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.

Age of sigmar is more fun and eidt: "more" balanced

And take the ally system from it, only 1 detachment 20% points, datasheet rules only.

I think they should do away with FOC's / Detachments altogether. I'd rather see some kind of limit per point value. Something like, no more than one of a unit per 500 points played (or part thereof). Typical troop units could be exempt, things like Tactical Marines, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, that sort of thing.

I'd also like to make it so you could choose one other unit in your codex to make exempt. That way, if you want to play White Scars with all the Bikes, go ahead. Blood Angels with Assault Squads, or Death Company Brigades, have at'er. Deathwing for everybody! Tau Crisis suits as your main unit? Done. Saim-Hann bike armies? Iyandan Ghost armies? Done and done.

The cat's out of the bag now, and it ain't going back. So let people play how they want to play. Why try to build a fake restriction when every army winds up with ways to "cheat" around it?

Make Command Points a pre-game then per-turn thing. Don't give someone 25 CP on the first turn then expect them to not Alpha the snot out of their opponent.

Make Command Points a per-point-level thing. One CP per turn per 500 points played, plus 1 so long as your Warlord is alive sort of deal. Balance the CP cost of strategems in this new structure. Make strats that effect single units cheap, unless those units cost 400+ points each, in which case make them 3 points a pop for the simple ones, 5 or more for the "Good" ones. Make it a choice to spend now or save up for something awesome next turn.

The longer I play, the less I care about exact balance. Being within 10% across a well constructed army is fine, and will result in good games.

The longer I play, the more I want to try Power Level. I think it would just change what's powerful, and doesn't make it any less accurate, across the spread of an Army. Take the upgrades, they're fun to play with!

I think the faith system in the new SoB codex is fine. The powers provide some fairly significant force multiplication for squads and also have zero consequences for failure, aside from burning a resource that can only be used for faith powers anyway. They fulfill a happy medium between psychic powers, which can literally kill your caster with a bad roll, and orders, which are arguably overpowered due to having zero chance of failing.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I think they should do away with FOC's / Detachments altogether. I'd rather see some kind of limit per point value. Something like, no more than one of a unit per 500 points played (or part thereof). Typical troop units could be exempt, things like Tactical Marines, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, that sort of thing.

Indeed something similar to the old Fantasy system with a maximum percentage of your army spend on a specific type (let say no more than 20% in any given choice except troops which must be at least 20% and have no maximum). I personnaly would require a minimum of 30% of the army point cost should be Troop Choice without counting transports.

 stonehorse wrote:

We all come back to GW.

10 years GW sober now. So no not really.

Voss wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, the Imperium has always been a fascist theocratic regime lampooned and hamstrung by its own ridiculousness.

that is like saying something is a comunist capitalist type of regime. Fasist are all about the separation of church and state, and tight link between the goverment and the non public sector. In a theocracy, nothing can exist outside of it, and all public positions are doubled, by exactly the same positions within the church hierarchy, with the church ones always being superior and being able to over turn any decisions made by non clergy officials.

As political systems go the empire is closest to communism. it has cult of personality, and official dialectic that goes through every strata of society. It even has the same type collective head of state, and the super inefficient type of economy that is fueled by working citizents like slaves, while at the same time the whole thing is called The Imperium of Man.

Just no. Nothing you said has anything to do with communism, and the imperium is far too class structured, with wealthy nobles, lots of privleges for groups that don't apply to proletariat, poverty crushed workers, and religious trappings everywhere. It's as far from communism as it's possible to get.

Unironically making haphazard connections to socialism/communism while displaying a total lack of even an elementary knowledge of political theory has become something of a meme at this point.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Wired4War wrote:
Strength and toughness should be removed and use the to wound stat from Sigmar.

So a Guardsman should find it as easy to wound a Grot as a Warlord Titan?

There may be a reason that idea is unpopular...

It's almost like a game where the variation in the toughness of models is less extreme can use a system that doesn't need to account for it, or something.

I'd say that there is still fairly substantial variation - wounding a Goblin vs. doing noticeable damage to a Steam Tank, airship or dragon.

Of course, if it were an accurate comparison, AOS would actually have to be a game...

 Dysartes wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Wired4War wrote:
Strength and toughness should be removed and use the to wound stat from Sigmar.

So a Guardsman should find it as easy to wound a Grot as a Warlord Titan?

There may be a reason that idea is unpopular...

It's almost like a game where the variation in the toughness of models is less extreme can use a system that doesn't need to account for it, or something.

I'd say that there is still fairly substantial variation - wounding a Goblin vs. doing noticeable damage to a Steam Tank, airship or dragon.

Of course, if it were an accurate comparison, AOS would actually have to be a game...

At least if it did become a game 40k might too.
A long shot I know...

Games Workshop are a relatively tiny company who've managed to create a relatively big IP whilst creating a relatively niche product. The fact that they are aggressive in protecting that is entirely understandable.

Balancing a game around how armies should play is fine. If you want to play a different style with them, that's cool, the options are even there, but they will likely be more expensive and/or inferior to similar options in armies based around that playstyle. You're creating yourself a challenge, embrace it or play Wood Elves with bows and light cavalry not ranked infantry.

This hobby really isn't crazy expensive if you buy, buiild paint before buying again and don't feel the need to constantly chop and change units.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Tyranid parts look terrible in conversions as they are immediately recognisable and it dispels whatever the conversion is trying to sell.

What about my conversion for someone with a krakenbone sword made from a bonesword? Seems pretty fitting.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.

Oh, never seen this, but I'm a big fan. I do this with aspect warriors, and I'm pondering it for my daemon army.


I really like it when an army looks uniform, has something in common and an overarching theme, and isn't just a technicolor riot.

Or bare plastic, but I'd honestly prefer primed to the rainbow effect.

 MarsNZ wrote:
Unironically making haphazard connections to socialism/communism while displaying a total lack of even an elementary knowledge of political theory has become something of a meme at this point.

I can't help but laugh when Tau are referred to as communists. A society with a rigid caste system...

Nobody cares about your home brewed chapter's complex lineage. If someone asks what chapter/craftworld/whatever you play, "I made it up" is enough of a response. The next time someone tries to regale me with their 10,000 years of lineage, I'll simply scoop my army while they natter incessantly and head somewhere with less self-absorption.


In a similar vein, there is a section on this forum for your fandex. Use it. I find it highly unlikely that the gaming populace as a whole will find your work remotely balanced, NOR will they want to ever use it, and spamming it on every other 40K thread isn't going to change that.

Finally, when someone asks lore questions, your "fanon" is inconsequential and has no place in the conversation. There's a section of the forums for THAT as well.

pm713 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Tyranid parts look terrible in conversions as they are immediately recognisable and it dispels whatever the conversion is trying to sell.

What about my conversion for someone with a krakenbone sword made from a bonesword? Seems pretty fitting.

That sounds like it does fit. If it deliberately incorporates the origin then it might just work. You know what I'm talking bout tho

Voss wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.

Oh, never seen this, but I'm a big fan. I do this with aspect warriors, and I'm pondering it for my daemon army.


I really like it when an army looks uniform, has something in common and an overarching theme, and isn't just a technicolor riot.

Or bare plastic, but I'd honestly prefer primed to the rainbow effect.

Hey, what you like is what you like. I find it more important that models are painted appropriately for what they are trying to represent than the an entire force are painted in the exact same color scheme. Cohesiveness in painting technique and basing will do wonders to make an army look like it belongs together.

Modern 40k as a setting is stale and stupid, with a constant 1up marine never allowing the setting to really stay true to its grim dark feel. And when they have try to grim dark it up it’s done in a rather throw away way, and without much care to the setting as a whole.

Rule of cool is now hinting at how to make something not cool at all.

Grim dark is very 80s-90s and people are burned out on it.

Bremon wrote:
I think Knights should stay in the fluff; or in another game system or something. Having them in 40k ruins the scale of the game, which has already slowly eroded over time. I miss the days when a Land Raider was the biggest most badass looking points sink you could face. Some people had Baneblades from FW but all the forge world gak was crap people didn’t play against much.

I miss named characters being opponents permission only.

I think there are way, waaay too many factions now.

I miss the old AP system.

I don’t think 8th plays that all quickly.

I think CP and stratagems pretty much fundamentally shatter game balance.

Absolutely all of the above.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.

I'm 100% with you here, all too often allied stuff in general just gets the same paint scheme applied as the parent force, when such makes no sense in the background. With a lot of armies, it's like watching a WW1 game where US forces are fighting in Zouve colors just because they're allied with the French

Knights are particularly egregiously abused in this regard because they're so easy to just add to any force with the 8E army building rules, but Knight Households and Titan Legions are independent forces with their own command/logistics/transport structures and their own proud livery, they are not going to just take the colors and heraldry of someone else above their own, and a Space Marine chapter isn't usually going to be too keen on other groups just using their colors and heraldry, there's a lot of battlefield command & control/IFF issues with that and some serious questions of honor and presumption.

I get why people do it, but it does feel tacky

/i'msometimesjudgemental.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.

I'm 100% with you here, all too often allied stuff in general just gets the same paint scheme applied as the parent force, when such makes no sense in the background. With a lot of armies, it's like watching a WW1 game where US forces are fighting in Zouve colors just because they're allied with the French

Knights are particularly egregiously abused in this regard because they're so easy to just add to any force with the 8E army building rules, but Knight Households and Titan Legions are independent forces with their own command/logistics/transport structures and their own proud livery, they are not going to just take the colors and heraldry of someone else above their own, and a Space Marine chapter isn't usually going to be too keen on other groups just using their colors and heraldry, there's a lot of battlefield command & control/IFF issues with that and some serious questions of honor and presumption.

I get why people do it, but it does feel tacky

/i'msometimesjudgemental.

It'd be like adding a Guilliman/Ultramarines detachment to your Cadians and painting them all in army green and even putting the Cadian gate insignia on Guilliman! Yes, it matches but... like you said, there is a whole lot of wrong with that. The most I've seen of Knights using Space Marine iconography is House Hawkshroud integrating chapter badges into their heraldry when the Astartes in question honor them. But they don't repaint their bloody Knights.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this practice is tacky.

Hmmm, this has me thinking about how I painted my Knight. I did the same camo pattern as my Guard as a base, but I made it very heraldic on top of it. I hope the general effect is that it matches the army but also stands out, rather than being either identical or completely separate. Some bad phone pictures:

it might be good if GW went under, their gameline was bought out by a rich fan or group of wealthy gamers who focused more on making the games affordable to a larger number of people.

I could see making "peon" units a little less detailed but a lot cheaper to you can afford base troops easier while leaving models that aRE USUALLY USED IN SMALLER NUMBERS JUST AS DETAILED AS THEY ARE NOW.. Sorry, caps key.,

I'd like to see rules written to be a good balanced game not a constant shifting of unit power to make people buy more overpriced models.

yeah, yeah, I can dream.

 Trickstick wrote:
Hmmm, this has me thinking about how I painted my Knight. I did the same camo pattern as my Guard as a base, but I made it very heraldic on top of it. I hope the general effect is that it matches the army but also stands out, rather than being either identical or completely separate. Some bad phone pictures:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

No, that works great. Firstly the gold and the heraldry as I say sets it apart and secondly that it is beautifully executed. I really like out there cammo schemes.

 Trickstick wrote:
Hmmm, this has me thinking about how I painted my Knight. I did the same camo pattern as my Guard as a base, but I made it very heraldic on top of it. I hope the general effect is that it matches the army but also stands out, rather than being either identical or completely separate. Some bad phone pictures:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

If you're painting your knights with matching colors that is something different. Like, for example, if you paint a House Raven Knight using the same reds as the Blood Angels you want to ally it with that's perfectly fine. I wanted to paint up a House Cadmus Knight to match my Salamanders before going with Terryn. It's just slapping on the same iconography as if to imply the Knight is part of a Space Marine chapter/guard regiment is what I don't particularly care for.

Not sure if this is unpopular or not, but here we go;

Pre-Gathering Storm 40k was fine. It was a setting not a storyline, a setting focused on the Imperium being poised at the edge of a cliff.

With 10,000 years of history and an entire galaxy to play in, there was plenty of room for practically any story you wanted to tell, and any combination of forces you wanted to face off.

And it isn't like the crowd that Dakka seems to think is the most important - the tournament circuit - really cares anyway...

Bremon wrote:

I miss the old AP system.

This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Bremon wrote:

I miss the old AP system.

This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.

This is the old system, from back in 2nd edition! I can see your side but the other system had disadvantages. It made certain ap values much better than others. An ap3 gun was so much better than an ap4 gun. Now more weapons are worth taking.

 Trickstick wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Bremon wrote:

I miss the old AP system.

This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.

This is the old system, from back in 2nd edition! I can see your side but the other system had disadvantages. It made certain ap values much better than others. An ap3 gun was so much better than an ap4 gun. Now more weapons are worth taking.

When's the last time you saw someone take a Grav cannon? Or a flamer?

The issue was, and is still, with costing. The difference is that under the old system you always knew what your weapon could pen, whereas in 8th edition a -1 AP is much, much more valuable when firing on certan targets than on others.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
it might be good if GW went under, their gameline was bought out by a rich fan or group of wealthy gamers who focused more on making the games affordable to a larger number of people.

I could see making "peon" units a little less detailed but a lot cheaper to you can afford base troops easier while leaving models that aRE USUALLY USED IN SMALLER NUMBERS JUST AS DETAILED AS THEY ARE NOW.. Sorry, caps key.,

I'd like to see rules written to be a good balanced game not a constant shifting of unit power to make people buy more overpriced models.

yeah, yeah, I can dream.

did you see the 40k official podcast ? Mr Goodwin discussed the importance of graduating the level of detail from base troops going up thru the ranks up to special characters.

Clearly there is still internal drive to do this, but sometimes it slips through the net.

Space Marines *ARE* 40K

Primaris Marines are cool

Easy-To-Build models are a good idea

It’s not strictly necessary to always thin your paints

Most BL fiction is terrible; the battle scenes in particular are exhausting to read

Sport is basically fetch for humans

8th edition is awesome

CA smacks of cyncal sales tactics

There aren’t enough modifiers to shooting in the game

Blowing up WFB was probably the right call

I miss templates from a purely immersive standpoint

90% of the time, TLOS works for 40K