40K: Things I Hope Chapter Approved Does

A new Chapter Approved book is supposed to come out before the end of the year, lets talk about what I hope it does.

Ever since Games Workshop announced we were getting a new Chapter Approved book this year people have been talking about what might be in it. Many players are excited for new rules and options (VDR!).  A lot of competitive players are pinning their hopes of a more “balanced” game on the new book. Others just want some new ideas for larger games or wacky stuff. Toady I’m going to focus on the competitive/balance aspect of Chapter Approved. Lets talk about some things I really hope the book does. A lot of these things have been rumored already, and some are wishful thinking.

Addressing Smite Spam

One that pretty much everyone who knows anything about Chapter Approved agrees on is that it will address smite spam. This is a very good thing. Smite Spam is certainly an issue with the game right now, and it affects almost all armies. There have been a lot of ideas thrown around on how to fix smith spam. One idea is to limit the number of smites you can do in one turn. Another is to make each consecutive smite harder to case. My personal favorite is to simply reduce the damage of each smite after the first (or whatever number you chose) to one mortal wound.

One issue with fixing smite is to try and not neuter armies that are supposed to have smite spam, such as Grey Knights or Warlock heavy lists. Since these armies already have a weak version of smite bringing all armies into line with that would work. However they do it hope they do address smite in a substantial way.

Forge World Limits

This one kind of ties in with Smite Spam, since the worst offender there, the Malefic Lord, is a Forge World unit (with no model). Now don’t get me wrong, Forge World puts out some really amazing models. They also have, sometimes, some really fun and fluffy rules. However the fact that their rules are written by a different team the main rules often leads to inconsistency and issues. Forge World rules also tend to be more aimed at fun and narrative, than balanced play and a lot of them are not so balanced. So I would not be sad to see them limited some how, and there are rumors that they will be. From disallowing them in matched play to limited the number of units you can take something needs to be done.

Changes to Detachments

One of the rumors that went around after 8th came out is that the playtesters working on the game weren’t given all the detachemnt types to test. I don’t know if this is true or not, but it makes sense too me. While the basic detachments, patrol, battalion and brigade, are great, others, like the Supreme Command, really skew the game. One of the issues many players have is how common spam is. With basically no limit for how many units of each type you can take, and no need to take troops unless you want to, this is going to always be an issue. Limiting what detachments you can take would force players back into making balanced list-building choices and curtail some of the craziest spam.

Points Changes

Another big rumor for Chapter Approved is that it’s going to adjust points for units across the board. Now I am rather worried about how this will be pulled off. I can see a broad change of points adding a lot of complication into the game, since it will mean an additional book everyone will have to use. HOWEVER, I would like to see points for the Index armies updated. As each army has gotten its Codex there has been a trend to give out a lot of points reductions. This has left a lot of the Index armies feeling over costed and outnumbered. Adjusting their point costs in Chapter Approved could be a great way to keep Indexes competitive until those armies get a codex of their own.

More Generic Stratagems

Anther major advantage Codex armies have over Index armies is access to a ton of stratagems. Right now there are only three generic stratagems out there. While these are good, they are very limited in use. Not only does in make Index armies under powered it also de-emphasizes the need to build for Command Points. I think putting out a bunch of additional generic stratagems (or conversely a few unique ones for Index lists)  would not only just add more options but help out the index lists.

Just the Tip of the Iceberg

This is really just a few of the things I’m hoping for in Chapter Approved. I think these changes could add a lot to the more competitive side of 40K. I’m also hoping for some good changes for the narrative/casual side. Those however are hopes and wishes for another day. For now, I can only hope that GW continues to listen to our feedback and improve the game.

That’s all for today folks! Tell us what you’re hoping for from Chapter Approved, down in the comments. 

  • Ghachii

    Wow, all of the possible cool things that could be included and the author basically just wants it to be a glorified FAQ. Where’s your sense of fun and imagination?

    • ZeeLobby

      Having gone through 6th and 7th, which were both editions where they simply piled “cool” on top of broken, I, like the author, hope they spend the first one fixing some stuff.

      • Ghachii

        Boooooooooooring! 😉

        • ZeeLobby

          Haha. I think it’s pretty exciting if they prove they can do it. That said, I’m sure there will be tons of stuff slapped on anyway :D.

          • EnTyme

            Shadespire proves they can make a balanced game if they try. Now the question is how hard will they try?

          • Frank Krifka

            To be fair part of the reason shade spire is balanced is because of the format. Comparing Shadespire to 40k is like comparing apples to a Peruvian circus.

          • EnTyme

            I’m just going to go ahead and declare that to be the best analogy I’ve ever heard. You’re also right. Shadespire has far fewer moving parts than 40k, but the point I’m trying to make is that they aren’t incapable of achieving balance as some people claim. They can do it, and do it well.

          • Frank Krifka

            Oh I agree. GW is totally capable of making 40k balanced for 40k. But balance itself is a relative term. I’ve heard people say that for 40k to be balanced every single list should be able to stand up to every other list that could possibly be written (Which is total nonsense considering the number of moving parts in 40k). Not to mention they continually say things like “balancing 40k would be easy if GW would just pay attention.”

            I think 40k is probably he most balanced its been in decades. Certainly considering the way the factions have diversified over time. But with as many variable 40k has, it’s really impossible to reach the level of balance some players have called for.

          • Muninwing

            every army should be able to be on reasonable footing with every other, but not every incarnation. if you bring no heavy weapons, you cannot beat a knight list.

            on the other hand, i should be able to play a specialized army such as Deathwing and not get wiped off the board automatically. if i play my list well and a horde player makes mistake, i should be able to win despite having some weaknesses.

            a lot of that could be solved with an actual points algorithm instead of the arbitrary slapdash system they use now…

          • Frank Krifka

            The problem with statements like “a lot of [this] can be solved with [x]” is that often players want to build particular kinds of lists. The player that is adamant against taking heavy weapons *wants* to be able to beat a knight list and sees the fact that he can’t as a lack of balance. I’ve seen on numerous occasions players insisting on playing armies in ways that run counter to the army’s design philosophy and citing lack of balance (or improper pointing) as the rationale for their loss.

            In a game as complex as 40k an army or faction can have a variety of general builds that work across the spectrum, and a few variations or specialized builds those strengths are asymmetrical. But insisting that a niche or specialized build should be able to counter everything on the tabletop doesn’t take into account that doing so de-stabilizes the general builds. 40k is friggin spiderweb; mess with a minor string and all the major strings vibrate.

            I’m certainly not saying the balance can’t always be improve or that points don’t have room for adjustment: 40k is far from as “perfect as it can be”. But if computer programs (which clearly do have an algorithm) still have bugs, it’s not unreasonable to cut game designers a little bit of slack when certain things don’t work just like they do in the fluff. It’s not indicative of laziness or slapdash construction, it’s the result of the degree of complexity present in a game like 40k.

          • Danny Janevski

            Dude shadespire is so simple .. rules are meant for a limited amount of models

          • ZeeLobby

            Too true. It’s really a board game more than anything else, and as far as board games go, not all that complex compared to some others.

          • Frank Krifka

            When you consider the fact that Shadespire has 4 factions released so far, that makes about 12 different match-ups you can expect on the boards. Supposedly Shadespire will have 8 factions when everything is released, bringing the total to 56 different possible matchups on the tabletop. 40k has 29 different factions to choose from, which means in army match-ups alone you have 812 possibilities.

            Granted there is the deck building component of Shadespire which offers some customization, but that pales in comparison to list building in 40k. Two Steelheart faction with completely different decks will still have more similarity that two Space marine armies.

            There’s too much complexity in 40k to achieve anything close to the balance you can get in Shadespire. There’s just too many balls in the air at one time.

          • ZeeLobby

            Hey. I’d be fine if the 40K factions could at least be brought closer together. Which hopefully is what chapter approved does. Shadespire being shopped as a competitive game means there will need to be long term iterative fixes, as new cards and factions are released. It’s possible to do, just not sure GW has ever tried it.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Its way easier to balance something like Shadespire than it is to balance 40k.

            There is no unexpected variation on the battlefield. Every time I play we can only set the two boards next to one another in a discrete number of approved ways.

            The battlefield will always have the expected amount of impassible terrain. It will always have the same number of deployment spots

            I cannot mix and match models from different boxes, nor can I use multiple of the same model. I am locked into the same band of warriors every game.

            My only option to customize my force is picking and choosing cards. Each card has a simple, discrete, non-game altering effect. i have two decks, one with 20 cards and the other with 12. I cannot use faction-specific cards from other factions.

            I mean this game is very “on the rails” compared to 40k, which is a game that allows you virtually complete control over how you construct you army. You can mix and match units from various armies. You can utilize various detachments (and are encouraged to use multiple kinds). You can pick what kind of wargear each unit is armed with. Every battlefield will be different than the next, there is no set standard besides the length and width. 40k is near impossible to fully balance because GW has ceded too many variables to the players. The fact that the game is kind of balanced is pretty shocking, really.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean, is Shadespire REALLY balanced though? I think it’s way too early to make a claim like that. I mean 2 of the factions just got released, and there’s been no major events. Do I think they’ll be able to balance it better than their main games, no doubt, it’s a MUCH smaller subset.

          • zeno666

            Finally someone said what I was thinking.
            Claiming that a game is balanced day 1 is like throwing away a dice because you rolled three 1’s in a row, claiming its broken 😉

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol. Right? It’s like the word balance was on the ad, so it’s gotta be true!

            I’ll wait to see some results in a real competitive venue.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I think once we get more cards and more teams, it will be balanced and fun. The game does not have a lot of moving parts, considering each team’s roster is set in stone.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. Don’t get me wrong. It’s something they could definitely balance. Just think it’s a little early to sign off on what we have so far, which is basically just competitive being thrown around in the advertising.

  • Dan Brugman

    honestly, the best and easiest fix for smite spam I can think of is this:
    “smite may only be cast once per turn unless the unit casts a modified version of smite, then these units specifically may cast it once per unit”

    It would add some complexity, but it’s really the only way to neuter smite spam without punishing the units that are meant to use it as a primary vector of attack.

    Limiting Forgeworld is an entirely different problem as I agree there are some balance issues, but I doubt GW will want to do anything that might heavily impact sales.

    Detachments are also tough. While I hate weird lopsided list building, some of the more odd detachments are needed for armies that are meant to be available to play. Take Dark Angels as an example: Ravenwing need access to outrider detachments, and Deathwing needs the vanguard detachment for either of those lists to play as intended.

    Major points changes or additional stratagems seem unlikely given the speed at which their trying to get the codices out.

    • euansmith

      How about adding Psychic Feedback to Smite, so the more you cast in your turn, the harder it gets or the more likely you are to suffer Perils? I’m imagining it as being like Scanning.

      http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d54bf2eab0f18abcfac3bc6a8c41fcab04566ab76ce35dd5bae7f0b1ab2f64e.jpg

      • Inian

        I also think that this is a nice solution, making it 1 harder for each cast seems reasonable.

        • euansmith

          Maybe it could be like Blackjack with you adding up all the casting rolls, and, if the total reaches 22+, something really, really bad happens. 😀

          • Inian

            If they update Perils of the Warp to happen on a test result of 2 or lower and 12 or higher then a modifier on subsequent tests would become dangerous quite fast.

          • euansmith

            Adding something that says, “If your opponent has a suitable model available when you fail a Perils Roll, they can replace your psyker with a Spawn of Choas under their control.”could put the cockatrice among the pigeons.

          • NNextremNN

            I think giving your opponent control over it doesn’t fit the random Chaos vibe I’d rather see it attack / charge / move to the closest unit. Hide your psyker in the back and risk the spawn rampaging in your back or sent him to the front and risk him getting shot first?

          • euansmith

            I was thinking to mitigate against players spamming cheap Psykers as a Peril’s Bomb; plus, I feel that the capricious and cruel nature of Chaos would naturally seek to use a Psyker’s hubris against their allies. A cosmic application of Sod’s Law. 😉

          • Bigdadi99

            That would be awesome.

        • Muninwing

          2 harder and it’s rare it’ll happen more than twice. that would be a good balance.

      • ZeeLobby

        I always thought this should be a mechanic.

      • stinkoman

        wouldn’t that benefit malefic lords a ton?

    • David

      Yay so all smite is spam is destroyed except grey knights and astropaths works me although honestly I’ve not seen a problem with smite spam it’s basically an AV gun

    • zeno666

      Is Smite itself a problem or the unit(s) casting it?

      • LankTank

        In all honesty it seems to only be players spamming models < 50pts. All that really needs to happen is for malefic lords to do 1 mortal wound and then give renegades the covenant rule for detachments rather than warlord, the commander a buff mechanic for friendly renegades and a ponts reduction to match 4pt cultists

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        The issue is not Smite.

        The issue is that GW is attaching Smite to excessively cheap models.

        GW then gives people incentives for spamming lots of cheap Psykers (in the form of CP).

        GW then gives players the ability to field bunches of cheap Psykers without the usual tax when utilizing multiple detachments.

        • silashand

          This. Malefic Lords being the most egregious of the problem units. Fix the character spam issue and Smite is a lot more manageable.

    • LankTank

      In all honesty tyranids dropping will fix spite spam. Wait did I say fixed? I mean replace malefic lords with zoanthropes. In all honesty I cannot forsee them limiting spite casts without alienating nid, thousand son, eldar players. While I am a chaos player I know we are the prinary cause of the smite concern so we can suck it up. Personally i, think a -1 to your cast each spell consecutively works, or a +1 warp charge needed. Means you can get off maybe 2-3 before you are relying on friendly dice.

    • J Mad

      Dont need to limit, if 1 unit is broke you fix that unit, up the points, weaken it etc… The point of these detachments is to let players play with their collection’s, making things cost a bit more or weaken them a little is better than limiting what can be taken.

      About Smite, its not that bad at all, we need smite, to limit it more you need to make the few units that abuse it cost more is all.

    • Muninwing

      1. make smite charge value 6
      2. make any power only able to be cast once at its power level. any successive casts get +2 each successful time to its charge value
      3. note that it will still be cast on a 10+

      that way there would be a possibility to use it successfully twice with minimum effort, but more than that would be rare.

  • Moke

    Something needs to be done about what used to be small/large blast weapons. They’re not effective enough as it stands, and unreliable as they only get d3/d6 shots.

    • Discoqing

      Nah

      • Moke

        Name three blast weapons that are actually good.

        • Discoqing

          Define good, as all weapons are bad.

          • Angus MacKenzie

            Bam! Nice retort! Also, yeah…blast weapons are fine. Not broken enough to spam and need fixing is not the same thing not effective.

        • Maybe the KMK?

    • Magnus

      Small blasts rarely got more than that many shots/hits back in the day.

    • Sure

      I ran blast-heavy lists b/c I play fluffy. The new edition makes them more effective. The old way just resulted in opponents spreading out their units. Small blasts very rarely covered 3 models and it was tough to snag more than 4 with the large (unless it was a horde army).

      • Nameless

        you are not factoring the to hit roll, which depending on the army can make a big difference to the number of hits generated.

        in older editions, for better of for worse, the ballistic skill of the model firing the blast didn’t have as big an effect on the result as it does now. coupled with the lack of relentless on vehicles, it has gone from getting 1-2 hits for small blasts, 2-4 for large blasts to averaging (for bs4+) less than 1 hit for 1d3, and just over 1 hit for 1d6 after moving.

        • Necrontyr

          So what if a battle cannon, for example, was heavy 1 with the special rule: roll a dice for each successful hits. This is the number of to wound rolls you make.

          That way you either hit or miss like with the old scatter dice but when you do hit, it automatically hits multiple models.

          Gives more statistical variation on the initial hit, I accept. But no different to the scatter being unkind. I would also make all (previously) large blasts 2+ to hit and small blasts 3+ for their “scatter” roll

          • Nameless

            I’m not honestly sure what the best solution is, but I’d expect keeping the current format but with modifiers to the number of shots roll.

            for example, a battle cannon would be 1d6, a eradicator nova cannon might be 1d6+1, and demolisher cannon 1d3+1. the battle tank and the demolisher however are quite strong with their fire twice rule… so I’m not sure they are the best examples

          • Koonitz

            New weapon type. So a Battle Cannon would be “Blast 1d6” instead of “Heavy 1d6”

            Blast weapons: These weapons fire explosive shells or blasts of energy capable of crippling multiple targets in a single shot. While still effective at dealing with single targets, when arrayed against large formations of enemies, these weapons become nearly impossible to miss, even with an untrained hand.

            When fired at a unit, this weapon gains +1 to hit for every 10 models in the unit past the first (11-20: +1, 21-30: +2, et cetera).

            (*This may give plasma cannons, or weapons with a bonus effect on hit rolls of 6+ a little too much power, so a clause to prevent this bonus from triggering these effects, or to prevent them from rendering safety from plasma overheats, may be necessary.)

          • Arcangelo Daniaux

            Easy fix, GW as to reintroduce the notion of natural roll and modified roll. One other thing that they should get into the chapter approved.

        • Muninwing

          … then don’t move?

    • Muninwing

      it’s an average.

      i think if the wounds carried over into the rest of the unit, it would be about as useful as it used to be… but really, it’s not less accurate than it was before. the math is just differentv.

  • Simon Chatterley

    I can’t see them changing smite at all in chapter approved. I want them too but I’m unconvinced they see an issue

    • J Mad

      Dont nee dot change it at all, its working perfectly honestly, it is helping in all the right ways, the PROBLEM is some units are to cheap that can spam it.

      Just make those few units cost more… its not that hard of a solution.

  • Rainthezangoose

    Updating points in the generals handbook 2017 was no biggy, like if something broken fix it man, dont give me that sh*t about having to bring your “generals handbook/chapter approved” to remember one model is 10 points cheaper or more expensive. That only matters when your making army lists and if you dont have a physical army list on a tablet or a sheet paper your not a very sportsmanly player to begin with.

    • ZeeLobby

      I mean the whole driver of the points system should be to use it to adjust the cost of OP and UP units.

  • defensive

    FW models are honestly borderline non existant in 99% of games.
    Apart from 1 or 2 models like the maleific lord, most of the FW models are underpowered or overcosted.
    It’s not 5th edition anymore, where anything bigger than a land raider was FW exclusive.
    Gotta get over it at some point.

    • Simon Chatterley

      The problem isn’t the big stuff. It’s the units were people spot they are under pointed and then spam them. FW isn’t nearly quick enough at the minute to address the issues from the rushed books.

      I agree a lot of it is pretty ordinary but the few units that seemed to slip through are the ones that feel the most annoying.

      • defensive

        It’s really only malefic lords that are broken, and they would be 100% fixed by limiting smite to 3 uses a turn.

        • Massawyrm

          In truth, the Malefic Lords wouldn’t be so broken if there were an actual model rather than a kitbash that everyone and their brother can make. A *lot* of folks would think twice about running six of them $120 for the six. But for the time being, making them like command squads and allowing one per detachment in matched play is the easiest FAQ fix they can drop on them.

          • Coltcabunny

            Just to point out, these (https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Renegade-Rogue-Psykers ) are the supposedly non-existant Malefic Lord models.

          • LankTank

            And the preachers of nurgle models which are my malefic lords. I think they just need either a 20pt point increase or 1-smite modtal wound as opposed to d3. Why should every faction suffer from a change to smite just because of malefic lords?

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Because IG and Eldar have cheap Psykers that will become equally spammed when Chaos ceases to become the go to army.

        • nope none

          Ever fight a Chaos Decimator engine? Just over 200pts with dual Soulburner Petards…Dreadnought statline, moves 10″. and each SbP is 24″ Assault 2D3 where each hit does a mortal wound.

          just one of these guys does an average of 5-7 mortal wounds per turn…

          Broken as all get out!

          • defensive

            I have fought them actually.
            And running the math, they do an average of 2.8 mortal wounds a turn.
            For a 200pt model, I’d rather take a pred with 4 lascannons.

      • NNextremNN

        So FW is no different then GW who would have guessed ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • Magnus

      Imo FW is something Tournament Organizers can easially put a restriction on… which they have done in every edition in the past

  • Marc Berry

    Better rules for los especially concerning vehicles, better rules for moral tests.

    • Me

      I know you meant morale, but it made me giggle to think about how a moral test would work in 40k…

  • Luka Čelan

    Never saw Smite spam, especialy not from Grey Knights since you have more chance of doing more damage to yourself than to the enemy. Every Smite I cast I thorougly think through. And the unit price being what it is in a edition that encourages horde lists each model counts.

    No mention of fixing terminators – they are even worse than in 7th, there at least they had a 2+ from most weapons, now those 2 wounds mean s*** when most weapons lower the armor or deal straight 2 wounds or more. Lack of some version of the Relentless rule also makes them weaker.

    Lascannon and similar weapons are an autoinclude over any other.

    CP totals are completely unreasonable. An Astra Militarum list can easy go beyond 16 CP in a 2000 pts game, while a GK list goes around 6 if you pay the craizy tax of 2 HQs. And the problem is that all the fluffy stuff is in those Stratagems.

    When I tried to watch some games on Youtube lists were so strange looking. Grey Knight Razorback spam for the Lascannon? Dude what?

    As much as there are good things in 8th, there are also SO many wrong things with this edition.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      1/36 chance of doing damage to yourself

      5/36 chance of doing nothing

      29/36 chance of doing damage to the enemy

      1/36 chance of damaging both.

      Assuming a 2 average for your d3 perils damage, that comes out to 0.11 wounds on average to your guys, and 0.83 to your enemy, unless they’re daemons, in which case it’s 1.66.

      Please! STOP THIS NONSENSE! >_< Why do I have to keep correcting "More chance to hurt yourself than hurt the enemy"?

      Unrelated to that: Grey Knight Razorback spam is nothing new. It was everything back in 5th edition. "The more things change," right?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Grey Knights spammed Razorbacks for a long, long while now. Its a cheap tank with a good gun. Not surprising.

  • Bronzskultik

    i’m hoping for the old create your own vehicle rules to be adapted to 8th, so all the cool conversions i keep seeing can be played as someones own creation not just as a counts as.

  • fenrisful2

    Just make smite 1 MW and D3 if above 10
    or simply make it normal wounds with AP-5.
    Other smites can stay as is.
    Giving all index armies troops objective secured would be decent.

    • NNextremNN

      They already said all troops would get objective secured and yes making smite a normal wound instead of a mortal one would make the most sense.

  • Fergie0044

    My wishlist;
    -A clear list of which units are and aren’t now legal. i.e. where the codexs have superseded the indexs. Might not be necessary but would be nice to have in writing.
    -FAQ for core rules. Even just a repeat of what was already done, again just to have in writing. A collection of all the FAQs would be great, but maybe too much?
    -Updated points costs
    -Rules changes like limiting smite to once a turn (some units get a special rule to be exceptions to this like TS or GK but not the cheap spammable guys)
    -Fix stupid rules like flamers auto-hitting flyers.
    -Add deeper rules to the advanced section like more terrain rules and bring back vehicle facing (such as +1 to your AP if attacking the rear)

    • David

      Seconded on the clear list of what’s legal would be really helpful.

      Instead of facing core rules how about rewriting bits of with the current faq to give an update version that doesn’t require as much faqing.

      Fixing flamers is great but hitting fliers isn’t there issue it’s that you can’t deepstrike them and flame, you can be charged by deeps trikes and they don’t get to overeat and they are pants at taking out bug squads of infantry which is why you take flamers.

      As to terrain all fortifications need fixing as none are viabLe since vsg got faqed move back towards 7th make terrain relevant again

    • Bootneck

      Why is a flamer hitting a flyer a stupid rule?

      If a M67 flame tank could shoot jets of fire up to 150m nearly 50 years ago whats stopping that shooting upwards or towards a low flying vehicle?

      It is the 41st millennium after all. It has a range if its within that i don’t really see the problem with auto hits.

      • Fergie0044

        Flyers move at a certain speed. The blasts of flame from a flamethrower move at a certain speed. Guess which is faster? But no you tell me that my plaguespewer can hit a hemlock wraithfigther….

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          because you shoot where the flyer will be, not where it is.

          • Fergie0044

            Well yeah, but you’d need a friendly farseer nearby if that’s your intention with a flamethrower.

        • Bootneck

          But its the 41st Millennium with mind bullets and laser beams!

          I don’t argue the physic’s of the game or try to make sense of that else you lose the fun of it. Just appreciate or hate it for what it is not what science tells us.

          • Fergie0044

            Of course realism went out the window, I’d just like some internal consistency. I mean, this can’t be what the designers intended can it? Flamers being the best anti-air weapon?!?

      • Mira Bella

        Most planes fly higher then 150m.
        The M67 was never used in an AA role.
        The fact that infantry based flamesthrowers are one of the best AA weapons in the game is not an issue with you?
        Do you believe this was intended? 😀

        • Muninwing

          plus, with the *spraying* of incendiary material being a physical requirement of the flamethrower-style weapon, shooting it directly upward to get max height would cut down on its range…

  • Karru

    The things I am hoping for to see in the book are more or less the following:

    – Make Cover relevant

    As it stands right now, Cover really doesn’t come up unless you use loads of house rules to complement it. Only cover that is actually gained is usually LoS blocking, but not everyone has half the table sized blocks that do that. Most people usually go with trees and ruins which were the mainstay of all editions up to this point more or less because you gained cover from being behind them, which is no longer the case. Just make it like it was before in terms of how to gain it, that would be enough.

    – Make vehicles feel like vehicles

    This is one of my biggest gripes this edition. It is not the fact that they die in droves per say, but in the way they are supposed to be “tough”. Since most weapons that are fired at them are usually AP -2 or -3, most vehicles are looking at a 5+ to 6+ save after all is said and done. Their armour doesn’t actually deflect anything 90% of the time, they just soak it since the shot damages the tank but doesn’t disable it. This makes vehicles, especially heavy tanks, feel like they aren’t vehicles at all. Something should be done to address this.

    There are some options that I have come up with. Giving Tanks 0+ save or 1+ save would already make them feel more like tanks. Roll of a 1 would always be a failure, but the thing here is like in the old Fantasy days, when your armour starts to get modified, you need to suffer at least -2 to your save before your save actually starts to drop. So even something like a Melta would still give the tank a 5+ save.

    Also, I am not saying they should give all Tanks this kind of save, only battle tanks and the like. For example, Predators would get 1+ save or 2+ save while Rhinos would remain a 3+ they currently are. It makes very little sense to me that Tanks have the same save as Marines.

    – Put hard limits on detachment spam

    As some have pointed out already, the detachment spam is an issue, mostly thanks to the need for Command Points. I don’t know what would be the best way to do this, because it would actually hurt some of the armies while also keeping it unbalanced for armies like Imperial Guard as they can easily fit the Brigade Detachment to a 2000pts game.

    One way to make it more balanced in my mind is to make it so that Command Points are earned during the game instead of the current way which is army building. At least majority of the command points should be earned during the game by claiming objectives.

    – Make Objectives relevant throughout the whole game

    This is something I didn’t understand why they decided to ignore completely from AoS when they decided to copy 90% of the game already. AoS does a fantastic job with the missions as they are constantly relevant, forcing both sides to move out or lose the game. Just making it so that you score X amount of points each turn you control an objective would be enough to make the game more interesting and not always turn into parking lot and alpha strike where you grab the objectives on the last turn to ensure victory if your opponent didn’t just forfeit before that happened.

    • Fergie0044

      Improving vehicle saves would mean decreasing the amount of wounds they currently have. i was prepared to disagree with you as currently vehicles main survivability come from their toughness and wounds, not their save.
      But maybe that’s what you meant? In that they don’t feel ‘right’ because they just soak up lots of hits rather than have their armour protect them from most? In which case you’re talking about a major over-haul – not likely to see until the next edition.
      IMO they feel fine for the amount of hits they can take, just need a slight points drop. And that’s across the board – it now seems like most vehicles aren’t as effective as troops. And since everything can wound everything, why take them?

      • Karru

        You read correctly as that is basically what I meant. Tanks just don’t feel like vehicles, they feel more like monsters that bleed because instead of suffering hits that take out vital systems, they just slowly lose loads of wounds and then just die. It would feel more different if they had saves to protect themselves from the damage they suffer.

        I do agree that in exchange it would be understandable that they reduce the amount of wounds they have as you do absolutely need to make sure they aren’t unkillable.

        • Bootneck

          So what your saying in short is change one of the biggest changes from 7th to 8th because it doesn’t feel right?

          The games like only 6 months old in its current guise, they won’t change that or any of the core rules whether people like or dislike them.

          They haven’t even released all the codex’s yet so they can’t even say that something doesn’t truly work until then and the game finds its own level.

          I think people are just clutching at straws because they dislike change ultimately.

          • Karru

            What I am actually saying is that I would like to make Vehicles and Monsters different and it wouldn’t even be a massive change. All that needs to be done is drop their wounds and increase their save so that instead of feeling like they are just bleeding to death they actually feel like vehicles that have armour to protect them.

            I feel like you didn’t actually read my argument and suggestion. I am not saying they should bring back Vehicle rules from 7th, I am saying that they should make Vehicles and Monsters feel different in the way they take damage.

            Monsters taking damage from small to medium arms like Autocannons and Bolter Volleys does feel normal, but when Vehicles do the same without their armour doing nothing, it doesn’t feel right. All I am asking is to increase their save, which only causes their armour actually deflect damage, while reducing their wounds reflects Vehicles suffering critical damage more easily than a Monster would.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Not fair.

            Tanks should not get a massive increase in survivability but leave monsters in the dumpster.

          • Bootneck

            I don’t think thats what Karru is getting at, but more just how it would affect them.

            For example:-

            Perhaps a longer slower degradation to monsters, maybe a higher wound poor.

            Then increased save on tanks to represent the toughness of there armour.

          • Muninwing

            hm… yeah. i like that. make vehicles the heavier-armored things they are, and make monsters the tough nasties they are.

            vehicles get better armor, and maybe certain weapon keywords (like melta, krak, pierce, etc) only can reduce a vehicle’s armor. reduce wounds by a few, make that armor tougher, and boom.

            in the other direction, making the creatures easier to get through the armor, but harder to wound in the start… and maybe needing more wounds.

            functionally, though, it averages out… which begs the question of why it needs to differentiate…

          • Karru

            It is not a “massive increase in survivability”. For example, a Predator could be reduced to 8 wounds or something. Lascannon still does D6 wounds against them, all it has to do is get through the armour of the tank. You could still kill them with things like Autocannons, but it is highly unlikely to get through the armour. It would just make Vehicles feel like they actually have armour, because right now they don’t have that at all.

          • Bootneck

            Perhaps I was a little hasty, but I still think it would be difficult to balance fairly. As the majority of factions use vehicles and less so MC, there would likely be some bias.

            I suppose GW have tried to be completely impartial by making them the same.

    • Yep I agree with all of that.

    • Snord

      Well reasoned and sensible – I hope that’s what they’re thinking.

    • Watcherzero

      Kind of agree with you on the vehicles, feels like a Leman Russ or Baneblade are more squishy than an officer with a refractor field. The Land Raider does feel a bit less squishy with its 2+ save as it will usually always get a save even against anti-vehicle weaponry. The light plague vehicles having invul saves is just an insult.

  • Andreas Bergsten

    I would like to see more custom options for generic charcters. Who doesnt want more customisation options?

    • Adam Richard Corrigan

      I wept for my Autarch collection that will now gather dust.

  • Adam Richard Corrigan

    I would like to see the who psychic phase turn to an ability to cast multiples of each power but the 2nd attempt is 2 higher, the 3rd3 higher and so on. FW is fine, for some armies it is the only answer to the Primarchs. It’s up to tournaments to decide how they deal with this issue, I don’t think it should be done by GW. FW could always add a faq for the Malefic lord if it’s that’s big a problem, I’m sure the parent company could force their hand if they wanted to.

  • Wildcard1980

    I think smite is fine, but your better off limiting the unit type for the smite spam then changing how the psychic system works. It’s easier to say can only take 3 primus psychers then make a whole new system that can effect other armies differently. Most of the problems with 8 are solved by fixing the fact that you can take as many of a unit as you want.

    • NNextremNN

      Limiting the number of units is already done be detachments … didn’t quite work.

      Changing smite would be one skill which is used by (almost) everyone. While changing the allowed number of certain psyker units would mean additions to almost all armies.

      • Wildcard1980

        Right but not really because you can as many detachments as you want. So as long as there are no detachment limits there is no real limit to units.

        • NNextremNN

          Well they recommend a 3 detachment limit and all tournaments I heard of used it. It still didn’t solve that problem. Remove the elite/fast/command/superheavy detachment and loose any way to field a Imperial Knight, Deathwing or Ravenwing only army and it still woudn’t fix horde spam or cheap armies getting a lot more CP then expensive armies.

  • Luca Lacchini

    – Add optional rules for vehicle firing arcs (side sponsons and hull weapons) and facing (+/- to save and T as needed)

    – Improve dedicated anti-horde weaponry with DX hits per Y models in the target unit

    – Improve cover and LOS mechanics

    That’s all.

    • Jaime Vila

      Play 7th…

      • phobosftw

        No, thanks, I spend way too much time playing with myself as it is – not in a sexual way, obviously..

      • Luca Lacchini

        Like if those three were the main differences between 7th and 8th.
        No thanks, been there, had enough.

    • Thomas

      That second point is pure genius. Dunno why 1) I’ve never thought of it, 2) GW didn’t implement it from the start.

      • Luca Lacchini

        Thanks. Point 2 remains a mistery to me too.
        Not every DX hits should be eligible, but weapons clearly designed to deal with massed targets would work great (or at least, better).

        • Blinghop

          Some weapons already have the Xd6 per 5 models rule, so they have thought of it, they just need to make it more common.

      • Coltcabunny

        Or you know, just use templates. “Hey let’s get rid of templates from 40k but bring them back for Necromunda because reasons…”

    • Ragnar_Blackmane

      Only if monstrous creatures are subject to the same rules. Surely the sides of a Carnifex are easier to penetrate than the front.

    • KombatWombat

      Exactly the changes I would make, but to change Vehicles to Vehicles and Monsters.

      For cover/LOS, I would suggest the following:

      – A model that is visible but at least 33% obscured from the LOS of the firer is *Obscured* (keyword).
      – *Infantry* models are considered *Obscured* if their base is wholly within a piece of terrain, even if the model itself is not 33% obscured.
      – Whenever a unit targets a unit in the Shooting Phase which has at least 50% of its models *Obscured* from the firer, the target unit may choose to be considered *In Cover* for that shooting attack before any attacks are resolved.
      – A unit *In Cover* receives +1 to its armour save rolls.
      – If a unit chooses to be *In Cover* for a shooting attack, damage inflicted by that attack after failing armour saves must be allocated to *Obscured* models before non-*Obscured* models.
      – Unless otherwise stated, a model that is not visible to the firer can never take damage from the firer’s shooting attacks.

      It’s not perfect, but I think it’s a solid start.

  • David Pitre

    Why not just adjust the points for “smiters” in armies that should not be smite heavy?

    I’m quite annoyed that a wierdboy is more efficient at blowing up tanks than tankbustas. Maybe they could lower the cost of rokkits while they are at it.

    • Watcherzero

      Like Astropath only able to roll 1d6 for smite.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Haha you’re funny! Lets have a rummage round and see:
    – Addressing Smite Spam and Changes to Detachment: Nope not going to happen. GW have said, on several occasions, during Twitch Streams that like exactly AoS Generals Handbook the Chapter Approved book will not make wholesale changes to the core rules; this will happen with Edition updates.
    – FW Limits: Really really, not going to happen as limits potential sale of products. Plus it is really not a thing to see mountains for FW unit in 40K games.
    – Points Changes: We know this is going to be in there, indeed it is one of the main reasons for the book. It really was not an issue for AoS and I don’t see 40K being any different. Generals Handbook is only £20, so £1.67 per month to have, hopefully fair, points costs, plus a bunch of other additional rules.
    – More Generic Stratagems: We know this is going to happen, of sorts. I don’t think we’ll necessarily see more generic stratagems. We do however know every army without a Codex, at the time of publication will be getting a swath of additional ‘get you by’ stuff; presumably in the form of: half a dozen stratagems, warlord traits, artifacts, possibly expanded psychic powers and maybe some trait type options (although I think the latter is unlikely).

    As I say and shall repeat:
    GW have said, on several occasions, during Twitch Streams that like exactly AoS Generals Handbook the Chapter Approved book will not make wholesale changes to the core rules; this will happen with Edition updates.

    I think GW have pretty much told us the entire contents in their WH-Com articles (linked). For summary:
    – An expansion for Apocalypse games of Warhammer 40,000
    Guidelines on running a planetary invasion campaign
    – Updated matched play points for dozens of units and weapons across every army
    – Loads of new Missions for open, narrative and matched play.
    – Tweaks to match play like the all ready Boots on the Ground
    – We are also bringing a whole new feature to Open Play. Designing and building your own vehicles.
    – Give Factions that have not yet received their codex some expanded rules while they wait, allowing these factions to make use of some of the cool new mechanics available in Warhammer 40,000. e,g. all armies getting Objective Secured

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/09/new-matched-play-rules-in-chapter-approved-aug-9gw-homepage-post-1/
    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/31/breaking-news-studio-preview-from-the-nova-open/

    • fenrisful2

      Updated matched play points for armies that already have a codex does not seem likely, but for the index armies this will be great. 🙂

      • I_am_Alpharius

        GW are saying across every army. Granted Eldar and Tyranids will be the least likely to have adjustments, as are Blood Angles and Dark Angles. Fore completeness, the Generals Handbook had every single unit, at the time of publication, in it whether the points had changed or not.

        • Nameless

          it is worth nothing though that the second generals handbook that doesn’t contain the discontinued armies for bretonnia and tomb kings

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Indeed true – yet they would not units available at the time of publication, since you can’t get the minis anymore 😉

          • Nameless

            True enough, but it will be interesting to see if units cut for the codexes will still be included in the chapter approved book

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Yeah – I reckon not e.g. Rough Riders.

            I’m interested to see if units, that may be quietly dropped from future armies, are in there e.g. Ork Trakks and Buggies.

          • Bootneck

            I think it will all be optional extra’s as anything other than that would invalidate all the box sets and the core rule book.

            It wouldn’t be a compulsory purchase again I don’t think they would force that on the community.

            Which gives me the view that it’ll be like those naff books “Death in the skies ” etc which really were a waste of paper for the most part.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            I’m 99.9% sure it was mentioned in a twitch stream that the point updates will also be put up as a free pdf. They’re banking on all the parts of the book to persuade hobbyist to purchase it.

  • Michael Goldsberry

    The Forge World issue, in my opinion, is a matter of Games.Workshop needing to actually manage Forge.World properly, and integrate their team in the 40k rules process, and reviewing the rules for models. I.e. stop treating the forge world team as a completely different team.

    I would be in a really bad mood if CA takes away access to units that help me fill gaps in my Deathwatch army. And I’m lucky enough to play Space Marines: Necrons, Eldar, and other factions have models that allow their factions to fill weaknesses without needing to rely on reinforcements from other factions.

    If FW models are OP rules wise, they should be brought in line pointswise, or have rules fixes. But don’t take stuff away.

    • Spade McTrowel

      Those army weaknesses are there on purpose.

      • Michael Goldsberry

        How so? DW has no heavy support options besides the Land Raider, and the faqd Hellblasters, to be able to field a brigade, and only 2 fast attack choices.

        If they ARE supposed to be there, it goes back to my original point that Gw needs to manage Forge World properly. I can’t think of a single army/faction that doesn’t have models from FW that patch a hole that that army has.

        I’m not saying no army should have no weaknesses. But each army shouldn’t have glaring miles-wide holes

        • Watcherzero

          Deathwatch aren’t a chapter though and so wouldn’t be organised in to a battline army. Lorewise they are supposed to hang around on Inquisition ships forming small kill teams for individual missions, 40k Impossible Mission Force agents.

          • Michael Goldsberry

            If that is the case, why do they have Land Raiders and Razorbacks? Why did Forge World give them access to Sicarans, Leviathan Siege Dreads, Xiphon Interceptors, Thunderhawks, etc?

            The first two are GW decisions, and are multi-troop transports with moderate to high firepower, and kinda kill the idea that they can’t (when needed) create a battleline when it is needed.

            The latter are FW units that DW can take, and again indicate tactical flexibility. Need high-speed air superiority? Need something to completely breach a reinforced Tyranid nest?

            The idea that they would waot around for a passing battle barge when a target of opportunity would show is a bit odd.

            If these are SUPPOSED to be holes, then GW needs to have FW stop plugging them. Because, as it stands, you can build a fairly goos battleline with DW Primaris and Forge World, having other models become operatives that work operationally past the battleline.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            You really seem to be operating in a 5th edition mindset.

            Every army used to have strengths and weaknesses. It was a rock, paper, scissors game.

            Now, the game encourages its players to run complete armies that lack any holes by use of allies.

            I can run a DW Kill Team and back them up by an IG Tank Platoon. I can run a DW biker army and back them up with a massive number of Sisters of Battle.I can run a DW Terminator army and back them up with a whole bunch of SM flyers.

    • Bootneck

      Your forgetting that CA will be for Gameswork shop.
      FW is FW they write rules and create models independently to GW which is why there are such imbalances as they don’t get anywhere near the same play testing.

      • Michael Goldsberry

        Which goes back to my point of treating FW as a part of the company. If they can make models and rules.for 40k, they should go through tbe same process as 40k models. The BS idea of treating them like a red-headed stepchild, and people just accepting it, needs to die.

        • Bootneck

          Separate companies under the same umbrella, like Black Library.

          So unless something changes drastically at the top level above them both i don’t think they would choose to purposely lose there separate identities, ideals etc

          • Bootneck

            But its just a bolt on to help sell their figures even if there are some consequences to that.

            I think somethings have been balance into 8th like some of the larger super heavies – as you can no longer fit them into smaller games as easily where before you could have Reavers and Warhound size units in relatively small points games if you were that way inclined.

  • ChubToad

    I would like to see some kind of fix to command points. Elite armies have so little it is almost impossible to take advantage of the stratagems. Facing horde armies like AM is an insult with their 10+ CPs re rolling to thei hearts content while you keep your four dice hidden in shame.

    On the other points, I do not agree. They don’t really need fixing with this new book. These things are easily agreed upon between players and in the case of a tourney, the TOs can restict these things.

  • Ak318

    One big issue is that if I recall it has been stated chapter approved will be all optional rules. What is being asked for here would not be suitable for it. Optional FAQs would ruin the game.

    • NNextremNN

      yeah optional sure … updated point costs would already make this mandatory not mentioning various additions for index armies.

    • Chapter Approved was traditionally years and years ago the haven for optional add-ons. It never ruined the game before.

      • NovaeVox

        It was Andy Chamber’s extracurricular conceptual sink.

        ‘Have you tried Imperial Guard, on weeeed?’ –And that’s how we got tank platoons.

      • Ak318

        Yes but what I mean is the OP wanted changes to basically matched play rules which cant be done in an optional rulebook.

    • Bootneck

      Narrative play. All fluffy and nice but in reality people wouldn’t bother with them.

  • Dan

    I’d like to see vehicles get to roll 2d6 for armour save with a 3+ obviously being the highest save available. Then they’d likely need a bit of rebalancing in terms of points/armour.

    The nice thing about a 2d6 is that it makes small arms significantly less effective but because the probability curve is, well, a curve and not a line you see interesting effects with AP. weak weapons will remain weak until you reach a certain AP threshold when suddenly they become a lot more effective.

    It’s not a binary outcome like previous additions but it swings the probabilities enough to help simulate “hard” targets a little more closely without adding almost any rules overhead.

    • Bootneck

      Trouble with going back to 2nd edition armour and saves is it creates too big a disparity.

      You would then have to modify the ap of things like lascannons and other anti tank weapons to reflect there stopping power – which in turn would mean they would be OP vs infantry models unless they then had improved saves yadda yadda yadda and so it would continue.

      • Dan

        Anti Tank weaponry having sufficient AP value to ignore infantry armour doesnt sound like much of an issue to me. I’m pretty sure most dedicated anti-tank weapons right now more or less do that anyway don’t they? Would you really be bothered that anti-armour weapons ignored infantry armour? This is of course ignoring that in the grand scheme of things AP 5 is realistically no stronger than AP 500 at this point, random armour bonuses notwithstanding.

        in a 2d6 situation the saves at 7 and 8+ are the most significant in terms of impact. So if light vehicles start around that mark they might lose pretty significant protection to just 1 AP while heavy vehicles, starting with higher values, need to suffer under heavy duty AP to get past that 7/8+ hump in armour value.

        It’s not like we *need* to have situations where vehicles can be reduced to no armour save. They could instead be balanced to have slightly fewer wounds but more dependant on their armour. This too would go a ways in reflecting slightly more accurately how armour works in combat

        • Bootneck

          Fair points but there’s then have TDA to throw into the mix. 3+ on 2D6 made 5 termi’s virtually indestructible in 2nd.

          Which in the fluff they are, but the game is so far from that in every aspect.

          Imo I think the game is cleaner for less bloat let alone more.

  • generalchaos34

    6s always hit, 1s always miss, this is the rule I want to see! It will help out a lot of armies, especially Orks and curb Eldar shenanigans, since negatives to shoot is the new invisibility. Also why is everyone complaining about “having another book” when they are giving us EXACTLY WHAT WE ASKED FOR when it came to regular point reviews and adjustments.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Won’t ever get 6s always hit. Part of the new mechanics of 8th is that certain abilities work on natural rolls of 6 and some stuff works on 7+, 8+ etc…i.e. to get them to work you have to plan in the use of modifiers to get the most of the unit.

      • generalchaos34

        that would stop the 6 always hits, specific counters general, so in the case of a 7+ thats almost always an armor save and has nothing to do with hits. Im worried about cases where you now have flyers that are -3 or more to hit, meaning that for some armies they are completely incapable of hurting them, which at its core is breaking the main purpose of 8th, which was to eliminate BS units that can’t be killed.

  • Orkhead

    since I play Tzeentch Daemons(and NO I do not nor have I ever played Brimstone Spam) taking away or reducing Smite would take all my armies fire power away. Pink Horrors STINK in CC and there Lasgun rip off shoots arnt anything to brag about. If players just bringing nothing but cheap HQs are a problem just limit Supreme Command Detachments to 1 per army. or FOLLOW THE DETACHMENT LIMITS IN THE BOOK.
    On a second note this author could use a spell checker

    • generalchaos34

      that could work, or possibly give supreme command a special rule that drastically reduces command points after the first detachment (too many cooks in the kitchen, perhaps? =P)

    • Bootneck

      Daemons codex in January 2018 so I doubt they would put anything like that in the CA book.

      Plus there are too many armies which would be heavily affected if they did something drastic to smite. Also given that each normal power can only be cast once per phase in match play.

      I really don’t think there will be much in the CA book which will affect match play which will be left for erratas and the main contribution will be to open and narrative play.

  • dinodoc

    Blood Ravens Chapter Tactics

  • Gundric

    They also need to adress the stupid design ideas like the death guard lord not having T5 and DR. Lazy copy and past jobs that make zero sense to the background. I’m sure their are other examples?

  • Andrew O’Brien

    This is the first I’ve heard of a chapter approved book. What is it? Is this supposed to be an updated index or is it a hard print of FAQs or what?

  • Master Avoghai

    I really don’t get the point of « boosting index armies » What the point of editing a book in december to boost armies that will receive a codex the 3 following months?

    As for FW : why a restriction? most of the tournies her forbid FW anyway… <_<
    Why forbid them for a casual match play? How will I play my elysean/dkk or red scorpions army then?

    • For many people, casual play is simply tournament practice so they want tournament rules in casual games as well.

      • Koonitz

        Let them. Let the player tell his own opponent “hey, I’m practicing for tournament X, as such I’d like to use tournament X’s rules packet, including these restrictions.”

        Then their opponent can go “Okay, sure. I’m okay with that.” Or “Nah, I’m more a casual player and would prefer to use the core rules as is. Good luck finding a game.”

        Simple, straight forward, no arguments. Clean. Don’t tell GW to force tournament-goers FW restrictions down upon players just looking to have fun with their models.

        Also, if you’re having problems with particular Forge World models/units, BAN THOSE MODELS/UNITS! Don’t sweeping ban because “dude, OP!”. ’cause then I want a ban on all Primarchs, ’cause “dude, OP!” But we’ll never see that ’cause they’re GW models, not FW.

  • thereturnofsuppuppers

    would like some cool path to glory rules.

  • Liam Lofty Loftus

    Cover being more than just a overall +1 save, have soft and hard cover with +1 and +2 cover saves (would hopefully increase sales of building terrain and make low armour save units like Orks and Nids a bit more survivable)

  • Danny Janevski

    New version was supposed to cut out the many areas of reference. FAQs and indexes and chapter approved is a great effort but alot of it is a very clear strategy to make more money by releasing more books.

    Why don’t GW create an online army builder that’s 1 time pay and they update it continually. I want to know how much paid subscribers battlescribe gets but for the sake of simplicity and supporting the hobby make these updates easier to access. A centralized place.

    There’s rules are all over the place again.

    I hope they don’t fix smite spam as thousand sons are way too expensive for what they can do or have options for. Yeah we have Magnus but I dont want to use magnus in every list to be competitive. I’d be happy if he gets a nerf so the rest of the army gets a buff.. psychic buff too.i mean for an army that is built around psychics the options are poor from 7th to 8th.

    Wrath of Magnus should not have been released and then taken away.. or at least compensation for it of some kind for it becoming unusable months after. That was a $75 book that’s useless for the rules now. Psychics we’re amazing and so many options .

    I’m sick of smite spam but because I am peeved about the change I just run mega smite spam just to show people how borring and annoying it is. Also totally not fluffy.

  • Danny Janevski

    Please don’t break smite spam. It’s my only real viable competitive strategy for thousand sons. The only thing that works is Magnus . I’d be happy to see him take a hit and the rest of the army get a balance. Everything is way over priced … I also paid $75 for that book to have the variety of psychics totally nerfed with SMITE as my 90% go to power in the smite phase.

    • Danny Janevski

      I hate smite by the way. It’s a cop out power/rule GW. Total cop out.

      Also why not create a centralized location for list building and even rules. PDFs is so 90s .

      Make an app don’t rip people off and support it for a very small cost to the end consumer. How is it that battlescribe and the community had to do this for you? Shame on you GW really

  • Derrick Luderus

    Really? FW is unbalanced? Citation needed

  • Tirelion

    Wow cry Moar. Also, the malefic lord does have a model. It’s the old renegade psyker model.