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.

Based on the "9 things" video, what would be your ideal set of rules changes from 8th to 9th? Keep in mind that 9th is not a full overhaul rules change so all current codexes etc will need to remain legal.

Personally, I'd love to see stuff like this:

-Weapons with random numbers of shots score max hits against units with 15 models or more. Additionally, weapons that hit automatically score max hits against units that receive a cover save.

-Obscurement: When all models targeted by a shooting attack are at least partially obscured by terrain or models not in the firing unit, that attack receives -1 to hit

-Ambush: new movement phase option. A unit chosen to Ambush moves twice its Mv stat, but must end the move within 1" of at least one enemy model. A unit that performed an Ambush move does not count as having charged in the Fight phase. (A new method for close combat units to close with the enemy more reliably than a Charge, avoid overwatch, but comes with the drawback of removing your ability to shoot the unit you Ambushed and your unit does not count as having charged. I can see some increase in the reliability of close combat being extremely necessary with the removal of preventing vehicles from being able to shoot.)

-Take Cover: In the shooting phase, units may be selected to Take Cover. Units that Take Cover may not be selected to shoot or charge in the charge phase, but receive an additional +1 to their save rolls if they receive cover from a shooting attack, and always count as Obscured

-New Transport rules: Allow units embarked within a transport to exit either at the beginning or the end of the movement phase. Units that disembark at the end of the movement phase may move no further (basically, make the impulsor's rule a USR).

-New Ruins rules: Apply to Sector Imperialis and Sector Mechanicus structures. Any INFANTRY, BEAST, SWARM, CAVALRY or BIKER unit that ends its turn wholly within 3" of a structure designated as a ruin may embark upon the ruin. Remove the unit from the board and set them up wholly on or within the ruin. Any number of units controlled by the same player may embark in a ruin as long as all models can fit on or within the structure. Units embarked in a ruin receive Cover.

Line of sight to and from units embarked within a ruin is drawn to the ruin structure. If multiple units are embarked within a ruin, the player who controls those units determines which units are closest when an enemy unit is selected to make a shooting or psychic attack targeting the ruin.

While within a ruin, any ability that a model has with a range value affects all models within the ruin, but no models outside the ruin.

When enemy units declare a charge against a unit within a ruin, they must declare their charge against all units currently within the ruin. Models within 1" of the ruin structure or within 1" of a friendly model within 1" of the ruin structure may make their close combat attacks against any unit within the ruin.

When a unit within a ruin is selected to move in the movement phase, they must first disembark from the ruin. Set the unit up with all models within 1" of the ruin structure. Any models that cannot be placed are destroyed. A unit that disembarks from a ruin structure that has enemy models within 1" counts as having Fallen Back.

I like the ruin one, quite similar to the way apoc does it.

I would modify your point about weapons though:

Weapons with random number of shots inflict one more hit for each 10 models in the target for each d3 shots they have and one more hit for every 5 models in the target for each d6 shots they have.

This way you avoid creating arbitrary tresholds in unit dimensions.

Spoletta wrote:
I like the ruin one, quite similar to the way apoc does it.

I would modify your point about weapons though:

Weapons with random number of shots inflict one more hit for each 10 models in the target for each d3 shots they have and one more hit for every 5 models in the target for each d6 shots they have.

This way you avoid creating arbitrary tresholds in unit dimensions.

Oh sure, that'd be better, I'm just going off of what GW said in their preview. I figure it'll be max hits if you go over a certain arbitrary threshold.

While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Though balance would go awry with 12"+ move guys. 14" would be autocharging t1 with no way to counter.

tneva82 wrote:
While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Just an idea. IMO, if a large fraction of your ability to turn off enemy shooting via melee is being removed, melee needs to become way, WAYYYYY more reliable than it is now...and it sounds like from the rules designed with 9th in mind, we're not seeing a removal of random charge moves or overwatch.

Melee in 8th reminds me of "Spot" mechanics in other super-beardy wargames. "Before you can roll to hit, you must roll to see if you can see the enemy!" This inevitably just results in your units twiddling around unable to do anything while an enemy unit sits right in front of them and the chortling beard walrus running the game explains "no no, this is much MORE realistic because it represents the fooooog of waaaaar."

Imagine if every time you wanted to shoot, you had to roll a 2+ or the unit could not shoot at all and just had to stand there for the remainder of the turn. That's how playing melee feels in 8th right now, except much, much less reliable.

1 CP for every 100 points of army.

- 3 CP for each additional subfaction or codex.

We hit an eddy in the Warp and 5th ed is rereleased, word for word and is treated as a brand new edition. Nobody says anything and we move on.

Spoletta wrote:
1 CP for every 100 points of army.

- 3 CP for each additional subfaction or codex.

20CP for the current most competitive pure IH lists out there in the meta seems like quite a lot.

Yeah, but they said "more CP for everyone" and they also said that the game will be balanced on all point levels, so i expect something like that.

the_scotsman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Just an idea. IMO, if a large fraction of your ability to turn off enemy shooting via melee is being removed, melee needs to become way, WAYYYYY more reliable than it is now...and it sounds like from the rules designed with 9th in mind, we're not seeing a removal of random charge moves or overwatch.

Melee in 8th reminds me of "Spot" mechanics in other super-beardy wargames. "Before you can roll to hit, you must roll to see if you can see the enemy!" This inevitably just results in your units twiddling around unable to do anything while an enemy unit sits right in front of them and the chortling beard walrus running the game explains "no no, this is much MORE realistic because it represents the fooooog of waaaaar."

Imagine if every time you wanted to shoot, you had to roll a 2+ or the unit could not shoot at all and just had to stand there for the remainder of the turn. That's how playing melee feels in 8th right now, except much, much less reliable.

Doesn't change that ambush name for rule that is anything but ambush(you rush forward 2 turns in open sight and then ambush? ) is odd discontent between name and rule.

And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

As is reliable t1 charges is already common with average 30-40" charges or 20" charges after starting 9" from dz.

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

tneva82 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
While i don't have strong opion on the ambush maybe rename it. It makes zero sense for rule and name. You have been moving in open for turn or two and then...ambush from direct sight?-)

Just an idea. IMO, if a large fraction of your ability to turn off enemy shooting via melee is being removed, melee needs to become way, WAYYYYY more reliable than it is now...and it sounds like from the rules designed with 9th in mind, we're not seeing a removal of random charge moves or overwatch.

Melee in 8th reminds me of "Spot" mechanics in other super-beardy wargames. "Before you can roll to hit, you must roll to see if you can see the enemy!" This inevitably just results in your units twiddling around unable to do anything while an enemy unit sits right in front of them and the chortling beard walrus running the game explains "no no, this is much MORE realistic because it represents the fooooog of waaaaar."

Imagine if every time you wanted to shoot, you had to roll a 2+ or the unit could not shoot at all and just had to stand there for the remainder of the turn. That's how playing melee feels in 8th right now, except much, much less reliable.

Doesn't change that ambush name for rule that is anything but ambush(you rush forward 2 turns in open sight and then ambush? ) is odd discontent between name and rule.

And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

As is reliable t1 charges is already common with average 30-40" charges or 20" charges after starting 9" from dz.

T1 charges are already extremely commonplace in the current game, and with the way they work currently, you get to strike before your opponent and you may shoot the unit you're planning on charging later in the turn.

So I'm not seeing how something like this to make charging more reliable to all units, and not just units that have special snowflake rules and strats enabling them to essentially auto-get in would be in any way imbalanced.

Particularly if they're removing a large amount of the lockdown that charging currently provides by allowing vehicles to continue to shoot undeterred. That rule change means you'll be able to screen your gunline with vehicles rather than cheap infantry, and most extremely fast melee units are not good at damaging vehicles in melee.

Who cares if you can get a unit of reaver jetbikes instantly across the board and into combat with an enemy leman russ tank if the russ tank can just continue to shoot the following turn?

Removal of fallback. Not gonna happen, more like likely an additional fallback reaction against charges.

 Brutallica wrote:
Removal of fallback. Not gonna happen, more like likely an additional fallback reaction against charges.

A reaction from the unit that got fallen-back from is a good change that could be made to the core rules that would allow the current fall back ssytem to still exist.

Some of this is what I know will be happening and some of this is what I wish would happen instead.

1- No Lord of War/Super-heavy below 1500 points.

2- Incentivize mono-faction play: Restrict Command points to the detachments that generate them.

3- Cover shouldn't make me more durable when I'm hit, it should make it harder for you to hit me.

4- Sponsons shouldn't shoot over a tank.

5- Give me a reason to Deep Strike, there's no point in taking Warp Talons if they're just going to have to sit there for a turn after a Deep Strike.

6- All Marines 2 wounds, 2 attacks base.

7- Stop making stupid dice with icons on the 1 and on the 6.

A complete re-write by competent game designers and technical writers.

Concept of primary detachment.

 skchsan wrote:
Concept of primary detachment.

What does this mean?

the_scotsman wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Concept of primary detachment.

What does this mean?

I'm guessing it means your Primary force would be the one with all the options, your supporting force would be limited to a few specific roles and maybe be limited to a certain percentage of your total points.

An example:

I'm playing Alpha Legion as my Primary Force in a 2000-point game. I can choose whatever type of detachment I like, all that stuff. I'm taking Renegades & Heretics as a supporting detachment, but I am not allowed to exceed 500 points (1/4 of my total allotted points for the game), I can only take certain kinds of formations, perhaps only certain kinds of units, and perhaps there's a limit on how many CP they can generate and what I can use them for.

He might have been the person I was discussing this with a while back, actually.

Make Terminators good... please.

Biasn wrote:
Make Terminators good... please.

Nope, they going to legends eventually.

Martel732 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Make Terminators good... please.

Nope, they going to legends eventually.

tbf the replacement unit to terminators is a boltgun and powerfist armed heavy infantry unit.

If Terminators being replaced by Aggressors had taken place in literally any other faction, people would just be expected to use their terminators as aggressors and aggressors would just be called "Terminators."

See: Necron Wraiths, Tau Broadsides, Greater Daemons, Beasts of Nurgle, Tempestus Scions.

Non-marine factions regularly replace old units with new units that look and feel as different as Aggressors do Terminators.

Top of my wish list would be to see damage taken at the end of each turn similar to Apocalypse. I'd really like to see it for four reasons. Firstly, you won't have units getting shot off the board turn 1 without doing anything, it would add an element of risk on target priority as you don't know for sure if you have killed a unit at that point, it would mitigate the advantage of going first or last and lastly it helps simulate the idea that battles are happening in real time with both forces acting simultaneously. Not sure how likely that is to happen.

I'd also like to see cover provide more than just a plus one to save. A minus to hit would also be good to illustrate the unit being obscured by the cover. As we've been told there are going to be big changes to cover, I think this is more likely.

 CatachanDevil wrote:
Top of my wish list would be to see damage taken at the end of each turn similar to Apocalypse. I'd really like to see it for four reasons. Firstly, you won't have units getting shot off the board turn 1 without doing anything, it would add an element of risk on target priority as you don't know for sure if you have killed a unit at that point, it would mitigate the advantage of going first or last and lastly it helps simulate the idea that battles are happening in real time with both forces acting simultaneously. Not sure how likely that is to happen.

I'd also like to see cover provide more than just a plus one to save. A minus to hit would also be good to illustrate the unit being obscured by the cover. As we've been told there are going to be big changes to cover, I think this is more likely.

that would be the dream. However, I don't see a way to make that happen in 8th simply due to the fact that AP and Damage are variable in this game. You would have to remember "Ok, my knight got shot with 3 Ap-2 D1 wounds, 4 Ap-3 Dd6 wounds, 2 AP- d1 wounds, and 5 Ap-1 D2 wounds this turn, so let's make those saves....

The reworking of the cover system to be more like apoc I can see. 40k is a game that has to be designed for anything from coke cans and cardboard boxes to wild fancy terrain kits that GW puts out. The current cover system is incredibly fiddly and incredibly specific for something that ultimately does not make a huge amount of impact in the game. Retooling large terrain pieces to work more like transports that you embark and disembark from allows you to avoid the weird task of trying to maintain squad coherency while moving up and down levels, trying to balance models precariously so they can still draw LOS to enemies but won't fall off and break the tiny pointy antennae that the plastic models all now seem to have, and worse, trying to do anything that involves the Fight phase movement sequence inside a terrain piece would be a huge leap forward.

Bringing back obscurement/intervening terrain is something I also think is necessary, the only thing that frustrates me about it is how lopsided to-hit penalties are in the current game. A -1 to hit inconveniences a space marine army...basically not at all, because they hit on rerolling 3s most of the time, and going from a 87% chance to hit to a 75% is not much difference while ork firepower drops by a massive 50%.

Given the previews we have so far, the current rules designed "with 9th in mind", and the fact that early 8th was all about cheap chaff hordes, I'm guessing we're going into a supremely elite-army focused 9th ed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

Here's thought. I have faced shadowsword. I have even had shadowsword to shoot at my unit and it didn't just die.

But yeah keep on your strawman claims that ignore facts.

Come back again when you have shooting unit that deletes unit no dice rolling involved. Until then you are just sprouting garbage.

Also never mind there's this wonderful strategy from surviving shadowsword. Hide behind LOS. Heard of that? Little bit of amateur level of strategy that helps a lot against shooty units? Bit of basic elementary school thing that when used can ensure that said shadowsword kills pretty much nothing until it's destroyed. Seen and done that myself. But guess it's too hard tactical concept when you just want to walk in open field without any concern of LOS or terrain and smash everything in melee without worry.

Doesn't really help with charging or this ambush since you can do that out of LOS.

Difference between meaningful die rolls and trivial die rolls.

I might butcher this but I'd love to see a bigger separation between weapon archetypes, anti infantry, anti tank etc.

Like most weapons should do 1-2 Dmg at most but then anti vehicle weapons do large damage like a flat 6 (and yes vehicle wounds would be adjusted). It's just that we've seen non anti tank weapons perform better than anti tank weapons.

Only other thing I'd like to see happen is a stats change. I just think it's weird that 8th was a revamp but they chose to keep the same statlines from previous editions

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

tneva82 wrote:
Here's thought. I have faced shadowsword. I have even had shadowsword to shoot at my unit and it didn't just die.

Well, that depends on the unit, after all. I could also think of several units my Keeper of Secrets could charge on turn 1 that would easily survive, therefore this Ambush mechanic is no different.

tneva82 wrote:
But yeah keep on your strawman claims that ignore facts.

What facts am I ignoring?

tneva82 wrote:
Come back again when you have shooting unit that deletes unit no dice rolling involved. Until then you are just sprouting garbage.

The dice rolls for a Shadowsword to kill a Keeper are trivial. Let's calculate the average, assuming stratagem support: 6 shots, 4 hits (stratagem/WLT/any number of ways to buff To-Hit rolls), one passed save, 6d6 damage (average of 21 damage for 16 wounds). So should we say "deletes a unit on a 2+" or "a 3+". I think this Ambush rule is fair if it needed a 2+ or 3+.

tneva82 wrote:
Also never mind there's this wonderful strategy from surviving shadowsword. Hide behind LOS. Heard of that? Little bit of amateur level of strategy that helps a lot against shooty units? Bit of basic elementary school thing that when used can ensure that said shadowsword kills pretty much nothing until it's destroyed. Seen and done that myself. But guess it's too hard tactical concept when you just want to walk in open field without any concern of LOS or terrain and smash everything in melee without worry.

Doesn't really help with charging or this ambush since you can do that out of LOS.

Here's a tactic to avoid turn 1 charges: don't deploy in charge range. A unit with a 14" move (e.g. this Keeper of Secrets) using this Ambush thing can go 28" across the board. This means you can deploy within 7" of your own board edge (the width of a Baneblade, so it doesn't prevent any units from deploying) and be just as safe as a unit out of LOS from the Shadowsword. I guess it's too hard of a tactical concept when you just want to deploy against the edge of your deploymentzone and shoot everything to death, but HEY, you know what? You can do that from 5" back from the edge of your DZ as well!

And it isn't even terrain dependent the way dodging LOS is. It'll work 100% of the time! No dice rolls required.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

Here's thought. I have faced shadowsword. I have even had shadowsword to shoot at my unit and it didn't just die.

But yeah keep on your strawman claims that ignore facts.

Come back again when you have shooting unit that deletes unit no dice rolling involved. Until then you are just sprouting garbage.

Also never mind there's this wonderful strategy from surviving shadowsword. Hide behind LOS. Heard of that? Little bit of amateur level of strategy that helps a lot against shooty units? Bit of basic elementary school thing that when used can ensure that said shadowsword kills pretty much nothing until it's destroyed. Seen and done that myself. But guess it's too hard tactical concept when you just want to walk in open field without any concern of LOS or terrain and smash everything in melee without worry.

Doesn't really help with charging or this ambush since you can do that out of LOS.

...What is this magical melee unit that deletes units without rolling dice? All my melee units have to roll to hit, roll to wound, and roll for damage, just like a Shadowsword does....Charging and making your charge roll is just an EXTRA layer of randomness that is on top of all that, and to make matters worse it's all or nothing randomness. either you make your roll and you get the privilege of getting to try and roll to hit, wound, etc, or you fail your roll and your WHOLE unit does NOTHING.

That doesn't exist for shooting. You don't have to make a die roll to see if you're allowed to shoot at something.

A dream set of changes would involve something that flies in the face of GW's business practices, so there's little point in imagining it.