Goatboy’s 40k Thoughts: What Rules Do We Want?

No matter how good the game is – if it isn’t something the consumer wants then it is kind of a pointless endeavor.  So what do we want?

Goatboy here again and the title of my article is the eternal question any game developer asks if they want their “child” to be successful.  No matter how good the game is – if it isn’t something the consumer wants then it is kind of a pointless endeavor.  So what do we want?

Goatboy is on the left…

In the Beginning…

As you guys know about me I look at things from a competitive slant.  It all stems from my initial push into multiplayer games with the discovery of the fighting game Street Fighter 2.  From there it has taken over most of game play life as I find a lot of pleasure in throwing down in a balanced and engaging game.  The key term you can take from this is Balance as while I have been known to be the turd throwing massed fireballs with Akuma – I do enjoy a game where it feels like I can lose as much as it feels like I can win.  It is this “threat” of losing that really makes a game a lot more interesting.  If it was just one side affair then why don’t I just goldfish a game and make sure the other side makes all the mistakes?  Balance is what I really desire most of the time – with every army feeling good and tricksy at the same time as being not clearly dominate.

Hello Chapter Approved

So why am I talking about this?  Well we have the upcoming Chapter Approved coming out in a few weeks.  We have had a few previews from GW, salty leaks from some people, and wishful thinking by a lot of other tough guy writers.  We know there will be rule changes as they previewed some that have leaked out into the competitive tournament scene run by the play testers.  I am sure there will be a few more as we know – while 8th as it sits works out pretty well – some armies seem to have a lot more use then other armies.  I think this comes from the fact they have their full set of rules as well as having options in all phases of the game.  As the armies are designed as a whole a lot of armies don’t have access to all the phases but we can’t have all the cake all the time can we?

First all those already used rules will become official.  Boots on the ground, non soup detachments have troops get objective secured, and getting +1 to go first of army hits the table first are all coming to the official matched play rules.  I also suspect will see some other ones plaguing the competitive table tops right now.  We might see some tweaks to the character rule to remove some of this lack of “choice” an army can face when presented with opposing groups of characters.  I also expect some tweaks to the dreaded Smite power with either a limit set on it – or some kind of cascading difficulty as you throw more dice into the mortal wound damage pool.  From there they might do some limits on Detachment types or even put another damper on the Soup builds with some kind of other damaging rule – like they can’t hold objectives due to being disorganized etc.

I think the biggest thing we won’t see is actual individual army type stratagems and warlord traits.  I expect them to just give a few more “all can use” types of stratagems.  Maybe the ability to burn a command point and have a way to stop a psychic power?  Or how about a flat default one that lets a unit Reroll wounds?  It would seem counter productive to have such individual army rules in a yearly book.  The broader and more default based powers might just be a better one-size-fits-all blanket to allow these armies to work better when faced with the  new-codex-smell some of the other armies have?  I could be wrong, they could give out stuff for everyone, and I am left having to lug around another little book to just make sure my opponent isn’t trying to pull one over me.  But hey that is the constant life of a competitive player as rules, armies, and minis start to come out quickly.

Points Ups and Downs

I feel the biggest thing we’ll see is a few “unit” changes beyond just point increases.  I know GW has had a few events to see a few units show up way to often to be “balanced”.  I think the king of Marines himself – Roboute will end up having a new data slate.  No matter what you think of his power level, abilities, etc – it is a shame that every Space Marine list is an Ultramarine list with him in it.  That is more of the issue as if one unit/model is a must have for an army faction not work – then it isn’t very good for that faction.  You can say the same thing for some of the other Primarchs with Magnus being another “auto included” in a lot of Chaos builds as well.  Now I do expect a lot of point reworks to show up as a method to keep balance with some these Index armies.  The newer stuff will have very little changes as we have all seen the released codex almost always have a unit go down in cost.  We’ll have to wait and see.

The weird leaks that had Death Guard point drops just felt odd as the book is barely out so that would mean the book was printed so long ago that they couldn’t “change” it in time for the release.  I do think the Primaris Marines all need a point drop to make them viable.  While yes it has 2 wounds so you would think it should be double the cost of a Marine – but let me tell you that it isn’t the right way to go about it.  The model still only has the ability to kill x amount of things per model so while it costs so much more it damages the same amount.  They are just not worth the points and I think an army wide drop of 10-20% will at least allow you to have enough bodies to utilize their “toughness”.  Of course this is just me thinking about it as I have faced them and watch them fall when fighting against any “multi” wound weapon.

The Forge World Issue

I think the FW points need a lot more work then anything else right now.  If Smite sees a big change then the main “FW” issue of Malefic lords becomes moot.  This also shores up any other future issues with 10+ Primarus Pyskers and Spirit Seers.  The release of another sub 50 points spell caster means that while the Smite issue is a problem right now – I suspect it won’t be and their point costs will make sense then at that lower level.  It also means a lot of other Spell Casters will see a drop in points for other armies like Weird Boyz and the Daemonic Heralds.  There are a few other FW things that need to be relooked especially with the abusive nature of some mixed armies like Ynarri & Elder (I expect an FAQ this week to answer this) and then any of the Chaos Soups we see.


The last bit of the book I expect is a lot more reworked missions.  It wouldn’t surprise me to see a few different ways to competitively play.  Open War games seem like an interesting set up to play in a competitive tournament with a bit of TO control.  Missions can be mixed and matched, the design feels simple, and TO’s have a lot less “figuring it out” if left in the simple nature of the randomness of the deck.  I  bet some ITC stuff shows up too as per some chatter I heard about this last week.  Their latest mission changes feel like they did some kind of 80’s high five with the Nova missions which usually has the competitive circles happy.  If they give a ton more options, stronger matched play rules, and more support then we know the game will just get better.  Or we hope it does.

What are you hoping to see in this Chapter Approved book?  

I have always said that you shouldn’t invest so much in a new army until we see this book come out and your codex.  Until that happens your “tricky” idea can get quickly FAQ’d into oblivion.  My thoughts are if you feel it is too good – then it is probably too good and won’t stay the same.  We saw this with the AM FAQs and most likely will see it with some of the future “combination” issues we see in the new books.  Right now I am just excited my armies get locked in once the Daemon Codex comes out.  The only thing I am sorta missing is the updated Magnus rules – but I can always wait for the Thousand sons book as he is pretty good right now.

~Until next time – Death to the False Emperor!

  • Lee Ashford

    I do hope to see stratagems for the non released armies. This would be a one off thing for the first book, not a yearly thing. We might not get as many as codex armies otherwise why buy the codex etc. But even half a page ot them would be useful

  • pil kalai

    Death guard needs that point drop!

    • Muninwing

      that’s why my #1 is
      redo the points algorithm

      followed soon after by
      #2. fix psychic powers (especially smite)
      #3. add the rules they forgot to put in that deal with terrain
      #4. add support structures, templates, story ideas, etc for narrative leagues
      #5. fix characters, especially the too-powerful ones (RG), or the character exploits (assassins)

  • Majere613

    Related question- did Eldar get ObSec in the Craftworlds book?
    If they did I can’t find it- they have Battle Focus and Ancient Doom in there, but not that. Does that mean they simply don’t get it, or is the thing of Troops getting ObSec in battle-forged armies now considered such a generic rule that it doesn’t need to be in the newer Codexes?

    • AkulaK

      They do have it, in the same page than the Craftworld Attributes, the rule is called the Path of War.

      • Majere613

        Ah yes, there it is, thanks. Still find the way the rules are split to either side of the datasheets very irritating!

        • AkulaK

          I find it stupid aswell, but i can see the logic behind it… The first rules apply to the whole army no matter the detachment and the second ones (after the datasheets) apply only to battle forged detachments.

        • Muninwing

          the datasheets in general are a way of seeming easier without actually being easier. i’m not surprised they’re needlessly cluttered.

          what we really need are printout rights. as in, buy the codex and/or the rules, get explicit permission to print out only what you need at your own expense, and mark it up. so you carry your licensed digital copy on your phone, but you have the relevant pages you need all organized in a binder, highlighted and tabbed how you see fit.

          then, USRs can be a thing again instead of these cluttered datasheets. it would be easier, and it would mean the same thumbing through looking for a specific page.

  • vlad78

    Better cover and difficult ground rules.

  • defensive

    The FW issue is moot.
    Only the Malefic lord is broken, and a general smite fix will put a stop to that.
    Other than that, every other FW unit is at least balanced, if not underpowered.

    For point changes, I’d like to see Death Company and Furioso dreads knocked down a fair chunk. 200pts for dreads that will only do as much damage in combat as a 150pt venerable dread, AND with less shooting potential and options seems a bit crap.
    And also giving blood angels access to cataphractii termies. Duncan even made a video on how to convert these bad boys a couple months ago, and now boom, gone.

    Also, boots on the ground is already an official rule.

    • Sam Shand

      Im sure the Blood angels codex release coming out next will help give them the love (points drop) they need

    • Garr Davies

      Agree. I found it strange that the author just did not call it a malefic lord issue instead of a general forge world issue.

      • Moonsaves

        It’s a long-held (pretty incorrect) belief that FW is stupidly powerful “pay to win” options. It’s easier to sell that FW is the problem and appeal to hysteria than just say it’s one model that needs tweaking via change of standard rules.

        If anything, FW needs a lot of point reductions, as there’s no point taking many of them with the ludicrously cheap and power standard units about.

        • Lebowski1111111111

          There has always been ridiculous overpowered forge world units and last edition tournaments took steps to ban them without hoping and praying for a points adjustment. You never saw revenant titans or the tau’nar because they were so good they got banned. ITC literally banned every single FW unit that had large templates and ignored cover.

          The 400 point stompa last edition, eldar hornet and warp hunter were head and shoulders about any other tank in the eldar book. Im pro FW and own a ton of it, but i can understand why some people who sound not like a tournament player dont want to play it.

          • Koonitz

            Personally, I find the Necron Gauss Pylon could use a look over, as well. Capable of casually one-shotting tanks almost twice its cost (despite its primary weapon being anti-air), able to deep strike, thus always getting the first shot, regardless of first turn, more wounds than said double points tank, a 5+ invulnerable save/living metal, and starting at BS2+ because of a reason I can’t figure out.

            Its only weakness is that it is immobile and useless against hordes outside 3″/18″ (its main weapon’s primary fire is 120″, so no outranging that). Because hordes are tournament meta, it’s the only reason I haven’t seen it dominating Necron lists.

        • LankTank

          Forgeworld just seems to have a massive inconsistency. Look at renegade ogryns then look at plague ogryns. Or the more expensive commander to the malefic lord

      • Muninwing

        probably a holdover from the intro in 6th of “FW is legal” and the resulting backlash…

    • Primarch Vulkan

      I think it would be simpler if FW would just come out and drop the Malefic lord. There was no model for it anyway. Then change the way primaris psykers smite power works just like GK and 1k sons.

      • Nathaniel Wright

        Or maybe it’s a matter of boosting the malefic lord’s price instead of just saying ‘uhhhh no lol u don’t get that thing that an IG army gets lol’.

      • LankTank

        Umm I have malefic lord models from forgeworld. They just need to be 50pts min

    • Steven Hyche

      Shadow specters arent balanced (under costed big time) and underpowered is not balanced.

  • Fergie0044

    “Roboute will end up having a new data slate”

    Really? I wasn’t expecting them to re-work the data sheets, just the points cost. Isn’t that why they keep the two separate now? A real shame as I’d love to see the Ad-Mech guys get a power buff rather than a price decrease (Not the big stompy robots, they need a price increase but most other things are over-costed). Or else they’ll become a horde army, which makes me sad.

    • Primarch Vulkan

      Ya i think they will simply up the points on him. Then you might think about taking Calgar for once.

      • LankTank

        The rumours are a point hike. About another 50pts or so?

  • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

    We were promised different ways to play with 8th. But basically we got a stripped down non cinematic game for tournament players and a stripped down non cinematic game for narrative players.

    They seem to have forgotten to write the third version, the detailed, cinematic game involving tactics and templates and facings and the things that veteran players liked. We don’t quarrel over whose under a template and we love scattering deep striking and scattering templates and potentially exploding vehicles for all the fun they give us.

    If they had included this version as a sop to old time players then I’d still be playing 40K. Would have been no skin of GW’s nose, and tournament players could have ignored it.

    • Snord

      Nicely put, although the abandonment of features I’d always thought were a big part of the game’s appeal – such as facing/armour values for vehicles and templates – still mystifies me. As do the rules for terrain.

      Primaris Marines are clearly the first wave of a re-working of the Marine range, hopefully so that the Marines are equipped more like a self-sufficient expeditionary force (I predict we will eventually see a new range of Primaris-style vehicles, which will eventually replace the existing vehicles). But like many of GW’s first waves, they’ve not been fully thought through, and are currently rather bland. They need a points decrease, pretty much across the board, for a start.

    • el_tigre

      I agree to a certain extent, but I think keeping 7th rules for the Heresy mitigates the problem a little. Playing orks against eldar using that ruleset might take a bit of fudging, but the option is very much there.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        Yes thank goodness though a lot of folk don’t like fudging and want to use new models that don’t have rules in 7th so it might be hard to find opponents.

    • Marc Berry

      Wow you hit that nail right on the head!

  • Drpx

    Still not getting Primaris if I can’t put them in Rhinos, Razors or pods. Hope GW doesn’t nerf transports and old marines further because nobody is buying their New Coke.

    • Moonsaves

      You’d think that they would want to integrate them by letting them into existing transports etc.

      • Nathaniel Wright

        Gosh it’s like people want to replace standard marines with Primaris marines now.

        • Moonsaves

          Right, and it’d be easy if people knew that their existing Land Raiders etc could take Primaris passengers. It’d get rid of a few holdouts.

  • James Regan

    yes, death guard was printed that long ago.. I mean, freaking white dwarf has a 3 month lead time, a codex, especially when printing extra in advance to shuffle them out quick, could be a year or more

    • OctopusVolcano

      I’m seriously hoping this is the case with the half-finished admech codex.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      WD has a 6 month lead time in term of production i.e the December issues was put together around July time.

      Remember studio works usually around 12 months ahead of release. Likelihood is every codex is ready to go and will only need any edits they want to make based on other codex feedback.

      Codex and various other publication are only printed until till about 4-6 weeks until the release date – they simply don’t have the Warehouse space to hold loads of stock that is not out for months. Up until then GW can submit updated copy to the printers. You’ll notice in the WD they rarely have spread with pictures of Codex pages and in the blurb at the be at the front it states that contents of images in the WD may vary from the actual products.

      • Nameless

        I’d be suspect of those lead in times, if that where the case then chapter approved must have been written before 8th dropped.

        If it was written before 8th dropped, then it can’t have much if any input from the last few months of playing 8th.

        Equally all of the codex’s with changes to the profiles of the index units lack a lot of sense. why have two different rules written before you get any feedback?

        I’d believe that the models are ready that long before release, but not convinced that the books are written more than a few months ahead of release.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Well thats the way the Studio works and how far GW are working and thinking.

          GW operate on a faint 10 year working plan of release, a 5 year outline plan of releases, and then around 1 year ahead for nearly set in stone product schedules. Releases are only left “locked” in, so to speak, come the 6 month WD lead time. Outside of that their plans remain fairly fluid.

          Of course they can have input. Bare in mind 8th was launched in May with all guns blazing through the use of the index’s that means for Chapter Approved they have had 5/6 months of the whole player base feedback to take on board and make any tweaks they want to it – plus they get continue feedback from the Mournival play testing group all the time. You’ll also probably find the “minor” tweaks to points and stat-lines broadly numbers they where on the fence about e.g. the toughness of Wraithguard. Far better to use the Index datasheet for the stats and points that have been fine during play testing or erring on the side of caution. Yet when 1000’s play turn out to be not good enough or too good. Just look at the Hive Tyrant; GW have said the changes to that unit have entirely based on feedback received since the launch and players finding that it was far to easy to kill.

          • James Regan

            I suspect some of the codexes, given that 4-6 weeks is print and distribution time, and times between releases being less than this, may have been printed slightly earlier to keep up with their current release schedule- depending on rates, this could have been cheaper than more than doubling print capacity for some months- this would obviously be a short term measure, as it’s part of the 8th ed. release, but they’d likely have some relatively reliable estimates of demand for ‘everyone replacing all their current codices’ given they’ve a lot of back history of codex sales etc.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            1000’s of copies can be printed in days at modern printers. Modern roller printers can churn out over 20km (~12 miles) of print in and hour! Getting a book printed, bound and ready for distribution mere takes days.

  • Gary Smith

    This is the first edition of 40k I’ve got into since 2nd, so I speak as someone with very little experience of the system.

    With that caveat firmly in place, I think I hope, more than anything else, that Bell of Lost Souls will finally hire a proof-reader.

    • ZeeLobby


  • BaronVonYoloing

    What I would like to see (but won’t ever happen I suspect) is more of an incentive to make your own characters rather than using an established special character from their respective army.

    Forget all the moaning about facings or templates or whatever. To me I feel disheartened that all I see on gaming tables is assorted armies led by their respective special character. It’s boring and I can’t fathom why these same characters happen to be at every fight going.

    • euansmith

      Meanwhile, in sanctum of Lord Roboute Guilliman, sometimes referred to as the “Avenging Son,” “The Victorious,” “The Master of Ultramar” and “The Blade of Unity”…

      “Finally, a few minutes to myself. I can get down to doing that rewrite of the Codex: Adeptus Astares I’ve been planning, and I can look over the reports from the reconnaissance in to the Dark Imperium, and I can look at balancing the galactic economy and finding that cure for the common cold…”

      “Boss! Boss! You’ve gotta come quick! A company of Ultramarines have got in to a bar brawl with some Imperial Fists! Only you can sort it out!”

      “Emperor damn it! Bring me my fighting trousers!”

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah. Herohammer. It’s one of the reasons WMH does not appeal a ton to me.

    • Koonitz

      THIS! EVERY SINGLE DAY, THIS! This is 100% exactly how I feel about special characters being “must take” or having the best versions of certain rules, like “reroll everything” instead of “reroll 1’s”.

      I’ve gotten to the point now where I don’t even play batreps that include any 40k primarch, Cawl, or any of the other “must take in every list” special characters in the background when painting. I immediately turn them off and look for something else.

      I love the lore and the narrative built up by GW for 40k and Horus Heresy. Heck, Magnus and Ahriman are THE REASON I started my Horus Heresy Thousand Sons army. But I have my own Praetor, with his own name and story, leading my force. Maybe Magnus and Ahriman will show up from time to time, but they will not be in every one of my lists.

      I started playing 40k in 3rd Edition. An edition where EVERY SINGLE SPECIAL CHARACTER (bar none) had the following rule in their datasheet, “requires opponents permission to field”.

      Now, I play Iron Hands in 40k. This pedestal would be where I put all my special characters, if I had any.

      I want to tell my story in the 40k/30k universe. Not their story.

  • Heinz Fiction

    There is an easy fix to the Forge World issue: don’t inlude Forge World in your Games. Served me well for the last 25 years and spared me a metric ton of overpowered cheese.

    • What about the metric ton of overpowered cheese from the core game?

      • Heinz Fiction

        Just as obnoxious but sadly much more difficult to filter out…

        • Muninwing

          … because the issue is not FW. meaning that you are filtering out decent quality stuff over a personal beef, with no greater success rate.

          playing DA in 6th-7th, the only air protection i had was fielding Mortis and Contemptor-Mortis dreads. with those, my army was fine. without, it was a crapshoot.

          if your army was solid enough to not need supplement, then that’s good for you. but FW did some serious leveling of the field in a lot of cases in the last two editions, far more than the one or two units that needed a points-adjustment.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Actually I’m open to play against anything, even your homebrew Codex:
            Klingons, as long as we have a chat beforehand and I come to the
            conclusion that it’s fair. So far my only contacts with Forge World
            (very few to be honest) were rather unpleasing though.

          • Muninwing

            that chat beforehand is incredibly important, really. and while i might question just why you felt the need to homebrew an army for Klingons, or how much extra cash you have to make a whole army of them, yeah i’d still play against it if it seemed like it was solidly balanced.

            i think too, as with anything else, what you are exposed to will cause you to evaluate part as whole. i have far bigger issues with some “official” units and rules imbalances than i have ever run into with FW, so there’s my stance. i can see if you’d only run into a 5th edition army running an assault ram or one of the other few borked choices why you’d want to cut them from the game.

    • ZeeLobby

      When apocalypse was it’s own separate thing, the world was a better place.

    • Nathaniel Wright

      ‘overpowered cheese’

      lmfao. So long as someone can cling to one model of one army and call it cheesy, they’ll always feel ‘right’.

  • What sells to the overwhelming masses?

    Simple, stripped down rules.

    Why do people continue to play 40k? Not for the great rules. Rather because there are a lot of people with a sizable investment in their miniatures that aren’t going to set fire to their army on youtube, and because of that there are people to play against so new players feed the cycle.

    Great games with great rules often sit by themselves with few people playing because everyone wants to play what everyone else is playing.

    And simple stripped down rules are what sells a lot more these days. Thats just a fact that other companies are latched onto as well. If it didn’t make them a lot of money they wouldn’t do it.

    As to the forgeworld issue, I wouldn’t play in any event or against someone that bemoaned forgeworld. There is just as much broken hot garbage in the core game.

    • Ronin

      I’m very thankful for the stripped down rules because it helps grow the community and I can encourage people to get into the game without overwhelming them. Trying to get them into 7th edition was god awful since it seemed catered to the 10 year veteran neckbeards who have PhD’s in tabletop gaming. 😉

      • To a point thats true. But that was more of the game was so complicated and not inuitive I think.

        Battletech, for example, has complex rules. But the community here is going strong with it and introducing new people.

        The stripped down AOS and 40k rules have had a detrimental effect in my area for players. It ran a lot of them out and has now kind of institutionalized this idea that any complicated or more complex terrain rules, etc… should be shunned.

        • Heinz Fiction

          I’d argue that the rules of previous editions weren’t really more complex, rather than more complicated. There were a lot of rules that added no depth to the game but existed just for pseudo-realism (intended to make the game more realistic when in fact they didn’t), or because they have been there forever.

          • That depends on how the individual defines “complex”. Most people that I know define complex the same as complicated.

            Regardless, current game development pretty much across the board seems to be strongly in favor of as simple as possible, which includes as few rules as possible.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I don’t think people are anti-complexity. What i think is going on is a recognition that you cannot front load that complexity.

          • I dunno. I’m sure some people aren’t anti-complexity but when I go to pro AOS boards or facebook, many of those people are vehemently anti-complexity.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            But AoS is much more complex than people give it credit for. The complexity of the game is 100% contained on the data sheets.

          • The real point of contention is that AOS doesnt operate as a “wargame”. It operates as one step from a board game.

            Things like terrain, maneuvering, etc… these classically have rules applied to them. Wargames have always been about maneuver and dealing with the battlefield as much as dealing with your enemy.

            AOS doesn’t care about any of those things. Terrain doesn’t hinder your movement. Maneuver in many cases is secondary. Many forces can storm across the table in one turn, or just alpha strike and bypass movement altogether by just showing up where they want to.

            So while AOS is indeed a game and there are complexities within it, they are more gamey complications as opposed to wargame complications .

            Thus the people saying there is no complexity are not wrong. From a wargamer’s perspective… there is little complexity. From a gamist perspective there is complexity but that is showing that those people want a wargame and not a boardgame or something related to a boardgame.

            The people that invested in a wargame and had the wargame discontinued for a form of board game will never see any positive in the board game because they would never have spent money on the board game given the choice.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            When I played Warhammer Fantasy. Terrain was always an after thought. Mostly they were minor hills or a few houses. No real obstacles to your battle.

            I do agree that units move too quickly in AoS and I do dislike that terrain is largely pointless but that does not mean WFB was the bastion of these ideal qualities.

          • I didn’t say WHFB was the bastion of these ideals 😉 However every actual wargame has terrain rules. Thats definitely one thing that turns off anyone looking for a wargame and picking up a copy of the AOS rules.

            Also, the terrain saga has gone on for many a year mainly because tournaments encourage people to not use terrain since tournament tables were often bereft of any terrain.

            The vast majority of any of my WHFB games that were not competitive tournament games had a lot of terrain that did impact the game quite a bit (because I always had to deal with raging gamers that hated that I used a lot of terrain when their tournaments did not and it wasn’t “fair”)

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Every piece of terrain in AoS has rules, which can (and do) impact decision making. I find many people just abandon the rules for the terrain and focus on “smashing” their armies together.

            I am the same way with 40k. I love playing with tons of terrain. People hate it because, like your fellow players, it is not the way they are used to playing.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Maybe being all about terrain and maneuvering just isn’t the best approach for a high fantasy setting. If you have dragons, Wizzards and steampowered air ships maybe that hill isn’t all to important from a tactical point of view…

          • Nah that doesn’t fly with me. Wizards and steampowered airships don’t make up whole armies.

            Hand waiving terrain and maneuvering is simply making the game easier for people that don’t want to deal with that kind of thing, which historically has been a lot of people. For 20 odd years people have whined about terrain getting in their way or “screwing them over”.

            Removing terrain the way they did was nothing more than catering to the fact that a lot of people did their best to not use terrain at all.

            There are reams of high fantasy fiction where hills and maneuvering and rivers slowing you down were things in fantasy warfare.

            Nothing about high fantasy makes maneuvering and terrain suddenly not count anymore.

        • ZeeLobby

          This. 7th was just poorly worded and overly confusing. Definitely a difference between a complex and confusing game system.

          • Muninwing

            i think 7th was more complex and more confusing.

            so players wanted to cut all the bloat, streamline the overworked parts, and simplify certain ideas.

            unfortunately, what GW took that as was to gut the whole game, replaced many complicated concepts with averages or summaries, and then arranged the information in such a way as to look simpler when it is not.

        • Ronin

          I might be wrong, but Isn’t Battletech more of a skirmish game, though? I feel like a lot of folks want skirmish level details, but aren’t willing to consider the fact that it’s not optimized for a massive wargame like 40k is unless they’re willing to spend a whole day playing just one 2k game lol.

          • Its low model count yeah. Well you can get army level games with it, but the scale is 6mm.

            I’m not after super detail in 40k. I’d like forests to block liine of sight though lol and minor terrain rules in the game. Things like that.

          • Ronin

            I can get on board with that. We used to play it that way where forest block line of sight unless you’re in them.

          • Thats how I houserule any campaigns I run as well.

          • Koonitz

            The good ol’ 3rd Ed rules for forests. Line of sight through a forest is blocked. Line of sight INTO a forest is up to 6″. As such, you can see into a forest up to 6″, but if it is deeper than 6″, you are blocked past that point. You could not see through a forest to the other side, even if it was less than 6″ thick.

            This was, of course, house ruled if playing on a jungle board where everything is forest (We usually increased it to 12-18″).

            Man, I love dense, LoS blocking boards….

          • It makes it a wholly different game and brings some excitement back, thats for sure.

    • Muninwing

      i kinda wish there was an alternate ruleset that was better for tactical challenge and normalized play… then we could all just use that.

      • I have asked for that very thing and had rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at me lol. No one wants to divide up the community even more.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Dear Emperor, please stop with this…I think this the 4/5 article on the hope of what will be in Chapter Approved! Why, honestly, keep bang on the door for Core Rule changes via the Chapter Approved format? GW have said on numerous occasions that like, AoS Generals Handbook, that is not the purpose or intention for this book format. Wholesale or tweaks to the Core Rule will only happen when they decide to publish an updated rules set!

    Anyone wishing for changes to the CORE RULES is going to be severely disappointed. I believe 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 rules, like the all ready mentioned Boots on the Ground
    – 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



    • euansmith

      Its the “clicks”, man, the “clicks”… Its all about the “clicks”, and we fall for it every time.

    • Heinz Fiction

      So they are serious about selling updated point values in a book format? They’d better put them online for free as I will as sure as hell not pay for a patch.

      • I_am_Alpharius

        I believe all the point updates are going online as a free PDF for that very reason – I’m 99.9999999% sure that was said in one of the WH-Tv twitch streams. Its the rest of the contents that is aimed at tempting customers to purchase it.

    • Marc Berry

      …and scenery rules and rules for like of line sight other than a vague (get behind the model and have a gander)

      • Muninwing

        until 5th, the “true line of sight” was not an issue. terrain had rules, and followed certain abstracts. it worked well. now, it may as well not exist.

  • Mike X (Official)

    We want Primaris Marines to be Squatted!

    • Primarch Vulkan

      Totally agree. I would of rather they just replace the standard marine line one box at a time then do this side space marine thing

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation


    • Ronin

      Eh. After reading more about them from their perspective in “Dark Imperium” by Guy Haley, I’ve grown fond of them, especially Captain Felix. I like how the Primaris marines actually do look up to the old marines as veterans and admit that they had a really rough start in their first battles. I’ve actually stopped using Sicarius in my Ultramarines 2nd company (since he’s Guilliman’s Victrix Guard champion) and switched to a vanilla captain in Gravis Armour because of the novel. It’s actually a fascinating read because it wasn’t just battle porn, but showed the politics of the imperium and how Guilliman’s return and the Primaris marines changed some things and didn’t change others. Also, it hints that they have the primaris blueprint for the legions that joined Horus.

    • Muninwing

      i’m actually ok with Primaris, if they stay limited, they stay reasonably priced, and if they don’t interfere.

      as much as i feel it is a crappy addition to the fluff, it’s got room for some changes later that could redeem it.

  • Muninwing

    ” It is this “threat” of losing that really makes a game a lot more interesting. If it was just one side affair then why don’t I just goldfish a game and make sure the other side makes all the mistakes? ”

    yes. as much as Goatboy gets flack for his spam lists, this is the core of my issue with GW games. it’s why balance matters. i would play more, meaning probably buy more, if the game(s) were better constructed.

    and though i well know that perfection is not a goal to be reached, it is an ideal to work toward — so perfect balance might not be attainable, but that’s no reason not to make fixes to a broken product.

    • Tournament play / matched play – is all about the game’s end
      Narrative play – is all about the journey

  • Hagwert

    What do we want ?……..

    We wanna do what we wanna do….. we want to get loaded….and we wanna have some fun !!!!

  • Ronin

    Smite needs to be normalized somehow between armies either by model count or unit cost. It makes no sense that my Grey Knight paladins do only 1 mortal wound when those cheap primaris psykers get full smite. GK need that psychic firepower to make up for their lack of bodies.

  • Inian

    I doubt it will come in Chapter Approved, but hopefully the next edition of 40k will have improved profiles.

    Feel no Pain, or whatever that rule is called for each unit, should be part of the profile, right after the save. And they should not stack, you use the best one, just like with your saves.

    Weapon profiles should have a column with the “to hit” modifier, where we can put the -1 from power fists and the like.
    They should also have a “number of attacks” column where the +1 attacks from using a chainswords and similar weapons should be.
    These two “abilities” are common enough and simple enough that two extra columns would improve reading the melee weapon profiles a lot.

    Also, I hope they move away from D6 shots and D6 damage being overused. Those are just extra dice rolls that are not needed, the 4 main ones are enough for satisfactory randomness (To Hit, to wound, to save, to feel no pain). This would also give weapons more flavour. It makes sense for a few weapons, but for most a hard number would do just as well.

    • Muninwing

      one rule for “blast” would normalize the number-of-shots roll… maybe 3 shots per 5 models in the unit? half the number of models left, rounding up? something like that.

      i’d love to see streamlining of profiles in sensible ways, since so many of their changes were not sensible ones.

      • Inian

        Some weapons already get more shots at larger units, but I don’t see this becoming a very general rule. And I don’t want to penalize large units too much either as they already suffer from morale a lot more than small units. Perhaps those types of weapons should just have two profiles, where the second stipulates it may only be used on units of a certain size. But I have to admit, I haven’t given this much thought.

  • chris harrison

    I want the same thing I’ve wanted since second edition. A massive points reduction across the board for Orks. Why? Cuz I luvz da greenskinz!!!

  • Marc Berry

    Better rules for los especially concerning vehicles and better rules for scenery.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    The Maelific Lord is not the real problem.

    Smite is not the problem either.

    The problem is that GW lets you spam smite to your heart’s content.

    The problem is that GW has given full smite to excessively cheap units.

    The problem is that GW has given people unlimited access to detachments that lets them spam these cheap smite batteries without paying any kind of “tax”.

    Just saying, there are other issues that underly this whole issue.

  • Neil Burns

    Activation style gameplay. I go you go is archaic, and doesn’t work.

  • Sniddy

    I don’t often say this but I couldn’t read the article – was this proof read at all? I gave up when it started talking about smite as it was garbled and hard to follow

  • eMtoN

    A reason to put my DE on the table beyond just using Ravagers.

  • Marco Marantz

    I would like rules about how to set-up a table WRT to terrain, number of pieces etc…and of course better terrain/cover rules. Terrain setup rules would have been more important last edition but its been a long time since this was even touched upon, and then it was pretty brief, for what is an important part of the game.

  • Marco Marantz

    Also the game needs rules for alternating activation. The game will always be C grade while it uses I-GO-U-GO.

  • Marco Marantz

    the more i think about it there should be some units with special rules, perhaps stratagems that prevent units from falling back from melee. Also reserves might help counter the 1st turn/alpha strike advantage