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.

We need more xenos bits, I think we all agree that we've had too many Imperium releases in the last few years whilsts Xenos were left starving for models and rules updates

pm713 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:But fun. Which is more than 8th.

8th is fun.

Agree to disagree. I'd much rather play 7th than 8th.

No you wouldn't. You'd rather play whatever watered down, house ruled, 'don't bring x, y, or z so it's fair' version of 7th you and your friends played in your basement.

REAL 7th was a dumpster fire and I can't imagine preferring 7th over being set on fire, let alone 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.

Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.

What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.

Ummm all of the troops are T3 1W....

Don't they get a bunch of cover buffs and debuffs to enemy accuracy though? I mean, stat wise they are weak, but they get a bunch of abilities that increase their resiliance. Or maybe that's just the vehicles.

these buffs are the in-game representation of their speed and agility.

Which is totally irrelevant when discussing balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Fire arcs, armour facings, fewer cards, low cover becoming relevant to the game again.

Go play 30k if you want the fire arcs. Terrible in practice.

Yeah, anyone else remember that period where knights had a giant blind spot directly in front of them? Or when it was completely impossible for both guns on a crusader to hit the same target? Plus they never adequately explained the Arcs on Doomscythe's or Wave serpents. That's not even getting into the whole 'riptide as a monstrous creature because we don't even wanna TRY determining the firing arcs for that one.

And armor facings never really mattered. Vehicles exploded into shrapnel with a thought back in 6th and 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Give me back formations.

Gross.

Formations were one of the worst parts of 7th.

Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.

Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines

Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!

DE heroes would be greta to welcome back

Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.

Remind me of all the various Sisters of Battle Power Formations? What were the same for Imperial Guard or Dark Eldar at the time.

If you make totally broken formations for a few super special factions they ruin casual play as much or more than torunament play - been there.

The 8th version at least costs CP rather than simply money.

Guard had some from Warzone Damocles and Dark Eldar had Haemonculus Covens as I recall. Sisters were just ignored entirely from before I started playing to very recently so I wouldn't say they count.

I don't have a complete memory of all the Formations but the ones I'm familiar with could be used with a decent spread of models so it's hardly like you had to buy a new army to use any of them.

If one person brings an obviously broken army with no handicap against an army that's around average power that's not casual my friend.

Yeah it is. It's just not the casual YOU want.

They could have resolved the facings issues by giving every vehicle a base that has arc indicators on it, so you know exactly where everything was.

Vehicles being fragile in 6th - 7th ed was because GW decided to give them wounds but not a save, which meant that high RoF were more efficient at killing vehicles than anti-tank weapons. Which was dumb.

They should have changed the damage table to be a critical damage table, where the affects are only applied if the vehicle loses enough hull points or if you roll high enough when penetrating armor, depending on the weapon of course.

9th edition with no influence from JJ at all in any way, no more micro transaction style rulebooks.

Racerguy180 wrote:
IIIrd legion codex & new marines.

SQUATS!!!!!!! But that is every year.

Mechanicus rules for Mechanicum units & more Admech in general.

If you want Squats Triumph got you covered with their new game AoW-Planetfall which will be released in August this year. You can play as the Dvar and they have a theme which can be best described as Russian space dwarfs. So paint up the red star on your vehicles and get ready to prospect some sectors. Oh, and don´t forget to incinerate and bombard enemy pixel units on the way.

GW and Squats? Buhah! They will probably release them in ten years or so. Just take a look at the mess that they done with the Sisters. It took them twenty years to re-release the faction. Pathetic.

Battlefleet Gothic could use a return. It would probably be limited to ForgeWorld though, and have a different rule set. Which is fine I guess, I was more into the fluff anyway.

They could have resolved the facings issues by giving every vehicle a base that has arc indicators on it, so you know exactly where everything was.

Which would interfere with a part of the hobby which includes modelling and all that. Fire Arcs bases work well for X-Wing due to them being all flyers and X-Wing isn't really intended as a modelling hobby.

 Argive wrote:
A year without pandering to the imperium fanboys to see new units across other factions.. alright i might as well wish for a winning lotery ticket.

This is coming from someone who plays Tau, Sisters, and Space Wolves. Imperium got barely anything last year, in fact, the two biggest releases (new models) last year were BOTH Xenos (GSC and Orks) So stop plugging Imperium hate in with Primaris hate, I would love for Primaris to get shot in the foot, but stop spitting on Imperium as a whole, Space Wolves got absolutely squatted in the tournament scene, as well as grey knights. Most Xenos factions have been doing very well at tournaments, please stop whining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
We need more xenos bits, I think we all agree that we've had too many Imperium releases in the last few years whilsts Xenos were left starving for models and rules updates

Again, last year alone Orks and GSC had the two largest releases with new models and rules than any other faction, probably combined. While I would personally love to see less primaris (unless its for GK or SW specific stuff), please stop pretending like everyone in the imperium is a whole faction. There are plenty of Imperium factions that get nothing EVERY year (sometimes for decades!) Space Wolves was by far the largest let down of a codex of this edition (Grey Knights don't count as when they came out they were good compared to index). I would love to see new Eldar stuff, even though they have the best by far old sculpts in the game.

You don't need to give Space Wolves new models to help them competitively, you just need to fix their old ones.

I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.

What? I can dream Harold!!!

Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.

 The Warp Forge wrote:
I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.

What? I can dream Harold!!!

Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.

This is my #1 want's as well honestly. Though I feel like Night Lords even getting a White Dwarf index is unlikely, just update their rules somehow to make them a bit less gimmicky!

 SHUPPET wrote:
You don't need to give Space Wolves new models to help them competitively, you just need to fix their old ones.

GW dumped a few Space Wolves kits like Long Fangs.
That Codex was just a slap in the face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd like to see rules for more unique characters turning Primaris so we can finally get an answer on what is happening with oldmarines.
Alternatively the Primaris going all Order 66 in the fluff so the Imperium moves another couple of seconds towards midnight allowing the returning Primarchs to be a last stand blessing.

A return to the atmosphere and actual "we actually care what our customers think" mentality of the 90s and early 2000s. Also I'd like to point out that I still play 6th ed cause 8th is too simple with some real dumb rule changes and 7th was almost as bad.

I wish to see less invulnerable saves or a way to lower or get around them. They are like a plague in this edition.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.

What? I can dream Harold!!!

Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.

This is my #1 want's as well honestly. Though I feel like Night Lords even getting a White Dwarf index is unlikely, just update their rules somehow to make them a bit less gimmicky!

I mean isn't that like all off the regular CSM legions?
AL was always just used as a meme magic wand.
WB, well are there even WB players left at this point...
etc.etc.

Also the less said about Renegade guard, also known as R&H , lists and or varietes of them the better.

Fact is FW/GW fethed up big time, especially in the CA's which could've easily fixed the lists but GW decided not to bother:
cue Corsairs (now ilegal to field) DKoK losing a whole list of regiment type (Huray) or R&H ( army defined by adaptabe rules and modifications too troops to make this your dudes, f.e. Dark mechanicus with lobotomized slave soldiers, etc. Replaced with codex bland murderhobos worshpping chaos out of sheere stupidity i guess. Did i mention that about 70% of troop options don't exist anymore?)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hawky wrote:
I wish to see less invulnerable saves or a way to lower or get around them. They are like a plague in this edition.

Isn' t the Invulnerable save inflation just a matter of fact because the damage output skyrocketed?

It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more.
e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.

Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.

Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.

 Hawky wrote:
It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more.
e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.

Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.

Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.

Is it really that common though? There's not that many vehicle / MCs that come with a stock invul save.
There's already counters to invul saves in the game too. Well, at least for Imperials (Null Zone, I believe its called?) and Necrons (Entropic strike stratagem. Only 1 attack, but it ignores invuls, iirc). I dunno about other factions. They should probably get something too.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more.
e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.

Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.

Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.

Is it really that common though? There's not that many vehicle / MCs that come with a stock invul save.
There's already counters to invul saves in the game too. Well, at least for Imperials (Null Zone, I believe its called?) and Necrons (Entropic strike stratagem. Only 1 attack, but it ignores invuls, iirc). I dunno about other factions. They should probably get something too.

Daemon engines have always a 5+ invulnerable, but they always had that and more importantly are not that great.
Personally knights are the biggest Insult to that since you cant lower their armor effectively.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
I'd like a fully functioning Night Lord WD: Index, just to make mono Night lords Viable.

What? I can dream Harold!!!

Other than that, if I wanted full armies released I would love to new Chaos Armies to the game: Lost and the Damned: Renegade Guard, because I like Basilisks and Leman Russ' and Dark Mechanicum, because I like DOOM! and Warped-up Thallax just sounds good to me.

This is my #1 want's as well honestly. Though I feel like Night Lords even getting a White Dwarf index is unlikely, just update their rules somehow to make them a bit less gimmicky!

I mean isn't that like all off the regular CSM legions?
AL was always just used as a meme magic wand.
WB, well are there even WB players left at this point...
etc.etc.

Also the less said about Renegade guard, also known as R&H , lists and or varietes of them the better.

Fact is FW/GW fethed up big time, especially in the CA's which could've easily fixed the lists but GW decided not to bother:
cue Corsairs (now ilegal to field) DKoK losing a whole list of regiment type (Huray) or R&H ( army defined by adaptabe rules and modifications too troops to make this your dudes, f.e. Dark mechanicus with lobotomized slave soldiers, etc. Replaced with codex bland murderhobos worshpping chaos out of sheere stupidity i guess. Did i mention that about 70% of troop options don't exist anymore?)

I fully agree. GW were immensely lazy with the CSM traits, they fething copy pasted RG rules for Alpha Legion which is just appalling for example, half the rest are garbage.

So yeah, double my statement for everyone, but especially the shittest ones.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
It inflated to the point it's getting pointless to take dedicated anti-tank weapons with high AP and instead take weapons with less AP that shoot more.
e.g, spraying a though unit with several heavy bolters is sometimes more effective in dealing damage than shooting it with a lascannon, all because of the invulnerable save.

Perhaps it would be useful to give dedicated anti-tank weapons -1 to invulnerable save, or something.

Weapons with AP characteristics with -3 and better lowers the invulnerable save of the opponent's model it is used against by 1 if it has any.

Is it really that common though? There's not that many vehicle / MCs that come with a stock invul save.
There's already counters to invul saves in the game too. Well, at least for Imperials (Null Zone, I believe its called?) and Necrons (Entropic strike stratagem. Only 1 attack, but it ignores invuls, iirc). I dunno about other factions. They should probably get something too.

They are rare, problem is at least two vehicles that use them are ultra common - Imperial Knights and Eldar Flyers.
Both of which got nerfed.
There are more weapons that don’t care about Invulnerable saves than there are vehicles with Invulnerable saves. Dedicated anti-tank should be +1 to wound anything with the Vehicle, Monster or Titanic Keywords.

An add-on Space Marine codex that covers additional material for the C:SM, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Deathwatch.

A dedicated Primaris Transport
Primaris dedicated anti-tank infantry
More Primaris Special Characters (Primaris Pedro Kantor explicitly)
Primaris Techmarines
Primaris Terminators
Primaris Bikes (NOT Jetbikes)

Emperor's Children codex
New Noise Marines (with Guitar Sonic Blasters)
Noise Marine Terminators
Fulgrim

A big Eldar release that replaces the aging Aspect Warrior kits
Exodites

A big fix to the Necron, Ad Mech, and Grey Knights codexes. Nerfs to the Tau, Eldar Craftworlds, and Astra Militarum codexes.

I'd like GW to revisit the "if everything you have on the table is a dedicated flyer you lose on the spot" rule. For one thing Rule of Three should help stop the flyer abuse it was put in place to prevent, and for another it makes some very expensive transports almost unusable. At the very least it should take loaded transports into account.

Context here; I bought a Stormraven for reasons, and quickly realised that it conveniently fits an entire Outrider detachment at 1000 points. That's a super fluffy list that has the little disadvantage of instantly losing during deployment.

 jobalisk wrote:
A return to the atmosphere and actual "we actually care what our customers think" mentality of the 90s and early 2000s. Also I'd like to point out that I still play 6th ed cause 8th is too simple with some real dumb rule changes and 7th was almost as bad.

What kind of reverse world were you living on in the 90s and early 2000s? GW's Staff changeup is singlehandedly what saved it from dying to other game companies, as is 8th edition being the smoothest (at release) and best launch of a miniatures edition ever. It pretty much killed Privateer Press (though they helped destroy themselves to be fair), and all the other miniature games lost any steam they had in cornering the market. GW actually cares about their customers now as opposed to pretty much FU pay me. This is done through the Community Survey and their Community Page in general is a whole lot better than what they used to be. I'm not sure what kind of messed up Stockholm Syndrome you have but you need some help man.

I belive in regards to CSM, i would like for the basic Legions to get a special unit or two just for themselves:

AL: Get's infiltrators, kinda like a worse equpped scout with a breacher charge and infiltration.

WB: Ghal Vorbak upgrade for possesed, (make them for once usefull)

NL: Rapotors as troops with more equippment options maybee?

IW: Siege unit? Maybee a inferno rocket battery with a servitor or two as crew?

etc.
Nothing against the cult legions but the normal legions often seem to get forgotten.

Caprican 775499 10460261 wrote:GW actually cares about their customers now as opposed to pretty much FU pay me. This is done through the Community Survey and their Community Page in general is a whole lot better than what they used to be. I'm not sure what kind of messed up Stockholm Syndrome you have but you need some help man.

they maybe care about some of their customers. I don't see how any of the stuff they did could point at the fact that they care for people who have a Grey Knight army or want to buy one. Unless we count something like that they haven't pulled grey knight models from stores.

 jobalisk wrote:
A return to the atmosphere and actual "we actually care what our customers think" mentality of the 90s and early 2000s.

I've been around GW since Rogue Trader days. They've NEVER cared what their customers think. They produce, you're supposed to buy - end of story.

This thread is long, and I may even have left this comment already, but I think the things I'd most like to see most are:

a new Grey Knight codex

plastic aspect warriors

I don't actually collect either, but I feel like they're both what are what are needed the most.

The Newman wrote:
I'd like GW to revisit the "if everything you have on the table is a dedicated flyer you lose on the spot" rule. For one thing Rule of Three should help stop the flyer abuse it was put in place to prevent, and for another it makes some very expensive transports almost unusable. At the very least it should take loaded transports into account.

Context here; I bought a Stormraven for reasons, and quickly realised that it conveniently fits an entire Outrider detachment at 1000 points. That's a super fluffy list that has the little disadvantage of instantly losing during deployment.

Apparently GW is a step or two ahead of me on this one.

Karol wrote:

Caprican 775499 10460261 wrote:GW actually cares about their customers now as opposed to pretty much FU pay me. This is done through the Community Survey and their Community Page in general is a whole lot better than what they used to be. I'm not sure what kind of messed up Stockholm Syndrome you have but you need some help man.

they maybe care about some of their customers. I don't see how any of the stuff they did could point at the fact that they care for people who have a Grey Knight army or want to buy one. Unless we count something like that they haven't pulled grey knight models from stores.

Honestly i don't think it's lack of caring, i think it's complete lack of knowing. Anyone who plays 40k can read the codecies and get the distinct impression that whoever wrote them has never played a game of 40k. I don't think it's malice, i think it's ignorance. They honestly don't even know how much grey knights suck because they don't play their own games, and when they do they've even admitted they don't really care about rules and just kinda make it up as they go based on 'what seems like it might be cool." So they think balance is fine as is.

They also seem hesitant to even attempt to fix rules that are obviously broken. Chaos codex 2 showed that. They had the perfect opportunity to tweak chaos rules but they didn't touch any of the things that were issues in it, just basically a reprint with 1 unit changed. And in CA they only ever change points. Again, they probably have no idea what's wrong with it so don't understand why they would change something someone already wrote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I want them to hire a technical writer, issue FAQs every 2 months and balance changes every 6.

THIS!!!!!

I've taken courses in technical writing and it's so much different than fiction writing. In fact most technical writing courses have you create game rule sets as projects. GW can't seem to grasp that writing cool stories is not anywhere near the skill set required to design well written game rules. They give all their codecies to guys who granted write pretty awesome fiction and lore, but have no idea how to create balanced, coherent, and clear rules, and it's glaringly obvious. They need game designers designing the game, not story writers.

 Karnij wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I want them to hire a technical writer, issue FAQs every 2 months and balance changes every 6.

THIS!!!!!

I've taken courses in technical writing and it's so much different than fiction writing. In fact most technical writing courses have you create game rule sets as projects. GW can't seem to grasp that writing cool stories is not anywhere near the skill set required to design well written game rules. They give all their codecies to guys who granted write pretty awesome fiction and lore, but have no idea how to create balanced, coherent, and clear rules, and it's glaringly obvious. They need game designers designing the game, not story writers.

Successful companies have both - creative people who come up with stuff that sounds cool and technical people who refine in the output of the creative people into properly written and balanced rules.