make cover a separate save, like invulnerable saves. Terrain can give a 5+, ruins a 4+, and some weapons like flamers will have an “ignores cover” special rule.
3. Instead of keywords, have a table in the rulebook of possible alliances with varying tiers (similar to the OP). We’ll call them “battle brothers”, “allies of convenience”, and “desperate allies”. And for the really casual types, “come the apocalypse”.

Like these? Then find a group that’s still playing 7th edition, because all of those (except for allies, which started in 6th) had been rules since 3rd edition.

Troll much?

Hey, someone's got to like 7th more than 8th.

meleti wrote:
Hey, someone's got to like 7th more than 8th.

Huh. Someone has too?

Who'd thunk.

In all seriousness. I don't think there is one sure fire way to fix 8th edition. But thankfully they are listening.... (I HOPE THEY ARE AT LEAST)

 Asherian Command wrote:

meleti wrote:
Hey, someone's got to like 7th more than 8th.

Huh. Someone has too?

Who'd thunk.

In all seriousness. I don't think there is one sure fire way to fix 8th edition. But thankfully they are listening.... (I HOPE THEY ARE AT LEAST)

I sure don't, but there's going to be someone out there who does. My great-grandpa thought that the moon landing was faked on a sound stage. Pretty much every belief has people who will passionately defend it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Why not just give marines/terminators all one additional wound? Seems an elegant solution to me.

Plus, make it so that you pick a lead army on a list and can only generate and use strategems from that list.

Because Plasma still heavily counters 2 wound models and then both Terminators and Primaris become 3 wound models which should push the Custodes up to 4 wounds to keep the difference between model types consistent. And that's not even getting into the balance of other armies and their units who should be as durable as Marines (Necron Immortals namely).

I don't mind doing that. I don't think the changes should exist in a vacuum, I was referring simply to how to fix marines.

Plasma does still kill them easily, that's for sure. Plasma is difficult because it is too easy to counter its own downside (gets hot). I'm not sure whether the solution to that is get rid of a number of reroll 1s to hit or make it on an unmodifiable/unrerollable 1 that it gets hot? Probably the former. Or maybe you die on a roll of 1 to hit but you can reroll and (if successful) can resolve the hits and damage. You still die afterwards? I don't know... It is clear that the prevalence of reroll 1s makes overcharge too weak.

Plasma kills almost everything too easily.

Before 8th, "safe" non-overheating Plas was S6AP2. Overheating was S7AP2 Gets Hot.

With 8th, IoM got "Safe Plas". And IoM Plas (but not xeno plas) got +1S. And overheated Plas got +1D.

Did it really need the buff? Wouldn't just giving IoM Plas the "safe" plas option been enough?

personally I'd get rid of Mortal Wounds on things like Gets Hot and Exploding Vehicles, bring them back to armor savable to benefit the people paying for heavy armor. Plasma would get hot on a regular shot still. Since overcharge is a thing and will likely never go away now, I would have overcharge also cause the user a wound on an unmodified 6 as well as an unmodified 1. The 6 is still a hit but you still need to have your guy save.

Keep in mind though that I have no problem with trashing the mortal wounds system in general. In one of my very first games of 40K (this was 3rd ed) I had a Calidus Assassin (never had even seen the assassin codex at that point) move my squad of 3 broadsides so I had to move them to get LoS on anything in the 1st turn, have it show up on the 2nd turn, and kill them all with no saves, when I thought I was protected from things that ignored saves by buying shield generators. Getting wiped out by something that was probably less than half the cost of my unit with no save, when I specifically bought that unit extra protection really sucked and stayed with me, even though I quickly changed to hammerheads to avoid Calidus shenanigans. So I have no problem butchering MW despite the affects it might have elsewhere, so probably not the best mindset to go altering rules.

Take transports, stop foot slogging your marines if you don't like dying to plasma and autocannon spam.

They can't kill you in a rhino.

 sfshilo wrote:
Take transports, stop foot slogging your marines if you don't like dying to plasma and autocannon spam.

They can't kill you in a rhino.

You say that but they get 2 ish free kills when the rhino dies.

Martel732 wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Take transports, stop foot slogging your marines if you don't like dying to plasma and autocannon spam.

They can't kill you in a rhino.

You say that but they get 2 ish free kills when the rhino dies.

Also, instead of buing a Rhino, you can just use those points to buy five marines more. That is probably better way to increase survivability while increasing the offence at the same time.

Besides, for some reason my marines refuse to go into a Rhino, they accept nothing less than a really expensive grav tank...

1. This is adjusted with points. SM live and die like they're supposed to. They just aren't worth 13 ppm anymore compared to a 4 ppm guardsman.
2. Don't like the windows in the terrain? Fill them in. Terrain is terrain is terrain. Make better stuff yourself. The ITC terrain rule is garbage as well. All terrain should be true LoS.
3. CP generated by a detachment should only be allowed to be used with Stratagems from that detachments factions. A Knight Castellan shouldn't be able to grind through 17pts of IG CP. Allies adds models sales which helps GW which lets them make cool new stuff. Allies aren't new. Allies add variety to games. Allies aren't going anywhere.

Having just returned from a ten-year hiatus, I'm really pleased to see that 8th Ed has gotten away from the rules bloat that made 5th unpleasant for me. Reintroducing special, army-specific rules that circumvent the base mechanics, like an arbitrary -1 reduction to AP, seems like a crutch solution that just resurrects that unneeded complexity.

If the problem is that high-AP weapons are readily available, forcing the use of invulnerable saves to make units truly durable, then I'd rather see reduction in AP values.

If, say, plasma guns were AP-1, lascannons AP-2, and meltaguns AP-3, they'd all still be noticeably superior to basic weaponry against 2+ and 3+ armor save enemies, without completely eliminating the benefit of that armor. That would be functionally equivalent to treating AP as 1 lower, but it would be a global solution for all armies.

This would simultaneously make invulnerable saves less valuable/necessary, since high-armor units would rarely benefit from them.

At the same time, though, some rebalancing would need to occur on high-volume weapons, since at the moment weapons that throw a lot of shots with moderate strength and -1 AP seem generally superior to the dedicated anti-tank weapons.

That said-

From a game design perspective, the interplay between toughness, wounds, armor save, and invulnerable save is rather opaque. Why does this unit have higher toughness, while this one has higher wounds, while this one has an invulnerable save? What does that represent?

If I were redesigning the 40k ruleset from scratch, I'd rather see it boiled down into two durability attributes- 'how hard is this unit to damage' (toughness), followed by 'how much damage can this unit take' (wounds). Then for weapons, S represents armor-piercing ability, while Dam represents how much damage the weapon is capable of inflicting. Simple, but without losing much granularity compared to the current system, where in practice high-S attacks tend to have high-AP as well.

But I suspect that the ship has already sailed on any radical redesign of that nature.