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.

Personally I hope there are some changes to the marines as a whole.

Improved terrain/cover rules

Himmelweiss wrote:
Improved terrain/cover rules

That would be nice. Also, if they printed all the FAQs in an appendix it would be good.

Missions. Fun, odd missions that people would actually want to play. Ones that a 2k vs 2k games night player may actually want to play, instead of needing prior thought and specific forces.

What is the custom vehicle builder?

Less interested in this particular one and more in where this goes. The vehicle rules could be really good when fleshed out and expanded to the full game.

It was something they said a while back but only teased that you can bolt things on a land raider.

 Marmatag wrote:
What is the custom vehicle builder?

From what I have heard it is a way to make landraiders with different weapon combos, which could be extended to other vehicles later. Unless more info has come out from when I last read about it.

I hope for balance fixes for the game and better terrain rules.

Also I hope that the custom vehicle thingy makes really overcosted things, and never ever is let anywhere near competitive play.

There are two reasons for this. With that many options, if they're aggressively costed, they'll end up with some of them making existing vehicles obsolete and throwing balance out of whack. Also, if a custom vehicle becomes a top choice, conversion skills will be required for high-level play.

As long as it stays in casual and is cautiously costed I sould see it having some merit.

Better terrain/cover rules.

Balance.

I can hope anyways.

As much as I'd love new (read: good) cover/terrain rules, I don't think it's likely.

About all I think we can reasonably expect are some points adjustments. Which, if implemented, would be a great way to give non-codex armies a bit of a boost while they wait for an 8th ed codex.

But I have this funny feeling that they're just going to make ork power klaws more expensive, just to piss us off.

I for sure should have added improved terrain rules as an option. I totally forgot about how absent they are

Darsath wrote:
Balance.

I can hope anyways.

You were to bring balance to the meta, not leave it in darkness! - After something in there is simply broken. You know it'll happen, it always does.

Edit: Also, "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment".

I'd like access to Lieutennants and cheaper everything for my Blood Angels. Freaking C:SMs massive power boost.

 Trickstick wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Balance.

I can hope anyways.

You were to bring balance to the meta, not leave it in darkness! - After something in there is simply broken. You know it'll happen, it always does.

Edit: Also, "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment".

I don't need reminded that I'll be disappointed. I'm just used to at this point.

 Melissia wrote:
I'd like access to Lieutennants and cheaper everything for my Blood Angels. Freaking C:SMs massive power boost.

I am sure your codex is coming.

You sound like a sisters of battle player. Would you be interested in buying some space marines?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am sure your codex is coming.

Not any time soon. Eldar and Tyranids are next.

Rework of the maelstrom missions. At least 75% of my maelstrom games are really unpleasant.
About 50% of my games end with one player getting tabled,
and in half of the games that are played till the end, the maelstrom point score and the kill point score are completly decoupled.
Player A has like 5% of his army or even only 1 model left and scored 10+ maelstrom points while Player B has 30% of his army and ~5 maelstrom points because he drew his mission cards unluckily.
If Maelstrom matters, it is so random you could just roll a die to determine who wins and play a kill point game instead.

It's genuinely unfun when your opponent gets the mission where he has to hold the marker that is closest to his 150 conscripts like 5+ times per game, while you draw it as well and can't get the conscripts off of it in 1 turn. A lot of the objectives are incredibly hard to achieve when your opponent gets the chance to react to the cards you have. One bad turn where you can't score any points means a huge disadvantage because the number of missions you may generate is limited.

Without house rules, the system is basically unplayable. Your opponent has no X or you already killed the only unit that can score you the mission you just drew? Too bad you can only discard 1 card per turn AFTER your turn so you have to keep that mission you can fulfill.


I already used those NOVA missions or whatever they're called and they are SO much better designed than the maelstrom missions.

Now, what I would like GW to do is something a bit more restricting with respect to list building: NOVA basically is 'bring what you want and choose the objectives that fit the list best', Maelstrom should be like 'if you bring a static list/gunline, you must table your opponent or you lose against a non-static list, if both you and your opponent bring I non-static list the one who moves smarter wins'.

I didn't think about how such a system could look, might do that some day because I know GW won't make something like this (in a balanced way). Might do some brain storming soon.

Off topic: Why does the forum say that I am posting from Romania when I am not?

I just hope Orkz get some points adjustments. I am aware that an Ork Nob with 2 wounds and 3 attacks is better powerfist platform than a Space Marine sergeant, but I hope to see the power Klaws get cheaper, even if they're 15 pts. And trukkz need to be cheaper too.

I can wait for the codex to get cool clans and fluffy rules. What I want from C.A. is some cheaper gitz and gubbins!

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
It was something they said a while back but only teased that you can bolt things on a land raider.

. Bolt on primaris compartment?

What I would love, just for gaks and giggles, is support to make a hurricane plasma gun weapon system for Land Raiders. Similar to Hurricane Bolters, only with overcharge function for maximum laguhs.

I am hoping for 9th edition.

The best of second plus the best of seventh.

Or perhaps rogue trader plus eighth, should add up similarly.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What is the custom vehicle builder?

From what I have heard it is a way to make landraiders with different weapon combos, which could be extended to other vehicles later. Unless more info has come out from when I last read about it.

I know some people think this is lame, but it's a good balancing point to see how well they can do one vehicle for now.

If they can get at least one figured out, our friends who are Ork players will have purpose again in their lives via looted vehicles.

Some factions have clear problem areas and I’m not talking about conscripts. I mean situations like Tau where commanders are strictly better than crisis suits. Slightly drop price of suits and make them BS3+ then give commander a pt increase but some kind of aura.

Inquisition also need a lot of help, but it can be largely fixed temporarily with some pt adjustments and inquisitorial storm troopers as a troop.

Many factions have such painfully obvious gaps that could quickly be filled without making them OP.

 Trickstick wrote:
Also, if they printed all the FAQs in an appendix it would be good.

And as soon as they update the FAQ the one in the book becomes useless. Better to leave the FAQs online so they can be updated regularly and use the saved space for other content.

I want points updates and better rules for terrain. I think Rivers should be negative terrain (makes saves one worse). Also, I think there should be terrain that have a -1 modified for movement, or a + modifier for movement (roads).


Also looking for more Strategems for non-codex armies. I'm patiently waiting for a way to run an all-Custodes army.

I want admech to get something better than a few adjustments that could have been made in FAQs

kingleir wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
It was something they said a while back but only teased that you can bolt things on a land raider.

. Bolt on primaris compartment?

I'm giggling as I picture a bunch of primaris marines in a sidecar.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Also, if they printed all the FAQs in an appendix it would be good.

And as soon as they update the FAQ the one in the book becomes useless. Better to leave the FAQs online so they can be updated regularly and use the saved space for other content.

Didn't GW already said they would put the FAQs in Chapter Approved?

As for the cover rules, I'm also hoping for something, albeit it's not that likely.
The ruins in the new terrain box with the cardboard "mat" come with a special rule: you get cover if you're within 1" of the ruins, and the shooter is closer to the ruins than it is to any of your guys. It's a workaround for terrain pieces that don't have a base (I find it a decent houserule for most ruins out there). Maybe a similar rule for ruins will come and replace the current one in the rulebook.

fresus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Also, if they printed all the FAQs in an appendix it would be good.

And as soon as they update the FAQ the one in the book becomes useless. Better to leave the FAQs online so they can be updated regularly and use the saved space for other content.

Didn't GW already said they would put the FAQs in Chapter Approved?

No. There will be 'rules updates', not FAQs.