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.

As per title, this can range from an utter overhaul of the current rules to a singular change or anything in between.

Personally I'd like:

Better / more indepth terrain rules
No more random charge distances
More (better?) attacks for hand to hand / combat units
Remove CPs altogether

two tier set of rules, current rules to cover narrative and open and matched play to have more in depth rules.

 Ratius wrote:
As per title, this can range from an utter overhaul of the current rules to a singular change or anything in between.

Personally I'd like:

Better / more indepth terrain rules
No more random charge distances
More (better?) attacks for hand to hand / combat units
Remove CPs altogether

I'd love for a few things:

Consolidated Universal rules.
Alternating activations (like killteam)
When you charge, you move the distance you rolled even if you didnt make the charge (like killteam)

Impossible for me to say in detail but i think mixing 7th and 8th would be better.

GW tried to copy AoS rules into 40k in order make the game fast , easy to play and easy to learn, but 40k cannot be done that to unless it is given the Fantasy treatment. (complete removal to be replaced by something brand new)

Ditch the current Psychic phase for something actually engaging and interesting. Make Morale rules apply to many, many more units. Make close combat useful for killing things rather than just holding things up/preventing shooting. Rebalance Wounds and Toughness against Strength and Damage for vehicles and monsters to reduce the need for Invulnerable saves. Change how character protection works...

Actually, I think they'd be as well treating 8th as a decent start to a new ruleset but overhauling a lot of the work they did in 8th with profiles of weapons and units. The core rules are mostly fine but I think the details of how the game is built around them is still in need of a lot of work.

Not much difference really fro 9th from 8th which I find a massive improvement on the dark times of 6th/7th

Better terrain rules.
Better spread of Toughness
Go back to +1 attack for pistol weapons in CC.

otherwise I am good

Things def DONT want

Another complicated pyschic phase edition - especially terrible if you don't have them - they are fine as they are.
No Vehicle facings - at most have a extra -1AP from rear / top but certianly no more.

Better terrain rules so that battlefield management is a thing like it should be in war.

Removal of CP farming. I like the AOS way of CP better. Its a limited resource and should be used sparingly, not farmed.

Actual narrative support that goes beyond min/max every game for the winz. Storyline army building / structure. Rarely do you get to cherry pick your forces in a narrative.

Stronger incentive to take actual core troops like tactical marines. That ties back into min/max every game for the winz. But if you had a reason to take tactical marines, that would also bleed back into powergame play.

I'd personally like to never see 9th ed, but rather just 8.5. the Core rules are fine as-is with just a few tweaks, mostly just points adjustments, but we get those in CA.

The main change I'd like to see is a change in the way CPs are generates. I like CPs and the idea of Stratagems. It's resource management that adds tactical depth.
But the biggest issue is the disparity between detachments.

It's fine to want to encourage Battalions since they require more Troops, but since Troops are already the best scoring units, it's not so needed.
I want to see the following:

CP return to "factory settings", so Battalions at 3CPs, Brigades at 9CPs. Any detachment that shares 2 or more faction Keywords (so at least 1 non-Imperial, Chaos, Aeldari, etc keyword) with your army's Warlord gains +2CPs.
So adding a Guard Battalion to an army with a Knight WL will only add 3CPs, not 5.
But those armies that don't have cheap allies can generate a healthier amount of CPs. Even Outriders, Vanguards and Spearheads will grant 3CPs each if they are the same "specific" faction as your WL.

I would also make Battle Forged grant 3CPs EACH TURN so long as you WL is alive and on the table.

-

An end of IGOUGO, so alternating activations in some form. Not sure how, exactly - clearly activating a knight cannot be the same as activating a base of nurglings, for example. Perhaps a new stat for units, activation cost, and a set amount of activation points you could spend each turn based on points for the game, and a penalty for activating the same unit in back to back turns? Perhaps even combine this with command points, so you need to pick between stratagems and activations. Just about anything could be better than IGOUGO, though.

Less invulnerable saves would also be good for the game, IMHO. Give things more wounds, tons of wounds all around would be fine. Not a fan of the current state of things, where invulnerable saves are very common and usually stacked with FNP saves.

Less rerolls. Not a huge fan of how frequently dice are rerolled. A reroll effect should be both powerful and rare, in my opinion. I stopped playing around 3rd before coming back to 8th and the prevalence of rerolls, in addition to almost every model having an invuln, really stands out to me.

A greater penalty for falling back out of combat. Just like units get overwatch when they are charged, I'd like to see the reverse. Units should either get a free swing or close combat attack at units as they fall back, or maybe the falling back unit should be forced to make some sort of morale test.

Point values for relics, warlord traits, etc. They are not equal and never will be, given how varied the effects are.

Less soup. Taking some amount of allies can be flavorful and should continue, but not in the current state. I happen to like the AoS rules for allies, they are far more limiting than 40ks. Either a bonus for mono codex or restriction placed on allies would go a long way towards evening the playing field.

Higher point values for everything. Point values have been squeezed considerably over the editions, to the point where its become extremely tight to balance certain things. A slight bump across the board would give the rules team a lot of breathing room in making things balanced. However, this is unlikely to ever happen because lower points means they can sell more models. Maybe guardsmen will be 1 ppm someday.

More customization of non unique characters. I don't like special characters much, personally, as I feel its annoying for them to constantly show up in every small skirmish across the galaxy. Guilliman should be rare, not a personal escort for every Ultramarines squad that leaves Macragge. As an Eldar player I remember how cool and customizable Exarchs used to be. I'd like more stuff like that... give us plastic kits for our characters that are highly customizable and rules with lots of options for them. This could add such flavor and really make an army feel like your own unique force, more than including some predefined special character.

Fully Digital Rules and Codexes updated with regular errata/faqs - containing everything but points. Move points into a quarterly Chapter Approved.

I'd like the digital stuff to be free, but wouldn't mind paying for CA or some sort of subscription for both.

I would like to see manoeuvring play a key role in the game, as opposed to sheer firepower.

I would like to see flamers and blast weapons have some link to the size of the unit they're shooting at, and a separation of the anti-tank and anti-infantry aspects of ex-ordnance weapons being separated to make them less of an all-destroying weapon.

I want to see falling back become a test of some sort, where you can fail to get yourself out of combat, as opposed to the current system where you just walk away.

I want to see plasma weaponry get hot on a natural 1!

I'd like to see boarding planks allow you to disembark from a trukk if it moves 6", then move and charge, making trukks worth it! or, the old boarding plank rules.

I'd like to see line of sight make a comeback, and vehicle weapon arcs.

1. Move from a D6 system to a D8, D10 or some other system so as to allow for a greater stat-line distribution. Add in alternating activations, al a Killteam. Move even if you fail the charge.

 Ratius wrote:
As per title, this can range from an utter overhaul of the current rules to a singular change or anything in between.

Personally I'd like:

Better / more indepth terrain rules
No more random charge distances
More (better?) attacks for hand to hand / combat units
Remove CPs altogether

Remove CP in its current form, all battle forge get 3 cp, generate 1 a turn, relics and artifacts give a chance to generate an additional on a 6+, all strats cost 1 cp

Reduce AP in the game to much ap -2 weapons which is why the 3+ is basically worthless now

Bring back a bonus for units meleeing vehicles, to represent hitting the back of the vehicle

Make cover worth taking, the rules put into cities of death was a really good example.of how terrain should work.

Remove super heavies from standard games.

Return to USRs.

Re-point the games on essentially a factor of 10 to allow for more granular balancing. Also shrink the game size down leading to a faster pace of play.

TITANIC models banned in matched play below 3k points.

Wow, glad no one here is a game designer. 8th just needs refinement like a consolidation of the FAQs to the core rules, not a return to previous failed edition mechanics.

I'd like to see a better defined scale to the game.

Why on earth are we differentiating between a power axe and power sword on a random squad sergeant in a game where they may be facing a tank company, knight lance, or Titan maniple? Why do we have air superiority fighters and strategic missile launchers in a game where handguns are relevant wargear?

I get that GW wants one scale of models to represent the entire game universe, but I really think 40k needs two or three different rulesets, with different levels of abstraction and model count, to portray different scales.

I think solving that will make a whole lot of other balance issues easier to grapple with.

 buddha wrote:
Wow, glad no one here is a game designer. 8th just needs refinement like a consolidation of the FAQs to the core rules, not a return to previous failed edition mechanics.

Not liking a mechanic does not mean it's a failed mechanic. Armor facing was a important mechanic that helped balance vehicles.

Removing super heavies from standard games is a good thing. Super heavies in 2k games was introduced in 7th, it's still a very new thing.

 buddha wrote:
Wow, glad no one here is a game designer. 8th just needs refinement like a consolidation of the FAQs to the core rules, not a return to previous failed edition mechanics.

Don't worry they'll just ditch 8th with a new set of failed mechanics.

USR's work in theory, but collapse the second the rules writers want a twist on a USR or some sort of rule that ignores USR.

Making explodes as a USR is fine until you want to have some sort of special effect happen when a vehicle explodes.

USRs require the rules writers to stick within the limits of USRs and to be competent, something GW does not have.

A D20 system instead of a D6 system. At the very least a D10.

The cessation of constant rules updates...even to the extent of an faq for an faq. At this rate I would prefer to revert to the unholy mess that was 7th.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate issues are being addressed but if you want to make that consumer friendly you need a platform which is digital and auto updates.

GW, please cease your fixation with hard copy crack and embrace this century - yeah, you will lose money but you will probably have a happier player base.

Adding type keywords (such as BOLT, FLAME, PLASMA, etc) to weapons, to allow rules to be designed which hang off them - it would make the wording for Bolter Discipline a lot cleaner, for example.

 Dysartes wrote:
Adding type keywords (such as BOLT, FLAME, PLASMA, etc) to weapons, to allow rules to be designed which hang off them - it would make the wording for Bolter Discipline a lot cleaner, for example.

such a simple but good idea, I fully expected it to eventually turn up in 8th

As these threads always prove, the community all want different things, so whatever GW do expect another edition of complaining

Personally I'm happy continuing with 8th edition for now...

Most major units come with their own victory conditions or objectives. It is then impossible to have kill’em all or straight table quarters games. Playing as of against titans should be different than playing as or against bikes or as or against ork hordes or as or against tyranid hordes or as or against armored cavalry, and you don’t have to hear about agreeing which “game mode” to play as.

Range penalties and extended ranges for shooting, and bonuses for cross-fire give cc units more fodder and shooty armies a strong reason to get close.

Infantry always have true overwatch turned on to balance them against big models.

Most models and rules are obtained by recasting and 3D printing and GW makes money by running events and selling T-shirts.

Titans and flyers in any old game even kill-team sized but with forced narrative objectives that make the games winnable for either player.

I actually enjoy random charge rolls. Gives you a change to make a long charge, is a bit more thematic.

That being said, maybe have there be minimum charge rolls. Like maybe your movement (caps at flat 6) + a D6 roll. I mean, I played against someone who failed like 3x 4" charges turn 1, and it was kind of game breaking for him. And it feels dumb.

I also enjoy CPs and stratagems, but CP batteries definitely need fixing.

Other stuff:

1) I find the falling back mechanic stupid and broken. It makes no sense for most units to simply disengage from an enemy and have them stare and do nothing. Especially when said units can just waltz out of combat and fire to full effect - take for example, the entirety of the imperial guard infantry. I just hate that guardsmen walk away from a howling mob of boyz, and then just fire to full effect right in their faces.

There should be a test that, ideally, tests on initiative, or barring that, move speed. Units with a high move speed should have a high chance (but not 100%) to disengage from enemy units, and units with a relatively slower move speed should have a lower chance (but not 0%) to disengage, and vice versa. So, things like jump packs and bikes would be able to tie up slow infantry more effectively, and give them, you know, a purpose. And the same with, say, terminators. Big slow walking tanks should be relatively easy to disengage from.

Maybe include an option for units to fire at enemy units tied in melee with friendly ones, but include a negative modifier to hit, and maybe 1s hit your own unit. IDK. But the way falling back works now means that melee units are nearly useless, as what always happens is they get into combat, they flail around a bit, their opponent runs away and the melee unit is obliterated.

2) Also, I kind of hate the way characters work now. I'd prefer bringing back independent characters or look out sir. This may be a somewhat uniquely ork problem because of our lack of invluns, but its disappointing for an ork warboss (with a measly 4+ armor save and nothing else) to be instagibbed when entering combat with anything more threatening than a fire warrior.

3) I feel as if what formerly were blast templates, which were generally considered great against hordes but less effective against single targets have flipped in some cases, which is odd. For example, a battle cannon. Against infantry it's........ok. Like, lets say the battle cannon gets 8 shots and 4 hits. That's maybe 4 dead infantry. Meh. Against a vehicle or MC, 4 battle cannon hits is a much bigger deal.

Like, if they reduced the shots of blast weapons, or maybe just large blast weapons, but let their wounds spill over, that might make more sense. So those 4 hits v. infantry with D3 damage each could kill up to 12 infantry. The idea being blasts wouldn't be as devastating v. single targets, but have increased utility v. hordes.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I actually enjoy random charge rolls. Gives you a change to make a long charge, is a bit more thematic.

That being said, maybe have there be minimum charge rolls. Like maybe your movement (caps at flat 6) + a D6 roll. I mean, I played against someone who failed like 3x 4" charges turn 1, and it was kind of game breaking for him. And it feels dumb.

Love this idea.

Like, if they reduced the shots of blast weapons, or maybe just large blast weapons, but let their wounds spill over, that might make more sense. So those 4 hits v. infantry with D3 damage each could kill up to 12 infantry. The idea being blasts wouldn't be as devastating v. single targets, but have increased utility v. hordes.

And this!

I'm slowly fading from 40K (as expected). It's not the core rules which bug me at all, it's the ridiculous number of dice and re-rolls and auras and hordes that's more or less killed my interest in going further with the game.

That's something that won't be fixed or changed, because it's how GW sells models/minis. Units (particularly cheap ones which should be crap units) shooting or fighting 150+ times a phase or turn is just...well it's boring as feth. Many units reach the amount of dice rolls where there's no point to even roll them. Just remove the unit or the target. That's pretty poor game design, though I know mathhammerers love it (read: the people who insist anything that isn't hiting five times per model at 2+ while re-rolling '1's is a garbage unit, etc.).

The entire "Well, this squad shoots 90 times...and I can re-roll, and then I can shoot again with a stratagem" has all but killed my enthusiasm for the game. That's not a game anymore, it's becoming a farce. Couple that with GW's model decisions as of late and I'll probably retire to the grognard home and play 8th occasionally with buddies and go back to dabbling with smaller more intricate games of 2nd edition etc.