40k Editorial: 8th Edition – How Much Change?


40K 8th edition rumors are swirling, but the big question is how much change should the next version have.

Hi everyone it’s your ever friendly Black Blow Fly swinging through your neighborhood again to spread mischief and the rot… Today I return to genuflect on the current state of 40k and the near future. I’ve got no crystal ball either but I’ve been around the block many times… Same old same old but yes if you let yourself get comfortable things are sure to change when you’re least expecting it – that’s called life.


So there have been some stirrings about the coming of the new eighth edition and what it’ll bring. I have no rumors to bare… Only my opinion and yes we’ve all got one. Games Workshop is doing well now and it seems to me that the Age of Sigmar (AoS) is doing okay. The company is definitely much more responsive now to what we want and that’s a good thing indeed. At first I was like screw this but then I talked to a lot people who like AoS and listened intently to what they have to say… They have lots of good things to say and it caught my attention.

Change can be hard for everyone. I tend to be a nomad and don’t grow roots. None of us can say for sure what the eighth edition will bring and I’m not here to post a wish list. What I can say based upon experience and observation is eighth edition will not be a maintenance edition. I’m looking to the new Deathwatch codex as a harbinger of change – at some point things must change and the time right now seems so ripe. That which once was might be swept away and if so expect drastic consequences – for example in regards to all the home grown FAQs. I think we need some change now more than ever before.



There’s lots of talk about the rules bloat… Let’s be honest who uses Soul Blaze, Mysterious Objectives or Death from the Skies ? I foresee a simplification to 40k while 30k will maintain its rich complexity… A split and some divergence if you will. Personally I think 40k could learn a thing or two from the design aspect of 30k in regards to both internal and external balance… Believe me when I say this could serve us all quite well.

Right now it’s all apples but maybe sooner than later it will be apples and oranges again which saddens me but oh well – what will be will be. It’s all just speculation at this point. Like I said no one really knows for sure but the time is drawing nearer and nearer on the event horizon. Remember when Apocalypse was a distinctly different animal from 40k ?


The more things stay the same the more they change. I for one welcome change and will give it a chance. Every new edition sees an exodus of players… Maybe the next edition could bring some back to the fold again if they do it right.

~Do you think 40K 8th should be a maintenance or a drastic change edition?

  • uatu13

    I personally love using mysterious objectives to keep things interesting, but I do agree with Death From the Skies. It’s the perfect example of over complicated rules that serve no purpose other than to bog down and confuse the game. My local store has basically completely ignored this book and its rules.

    • Matt Mo

      Same here .. And I love mysterious objectives, how else am I going to shoot down all those flying demon princes? 🙂

      • Problem is its random

        • Matt Mo

          I like that it’s random actually..

          A) more dynamic from game to game
          B) can’t hinge strategy around them (which makes it awesome when you actually get something really useful)

        • euansmith

          This may well be an issue of expectation. I think, you might be looking for a tactical game, while the games designers are looking for more of a narrative game.

          At least this is an factor you can easily remove from you games, by just not using Mysterious Objectives.

          Hopefully 8th Edition will do something along the lines of the General’s Handbook, and start to promote clearly different ways to play the game.

          That way players will be able to say, “Do you want to play a balanced game or a narrative game” and have some clearly defined criteria for what this means.

          Of course, actually balancing the games units would be important for “balanced play”, and that is something that GW has always shied away from.

        • DaveTycho

          That’s why I don’t like it. It’s hard to keep track of what rule you roll for each objective all the time.

          • pomop

            My roomate and I just put a dice on top of the marker that says what # it is. It only rolls 1-6 and you have to roll for it so it just makes sense to us :p

        • Karru

          I don’t mind them and it is easy to agree with your opponent that you don’t want them.

        • denzark

          So’s a D6.

    • Mira Bella

      Overwatch would be exactly that for me. It’s not complicated, nor is it very powerful. But it requires no thought at all.

      • Matt Mo

        I agree 100%.. Overwatch is a cool idea but in practice it either A) does nothing/adds nothing or B) seriously hinders “CC” armies like tyranids, orks, and dark eldar (BA to a lesser extent because power armor)..
        Don’t even get me started on Tau’s delightful overwatch

        • Tau Overwatch is BS

          • Tothe

            Ballistic Skill. I see what you did there… whether you meant it or not.

        • Spacefrisian

          Once you figure it out you know how to assault, untill than take a good look at your tables and games and armies.

          • Karru

            Yeah, regular overwatch isn’t that bad and it can stay for all I care, but the Tau overwatch has to go. I know they are supposed to be the “ultimate” range army with little to no CC, but this is why you have Kroots. They are your shield against CC charges.

            With armies like Orks it’s just the matter of learning which units to charge when and where. This is why Deffkoptas are the kings of the Orks. Single Deffkopta can really hinder enemy overwatch, since you just charge it in first to soak up the overwatch and then in comes the boys!

    • rtheom

      Yeah, I didn’t realize people weren’t using Mysterious Objectives. Granted, 99% of the time they don’t have any impact on the game whatsoever, but 1% of the time your man hilariously blows up and its ALWAYS the exact guy you didn’t want blowing up. :p

      But yeah, Death from the Skies… I don’t think anyone in my area even bought that book, let alone have ever considered using it…

  • Marky

    I heard there were going to be square bases and troops were going to move in blocks. The game is being written by Matt Ward…..

    Pick which one of those 3 things is really happening 🙂

  • Pyrrhus of Epirus

    how is 40k supposed to learn anything from 30k when the only reason 30k has any kind of balance is because 95% of the factions are identical.

    • That’s exactly what I always think to myself when people praise how balanced 30k is. Although they also agree that it isn’t when it comes to the special units for each legion… The rest of course is balanced, it’s Marines vs. Marines.

      • Hawt Dawg

        And remember… When the traitor legions flee into the warp they leave behind those good rules for the loyalists to abuse 10k years later when the traitors return.

        • nurglitch

          When organisation and morale break down, the abilities and skills depending on those things evaporate. That makes sense to me.

          • Hawt Dawg

            They also fleed in their underwear leaving all the good stuff behind…

          • CMAngelos

            Considering most of the different items and gear the loyalists have was designed after they ran away screaming. Like Crusaders and redeemers, storm tallons and Ravens etc. Yeah it still makes sense to me 🙂

          • Hawt Dawg

            The Forge World masters disagrees…

          • CMAngelos

            Do they? If that is the case why does IA13 exist giving chaos -almost- all of the same relic tech as the Imperials?

          • Severius_Tolluck

            That’s FW.. which is already outside teh realm of most people, that is a weak counter. Which most stores and tourneies around me dissallow on principle.

          • CMAngelos

            Good for tournaments? He mentioned FW so he got a reply dealing with FW.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Just saying fluff wise i was defending the statement of why do chaos leave everything at the coat check when they turn.. especially when most current ones are renegades. I may have missed his FW comment for loyalists. But i mean from Non FW to non FW marines against CSM there is a huge discrepency in tech that is missing that should be present.

            Sorry for getting on the wrong foot, but i really dislike someone telling me or anyone who have those problems to always go FW….

          • CMAngelos

            Forgeworld like everything else is only an option and I never consider it required, unless you are looking to play 30k, but that’s another story.

            Chaos lacks only a few pieces of basic non FW equipment that the loyalists have. Primarily being pods (which I agree makes little sense), two land raider variants, and the Razorback and the flyers as far as Vehciles go and pretty much Grav as far as weapons go.

            Not having the Crusader or the Redeemer make sense as the Crusader was developed by the Black Templars and the Redeemer off the Crusader. The Razorback is eh it wasn’t around or used during the Heresy so I don’t know.

            Thing is it isn’t the gear that separates CSM from Vanilla (other than grav). And giving them just mirrored spiky versions of that equipment isn’t going to solve chaos’ current failure problem. It’s the special rules or lack thereof that is the true separation. And that needs to be addressed and fixed before Chaos will be on par with anyone.

          • euansmith

            I think it is sensible that Renegades should have all the cool stuff available to Space Marines at the time they abandoned the Loyalist cause. They might well have issues with replacement and resupply of technology. So, over time, they would become less dependent on the fruits of the Forge Worlds, and more on the gifts of Chaos.

          • Hawt Dawg

            With all the sweet Imperial insignia on them?

            The fled because the wanted dino bots and weak rules when they were ready for the taking of the Galaxy.

            I applaud them in the fluff, and weep for them on the gaming table…

          • Severius_Tolluck

            assualt cannons, heavy flamers, volkite, gaviton, speeders, speeder bikes, etc etc?

          • CMAngelos

            Assault cannons where in development by the Imperial Fists and Blood Angels during the Heresy, volkite and Graviton weapons were on their way out, volkite specifically being replaced by bolters, Jetbikes were lost by both sides, heavy flamers and speeders I’ll grant make less sense.

            Though they took equipment with them the Dark Mechanicum didn’t steal the blueprint/STCs for all that tech either. And everyone knows without those Loyalist and Chaos Mechanicus adopts are near useless.

          • Djbz

            But surely in the space of 10,000 years Chaos have stolen any “new” weapons/vehicles the imperium has made or even had their own ones designed by the (less restricted) Dark Mechanicum.

          • CMAngelos

            The dark mechanicum is where things like Daemon Engines and such come from. They don’t exactly mass produce tanks and bolters assembly line style like the Imperium does.

          • Djbz

            Except the Dark Mechanicum do mass produce stuff, otherwise “The Long War” would have been over not long after Horus died, as they can’t rely 100% on raiding to get the equipment/ammo they need

          • Spacefrisian

            Nah Chaos doesnt reinvent they just have more or less the same….I think GW will ditch Tzeentch soon as well. So Khorne wins.

          • Spacefrisian

            Or in original lore all those Vindicators.

          • nurglitch

            The Scouring is noted as being very thorough.

          • Mira Bella

            Yeah it does. But if they are worse they should be cheaper to balance it out.

          • euansmith

            Weirdly that logic does not seem to inform GW’s design ethos. I think it would be great if GW included designers’ notes in the Codices to give us an insight in to exactly what the designers were thinking. A lot of the little Osprey Games books have this, where the designers explicitly states why they did this or that in the rules.

    • Евгения Ремезова

      Laughable. Mechanicus, Solar Auxilia… hell, even Imperial Militia is balanced! God, actually Imperial Militia is what Guard should be, without being over-focused on Cadians, who became boring as hell back in 4th Edition.
      Guard should give you a TONS of customization options that are displayed not only by the looks of your army, but also by the rules – and Imperial Militia in 30K does exactly that.
      Hell, any argument that “30K is balanced only became of everyone is Spehh Meherene” are crushed by simple existance of Imperial Militia and fact, how well it’s balanced in game.

      • G Ullrich

        Don’t forget Demons! They’re in 30K too!

        • Евгения Ремезова

          Are they?… They aren’t. I mean 30K GW designed armies. Legions, Mechanicus, Solar Auxilia and Militia.

          • CMAngelos

            They most certainly are, as their own army and as a word Bearers allied choice per FW.

      • You hit the nail on its proverbial head sir

      • Pyrrhus of Epirus

        Oh man my mistake, its merely 83% marines (18 marine factions, 3 other) dominated game.

        eldar/DE/orcs/sisters/guard/nids/,demons,tau, CSM alone make 9 more “main” factions in 40k than 30k, plus all the half dozen smaller armies (harlies/skitarri/knights/ad mech/lost and the dammed/whatever other forgeworld armies that exist), im not hating on 30k, i have a large ultras force, i like the game, but its marine fest and easier to balance, sorry to burst your bubble.

        • Spacefrisian

          Eldar with limitations on Aspect warriors and Wraith units, there is your 30k Eldar army.

          Orks…more nobs as troops, as they were bigger during that era.

    • What Ebrehnr said…

  • mugginns

    40k needs to be simplified – games take too long, rules are too complex, too many dice rolls. Way too many supplements you need to play. Cut the rulebook by 50% and you have a start.

    • Matt Mo

      I would recommend moving to a simpler game.. Some people like its complexity. I agree in cutting down things like supplements, but dear god don’t change the stat lines we know and love with things like “3+”..

      The main thing it could use is streamlining certain elements like Psychic phase, overwatch (especially for tau) and challengeds, cutting back redundancy in special rules, some clunky tank shock rules, etc..

      I don’t want to play AoS. I play 40k cuz I personally enjoy that it’s a complicated game. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But many things are not. I do not want the game I’ve loved for some time to be watered down to the point of annoyance.

      For example, I loved the game FFXI. It was insanely difficult and was brutally unforgiving. You lost xp when you died and could delevel. Think Dark Souls but in MMO form. I played for like 90 days and still didn’t get to level 75, the highest level at the time. I loved that it was challenging, but most of all it was extremely fun and actually rewarding when you progressed. I quit MMOs for a while and decided to play WoW. Aside from PvP, I was appalled that the game was so insistent on holding your hand from the start and making sure you knew exactly what to do and where to go. I quit that too and then FFXIV came out and I figured oh yeah! Getting back into an awesome MMO. To my chagrine, the FF people took so many cues from WoW that the game basically had lost what made it a FF MMO and was basically WoW in FF universe. I was extremely saddened and never played again.

      I liken this to AoSing my beloved 40k.. Dont take away what drew so many of us in in the first place, a detailed rule set allowing cinematic battles to take place in the 41st millennium.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Complexity is good as long as it creates tactical depth. A lot of the complexity in 40k however comes from rules which serve no real purpose. They are just bloat.

        • nurglitch

          For example?

          • Mira Bella


          • Severius_Tolluck

            how is that bloat though. is simple, and it is what would happen in real life, infact way more effective that it is in the game…

            Most wargames have a form of this, and usually it is way more brutal or serves as a dissuading tactic .

            Bloat would be things like phases that do not need to exist like psychic (magic phase) or the death from teh skies air superiority phase.

          • Heinz Fiction

            First of all: realism is a double edged sword in wargames. Yes you would expect, that the assaulted unit would fire their weapons on the attacker but you would also expect, that the attacker fires his guns too while advancing. They don’t do it in 40k however because that would lower their chance to make in in close combat where it is actually safer for them then outside. So much for realism.

            From a game design point of view it’s a lot of dice rolling for (most of the time) very little effect and doesn’t offer any interesting choices for the players involved. If a game basically plays the same whether or not a specific rule is applied than that rule is most likely superfluous

          • Severius_Tolluck

            except that is not the case. Armies that will suffer horrendously from cc like tau, hope to thin down the herd of the average army (marines) by just one or two in hopes they can survive.. and this goes for many armies.

            Also many assualt armies do have weapons they fire going in, its the bloat of making you take casualties from the closest to closest now that slows the game down and makes it critical thought in order to fear losing your ability to get in to ocmbat now that you shot someone? That is goofy.

            Games like Flames of war, bolt action and many more have forms of overwatch and brutal close combats that go fludildy and fast. If thehy can do it, GW can too.

            Taus overwatch would need toning down, but beyond that everyone should have it. And as i said if they were aiming for realism, it would be suicide to charge at machine guns entrenched……

          • euansmith

            I “real life”, any sensible army always tries to suppress the target before assaulting. You get odd exceptions, especially among vast, conscript armies (human wave attacks, like China in Korea and Soviets in WW2, where massive casualties were “acceptable”).

            So, to mind mind, Over Watch isn’t really the issue. A lack of a suppression mechanism is what nobbles CC in 40K.

          • Tothe

            I am intrigued by Mantic’s new Warpath rules that heavily feature suppression mechanics.

          • Mira Bella

            That is easy to explain my friend. Ask yourself this.
            Is there any situation where you would NOT want to Overwatch, except when lets say there are two units charging you and you hope the first one won’t reach you so that you can Overwatch on the second one? (in which case you would still Overwatch)
            See, there is no downside to over watching. It requires no thought at all. It’s just another layer of damage output/rolling.
            I don’t want to argue about if Overwatch is too powerful/not powerful enough. That’s not the point I’m trying to make here.
            For example let’s say you would get a minus one initiative penalty if you decide to Overwatch (just an example).
            That small rule change would require you to make an assessment. Is it worth to Overwatch and take the penalty or should I not do it and fight without the penalty? It forces you to make a decision! Rather then being just another layer of mindless dice rolling.
            Im not a native speaker and I really hope you understand the point that I’m trying to make here. 🙂

          • Severius_Tolluck

            by that logic you should make armor saves a risk reward system. As well as the one charging should be making a risk reward choice. As it is for most assualt units a no brainer to go at specific targets and screw the risk of closing in, which can be the overwatching fire…

            I don’t mind an inititive penalty, or a pinning cvapability that does little harm but may stop an assualt.. however it seems a

          • Mira Bella

            I generally think that there are not enough risk reward choices in 40k. (That was the term I was looking for btw)
            I should specify that I have nothing against Overwatch itself but as you put it it lacks the risk reward factor and therefore it’s mindless dicerolling for me.
            What kind of penalty you should get when over watching is irrelevant for me personally.
            I liked the second edition Overwatch because you had to think a turn in advance. 🙂

          • Severius_Tolluck

            That’s fine, there could be. but most people can’t handle complexities of fire and manuever. Anyway.. armor saves are also no brainers to take, cover saves are no brainers to take… i think honestly comminting a death star to mop up a ranged unit like firewarriors should have a coutner risk, because to me doing that charge into that fire is not enough risk enolved as tau normally can’t deal with it. Now of course with their overpowered form of overwatch it makes that person on the other end think it might not be best wise and makes him decide what units to do, and then does a multi charge cauasing hte tau player to then think if they goo all in on the one unit or have to protect flans… that’s the risk reward there…

          • Mira Bella

            Yup against tau there is. Tau are also the only army that can actually heavily damage you with Overwatch What about all those other army’s? (Now we are moving into the is it too powerful/not powerful enough debate and that was really not my point)
            I honestly don’t see many complex tactical decisions in 40k except for.
            1. Army building. (more strategic then tactical)
            2. Target priority
            3. Model positioning
            And any other TT game that I know has those plus a few more. 🙂
            I never said that everything should be a risk reward decision. But I think that Overwatch could need it.
            I fail to see how more risk/reward choices would make the game any worse.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            That i agree with. I think that is where the simplicity of Bolt Action is really a good thing. If WH40K even had jsut alternate activation it would matter the world! They did it with Epic… and it worked there. so why not here?

          • Mira Bella

            YES!! Im sooooo with you on alternative activation!
            Love it in Dropzone Commander and in BA!
            It would solve a lot of 40k problems instantly. (alpha striking comes to mind)

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Yeah dropzone is my current fix, and im looking forward to bolt action second ed. Might bite the bullet and get a force.

          • euansmith

            I’m looking at Konflikt47 as a halfway house as I do love my Pulp.

          • Tothe

            Orks don’t lose much going from BS2 to BS1 in Overwatch. Shoota Boyz still have lots of dakka.

          • euansmith

            Isn’t the risk with a Death Star unit, the idea that you have tied up a load of your points in a single unit that can only affect one area of the battlefield? The alternative being going for MSU to snag as many objective points as possible? Then, MSU are subject to defeat in detail by effective shooting units. This creates a scissors, paper, rock dynamic; like infantry, artillery and cavalry in Napoleonics.

          • Heinz Fiction

            One could argue (and some do) that armor saves are a superfluous mechanic as well. In principle a game works with one defensive stat and one defensive roll and not 2 of them. However as 40k is designed not the armor roll but the armor stat itself DOES force decisions from players. Mainly in choosing the appropriate target for a given weapon.

            A good mechanic for overwatch (as implemented in most other games) would be that a unit skips their shooting phase in order to fire at an assaulting enemy later on when he leaves his cover (Of course they’d shoot at full accuracy then)

          • euansmith

            I’ve not played since the dawn of 6th, is “Look Out, Sir!” still a thing? It was so ridiculously repetitive it ceased to be cinematic and became cartoony.

          • Mira Bella

            Me neither so I can’t really say. 😀
            But I think it’s still around and still getting abused. 🙂

          • Karru

            For me it’s the following:

            Warlord Traits, Psychic Powers, Perils of the Warp and Random Charge Distance all being RNG.

            Overwatch to some extend, the Tau for example.

            “No escape” rule for flamers,
            Destroyer weapons chart,
            CAD Spam and Formations/”Decurions”,
            Objective Secure.

            These are all things this game could do without. At least most. Psychic Powers should be purchased with the Psyker like they were before 6th. No Warp Dice, just normal LD check, no random Warlord Traits, do it like AoS does it ie choose or roll. Random Charge distances also add a lot of unnecessary length to battle as well as makes assaulting less useful. Perils of the Warp should just be “pass LD, lose wound. Fail LD, die.”

            Overwatch can stay, but remove things like Tau special Overwatch. “No escape”, once again, makes something less useful, in this case it’s the open-topped transports. Destroyer Weapons should just be D3 Automatic Wounds to a model it hits.

            CAD Spam and formations/”Decurions” are pretty self-explanatory. Things like Dedicated Transports becoming troops and then gaining the Objective Secured rule is also unnecessary.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            yeah i agree. Rules also like Zealot, that basically is a combo of two usr….

          • euansmith

            I used to like back in 5th where only Troops could secure objectives. It gave the little guys something special to do.

          • Karru

            This is something I’ve said over and over again whenever force org comes up. Currently Troops are just something you bring to get yourself more other slots or in the case of Space Marines 12 all around Objective Secured Drop Pods.

          • Benjamin E

            For example, fully half of the Universal Special Rules? 5th edition was a much, much tighter ruleset and played far faster. Some randomization is fun (What happens to my chaos champion when the gods smile upon him? greater daemonhood, reduced to a spawn, etc), but rolling on chart after chart after chart bogs things down.

            I think 5th edition rules, with Hull Points, a handful of the new USRs, Overwatch, and the tactical objective cards, would be a tremendous game. Still in need of some codex balancing, but way better than the bloated colossus of 7th edition.

        • Matt Mo

          A solid point, but I would argue that it’s not actually “a lot” of the complexity that’s bloat..

          The bloat started with the Introduction of formations and alternate detachments which confer additional special rules. That becomes a lot to keep up with for anyone, let alone someone that doesn’t play a particular army. Bloat is formation special rules, decurion style detachments, silly flyer supplements, 4 sets of new psychic power which some break the game, challenge mechanic which serves no real purpose, tank shocking, ramming, redundancy in unit types, things of that nature.

          Comparing WS and S and T of models is the bread and butter of 40k and doesn’t need to change.

          If you don’t mind me asking, what specifically is bloat in your opinion.

          • Евгения Ремезова

            The alternative FOCs are blessing! Hell, how am I suppoused to run a fluffy 1st Company of any Space Marine chapter with only 3 Elite Slots? I was soo happy when Blood Angels got their Archangels FOC, which gives you 2HQ and 16 Elite slots, and this FOC’s rules represented fluff-wise mechanics of the 1st Company.
            Either get rid of the FOCs all together, so we could run fluffy armies, or add more FOCs to represent certain aspects of fluff-wise armies.

          • Matt Mo

            Im glad you like the BA one, but the Necron one (albeit very powerful) locks you in to a particular build, especially in low points games. The necron decurion is also too powerful… Sometimes I steamroll people without meaning to.

            If you are looking for more elite slots you could always run a double CAD

          • Евгения Ремезова

            Run a double CAD, dance around the fire with a gong, sacrifice a goat to Gods…
            Sorry, but I’ll rather stick to my alternative FOCs.
            As a matter of fact, stop being whiny. It works perfectly in 30K with Rites of War, where RoWs alternate how your play and modify your army.
            I actually want “RoWs” to come to 40K, since they’re soo simple, yet soo fun to play with.

          • Matt Mo

            Not whining just remembering the days of oldhammer fondly..

            /strokes Neckbeard

          • Very true about decurion and also admech war convocation too

          • Karru

            Going to disagree hard here with you, pal. Alternative FOC’s are the BIGGEST reason why this game is so unbalanced right now. From the free stuff that some give to the removal of actually needing to think what to bring was just wrong in every possible way. It killed an immense aspect of this game. I wouldn’t mind them releasing supplements or just make some purchasable special rules for armies like the Space Marine Captain on bike so bikes are troops thing. For example, an upgrade like “Captain of the 1st Company” and now all your Sternguard, Vanguard, Terminator and Assault terminators are Troops as well as Elites. The normal CAD made it so that people couldn’t just spam to win the cheapest HQ’s and Troops so they could get 6-9 Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots.

            6th and 7th editions made list building a chore. Anyone who has actually looked trough what they can bring now for a regular CAD realize it’s a massive joke, especially for the Imps. They made troops completely useless as well. Things like 1st company is never unleashed in it’s full might outside very, very specific reasons, so fluff-wise you could just ask your opponent if he was okay with it before you field it. As a collector first, gamer second, I get your view on wanting to represent cool things on the battlefield. Trust me, I’d very much like to field my Veterans as well, since I almost have completed the entire 1st company, but I’d still prefer overall balance between all the armies than the current system we now have.

          • Tothe

            Orks: “Let’s see… 140 points for a warboss and 2 grot squads… Now what to use to fill out the other 1360 points for this 1500 point game…”

          • Heinz Fiction

            “If you don’t mind me asking, what specifically is bloat in your opinion.”

            You summed it up quite nicely. I’d add the whole psycic power mechanics (from picking powers to applying them) and things like random warlord traits. There are probably some more annoying minor points I don’t think of at the moment. The core rules are solid in my opinion. Not the greatest set of rules out there but not in dire need of change either.

      • Mira Bella

        There is a LOT of mindless dice rolling in 40k but it does not have that much tactical depth actually. Overwatch is the perfect example. It requires no thought since there is no trade off.

        • Matt Mo

          I agree with you about overwatch, I replied to a comment of yours above. That’s one of the most glaring examples too, imo..

      • matty199

        I’m pretty sure thats not going to happen, people are getting sick of the bloat in the current rule set and most people in my experience are switching to aos since the generals handbook dropped. At least your head isn’t stuck in a rule book half the game

    • blackbloodshaman

      Age of sigmar here I come,
      Right Back Where I started from
      Where bowers are flowers bloom in the spring
      Each morning at dawning
      Birdies sing and everything

    • Spacefrisian

      Just the random stuff gone and rules that are similar combined while rules that are often forgotten by the majority removed. (Smash down, any one remember this one?)

  • Commissar Molotov

    Nobody likes change, but with GW it’s particularly bad: “Hey, you know all that stuff you liked about the hobby? Well, we’re gonna flush it down the toilet. By the way, buy more STUFF!”

    …GW is why we can’t have nice things.

    • nurglitch

      You mean the people that make Warhammer and Warhammer-related products are the reason we can’t have Warhammer and Warhammer-related products?

      • Commissar Molotov

        “So, you like high fantasy? How about we throw all that in the toilet and play with these gaudy He-Man toys instead?”

  • Simon Woolliscroft

    My local GW said they moving the time line forward so chaos consumes the emperor dies but is reborn and it will ne easy to play like AoS

    • I would be one of those guys that chime in to say that GW staff know nothing, BUT if you look at things like Vedros, Overkill and that new Air combat game they have, all the rules are certainly starting to line up to look that way. Honestly, it wouldn’t sunrise me. If they went that route though, I’d like to see GW go with something like the generals handbook at release. Not wait a year for structure, points, battle plans etc. just launch the complete game to start with

    • Евгения Ремезова

      Troll thinner. Or find a brain. Or both.

  • RuneGrey

    While I think that the lore update to Age of Sigmar was horrifying and was probably a good chunk of the system’s problem (the lack of any sort of comp system being the other), now that I’ve given it some more time I’m convinced that adapting the rules contrivances of AoS will probably be an overall improvement for 40k.

    I expect we’ll see a heavy reduction in the overall rulebook, with a lot of confusing corner case rules (looking at you, tank shock) excised, and the main focus being on ranged and melee combat. I’d not be surprised to see cover and jink removed entirely, for instance.

    AoS’s magic system is far less confusing and much less unwieldy than the current psychic phase, and the potential for failure on big spells means that you have to decide between the weaker, but more reliable utility casts and the flashier but more likely to outright fail big stuff. Sure Invisibility might be powerful, but if it only goes off on a 10 on 2d6, chances are you won’t have all game and may not get it for that clutch play.

    All weapon profiles on the unit data slate means that you don’t have to go looking for weapon profiles, and ultimately the current BS and WS concept is… needlessly complex, and ultimately doesn’t matter in the vast majority of situations? Going to AoS’ accuracy and and damage being tied to the unit’s weapons rather than having to compare ballistic or weapon skill, or strength and toughness simplifies things and doesn’t change what rolls we’re seeing in most cases. Marines hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+ with bolters applies to most regular troops. And AP is replaced by rend, which just reduces the save roll and is a lot easier to understand than the current AP system.

    An AoS style transition would see the number of wounds in the game skyrocket – but that also allows them to bring in AoS’ wound degradation for monsters, which sees their effectiveness reduced as they are wounded over the course of the battle. And then just have that system apply to vehicles as well – they move slower and are less accurate as they take damage, but having 10+ wounds and a good save means they can soak a lot of damage as well.
    Overall, I’d not be surprised to see this change over.

    AoS had a lot of problems, but I don’t think that the rules are one of them, and 40k would benefit from some cross over on that front.

    • Simon Woolliscroft

      Could not of said it better and I had a feel for it. It will get me back into 40k as I couldn’t be bothered with the rules. Going to wait for the custodes to come out 🙂

    • Adrien Fowl

      I couldn’t agree more with you, mate. I have been thinking exactly the same for the last months, after I tried AoS out for the first time.

      Right now we have got so many dice rolls, tables, things to check before and during a game that it makes W40k barely playable. I like spending my free time moving models on a gaming table (preferably with a nice gaming mat) and having fun rather that looking up am infinite number of rules on that thick rule book.

      I am positive that if they include all the information needed for each squad in its own datasheet, call it warscroll or whatever you find suitable, things would turn out pretty much smoother than in the current state.

      I think you didn’t mention it, but from my point of view, they should definitely add KEYWORDS to the game so they can control combos and combinations that were not in the designers’ mind when they came up with the codexes.

      Should these things occur, I will surely come back to playing W40k. Right now I am not playing it anymore since it doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

      I love the setting of W40k and I do not need any major changes in it, but that is not my main concern. I prefer the classic fantasy setting for WHFB but I am much happier now with the AoS ruleset.

      • RuneGrey

        The other big thing is the introduction of formation point costs in the General’s Handbook. Which I think is something 40k desperately needs. I love formations, and they can give you good benefits – but when the benefits get to be too much I think a surcharge in points is an excellent way of balancing them out to ensure that they don’t get out of hand. Formations also giving game effects and not giving free units is also another step that needs to be taken for a more balanced game.

      • Adrian Sanders

        Not to pick you out personally, but you mentioned constantly having to look up rules which is something I have heard a lot in the thread and elsewhere. I easily go most games without picking up my rule book, so I guess I am just wondering who is having trouble memorizing the core rules? Sure I might have to look up the specifics when a tank shock comes up, but that’s because I pretty much never do it. Anything the comes up even semi-rarely with armies I play is not a problem.

        I also see it get mentioned a lot that 40k rules are ruff for new players. I would definitely disagree. I have only been playing in 7th edition and, like I mentioned, have no trouble with the rules. I feel like it is the people that have been playing through multiple editions that complain about rules being confusing.

    • Admiral Raptor

      Very well said 😀

    • Matt Mo

      I think all that stuff is great and I’m glad you’re having fun with AoS, but… Everything you just described should stay in AoS..

      Things like BS and WS are not complicated and have also been staples of the game for many a year. Personally I would be the most saddened to see things like S and BS and WS changed to “hits on a 3+” which sucks the character out of the game and also creates silly situations where something like a Demon Prince hits all enemies on a 4 regardless if they are another demon prince or a grot.

      Again, it’s not the core rules of 40k that are the issue. The game is fine. Not perfect, but fine. It needs some fine tuning and trimming of fat so to speak, clarity and smoothness. We like to play 40k because it’s 40k.. Those that want a simpler rule set should look to AoS. Also would be a great business model. Get people into your products with an easy to start and learn game like AoS then leave your cash cow 40k alone and let your new customers start to see that there is an AoS hardcore mode and make the transition to 40k

      • RuneGrey

        But having tables simply because the game has always had tables restricts design space quite a bit. A large portion of the 40k rules exist mainly for the purpose of requiring you to purchase a $70+ rule book in order to have those sections on hand, plus a $30+ supplement just to have the rules for your models. . There’s no inherent advantage to comparing stats in most cases – weapon skill you’re going to be hitting on 4+s most of the time anyways, and most ranged units are hitting on 3+ or 4+ regardless – what use is the rest of the table when almost all cases are covered by a band of two possibilities? Better to simply list the hit number on the unit and be able to solidly quantify its performance rather than having to worry about edge cases.

        40k is suffering from massive rules bloat which is compounded by the vast number of special rules that cause numerous strange interactions. GW is not good at writing rules, and cutting down on the amount of possible conflicts only serves to improve playability. And while I mean no offense, but calling any GW game ‘hardcore’ is laughable. If you want hardcore gameplay, there are many, many better games with tighter rulesets and actual tournament support. 40k and AoS both exist in the design space where you put down models and have a fun game.
        Simplifying the base rules only serves to make the game more attractive to newer players who don’t feel like they are getting screwed over by some obscure rules interaction. They’ve been tackling the price issue with the getting started boxes, which has been the other major problem with attracting new players – now it’s time to deal with the terrible rules bloat and excessive number of supplements and options that make the game more unwieldy to play.

    • Karru

      There are a lot of points I’d like to argue here.

      First the biggest thing, generalisation of hitting/wounding. This is something I absolutely HATE about AoS. It makes so many units feel bland. There is nothing wrong with the hitting/wounding table in my opinion. Special Characters fighting regular units seem like they actually are fighting them, since in some scenarios they are hitting on a 5+ instead of 4+. Wounding is the other thing, again it doesn’t feel right when I see a Wraithlord fall to lasgun fire when in the fluff they do nothing to them. I really don’t care about the AP/rend stuff, both systems have their ups and downs that balance each other out.

      Next up, how in the world is having 10+ wounds a good thing? That makes it extremely hard to track since you either have to get yourself a D20 or a lot of D6 to keep a track of the wounds. I really don’t want to see them do this, it would make spamming shooting units even more dominant. People seem to forget that AoS and 40k in terms of CC and Shooting isn’t the same in any possible way. AoS focuses more on the CC while 40k has a lot more shooting. So this system would again remove the need to use CC since wounding monsters from a distance is a far better strategy and since they always wound on the same result, there is no point on bringing in Specialist CC units, just spam bolters, lasguns or heavy weapons.

      I reeeeeally hope they don’t remove vehicles and make them feel like just bunch of infantry carrying a box around with wounds. The system that has existed for them this long is the best way to represent them. Vehicles are supposed to be hard to destroy, something that feels like it’s impossible penetrable, while one lucky shot to the right part will engulf the whole thing in flames. In other words, if I see my Land Raider die to 100 lasgun shots, I’d just flip the table.

      How does removing cover help exactly? Currently one of the reasons why armies like Orks or Tyranids are so bad is that every time you shoot one you have to remove one. Cover save is meant for armies that need to get up close that don’t have a power armour. I like it that the Orks and Tyranids are what they are currently, low saves and all that, but the lack of cover saves due to the abundance of “Ignores Cover Saves” weapons gimps them hard. So yeah, keep the cover saves. Jink can go or they could rework it a bit better. It does make sense fluff wise, but it can cause a lot of problems.

      Finally, Psychic Powers. This is the point where I’d just like to go back to pre-6th edition. Unique Psychic Powers for all the armies, but instead of RNG rolling, you’d have to buy them. More powerful, more expensive. Also no Warp Dice bs to slow down or break the game, just a regular old LD check. If you fail, roll double 1’s or 6’s you roll another LD check. Pass and take a single wound or fail and die. This would remove a lot of the bs that this game is currently filled with, also it would make sense that a psycher knows exact powers instead of suffering from amnesia between games.

  • Lord Elpus

    Been playing since RT days, by the end of 1st ed,there was bloat, 2nd ed was introduced (let the joy bells ring!) It was like a breath of fresh air. After a while bloat and powercreep came in.. made way to 3rd ed which was really streamlined and FUN.. Then you guessed it the bloat came back like a bad kebab after a night out… 4th came and went along with 5,6th and now the current ed…which is groaning under its own weight..There does need to be a quite radical overbal, not sure if it should be like the change from 2nd to 3rd, but something needs to be done…

    I could wrote a whole pointless wishlist of stuff I’d change, but won’t. Personally I look forward to a new ed, it’s about time.

    • vlad78

      RT was a bit of a rpg. With small and balanced armies, it was really fun but it could go out of control really fast. 2nd ed was bit cartoonish and clumsy and the close combat phase was simply awful.
      3rd was streamlined a bit too much in the beginning and ended as totally bloated.
      4th was a good one but a bit boring, 5th was good but the balance of codicies was simply awful and destroyed the game.
      6th was the worst edition ever.
      7 th corrected some flaws of 6th before becoming overbloated and unbalanced. (7th ed with 6th ed codicies was fun)

      In the end, GW has never been able to release a good 40k edition. (BRB + codicies)
      Why would they succeed now?

      For my part, as long as they refuse to include alternate activation, their rules will be bad. It’s hightime 40k becomes a real tactical game.

      • Lord Elpus

        For me being a Tafl player and chess player too, I find I go/ you go makes it more of a tactical game as you often have to think at least 1 turn ahead, not simply responding to what the opposition does.

        • vlad78

          I understand your pov but Chess pieces do not have guns. 40k with a proper activation system is just mind blowing, believe me.

        • Good point

      • Severius_Tolluck

        wonder what would happen if you just simply take bolt actions activation order system in… not hte orders or anything, just the random activation and dice removal when units die…

  • Kreoss4u

    Please let there be a massive overhaul. I would love to get back into 40k, the story is the best there is, the minis are fantastic, but the game just isn’t any fun.

    • Neal Laxman

      I find its the people who make the game, maybe find some new friends! 😉

    • Exactly why I’m holding off on any 40k purchases until 8th drops. It’s not much fun, way over bloated rules, and I have no time. With AoS, my son and I got two games done in a single evening and it was easy to play. Same with DW Overkill

      • Adrien Fowl

        I totally agree with you, guys. I am playing AoS as much and possible and enjoying every minute and every aspect of the game.

        W40K is just so complex that I am not even going to bother to try to do everything the right way. There’s too much complexity for it to be fun.

  • Ni Modo

    This has been talked about since AoS first dropped. Only now are a majority of people realizing that it is going to happen. Not as extreme as AoS but maybe something similar to Vedros.

    • Shiwan8

      Hope not, that game can not handle the multitude of units available in 40k.

      • Ni Modo

        It actually not that hard since each unit would have it’s own dataslate. The trick is balancing any special rules for the units.

        • Shiwan8

          How do you separate grav from plasma?

          • Ni Modo

            It’s just a separate line item. Look at the AoS unit entries for examples of units with multiple weapon options

          • Shiwan8

            Eh? They are 2 guns with pretty much the same effect on most things but work fundamentally in different ways. In terms of ne WH40lite that we have seen, how do they work?

          • Ni Modo

            I’m not a game designer but I would think they would have different “rend” or “damage” values. That is assuming they use the same terminology for both systems

          • Shiwan8

            Both do 1 wound damage and give no armor save.

          • Ni Modo

            That’s under the old (current) system. New system, new rules (hopefully simpler). Either way it’s all theory until next year.

          • Shiwan8

            I get that. I asked for an idea how that would be translated to a simpler system without making them just 1 gun. Are you going to answer or will you just continue to dance around the question without touching it?

    • Adrien Fowl

      Do we really know it is going to happen? I mean, we all assume that W40K is going to be tuned down rulewise speaking, but what facts do we have apart from the experience with WHFB turning into AoS?

      Don’t get me wrong, if they did something like that, they would bring me back into W40k INSTANTLY!

      • Karru

        And make me cry and leave instantly. I have posted my opinion at least 40 times over many, many articles, so I’m going to make it shorter. Just go back to 5th edition and make codexes more balanced.

        • ZeeLobby


  • Shiwan8

    Streamlined and balanced edition without being dumbed down. That would be good.

    • Matt Mo

      According to rumors a while back that came with the announcement of a new edition, 8th is supposed to be exactly this. A cleanup of the bloat and clarification of certain things, some streamlining, but mostly a maintenance edition.

      I for one hope this is true. I think people need to let 40k be 40k.. Personally 7th edition has been my favorite edition (started in 3rd). I’ve had the most fun in games during this edition. I hope 8th cleans things up and makes it even better.

      • Shiwan8

        The Verdos thing that was rumored to be the new 40k would be just that, dumbed down and on top of that still without balance.

        7th is horrible. New missions are cool (except the 6th which is just stupidity poured on paper) and the new psychic rules are ok. Other than that this edition is worse than any of the previous ones (possibly second to 5th which I did not play).
        In 6th almost everything was better than now.

  • Bradley Macduff

    if i could i would lock up the gmc’s and superheavies (minus the stompa and the imperial knight) locked back up into apoc, id like to see less of games workshop on the codex area of thing being them playing favourite on aggro units. can we please go an edition without bike marines in the bloody meta

  • nurglitch

    Have Monstrous Creatures roll on the vehicle damage table for every wound. Have Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures and Super-heavy vehicles roll on the vehicle damage table for every third hull point they lose.

    • Djbz

      Considering how flimsy most monstrous creatures are I don’t see that as a good idea without some serious modifications to their survivability.

      And super heavy vehicles do roll on the damage chart, they just need most results to actually do something…

  • OldHat

    Sigmarize the rules. Leave the fluff the heck alone. DONE.

    • Perfect solution in my opinion

      • Karru

        Not for me. Two pages of rules with more holes than Swiss Cheese wouldn’t help the game. People really need to realise that 40k has waaaaaay more unit types to represent compared to AoS. WHFB had basic Infantry, Monstrous Infantry, Chariots, Cavalry, Monsters and Warmachines. All of them are basically just a tougher version of each other. 40k, has Infantry, Monsters and Cavalry which are the same, but then we have Super Heavies, Gargantuans, Tanks, Walkers and Aircraft. The game will loose 90% of its personality and interesting mechanics the moment it moves everything to just buckets of wounds.

        The game just needs some toning down, it doesn’t need to be completely killed, so we would have to wait for 10+ years for the rules to get interesting.

        • 4 pages thank you 😜. Seriously though, you are right. Down to 4 might be excessive, but 10 – 15 wouldn’t be. Look at Dust. Simple rules, handles tanks, flyers, super powers, walkers, standard infantry, etc. Plays fast (map or tabletop) and can be large games or small skirmishes. Definitely not bloated and special rules are on the cards. I think we got a hint of what’s to come with Vedros and looking at how that handles blast weapons, it’s very similar to overkill. Then from what I know of the new GW flyer game, it’s fairly simple as well. I have a feeling that we are play testing 8th Ed and don’t even know it

        • Matt Mo

          Up vote til my finger hurts

    • Admiral Raptor

      That’s the ticket!

  • Mister Simon

    I want a massive overhaul. I’m talking 2nd to 3rd edition level of cleanup. The bloat going right now is ludicrous. To play tyranids right now you literally need like 3 different books/rulesheets. To say nothing about how long it takes just to set up a damn game (timed it once, took almost half an hour).

    • Lord Elpus

      I also play Orks, I feel your pain… to field my army I need codex, ghazghkull supplement, looted wagon slate, f.w apocalypse and mostly f.w aeronautica…. OH, and a minion to help carry everything around..

      • Same with space wolves. Need the rules, codex, campaign supplement, etc. Then death from the skies now apparently, Right now I am enjoying AoS and Overkill for my 40k itch

    • Евгения Ремезова

      Oh, my… wargames take half an hour? How painful!
      Well, hell they should!
      If you’re a lazy *sshole, it’s only your fault! Wargames should take a lot of time.
      Hell, if I could, I’d cast some funky spell that would send horrible pains on all those who dare to use not painted miniatures! Like really.
      Guys, show some respect to Wargames. No need to simplify things to accomodate your LAZINESS!!!

      • Horus84cmd

        Whoaaaaa take a chill pill

        • Евгения Ремезова

          Last time I took a “chill pill” my beloved WHFB was murdered by those “people”. Sorry, but I have no intention of just watching how 40K gets lobotomized by it’s so-called “fans”.

          • Karru

            A good game caters to wide audience. This basically means that I’d like to see GW basically do both. Return to 5th edition levels of “complex”, but put AoS style rules for those that want to play the game quickly with super simplified rules.

          • I’m think simpler. Kinda inline with what the generals handbook is, but as the main rule book.

          • Horus84cmd


          • Ben

            You forgot Dark Wing Duck… Get your act together

          • Horus84cmd

            all this lot will never solve the case with him.

          • Aaaahhhhhh…..the terror that flaps in the night

      • Easy there guy. A lot of us have lives outside of wargaming. Successful careers, family, friends, etc. My job has me on the road quite a bit and as a Marketing Director I work long hours. Lazy is not my issue. Time constraints are. Streamlined games that take maybe an hour to play at most is pretty much a large majority in this world. Not all of us live in our parents basement

        • Karru

          Indeed, I’m currently in my 20’s but even though I’m “young and free” I still have school work and other things to do. Same goes for my friends who live in other cities. There is barely any days where anyone can just come over, drive for an hour or so, to play a 4-5 hour game of 40k. Things need to be toned down a bit and calling someone lazy because they don’t have that kind of time since they kinda have to do other things outside wargaming.

        • Евгения Ремезова

          Go play X-Wing or some other pathetic pardoy on the wargames. Really, its YOUR issues, that you do not have time. Don’t make YOUR issues ruin proper gameplay for all of the 40K players.

          • Sooooo…..according to you, I need to find another game because I have life outside of wargaming? Nearly EVERYONE is complaining about how bloated 40k is. Just because a game is complex doesn’t make it good

          • Евгения Ремезова

            Nearly everyone kiss AoS’s *ss now. Doesn’t make AoS any good.
            Sorry, but I started 40K back before 4th Edition. It is a time consuming hobby, but being time consuming is its basic. Trying to “simplify” it will just murder the nature of 40K itself – it was never about setting a few unpainted horrible looking models and doing funny pew-pew.
            From the beginning 40K was about extremely detailed and time-consuming creation of your own force with your own lore (it’s really disgusting how novadays few players pay any lore-wise attention to their armies’ background). If you can’t handle it, go to X-Wing, but do not remove what makes 40K into 40K.

          • Lol…..since 4th. Looking here Junior, I’ve been involved with this since Rogue Trader. It’s gone from a skirmish fog type game, to the over located mess that it is today. I’ve played everything from kill team to 40, 000 point Apoc games (and run them). The game is a wreck right now and the complexity in the rules is to the point where it detracts from the game instead of adding to it.

            On top of that, and you can be as upset as you’d like to be, judging how new players are jumping into AoS where fantasy was stagnant or losing players (not including end times), you can bet GW will be giving 40k a similar treatment. Just looking at the numbers from their last report (and it’s not AoS), GW is in decline revenue wise. It’s not that veterans of the game are leaving, it’s that there’s very little new blood globally. As a business, keeping non-purchasing long term players is not (nor will it ever be) their concern. Bringing in new players, with new money is what it’s about for them. They need to make the game accessible again.

            Weather you like it or not, the game will be tremendously simplified.

          • Tothe

            I have only been in the game since 5th edition. 6th and 7th added crap that bogs down the game. GW needs to look at what it takes to make a solid core game, and then perhaps offer add-on modules for aircraft and more detailed combat should players want it.

          • Kinda like some sort of handbook for generals? 😜

          • Tothe

            Kinda like 4th edition, maybe.

          • Hahahaha……since 4th. I’ve been doing this since Rogue Trader. Even back then, the game wasn’t nearly as clumsy/bloated/sloppy as it is now. The game is in need of a massive overhaul and, as mad as you might be about it, it’s going to happen and it’s going to be simplified…….a lot! If you paid attention more you’d see the pattern. Overkill, their new air combat game, Vedros. All signs point to them testing the new mechanics. It’s easy to see the similarities between each. Your looking at 40k’s future whether you like it or not.

            As to AoS, it’s actually a pretty decent game. Not the best I’ve ever played, but it’s fun! Now that points are in as well as a structure, the game will take off. From what I understand, it’s doing better (globally, I know everyone’s FLGS varies) than fantasy was doing.

            GW will simplify 40k just for sales. One of the reasons their numbers is in decline is that there are too many older players that just aren’t collecting anymore. In order to generate new players (i.e. New money) and the game needs to be WAY more accessible than it is now, even at the competitive level. Like I said, it’s happenin whether you want it to or not. Insulting other people who tell you it will or telling them to get out of “your hobby” isn’t gonna stop that. And like it or not, GW could care less about your money and you leaving if that means that they’ll get 5 new players that need EVERYTHING to replace you. It’s simple business

      • Admiral Raptor

        Get a life. These are games. You don’t even need miniatures to play if you don’t want to. Not everyone likes to build or paint, and not everybody wants a single game to eat up their evening.

        You seem to worship needless complexity. Most of us don’t. Stop treating wargaming like it’s in any way different from other type of games. It’s something you do for fun, not some sacred ceremony.

        • Евгения Ремезова

          Yeah. Thats like you come to football team and go “Can I play it like basketball, guys? C’mon, it’s just a game!”.

          Hell it is! And it has certain official and un-official rules that players are expected to follow. Having your army painted is the f*cking least you can do!

      • Kreoss4u

        It is not about laziness at all, it is about good game design. I would happily play 40k all night if it was a better game.

    • Yeah back to 3rd

  • I want an overhaul, and around 10-20 pages would be optimal. I don’t want to memorize another giant tome.

    AOS style rules would actually be my preference. 40k is already a fairly simple game… it just has a ton of contradictions or redundant rules spread out over too many pages.

    • Karru

      Again, 5th edition rules. Now, I’m just focusing on the rules, not power creep or codexes. I went back at one point to go trough the book and my god it was so simple yet complex. Just the special rules section was a god damn shock for me. 3 pages for god’s sake! Also the actual rules are around 90 pages, compared to the 200 pages that is the current one.

    • Admiral Raptor

      AoS is the future. Just port it over fully so that we can play the whole GW range against each other. My Lizardmen have a bone to pick with the Necrons.

    • Loki Nahat

      you’re in the wrong hobby, if you don’t like reading, I will buy your unpainted stuff, good price yes?

      • Not in the wrong hobby at all. As a matter of fact a good chunk of modern games have small rulesets.

        And its also not remotely about not liking to read. I read quite a bit. I don’t want to memorize giant rules tomes any longer.

  • Defenestratus


    I use soul blaze, mysterious objectives and death from the skies. I also use nightfight and grudgingly use the maelstrom missions.

    I hope that they keep 7th’s core rules except get rid of random psychic powers.

    Add movement rates (and modify downstream rules from that change – such as charge distance)
    Bring back hit modifiers on fast moving targets (that way you can have truly fragile units that are still survivable)
    Get rid of the CAD altogether – every army should have its own army composition rule like the decurion or warhost.

    Other than that – should be pretty good 😀

    • Commissar Molotov

      I’d like to see vehicles go back to being vehicles. Remember when the Wraithlord had an Armor Value?

      …Pepperidge Farm remembers.

      • Brian Griffith

        Or at least apply it consistently. You can never tell whether something’s a monstrous creature or a walker these days.

        • Commissar Molotov

          “Hey, cool giant missile robot!

          …Whadd’ya mean it’s a Monstrous Creature?”

        • ^^ This

  • Horus84cmd

    I’d say look over all the boxed games they’ve been releasing: Execution Force, Betrayal at Calth, Overkill, Renegade, Storm Cloud Attack and softly Vedros. Look at the rules used there. I’m fairly confident these are test beds for rules direction. I reckon 40K will change massively, as someone else noted “2nd to 3rd change”. It will be a different beast and it will be a streamlined and what many nayer’s will phrase a “simple” set of rules

    • Karru

      If those games were to be smashed together, it would be a massive mess. Warhammer 40k is clearly focused on large scale battles, all of those board games are very, very small scaled. If they want to keep uniqueness in the game, regarding factions and units, they shouldn’t do anything like that.

      • Horus84cmd

        I’d didn’t elude that they would simply be “smashed together”. I said look at those for “rules direction”.

        Of course it would be mess if they only jimmied them together. 40K needs a ground up re-work and these game give hints at possible options.

        I know you’ve kept mentioning going back to 5th Ed but that not a fix – that a patch. 5th Ed was build on two previous edition with some tweaks and additions and had plenty of problems of its own when it was released.

        • Karru

          Can you tell me what those problems were? It has been awhile since I played 5th and it could be I’m just looking at it trough nostalgia glasses this whole time. Before you start going trough them, remember that I’m always talking from just the rules point of view, not any of the codexes, I know that those messed things up fast.

          The big thing with 5th for me was that everything was more or less viable. Shooting was effective, but cover saves were plentiful for those that needed them. Assaulting was useful since it wasn’t RNG and there were no free rounds of shooting at them if they disembark a transports. Psychic Powers were simple and useful, but they were not essential to win. You needed Troops to score Objectives so people had to focus on them more than they do now, since these days they are just something that allows you to spam other slots. Also, no allies to fill the weakness and make super combos.

          • Horus84cmd

            While this is not exhaustive, I’ll mention a few key issues below. I’ll note that I have enjoy all the editions of 40K that I have played, from 2nd to 7th, and they have all had their own faults. To me it seems the rules have kind of gone full circle, from a over complexity point of view, starting with 2nd all the way back round to 7th. Anyhow the issues, in no particular order:

            – Cover: Unit where in cover or not. If 50% of a unit was in/out cover the whole unit got/didn’t get the cover save.This was seriously abusable and nonsensical.
            – Removing Casualties: The owning model player choose which model was removed and this could be anywhere from in the unit. Thus you could play the tactical wound game and protect your better weapons, without much thought for deployment or movement.
            – Infantry Shooting Weapons: Rules for fire various weapons types were static and things like blast template weapon wildly inaccurate. This meant the shooting phase was woefully underpowered compared to assaults and hamper fluid movement flow.
            – Assaults: Whilst toned down from 4th Ed, assaults were still drastically effective rather than balanced against shooting (note this has gone the other way now!). This was mainly due to being able to assault directly from vehicles (see next point).
            – Vehicles: These were still a overly dominating unit. These were notoriously tough to destroy/reduce effectiveness through the duration of the game (except by the highest of str weapons with the lowest AP’s). They were devastating effective at shooting and moving. They had toned down units assaulting from any transport after moving, but it continued to contribute toward the imbalance of CC as they were so hard to destroy and so acted as mobile nigh-impenetrable cover – although Ironically various grenades in combat where (and still are overly effective against vehicles). Plus there was little consequence for embarked units when a vehicle was destroyed. Walkers were beast in close combat and due to the vehicle damage rules hard to take down, once locked.
            – Psychic Rules: Were lazy and a bolt on from the WD update of 4th Ed (were they didn’t exist at all). Powers were too easy to cast and could not be prevented by the opposing player. With some power being very effective, introduced a systemic imbalance.
            – Scoring Units: What constituted a scoring unit was too narrowly defined, leading to boring a restrictive army lists (again this has gone too far the other way now). Hold an object was easy as you only needed one model within 3″. You could hold/contest multiple object, meaning you could string a units between them to hold/contest several objective. I recall once I had a unit of 30 Ork Boyz stretching across 3 objectives!

          • Karru

            There are some points here I totally agree with, but I’ like to argue some.

            Removing casualties was one of the biggest problems in 5th, Nob Bikers for example were a pain to deal with. Troops being able to control multiple objectives was also a problem.

            Now to the arguments.

            Cover. I can totally understand what you mean with this. It could lead to immense problems, but I still believe that it was good times for low to no armour save armies. Cover saves really need to stay or armies like Orks or Tyranids die out completely or they become something unrecognisable.

            Infantry Shooting. This is a mixed bag for me. To some extend I do agree with you, but then again this just meant that you couldn’t spam moving Heavy Weapons or just massacre enemy from a distance with things like Tau Pulse Rifles. This is more of a preference than actual arguing over which is actually better for me. I’m pretty much okay with either one.

            For me, assaulting in 5th was the best out of all editions. Unfortunately the points you made were something that GW decided to take into consideration and instead of actually testing them, they decided to implement every possible nerf to kill assaulting.

            Vehicles. This is the point we argue a lot with my friend. He believes that 6th/7th edition killed them with the Hull Points. He didn’t like the fact that things like Melta was almost completely pointless to take since the better option was to take things like Plasma and Autocannons to just mass glance the vehicle to death. I see it from the point of view that vehicles were brought to balance in 6th/7th with this manoeuvre since, like you pointed out, they were nigh unkillable. I’m more against the transport changes, since that killed things like Dark Eldar and CSM who needed their transports to get close and kill, now that isn’t a possibility any more since the enemy gets a free round of shooting at them.

            Psychic Powers. This is something I shall defend to my death. 5th edition Psychic Powers were the best I’ve ever seen. I didn’t see it as lazy and you could counter them. Psychic Hood for example could nullify ANY power that was being cast. Eldar made Psychic Powers a hazard to everyone else. These days you cannot stop things like Invisibility since you just throw 6 dice at it and now you have to wish to get those 3-4 6’s to stop it. Also Psychic Powers were a nice addition, a tool you could add to your army. These days it is mandatory, if you don’t have a Divination/Telepathy Psyker on the field, your odds to win drop fast. Only Psychic Power I remember being utterly broken was The Lash of Submission, but even that doesn’t compare to the current bs we have with Invisibility, Iron Arm, Prescience and the Ignore Cover Saves one. Also the current RNG fest that is the Psychic Powers is extremely bad which is the reason we only see Biomancy, Divination or Telepathy. Most of the other disciplines are utterly useless or they have maybe 1 useful power.

          • Horus84cmd

            I can’t agree or disagree with these point, because they are all perfectly reasoned and valid. The thing is, throughout the 40K rules as they stand. People can debate back and forth that: this bit from that edition was better and this bit from that edition was better etc…and nobody is right and nobody is wrong. This back and forth all stems from the fact that, since 3rd, each edition has, by enlarged, been a tweak of the one before – this is problem.

            Now, there is nothing wrong with that with building on previous editions. In fact, it is useful from a development point of view, as you can chuck/amend what doesn’t work and keep what does and upto a point this works. The foundation of 3rd was pretty solid but, over subsequent editions it has been eroded to a point where you can’t just go back as the foundation effects and touches every rule in the game – and by extension every supplement to the game.

            But there comes a point where you have to re-think, the eroded foundation buckles under it own weight and complexity and the sensible option is to hit the big reset button on the rules.

            I believe 40K is at that point now and simply going back to a previous incarnation won’t work. The 3rd Edition foundation (or previous but if becomes pointless to compare as they were very very different games) was not written and designed: with flyers in mind; with the idea of formations; it was tentatively design with Psykers in mind; with large vehicles beyond Land Raider levels in mind and to an extent the imaginary or weapons (and infantry units I suppose) we now have. The designers need to look at: what variety of things they are trying to represent; what kind of game play (tactic, sizes etc…) they want to encourage; and design the system from there to fit those.

          • Karru

            And that concludes another reasonable argument. Excellent points being made.

          • Horus84cmd

            Yes, indeedy

    • 30k won’t get the AoS treatment as they just released to very major army books for HH

      • Horus84cmd

        First 30K is 40K they rules are the same. Second if the studio designers see fit to re-work the rules for 40K and therefore 30K from the the ground up they will. I’d hazard we cannot expect a new edition until summer 2017 – there is no track history for a edition change in September/October time. Generally the norm is the new boxed game and rule book in a summer month. They have, in the past,spread that out with the Boxed game first in the the summer and the the separate rule book at the end of the summer. That would mean these “very major” army books for HH would have been out for almost a year before being replaced. Also note, they have done edition changes literally a couple months after releasing a core codex.

    • I’ve been saying that as well, so I completely agree. We’ve been ” beta-testing” 8th for a while

  • Евгения Ремезова

    You know… I really want to just murderfrak all those “people” who talk that 40K should be AoSed.
    Do you even remotely realize, how horrible AoS rules are? I mean, my bet is that 99.99% of all those who said about AoSizing 40K never ever played WHFB.
    WHFB was magnificent. Yes, it had some issues, but it was a realistic line combat wargame, based around ACTUALLY STRATEGY. Oh, frak, whom am I telling this? I’m sure 99.99% of the commentators won’t be able to recognize what is flanking maneuver or ranked combat.
    AoS is disgusting. No tactical depth whatsoever, most of it simply lost with formations. Now it’s just frakking bunch-on-bunch fight, where luckiest person with dices win.
    All I want to say is that I beg to all Gods, GW won’t do the same lobotomy to 40K. Please?…

    • Horus84cmd

      nobody poke the bear…

      • Karru

        Someone poked the bear.

        • Lord Elpus

          Bear my backside! All he/ she is is a bitter whiny player that can’t take others opinions.

    • Lately I have hoped for a drastic change to the 40K rules.
      I’ve only started to collect AoS this month and am looking forward to playing it. the 4 page rules make it look very easy to play.I don’t know if I like it or not yet but it looks fun.
      I haven’t ever enjoyed WFB. most games came down to a flying monster closing on my army causing terror and my army fleeing. Not really that fun.I’m not even sure which of the last three editions that was. But I can see your point about the lucky dice winning.
      My beef with 40K right now is I really despise Tau. I play Orks and after a while it gets old. I miss it being something I looked forward to. I’m also sick of the MTG feel 40K has now. that needs to go away in the next edition.

      • Евгения Ремезова

        Yeah. Single issue with flying monsters was cause to just murderf*ck WHFB. Well, not the single issue, but you get my point – instead of fixing things, GW just ruined them completely.
        And I like Tau. I mean, they finally represent a proper force on the battlefield, who issues all their technological advantage in real way. I mean, I deeply suspect that you want Tau to be relegated to another beating bag for GW, since you’re completely and totally fine with new Space Marine suppliments and transports for free… and grav-weapons… and +2… and everything related to Space Marines in past few years, apparently.
        P.S. Don’t even dare to call me for loving Tau for power – my 1st and 2nd most beloved armies are Sisters of Battle and Dark Eldar.

        • No.I agree actually the Tau are finally what they are suppose to be. It was a curious thing when they came out a shooting army that really couldn’t shoot. But here we are. No. the issue is that once again GW starts at a low power level and then spikes it. the same thing happened in 4th the Dark Angels and the Orks got the shaft. but Mr Kelly had his hands in those, up to the elbows. Your making some huge assumptions there. My regular opponent who is the most competitive plays Tau. I play against other armies much less, so it’s easier to be tired of Tau. Grav weapons are pointless. My save is a 6. so what ever. or it’s a -, so can they even wound me. lol. Free transports aren’t an issue, I’ll be in combat by turn two with my Green tide and about 11 power Klaws. And that’s just a small part of my kunning plan.
          Lastly I don’t really care what armies you like. Like what you like. it’s cool. whatever.
          If you ain’t an Ork. Jokes on you.
          More honestly it’s good to hear people enjoying T3 armies. They make for a good game more often than not.
          I like anything my big shootas wound on a two. Heck I like anything my grots can stand a chance against in close combat too.

          • Евгения Ремезова

            Yup. I have to agree, GW doesn’t balance things – just when one army becomes overpowered, they make others overpowered too, so noone’s overpowered… except for Orks, Adepta Sororitas and Dark Eldar now. That’s the issue with scaling up the power, issue I hate fully with my soul.

          • I think they could but they’re not interested in it for what ever reason. So if my Orks are the NPC’s then were going to be the meanest and most psychotic NPC’s ever.
            (Or your money back void where prohibited, this offer not valid on planet Earth or any of it’s protectorate bodies.)
            It still comes down to the players and their expectations a new rule set will produce the same problems.

          • And Blood Angels and CSM

    • Played WHFB for 20+ years. Prefer AOS. Murderfrak me away.

      • Mira Bella

        Are you talking about the Gameplay or the Fluff?
        I read your comments here for many years now and I consider you and your club (Louisville if I recall correctly) to be the epitome of what GW’s designers imaged how their game to be played.
        There were many many times when I whished I could be part of your group.
        Unfortunately there are a few thousand miles between us. 🙁

        • Gameplay. The fluff is pretty much epic viking stuff. Love it or hate it .

          The events I run are closely what GW’s designers profess. The players in my region however tend to be more competitive and more “esports” type of players. It took many many years of politicking to get narrative events to be able to be done in public and there’s still some scorn from each event in the overall community because its not run like traditional tournaments and has house rules.

      • Admiral Raptor

        Same here! It took me a while to get over the End Times, but now I think AoS is GW’s best game in years.

    • Whfb was awesome prior to its 8th edition

  • Евгения Ремезова

    Actually… reading a lot of comments, I can’t believe what I see.
    People are soo f*king lazy! No words.
    “Oh, my, I have to waste 30 minutes to set up a table… *sob-sob*” – YES YOU SHOULD, DAMN YOU!!! Your wargaming table should be as beautiful and as detailed as it’s possible.
    “*sob-sob* My little silly mind cannot handle alternative FOCs!* – sorry (I’m not actually sorry), but that’s only your issue. I need my alt-FOC to run 1st Company of the Blood Angels. Or how do you want me to run a fluff-wise 1st Company with only 3 Elite slots?! Sorry (once again, I’m not sorry at all), but I think my fluff-wise needs are of far bigger value than your laziness.
    And I won’t even talk about all those “geniuses” who advice to AoSize 40K. Those peoples should not even exist in the wargaming community.

    • Andrew O’Brien

      I like most of the rules of 40k, and of the rules I don’t like there are only a few I hate. For me the big issue is not the amount of rules but the difficulty in finding them all. I recently started playing infinity and while it also has a complex rule-set (though more unit specific than army specific) it is all available in a centralized location on the website. If GW had this I think I would be a lot more open to it. That said, some things need to be revisited (why plasma if you can gravity).

      • Евгения Ремезова

        This I can agree upon. Lots of suppliments with actually important rules… but hell, we all know it ain’t gonna change, right? GW needs to sell it’s Suppliments.
        Also, I think flyers “Death from Skies” or whatever it’s called should be forgotten as a bad nightmare. I’m all up for when rules actually add tactical depth, but “Death from Skies” does nothing in that direction, only filling the game up with uselessness.

    • Brian Griffith

      Yes, what we surely need in an already niche community is people loudly telling others that what they like is wrong.

    • Admiral Raptor

      What a shame that some people actually value their time. Thirty minutes to set up a game is utterly ridiculous. There are great wargames you can play in thirty minutes or less.

      You call it laziness, the rest of us call it terrible game design. No one cares what your fluff needs are. We only care that the game be fun and fair (and preferably fast). You mock AoS but it provides better army building resources for fluff bunnies, better balance, faster game play, and more enjoyable games. 40k should be so lucky to inherit the AoS rule set.

      Wargaming has moved on. 40k needs to move with it. The only people who don’t see that are fossils like yourself.

      • Kreoss4u

        Yes to this. Good game design has moved on and 40k is looking more and more like the dinosaur.

      • Евгения Ремезова

        Oh, shut the f*ck up, b*tch. I spent TWO YEARS to make my battlefield. It can literally work as a background for AI or HH book, for “artistic” shots of the miniatures.
        So yes, go and play your little pathetic parodies on wargames, like X-Wing. Leave 40K for people who value things like Quality.

  • G Ullrich

    I totally use Mysterious Objectives…and then routinely forget to roll for them in the game…

    • Well think about it… That’s a classic example of rules bloat

  • Jice

    Oh the things I would change….it wouldn’t be pretty when I’d be done cutting it up.

    First thing to go is the Force Organisation Carts. Nothing more infuriating in a game to force people to take minimum units of things that are much wimpier than everything else available to pretend that it’s a balancing factor. People want to play with Terminators, Wraith Lords and Battle Suits, not Bolter Marines, Guardians and Firewarriors.

    Speaking of, the reason I think standard line units are so unwanted is because they only really have any use against other line units. So they should be Re-purposed, and redesigned to be single entities. 5 guys = 1 “Model”. Since that’s pretty much how it is right now anyway in a Tac Squad, 1 guy with a missile launcher and the rest do not a damn thing. Might as well simplify it and just make that a unit with 5 wounds and Missile Launcher. Would make it 100 times easier to buy models too.

    That’d just be my start, then I get onto making HQ’s take on a more Leader like role.

    Making points not be so damn high or damn finicky. 5 points out of 2000 is way too much to need to be humming and hawing over.

    I’d make sure every damn thing is released at the same time. This waiting for an updated Codex for a single army every cycle is what’s causing a lot of the grief and unbalance.

    Simplified Stat lines that don’t have needless stats that are only used one in every 20 games, starting with Leadership, running away is definitely un-epic and why people hate Chaos Marines. In the grim darkness of the far future, no one wants to take models off the board cause they got scared.

    More distinct units. Being able to nit pick over every gun and grenade makes list building and model gluing a chore. A Tac squad comes with these guns and these grenades and this leader, period. An Assault squad comes with these weapons and these grenades, and this leader. Done.

    Lastly I’d fiddle with the Ranges a lot. There’s currently very little distinction beyond 3 Feet, and playing on massive tables is getting a bit gauche this day in age. Shrink them, make the playable space more tacti-full and less table-full.

  • Mira Bella

    Alternative activation would be a step in the right direction.
    Maybe not on a squad level but let’s say 1-3 units? Dropzone Commander does this really great. I requires a LOT of thinking just to decide what to activate first.
    Alpha striking would be a thing of the past and people would have a lot less waiting time where they do nothing but rolling saves and remove models.

  • Randy Randalman

    I wish people would stop acting like FW did anything to make 30k great. 30k isn’t smarter rules design. It’s the 7th edition rulebook…which already exists for 40k and was written by GW. What I don’t want to see is the same release pattern in 40k where we have to buy a $70 red book every year to account for a couple of new releases.

    The “balance” between the factions in 30k is nothing more than 18 of the same damn army with just a twist of flavor for each. 30k is a lot of fun in short bursts, but 40k has a lot more variety in terms of factions and play styles. That is always going to be more difficult to balance.

    That said, 40k can learn from both 30k and Age of Sigmar by trimming down.


    -1 core rulebook. Literally do a clean sweep of all codices, supplements, and data slates. Sorry for those of you who bought them all, but the $2000 worth of rules resources out there is a part of the problem.

    -Campaign supplements need to be rare, but need to involve a little something for everybody.

    -Limit Forgeworld’s legality in 40k. Why? Because there are more than a dozen Imperial Armour books and that just leads to craziness in tournament play. Or again, give a little something to everybody in each book.

    -Stop expanding the game phases with more books. Death from the Skies, I’m looking at you. The “Dogfight Phase” should really just be it’s own separate game. People who own fliers can therefore get dual use out of them, but we don’t need a mini-game (which functions like unlocking a secret level in a video game) inside a core game that already takes 2.5 – 3 hours.

    -Every codex needs to be the same format, and they need to all be released before adding any supplements or campaigns to the game. This pattern had started off well with Necrons, but once GW reached Tau, they just stopped and went wide. Too wide. Now we have half of the armies updated, strong, and ready to go, while the other half just keep waiting. Bad form.


    -Tone down, or just eliminate Invisibility.

    -D-weapons should be toned down as well. Maybe something like: 1: no effect; 2-5: D3 wounds/hull points at AP value; D3+3 wounds/hull points with no saves allowed.

    -Walkers just need to have a toughness value. If the goal is to make them ‘feel’ different from monsters, then have them be focused more on firepower while monsters are more CC oriented. It’s like jacks vs. beasts.

    -Close combat units need to be faster and/or cheaper. As it stands, they get shot for two turns, then get shot when they charge, and then get attacked in their own combat phase (sometimes before their own attacks thanks to how grenades work) because everyone gets to fight in combat. While guns should rule the day 40,000 years in the future, the combat units need to have a reason to exist.

    -A max of 2 total saves for a model or unit. No more armor, plus cover, plus invulnerable, plus jink, plus FNP, plus re-rolls on all of them… 1 armor save, and only 1 of either an invulnerable, a re-roll, or FNP. That’s it. Maybe have a few extra on super expensive special characters, but they don’t transfer to units. And maybe a cover save, but it isn’t re-rollable. This will not only make firefights and combats more decisive, but it also means more player interaction, as one player isn’t stuck staring at a unit that has 95% damage reduction. (Yes, this is prevalent right now; especially when playing against Marines or Eldar. Some of their blobs effectively require more than 900 wounds to kill.) To balance this, there needs to be fewer weapons which ignore cover too.


    -Formations need to do less, but also cost points. AoS did this brilliantly in the General’s Handbook, and they are very well balanced now. Simple buffs for a small pile of units, but it comes at a price. No more free models with free super-special rules breaking buffs.


    -Nearly all basic units need to pull from rules in the core rulebook and nothing else. We don’t need special snowflake abilities for every single unit, character, and formation. It’s a part of the bloat problem. Same goes for FW, where they make mostly the same rules as GW, but label it something else, or expand into 2 extra paragraphs for no reason. Each army should have it’s own army-wide rule, and Special Characters can have their thing that makes them unique. Some ultra elite units can have that from time-to-time, but as it currently stands, there are far too many rules words to keep up with. No new keywords created by Supplements; only new missions, or a new model here and there for each army.

    -All armies need to have good Army Wide rules. ATSKNF, Battle Focus, and Reanimation Protocols are fantastic; meanwhile other armies have Veterans of the Long War (which is mandatory in some cases, but also costs points (wtf)), Mob Rule, and Instinctive Behavior. Don’t handicap some armies while making others markedly better from the first page of rules in a codex.


    -No more than 1 can join a unit. Period. Super-friends style Death Stars need to go away. IC’s can’t join other IC’s either. Now, if it’s a super unique squad of IC’s for (reasons), that’s fine, but then they can’t join some other unit.


    -No more Kill Points missions. This just makes the game completely unplayable for people who want to go the MSU route, but don’t stand a chance against Death Stars and blobs because of it. While the previous suggestion will trim down said Death Stars, some smaller ones will still exist in the form of a Librarian + Centurions, Captain + TH/SS Terminators, Hive Tyrant + Guard, Warboss Biker + Nobz Bikers, etc. This will make Death Stars more manageable, while also giving MSU players a fair chance.

    -Not every piece of terrain needs to have its own rules. Fortifications here and there are one thing, or mission-specific terrain is nice, but not every barrel and crater needs to have an armor value, or wounds, or an effect. 1 or 2 faction-specific terrain pieces, included in a codex, would be fine as well.

    -Clean up Maelstrom of War missions to reflect those of tournament organizers like Adepticon or ITC. Less useless ones, eliminate the ones that can put a player up 6-0 on turn 1, etc.


    -Unbound or Matched Play are the two core game styles.

    -Obviously anything goes for Unbound.

    -For Matched Play: 1 Detachment + 1 Ally (self included), and only 1 Formation. If the formation is from a different faction than the parent Detachment, this counts as the 1 Ally also. (NOTE: If a parent detachment has requirements for daughter detachments or formations from the same codex, this counts as 1 Detachment.) No such thing as Battle Brothers anymore. Allies of Convenience, or nothing at all. No more armies pulling from Space Marines, Angels of Death, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, 3 Imperial Armor books and a bundle-exclusive formation. No more Orks + Riptide Wing + Storm Talon fighters. No more Codex + 2 Supplements + AdMech + Campaign + downloadable data slate and a Wraithknight just because. I saw one tournament where a guy had Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Inquisition, and a Fortification. That’s just ugly. Armies should have drawbacks and difficult match ups, but also incentives for staying within the faction. Styles make fights, after all.

    At the risk of getting sloppier than this post already is, I’ll end it here.

  • kobalt60

    that’s not what genuflect means.
    Aside from that, i vote maintenance edition

  • ellobouk

    If you ask me, what 40k needs is a hard reset on the power creep.
    Fix the FoC, severely gimp allies, streamline the ruleset, and reassess points costs across the board. And this makes sense for GW, nothing sells players on building a new army like everything being relevant again, finally GW can move some of those lines that have been sitting stagnant while they heaped more bling on the Space Marine codex.

    • Dan Wilson

      Agreed, power creep might sell the newest kits, but everything being relevant will sell kits from ALL of the armies.

      • JP

        But that would require ALL the writers to be WORKING at the same time. They’re much more content letting one or two do everything on a single book while the rest of them snort glue and play darts or whatever the hell it is they do instead of their actual jobs.

    • Djbz

      The problem there is they’ll probably reverse the power creep for chaos/orks/dark eldar and then return to rampant power creep with space marines.

      I just wish they’d stick to a system for a whole editions codecies instead of getting half done one way then half done another

  • Admiral Raptor

    Burn it all down, then start again. Nothing worth saving but the storyline, which should also be advanced.

  • SK

    Combine roll to hit and roll to wound into one roll.


  • matty199

    Take 3rd edition, clean up assualt add one or 2 of the fun new mechanics like over watch. Eliminate templates replace with d6
    BALANCE THE UNITs- there done game is fun again

    • Lord Elpus

      Not to mention get rid of a ton of special rules.

  • JP

    A shift in balance of the core rules to where assault armies are viable again and shooty armies take a nerf bat to the face would be nice.

  • doughouseman

    The interesting question is based on the Vedros rules (2 pages in the start box) – what does that bode for 40K overall? Many potential young new players are going to get introduced to the game via Vedros (e.g. target, walmart, etc.) and so you would expect that GW will want a path to them playing more games with what they bought and being able to add non-Vedros units to the game.

    So I think 8th Edition will probably have a couple of levels to the rules, a simple rule set, that is for friendly games, and a more complex rule set that is for veteran players.

    I also expect there will be free play, narrative play and competitive play in 8th edition, similar to what the General brought to AoS.

    • euansmith

      I think that very simple basic rules with extra stuff on the unit entries, like in AoS would be good. It would also be great if they included some actual tactical play in to the game; not fiddly mini placement and TLoS, but fire and movement, suppression, enfilades and all the actual tactical nuance of small unit tactics.

    • I have a feeling that Vedros is setting the precedent that 8th will follow