Goatboy’s Thoughts: The Future of 40k

Goatboy here, to talk about the new 40K rules GW dropped at Adepticon.

Goatboy here again, and while I wasn’t at Adepticon to hear the good news I did read up on it pretty heavily as it was introduced.  The coming of a new edition is always an exciting time.  Heck I have been through a lot of changes.  Most versions I liked as I obviously kept playing.  I know that I got very tired of 5th towards the end and have that same feeling for 7th right now so a change is something I do look forward too.  GW has lately paid a lot of attention to their fans which has left me highly optimistic with hopes of a return to the glory days where everyone was excited to play and event and you didn’t see the same sort of lists all the time.

Let’s look at the tidbits they dropped during Adepticon and then think of some things that could be showing up based on the interesting bits.

40K “General’s Handbook”

The creation of a “General’s Handbook” for 40k seems like an obvious thing.  It did wonders for Age of Sigmar and has turned that game around pretty spectacularly. It would make sense to split up 40k into 3 versions – Narrative, Open, and Competitive.  This would also allow them to work on creating Competitive Seasons, rebalancing things, and printing FAQ and other tidbits to help facilitate a living and growing game that isn’t locked into the same sorts of lists each event.  It also lets them “release” new missions, new thoughts, and get a way to compile White Dwarf rules in a way to allow for less – where the heck did you get that rule from?  I like a yearly refresh and if the rules are simplified it would be a great way to make sure everyone gets access to them since they could add in the 10-20 pages of rules each time.

Command Points

The idea of Command points seem neat but I am waiting to see how they are utilized.  I know originally Objective Secured was the method to try and bring a reason to take a CAD over some other kind of formation/detachment but there are too many things that either give that rule, don’t care about that rule, or just are too good to even matter versus that rule.  I think they handed it out too much.  Most of the time the CAD is there to activate either a Lord of War (Magnus) or get access to a fortification. There needs to be a benefit to creating a true force that matches the fluff/story.  The new Chaos Space Marine Detachments seem to fit pretty well with most armies going all one Legion most of the time.  I hope they can work out a way to make it good as it would be nice to actually play themed armies that did the good work of wrecking your opponents army.

Movement Stat

The return of movement stats is pretty interesting as we expected them to remove some specific unit stats – not add a new one.  I know a few added on unit rules seemed to help mix it up a bit (Daemon of Slaanesh and Dunestrider) but I did think this was a stat that could easily have been tweaked to allow a lot more variety in the units.  I know the released stats from the new Necromunda set is a good place to see what most likely is going to be the movement for most basic things so it is interesting to see 4 inches be the common trait amongst the units shown.  It goes against the old basic standard of increments of 3 inches (6, 9, 12) so it is a bit weird feeling but I will have to wait and judge as we look at the other options that might come in from a change to a locked in movement trait.

I am guessing will see the movement go towards the rules of Age of Sigmar where there is no difficult terrain so everyone moves their “complete” movement with the run move done at the same times as your movement phase.  This will help speed up the game and give a reason why the Eldar in their new “army wide rules” removed Battle Focus.  Of course they can just say if you run you can still shoot if your one of the Space Elves so it might lead to anything else other then the keyword rules getting changed.  Still I know GW wants to speed up the game a bit so move+d6 run would be an easy thing to throw in.

Saving Throw Modifiers

I love the idea of shooting weapons causing negatives to your armor saves.  Age of Sigmar has a really awesome system for armor saves by making every save the same.  Invulnerable to Armor save are all basically the same so instead of having a 2+/3+ it is just a 2+ save.  Adding in armor save modifiers means you can continue to produce 2+ reroll save abilities as there is an out to getting past it.  This lets you create some of the stories of terminator armor walking through layers of lasgun fire.  It also lets things get easier as everyone’s save is just a single stat.  I really like how they can differentiate different guns and make the boltgun something interesting.  Heck other guns can now be very interesting as well.  Allowing everything to be useful would be a great thing to bring to the game.

Speaking of shooting – I suspect will see the removal of templates.  It seems to be the biggest pain in the butt rule as you try and figure out how many things you hit by staring through a colored piece of plastic.  It would be simpler if they just did x amount of hits and would free up issues of what level they hit on, or if they don’t hit on a level, or trying to figure out if they scattered to far.  How many times have you felt like someone cheating you on that scatter die as you both looked at it and thought the scatter was more this way versus that way.  This removal of Templates is great for AOS and I think it is about time to have this happen in 40k.  Even though I have some amazingly made chaos templates I just don’t think we need it anymore.

Charging Units Attacking First

The return of Charging mattering is a pretty bold statement.  I am sure they will leave random charges in the game so this is kind of an odd set up.  Until we see how Psychics, Independent Characters, and crazy murdering units end up in 8th edition it is hard to figure out if this is going to be a very bold change.  I like how AOS does the back and forth assault phase but it is something I don’t know if it will fit within 40k.  I think if we see changes to the game that we have heard rumors about then this might show up but until then it is something we have to just wait and see on.

Making Leadership Matter

I do like the morale acting like Battleshock from AOS.  I never liked getting run down in the game and thought it was sometimes too random in nature.  If we had the old psychic spell Terrify that would remove fearless then I could see it being useful – but as of right now either your unit doesn’t care, blows up due to instability, or you want that unit to explode so you can shoot your enemy.  Adding in Battleshock mechanics makes for a very bloody and deadly game which ends up being a lot of fun.  If models are leaving the table on both sides then the players feel like they are doing something.  So far the Necromunda stats seem to show leadership staying the same stat so I am guessing it will still as 2d6 roll with the number you need to hit will be your Leadership minus how many models you lost.

Character Updates

I have heard chatter that characters are going to have a change coming.  I don’t know if they will no longer be allowed to join units or get forced to only join up with units with the same “faction”.  People are saying they are going to not be a part of a unit but you can’t shoot at them unless they are the closest unit.  Formations and other combo’d units would have the characters joined but that is the only way to combo them up.  I am not sure about this but it would make things like the Heralds formations for Tzeentch a lot less of an issue especially if they couldn’t hide as easily.  This would be a pretty big rule change and invalidate an old keyword (IC).

Summoning & Psykers

The chatter I heard at LVO seemed to push the idea that Summoning would be moving towards the AOS model.  You would have to pay for it in your army generation.  This plus what is most likely a point system for formations means will see the end of “free” things in games.  I know I play Daemons but I always hated how I would have 300-500+ points extra if I wanted to bring all the summoning crap.  Plus flying with so much extra stuff is annoying and not something that feels great for the game.  The idea also turned to how clunky the Psychic phase had gotten so that too is something I expect to get “fixed”.  I bet it will just be you have X set of spells on each “character” with an emphasis on different types of casters you could add to your army.  Your Mastery Level will be how many spells you can attempt with some kind of true counter system.  Will see as they released a ton of new “spells” but we all know GW could just be like – everything is gone just like the old Fantasy game.

 

All of these thoughts are pretty interesting and give me hope we might see a “great” edition coming.  Will get a hopefully fairly balanced game that has a bunch of decent armies.  I am suspecting will get more previews coming as they try and “sell” this new edition to the players.  It gets hard as a lot of what made AOS worked – would mean GW would need a complete overhaul and new set of rules.  They could just do this, make a ton of new books, and make everyone upset you spent money on these campaign books.  Will just have to wait and see.

~ A LOT of these rules changes sound very familiar. I wonder how they might all get wrapped up into a single package…

  • Sleeplessknight

    “New 40K rules” … “Dropped” …

    Ah HAHAHAHAHA!

  • NagaBaboon

    Ironically it looks like 40K might drop templates just as Bolt action have decided to use them. The trouble is I don’t think there is a perfect solution for that kind of weapon.

    • Rainthezangoose

      I for one love temples, specially for flamers.

      • Aezeal

        I never minded templates. But I know there some times were discussions about them in game and that is even in my very laid back group. Not to mention fiddling with them does take time. Just do in xd6 damage or 2xd6 damage for units over 20 is a lot quicker in any case and there are no discussions. Time is important.. having no discussion even more so. ( in my group a discussion stays just that. . But discussions can become arguments can become fights can become brawls can become burned shops, dead players can become ww3…. anyway avoiding them is better)

        • Deacon Ix

          The issue I have with templates is the ‘to hit’ mechanic and multi shoot template weapons, back in second you rolled to hit as normal and only scattered if you missed (and only up to half the distance from you to target).

          What slows the game down is rolling to scatter every time and the shear amount of blasts than can be put out.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            multi template weapons are horrible. Should just lay one and then multiply the hits by the number of shots.

          • stinkoman

            oh how i would love the return of 2nd ed blast weapons. i mean scattering out of line of sight into a ruin? nah, the rocket hits the wall instead, blowing up there. makes more sense. we are in the 41st M where weapons are somewhat more advanced than the 2nd M. lets be a little more accurate with our blasts.

        • If those things scalated to ww3, templates would be useful there for sure.

        • orionburn

          I don’t mind templates either outside of the massive problem of doing scatter properly. Too often people have no sense of direction to match up to the way the arrow is pointing. I know it really isn’t a feasible thing but I’d rather see a blast template with a spinner on it. Have “hit” mixed in with arrows for travel direction. At least if the direction of travel is right on top of the unit it’s a bit harder to deviate that badly, but there’s always somebody that will muck it up.

          • Shawn

            And that’s the crux of it. No matter the method, someone will muck it up, either on purpose to gain some advantage, or because they aren’t paying close enough attention, or don’t understand the rules adequately.

      • NagaBaboon

        Not using templates is just so much quicker and neater but it’s just not as fun and thematic as templates are. BA template rules are simpler than the 40k ones though so there is a middle ground.

      • ZeeLobby

        I do as well. A lot of things in 40K currently work fine, it’s the army composition additions (formations, Detachments, allies, etc.) And imbalances which killed it.

      • Daniel Jenkinson

        I hate them more specifically look out sir under a template. Really that one guardsman in cardboard armor saved you from a direct hit orbital strike? I call shenanigans

        • Well, it’s in the name, the flunkie pushed him out of the way but was consumed in the blast

      • Aegis

        I also do like the current templates system enough, to not remove it with just dicerolling hits. This will be an other step to “it doesn’t matter where you place your minis”. At that for me is something that attacks the core of the game itself. Why do i bother playing a tabletop and not a video game? For the feeling to place the minis in a way that it means something. To lean down and see their perspective. This all is gooing to fall flat if the game is simplyfied on the wrong areas.
        I also don’t like that they want to make terraine having no effect on movement for the same reasons.

    • Ian Knight

      The AoS solution for those kind of weapons is either “one hit for every model in target unit that’s in range” or having D6 damage or making D6 wound rolls per hit, stuff like that. Honestly, it’s not a bad abstraction of what’s going on

      • NagaBaboon

        I agree, I love AoS for it’s simplicity but that seems more appropriate when you’re talking about magical attacks and the whole appeal of the game is it’s simplicity. I wouldn’t mind losing templates in 40k but it would be a shame. In infinity, which is otherwise a pretty complicated game, the template is treated as 3D, it works so much better thematically and is so much simpler than the mutli-level mess of 40k

    • HiveFleet Charybdis

      If no templates means no more scatter dice I’m all in favour. No more deep strike mishaps.

    • AnomanderRake

      Templates feel like a better solution than old-Bolt-Action/AoS’ fixed-quantity-of-random-extra-hits approach. One guy running about by himself shouldn’t be taking the same number of hits as a hundred Plague Zombies packed into a close-order mob.

  • vlad78

    No alternate activation, no good ruleset.

    Save modifiers will most probably slow down the flow of the game compared to the AP system and all weapons stats will have to be reworked unless they want armor to become useless like it was in 2nd edition (at that time marines almost never got a better save than 4+ (and more often much worse) which was an insult to what power armors were in the fluff). (BTW the AP system is already almost useless because AP3 weapons and removal of covers have multiplied)

    Different move stats? Why not, but it is already implemented by the different kind of units special rules. That would be nice if they cut into the jungle those special rules have become but in all honesty, one of 40k problems does not lie with the main rulebook but but rather with all the special rules contained in every codicies which supercede the main rulebook.

    Making moral stat important, yes, why did they give special rules to everyone making the moral totally useless in the first place?

    Changing the psychic phase? Big yes. And make it less powerful. Powers like invisibility should never exist.

    I like templates, they are fun. Yes they make the game prone to argument between WAAC players.

    • NagaBaboon

      Infinity doesn’t have alternate activation and that’s brilliant. Of course that has reactions so both players are equally as busy no matter who’s turn it is.

      • MPSwift

        I would love to see some form of reaction process added to 40k; we already have it to an extent in overwatch but things like snap shooting against units while they’re dashing from cover to cover makes the game so much more thematic to me.

        • Keith Wilson

          they could bring back 2nd ed overwatch ….. you forgo shooting in your phase to gain the ability to shoot at a unit that moves into your view in their phase ….. worked well

      • vlad78

        It works as long as there’s only a dozen minis on the field for each side. With 80+ miniatures, you need alternate activation.

        • Walter Vining

          This. the reactive phase is probably my favorite thing about infinity but would NEVER work in 40k

        • marxlives

          I agree, you can’t take things that work well in skirmish level games and apply them to large army based games.

          • euansmith

            40k has certainly spent years proving that 😉

          • Mira Bella

            😀

        • euansmith

          A 40k battle only contains a couple of dozen units, and, as everything is done per unit, I could see Infinity style reactions working in 40k. Better still, I think, would be LoTR style movement and shooting.

    • Thorolf

      Yeah without some kind of different turn structure it will continue to be a little stale for me. Personally I like the idea of simultaneous turns, or iniative based actions.

  • Deacon Ix

    Feels a lot like 2nd… Armour Saves are awesome but Termies need to go back to 2D6, Move stat is also cool – will be nice to see some variation. Chargers going first is going to be interesting – I would have preferred a +1I when charging but we’ll see…
    Changing the summoning would be good but if you’re paying for the Deamons anyway why not just DS? back in 2nd you had to get summoning points which weren’t very balanced…

    • euansmith

      I still think that Summoning would work well as straight up deep strike, with “summoners” acting as homing beacons, or allowing automatic deep striking without a reserve roll. Summoners would still be useful as they would be buffing units. Losing your summoners wouldn’t prevent deep striking your reserves, but would make them less dependable.

      • Charon

        The problem with this approach is “why would I pay points to get a unit with a risky entry that adds absolutely no value over just buying them without summon”?
        As most daemons are melee, DS is a terrible mechanic anyways for them.
        Add in that you already pay a tax in form of the sorceror which summons (and most of the time, does nothing else but summon) AND the countless batteries you need to get the desired amount of dice.
        On average you have to throw 6 – 8 dice at a WC3 summon to get off a summoning somewhat reliable.
        Thats is a lot of points in sorcs and batteries. which are unable to do anything else – and that summons you a 100 points unit.
        The problem is rather that summoning has become a “go big or go home” mechanic that forces you to pile on as many dice as possible to actually overwhelm your opponent.
        Try a list that is only capable of summoning a single unit per tun and you will see that this is not terribly useful as the points investment to actually get this unit in the game needs you to summon multiple times before breaking even.

        • Pyrrhus of Epirus

          who needs 6-8 dice? Half the units that summon in the game that are used (including magnus and librarius conclave) summon on a 2+ which is the problem. Anything from a demon army to any imperium of man army fits under that umbrella.

          Ya a chaos sorc might need 6-8 or a tzeench DP the same. Thats about it using max charges.

          • Only Magnus should be able to cast spells that easily honestly

        • euansmith

          That’s why I’d be looking at a system more like AoS with its Hero Phase.

  • Kilo Lima Oscar

    I really don’t want to see 4 inches as the standard move stat, it made 2nd a slog (though it works really well for smaller scale stuff like Necromunda). Fingers crossed for a 6″ standard with Eldar and ‘Stealers at 7″ and Termies at 5″

    • orionburn

      I’d be happy with something like that. It makes more sense than expecting a Termie to have the same movement stat as a Genestealer. That coupled with getting rid of stupid difficult/dangerous terrain tests would make me a happy camper.

    • ZeeLobby

      I’m fine with 4″ as long as gun range is greatly reduced. What I don’t want to see is 18″ movement ranges to try and compensate for what is currently a shooting dominated game.

      • Kilo Oscar

        I agree, especially if the board sized is reduced. I just remember 2nd, which had massive ranges, huge boards, and slow movement – everything died before it got anywhere. 4th was a really nice balance of shooting and combat imho

        • ZeeLobby

          Yeah. Which is kind of funny because imo that’s where 40K is now. If you’re on foot, you’re dead. I think 4×6 would still be OK if you had movement ranges from 4-8″. Heavy weapons may have longer ranges but move slower etc. Lower movement would allow for more 3×3 and 2×2 type games, which are much easier to do on a kitchen table, etc. But yeah, all of this would require the average gun range not being 36″

          • Kilo Oscar

            I think everyone agrees that 7th needs a big shakeup. I’ve got my fingers crossed for 8th

          • Christopher Witecki

            No, not quite everyone. Though Im sure it will be good for the game, I’m going to stay with 7th. Its complex, cinematic and I love spells so I never found the psychic phase a bother. Honestly, Im not even sure why the complaints are so loud. Sure, like most games it could be polished, but people make it out like its just unbearably big. You can get rules summaries that only 10 pages long. How much easier does a table top wargame supposed to be?

    • 4″ movement was a slog but I think part of why was due to points costs. 300 points base for 10 Tactical Marines and how ever many for a Rhino transport. after upgrades maybe 450 or more points, can’t remember just guessing. It the points costs stay close to what they are now for all armies or are adjusted a bit, up or down, I can see it working. Or at least a reason to use the extra options. Not unlike how we use them how. ( But now it hurts me more when my transport is destroyed? )
      Mostly I don’t really think it will be as much of a slog as it was back then. I’m all for each race/unit having variations on their stats. Most AoS armies do that now I think.

  • orionburn

    As much as I look forward to rule changes more than anything I hope they follow the AoS model of making all unit info available as free pdfs with the option to get a typical codex for fluff reasons. I’d love to be able to look up opponent stats prior to a game to better know what I’m dealing with. Yes, there are workarounds like Battlescribe but this would be a much better option.

    • HiveFleet Charybdis

      This is the thing I don’t get. The article implied this was the way they were going, but how do you get a unit like a Tactical squad on one page – plasma pistol, plasma gun, plasma Cannon, grab gun, grav pistol, framer, homing beacon etc all one 1 sheet.

      I hope they don’t lose all the wargear options which I think means there’s a limit as to how much of this they can do. They can remove USRs, which would be helpful

      What would be amazing would be some kind of dynamic data slate building app so that you select your options and this builds you a unique rule sheet for that 1 unit.

      • orionburn

        Good point. It would kind of defeat the purpose but it may have to be a separate page for weapon profiles. I also would find it hard to believe all special weapons unique to an army and/or general wargear go away. I don’t play AoS but I know GW was coming out with an army builder app for it. You’d think that’s almost a given they would make their own builder for 40k as well once 8th hits.

      • euansmith

        The Age of Sigmar Warscrolls do have a lot of dead design space; with a big photo and, often, big areas of blank paper. I’d expect a 40k version to make better use of the real estate.

  • quaade

    I hope difficult terrain is done away with. Fluffwise there are Genestealers, capable of traversing even the densest terrain and attack people before they even realise they are under attack.

    Ruleswise Genestealers are a little better at moving trough terrain an even ancleheight grass is fatal.

    • NagaBaboon

      I think you should keep difficult terrain, and just give most ‘nimble’ dedicated assault units exemption from the rule

      • Karru

        I think they should just make Difficult Terrain give cover and cause problems for Vehicles/Charging units only. The movement hindrance can use up a lot of time for foot armies that have lots of models. Rolling for each unit separately, measuring to see if it would be wiser to go around the piece of terrain, all this takes time.

        Either that or just make it fixed negative modifier as well. Move into Difficult terrain? -2″ of movement. That’s just my opinion on the matter.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          I like the modifier idea. Maybe half move.

          • Karru

            Something like that, yeah. Basically anything that reduces dice rolling would be good for the game.

      • quaade

        Just what 40k needs, more extemptions. And what about the rest whose natural agility should make them ignore terrain?

        Read the flufftext for charging trough terrain Overwatcht, the text is almost identical.

        At least an Ork charge will be devasting again instead of pathetic and useless as it is now.

    • markdawg

      Sure they are but they don’t have stupid grenades so they hit last in combat stupidest rule ever grenades suck.

  • Antoine Henry

    Well, I for one do not trust GW to release good rules. Starting from AoS we see already the limitations, the lack of balance and the large amount of FAQ for 4 pages rules. When i look at how the latest 40K rules were written, I do not believe they will pull any good rules for the 8th edition of 40K. This Age of Emperor seems blatently a copy of Age of Sigmar. Hope the fluff will be good tho, thats the only part that would keep me on 40K otherwise, hopefully we will get a “8th age ? :p”

    • Karru

      Wouldn’t it be “The 8th Millennia” in this case?

  • Tigirus

    8th edition has me both excited and worried, 7th edition hasn’t really been that interesting for me it always felt like a jumbled mess of dozens of different rules and books with GW’s constant release of supplements further exacerbating the tangled mess that is 7th ed. As such I would very much like not so much of a simplifying but more of a streamlining of rules and formations to at least make it easier to set up and play games without confusion.

    For the listed changes, I see no issue with movement values to help differentiate between orks, humans and elves; I played fantasy it was a nice stat to have. For consolidating move and run that’s also a good move, heck 90% of ork and tyranid players I know already do them together anyway rather than having to move 30 man blobs twice a turn. LD changes are also good, while I’m not super happy about the battleshock stat in AoS since it feels kinda unrealistic and game-y it is still better than LD in 40k which mostly ends up as either totally ignore-able or a massive skew when a ld10 unit fails morale on the first turn and runs off the table (I’m looking at you jet-seer) having it be battleshock-esque would be nice as it provides a constant moderate threat as you risk losing 1-2 models in any given test rather than a whole unit or no-one.

    The last mention about characters no longer being able to join units is worrisome for me, and it greatly increases the chances of character sniping which is one of my least favorite aspects of AoS where longer ranged units can just kill off support characters with impunity and almost no counter-play aside from hiding them behind a solid wall. While I admit that 40k suffers greatly from character deathstars and the super-friend teamups I hope the change they do instead is limit units to 1 attached character each, then at least my captain can stick with his command squad and my farseer with his seer council but still stops crazy hi-jinks like the multi-librarian biker deathstar or the heralds+screamers extravaganza.

    Oh and templates? Screw ’em. Literally the only thing I will ever get into regular arguments about in 40k is the direction that stupid little arrow is pointing. It makes like so much easier to just roll d6 hits per 10 models than it does to properly scatter a thunderfire cannon, a feat that apparently requires 2 templates, 4 hands and the unheard of ability to get 2 people to agree on which direction the arrow is actually pointing.

  • markdawg

    To me everything hinges on IGOUGO if it’s stays then I stay away from 40k. It’s an antiquated relic that should be forever expunged from wargaming.

    Everyone loves sitting through a 40 minute shooting phase uggh! Or Turn one almost getting tabled before you have even moved a model oh look I won on First blood and all you could do was watch!

  • Defenestratus

    They removed battle focus from the new Eldar?

    • Patriarch

      The recent death cult/Yvraine faction. They had elements from Craftworld Eldar, but these did not keep their battle focus.

      Whether that was because the next edition would invalidate the rule as it appears could be a guess. They appeared to do it just to make that new faction distinct from the old one.

      • Defenestratus

        Right – but in the same book, the black guardians have battle focus.

        Not sure that removing it from the Ynnari alone means that the rule is going away.

        • Charon

          Because you can field the black guardians outside of a ynnari force…

          • Defenestratus

            Correct – but that invalidates Goatboy’s thesis that battlefocus as a thing is going away.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            And then there’s the fact that Soulburst actions are qualitatively better than shooting and running, due to being able to choose what you want to do and being able to do it multiple times during a game turn.

  • AX_472

    Worst article i’ve read in a while. To much speculation and personal opinion while talking with authority.

    • orionburn

      My issue is that the GW guys said themselves some of this stuff is still in debate and they want community feedback. Some things sounded like they were decided on, but other talking points were still speculative.

      Opinion pieces are fine, but they are opinions, not facts. The only time it really bothers me is when we get an article to “dispel all those rumors” that were mainly started right here in opinion articles! It’s like the blame gets put on the internet community when all we’re doing is commenting.

    • Raven Jax

      Uh….it’s a popular 40K commentator taking publicly available knowledge and extrapolating, using his own experience, to discuss what is likely to happen and what he would like to see happen. I didn’t have a problem with it.

  • Karru

    I’ve said this multiple times, 8th edition will make or break 40k. The problem I have with it is the fact that the chances of getting a fun and balanced ruleset that would be required to “make” 40k are way above the skill level of the current design team.

    Here are some very basic stuff they have to do in order to get things going towards the right direction.

    1. Nerf Allies a lot

    This was a cute idea when it was introduced in 6th edition, but quickly revealed how bad the system actually is. It wasn’t used to “create fluffy cooperation forces”, but instead fill up the weaknesses in ones army. This is a problem, as all armies should have a weakness.

    If not outright removing them from the game, just removing Battle Brothers would be a good start. Of course, making it so that you cannot, under any circumstance, take a “Come the Apocalypse” allies should be implemented.

    2. Assaults

    Assault needs to return back into the game. The healing process can be started with just basic 5th edition rule implementations. Assaulting from a Transport that stood still, Fast Vehicles can unload their units after moving 12″ and Assault from Outflank. The charging units hitting first is a nice buff, but it won’t do those Assault units any good unless something is done to the delivery issue.

    3. Nerf shooting a lot

    As of right now, shooting is way too powerful. There is no real downside to shooting while there is almost nothing but downsides to assaulting. This is not good game design in any way. Once again going back to 5th edition here, bringing back some basic rules from there will help here. First of all, remove Snap Shots and make Rapid Fire work like it did in 5th. This would reduce the effectiveness of many shooting units, as they now can’t move AND shoot freely.

    Remove Salvo and make it just Heavy. Salvo rule is bad mostly because it is just a Heavy that doesn’t have any real negative effects attached to it.

    Return Night Fighting to its 5th edition roots. Roll some dice, multiply the result and check if you can see the target. Shrouding and Stealth were nice until they started handling out “Ignores Cover Saves” and D-weapons to some armies and left others in the dust. This made cover redundant and thus Night Fighting useless. Making it so people can’t Alpha Strike you off the board in turn one would be a nice thing.

    Finally, reduce the strength and volume of shooting. This isn’t exactly something that is in the core book, but it should be mentioned. Currently, the amount of Strength 5-6+ shooting is insane. Then you have tons of blasts, large blasts and even Apocalyptic blasts. Alpha Strike is the most important strategy right now because of the effectiveness of many weapons. Most games are decided on the “who goes first” roll of the game because of this.

    4. Overwatch

    I made this into a separate thing for simplicity. Only change that has to be done here really would be to make these shots into Initiative 10 hits in CC using the users Ranged Weapon(s) for stats. The reason why it is done at this point is to help assaulting units. Way too many times, mostly thanks to RNG charge distance, units fail their charges because they lost one or two models to Overwatch. Then they just die in the next turn doing nothing.

    Basically you roll to charge, you move your guys, then your opponent rolls damage, you remove casualties and then you continue fight normally. The unit is still engaged in CC, the line is disrupted and your unit isn’t standing in the middle of the board feeling stupid, writing their will’s, waiting to die.

    5. Psychic Phase

    Remove it. Make Psykers once again into a support role where they can bring some minor powers into the table that can buff your units slightly or just give the Psykers themselves something interesting to do. Ld check to pass, if the enemy has a Psyker close enough, they can attempt to cancel it with a roll off.

    The core issue with Psychic Phase and Powers comes from the fact that not everyone has them or even worse, they have nothing to defend themselves against them. This is why things like Invincibility and Summoning are so broken. You go big or you go home. You take 3+ Lvl 3-4 Psykers and overwhelm your opponent with dice or you take none at all. Even if your opponent does the same, it won’t really matter as vast majority of powers don’t target the enemy so their “Deny the Witch” rolls are basically always on a 6.

    6. Super Heavies/Gargantuans

    Since these are now, unfortunately, part of the game, something has to be done to bring them down to reasonable level. Increasing the price won’t work well, so something else has to be done. In this case, the best solution would be to reduce their survivability. Super Heavies can suffer damage from the Damage Table, but they get a 3+ or a 4+ save to it. A lucky penetrating hit can one shot a Knight, as it should be. As for Gargantuans, removing things that makes it harder to wound them needs to be removed really. Make Poison and Snipers work on them and they won’t be as broken as they are now.

    Now they are not priced so hard that bringing them to the table for “looks” wouldn’t be too gimping, nor are they so broken that spamming them could be considered a viable strategy.

    • Darkcat

      7. Remove Formations

      • Karru

        I wouldn’t mind seeing those go as well, mostly for balance reasons. Replacing it with Flames of War style army building detachment would be cool.

        Like, instead of building formations into a detachment, it would be “pre-build” blocks that give you benefits depending on the choices.

        “Space Marine Company Command”
        1 Captain
        0-1 Chaplain
        0-1 Librarian
        0-1 Company Command Squad

        “First Squad/Second Squad/Third Squad”
        1 Tactical Squad
        OR
        Assault Squad
        OR
        Bike Squad

        “Company Support” +1

        Devastators
        OR
        Land Speeders
        OR
        Attack Bike Squad

        “Chapter Support” +0

        Scout Squad
        OR
        Scout Bike Squad
        OR
        (and so on…)

        To be honest, they should make the “command point” benefit system like this. Instead of having some random formations that force you to spam useless, oversized units (because the design cares more about money than actually making something fluffy), you build an actual fluffy army with these building blocks.

      • Xodis

        Formations are great, they just need the AoS treatment where they cost points to take.

        • Charon

          I dont se the use of buying formations with points.
          For a lot of them im already forced to pick up terrible units I would never ever use just to give a bonus to a better unit. If you add a point cost on top of the tax units it becomes completely garbage.
          AOS gets way with this as the difference between a cold one rider, a silverhelm and a n imperial knight is basically the name.

          • Xodis

            Thats a problem with unit/codex balance, which isn’t the fault of the formation itself. One thing that is almost unanimous by all is that there are major imbalances that should be fixed.

          • Charon

            Fixing major imbalances AOS style basically means “make everything the same”.
            We have seen not a single edition without imbalances. Points for formations are as prone to imbalances as the points for units or the choice of units.
            The “3 scatbikes and a Wraithknight” formation for 50 points that grants twin linked will still be better than the 3 CMS and a Lord of skulls that get twin linked for free.

          • Xodis

            No it doesn’t, it means actually balance units and points cost throughout the game.
            Just because we haven’t seen an edition without imbalances doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be closer or “better”.

    • Djbz

      I don’t think Salvo needs removing, it needs adjusting
      With Relentless it’s too good, without it it’s awful (poor Noise marines)

    • ZeeLobby

      They need to just reduce shooting range and rerolls. Cut everything in half and suddenly CC is an option again. Maneuvering to get 2 shots in before being charged actually becomes a challenge again, etc. And reducing the number of special weapons, while now most armies average range is 36″ at average strength 7+. This would help more than anything else imo.

      • Karru

        One way to achieve that is to make things like Rapid Fire being what it was in 5th. Forcing people to choose between moving and shooting is something that has to be done. Currently there is barely anything bad about moving constantly with your ranged units.

        Reducing re-rolls is a must, I do agree with you there. Re-rolling something should be only available in rare situations, like the Chaplain re-rolls in melee buff. They should be something the trigger only when something very special happens. Having re-rolls so easily accessible is very bad game design.

        • ZeeLobby

          Yeah, true, I did love the old rapid fire rules.

    • Raven Jax

      Yep, this. These are most of the changes I want to see.

    • Sz

      4. Overwatch

      I am probably fighting a lost cause here, but I think you are treating the symptom on this one rather than the disease. The disease is having to roll charge distances in the first place. So much awful springs from that rotten tree. It’s taking an absolutely crucial moment in the game and reducing it to two dice. Mind you, not the kind of crucial dice roll that is in turn 5 or 6 everything has been leading up to. Those can be super dramatic, and awesome and remembered for years. Just a crappy two dice roll in Turn 2 or 3 that are all-or-nothing and typically never lets the game get to a climax thereafter, and would-be good games are made forgetful, or horrible games.

      So call me a radical, because GW sure does like ‘dem dice, but rolling for charge distance was a bad idea when it was introduced in fantasy, and it is a bad idea here. Fix this, and you go a long way towards fixing things like overwatch (though I believe overwatch should have a consequence for choosing to do so. Overwatch and Jink are two rules that are absolutely too brainless atm.)

      • Karru

        Oh I do agree with you that Random Charge Distances is one of the dumbest things ever implemented into 40k or Fantasy. Problem is that, as you pointed out, GW loves their dice rolls as it just means less testing and work for the design team.

        That’s why I didn’t even mention about it, because I know it is a lost cause. GW won’t remove it from the game.

  • YorkshireNinja

    I’m hoping that 40k will go the way of AoS as far as rules distribution is concerned. The AoS app is amazingly convenient to the point where I don’t actually own any physical copies of AoS rules. if GW don’t go that way for 40k they’d be doing the community a disservice. having all the rules on a unit’s ‘dataslate’ is far preferable to ‘refer to WH 40k rulebook’

  • The new rules have me excited. I prefer the AOS structure because I’ve gotten tired of spending 30-60 min a game in the rulebook trying to clarify contradictions.

    I like the three ways to play (Open/Unbound, Competitive, Narrative) though Competitive is the default and it can be hard to get in the other two without putting a lot of effort into it.

    If its like AOS that means that allies are not going away, Imperium would be a faction and armies in the imperium could be taken. However, if its like AOS that means if you took “Blood Angels” and everying was “Blood Angels” you’d get bonuses so if you did the happy match ally system, you’d lose bonuses.

    I like battleshock over the current morale system. The only thing that I fear will happen though is that marines will be immune to battleshock which will make battleshock fairly useless since most players seem to run a marine deviation of some type.

    I don’t mind super heavies etc. IN fact, I hated never being able to play games with mine in 5th ed because they weren’t “tournament legal” so you could never use them even outside of tournaments. I would just like to see them cost appropriately.

    I would like to see brainless powers like invisibly go away or become harder to pull off.

    I would like some risk with the reward instead of it being all reward. I would like less spreadsheeting min/max builds and actually make the game be where you decide the outcome instead of the spreadsheet coefficient.

    While I’m no longer a tournament player i want to see the tournament stuff get reigned in because tournament play bleeds into my casual play and I don’t like that.

    • Sz

      “While I’m no longer a tournament player i want to see the tournament stuff get reigned in because tournament play bleeds into my casual play and I don’t like that.”

      The whole ‘sure we made a few horribly broken armies that are totally unfair, but agree with your competitors to play how you want’ is:

      a. condescending
      b. a lazy lack of responsibility by the manufacturer (who came up with that horror show in the first place)
      c. acts as if it is still 1994, and my group has no idea what goes on outside of said group save whatever info we can glean from the manufacturer themselves via their own in-house publications. It’s kind of quaint when you think about it.

      I don’t expect GW to completely change their mission statement (but wouldn’t it be great though?) but I really want them to take ownership and actually try to keep their rules balanced. I don’t demand perfection, just put in an honest effort. I have eyes and can tell when little-to-no effort was put into them checking their own work (or are you going to argue Soulburst is ‘fun!’ and a great addition to the game?)

  • ZeeLobby

    I just want a 4×6 table to return to actually being a battlefield again. I’d be happy if both movement and shooting were reduced in range. And if movement was its own separate characteristic. Then you could finally get flanking faster units, encirclements, etc. Some fun tactical options. Now there are just armies that can shoot clear across the table, and move over half in just one turn.

    My only other massive gripe is the proliferation of rerolls and how much that slows every game down. Whatever happened to just rolling good the first time?

    • Sz

      …and accepting the consequences of a bad roll. Bad things happen. Johnny will get passed it.

      • ZeeLobby

        Haha. I don’t know, maybe he won’t! /TABLEFLIP

        • Sz

          Are you kidding?! Johnny’s arms aren’t strong enough to flip that table. I don’t care how big his air lats are.

          • ZeeLobby

            LOL. All of this is twice as funny as one of the guys in our gaming groups gaming alter-ego is Johnny

  • Deathwing

    A lot of this sounds like its coming from AOS.
    That would be the worst idea ever.
    A lot of players have the opinion of if we wanted to play AOS, we would actually play AOS.

    • generalchaos34

      Which is why theres lots of people who are tired of 40k and its grinding ridiculousness and are flocking to AoS (myself included). If these changes are true then I would be more than happy to return to the battlefields of the far future, I have 15,000 points of guardsman who need some exercise.

  • Kinsman

    There’s about 10 in my gaming group who are waiting expectantly for and AoS 40k. We’d dive in faster than….something fast!

    • OldHat

      Same here. Been out of active 40k gaming since 5th ed (just doing hobby stuff) and can’t wait for a clean ruleset to come along so I can jump back in and actually look forward to playing. Right now, the talk of slogging through long, broken games is no appeal at all.

  • Xodis

    Sounds great and I hope it works out. 40K needs some AoSing, but not a complete conversion IMO. I just want to be able to field my army the way I built it without having to worry about being tabled before I even get to play.

    There will always be units that are more efficient than other units…that doesn’t mean the difference has to be so obvious that fielding anything else means the game is already won.

    For all that is unholy, if you continue to make specific armies focus on a type of style/tactic (Fear, Melee, etc..) at least make them GOOD at that style, or at least allow that tactic to work on the most played armies in the hobby.

  • Sz

    They can AoS the crap out of 40k for all of me (be better than what we got atm,) but please please please refrain from two things that either make games not fun and are just stupid. They are: getting to shoot in and out of combat (stupid,) and rolling off to see who goes next (stupid, AND can you freaking imagine that awfulness in 40? You rolled a 6– pie plate me again.)

  • EnTyme

    I’m anxiously awaiting the next edition. My Necrons are getting lonely in their storage case, but I know that every time I get them out, I may be putting them up against a Wolfstar or an Invisiknight. It’s just no fun. Until 8th, I’ll just be sticking with AoS.

  • BaboonKing

    It’s pure speculation on my part, but given its prominence in AoS, I’d wager they’ll also generalize the use of wounds and weapon damage as a balancing and differentiating factor for units. You can’t really have the rend mechanic and get rid of invulnerable saves without giving the tougher units something in return; otherwise, things like terminators will become even more useless than they are now. I expect they’ll retain their 2+ save, but be able to sustain multiple wounds (lets say, 3). On the other hand, a laser cannon may have rend -2 and cause D3 wounds. Obviously I’m just making the numbers up: you would have to carefully tune them to achieve the necessary balance, but AoS has shown this can be a good tool for providing more nuanced stats while not impacting playing time in a significant way.

    • generalchaos34

      I can definitely seeing multiple wounds on things like Terminators. It seems that is a fair balancing mechanism for expensive elite units like cavalry or Stormfiends or Retributors get extra wounds and in exchange it would appear that they can be fluid with their armor saves (and not just tack on 2+ and call it a day) while still being durable units, sometimes even getting other mechanics that add durability like rerolling 1s or getting +1 armor when taking wounds from 1 wound weapons.

  • stinkoman

    I would just like to see less randomness. no roll on the warlord table, no rolling for psychic powers, no rolling for reserves, no rolling for random charge/move distances, chaos gifts, etc.

    let me plan my strategies out, dammit! (it would also allow me to focus on certain rules and then splash some others in. with random special rules generated by psychic, warlord, etc, traits, you are forced to use a rule you wouldnt otherwise want to.)

    i would also like to see psychics be less game changing, back to 4th/5th style (and i play demons – incidentally for their 5th edition randomness, go figure).

    oh and please dont make all the books i bought invalid at the drop of 8th… please!

    • generalchaos34

      your books wont be “invalidated” in the way you think, ALL rules in books will be invalidated. I imagine that it will be like when AoS came out and they released all rules for all units online for free (and since they are prepared the 40k version of the Azyr app) This way they can have a fresh start and get everyone on the same page instead of slow releases and getting caught in bad places between editions like guard or Tyranids

      • stinkoman

        invalidating all the rules is invalidating the reason you buy a codex. please dont say fluff. BL is there for fluff. the codexes really dont have much. so yeah, wasted money in the last few weeks and not buying anymore till 8th. feels bad.

  • silashand

    Pretty much everything you noted I agree with. I think this edition will be more of a shakeup than some people think. IMO that’s a good thing because like the end of 5th I am pretty sick of the current edition.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    I for one hope that I can get some options where I don’t have to run chaff if I don’t care to.

  • Pyrrhus of Epirus

    im for the changes, but there is no way you can possibly add random movement as you proposed (6 +d6 or whatever it will be), plus add in armour save modifiers and reduce the time it takes to play a game. A typical 1850 game is already a 3 hr affair. As a average guy whose not flying to the LVO every year and is busy, i cant be playing 4-5 hr games of warhammer.

  • Carey_Mahoney

    Hardcore-fanboying.

  • Drew_Da_Destroya

    “So far the Necromunda stats seem to show leadership staying the same stat so I am guessing it will still as 2d6 roll with the number you need to hit will be your Leadership minus how many models you lost”

    So, everyone gets to become Orks? As someone who curses the Mob Rule table everytime my boyz get shot, I can’t say I look forward to this.

  • NikosanPrime

    I have to laugh in triumph as we see so many of the old rules that added diversity return to the game. In the old days 4″ was the standard movement and everyone deviated from there so there was quite a bit of tactical diversity. But then again I am old enough that I can say that I have seen all the versions and, although I am not happy with some of the granularity of Rogue Trader or the Herohammer of 2nd Ed they did do somethings well.

  • Evil Otto

    The future of 40K?

    https://youtu.be/Dug-G9xVdVs

  • archangeleong

    Armour save modifiers sucked in 2nd ed. In 2nd ed nothing ever saved or felt like it worked like in the fluff. Power armour was like paper armour and anything less was like wearing nothing. This mechanic slowed down the game also.

    2nd ed was a rubbish system for war games. It was an overblown skirmish game rule set.

    GW don’t go backwards!! Go forwards please!!