Improving Upon 8th Edition 40k/9th Ed Wish Thread

This is a no-brainer.

They should also keyword abilities. For example all the abilities that allow units to hit first could just be keyworded SWIFTSTRIKE and then you can avoid the massive block of text explaining what you do when two units have abilities like that and instead say "units with this ability always strike first in the Fight phase against units that do not have a SWIFTSTRIKE ability".

Revised Overwatch:

Currently, Overwatch isn't an actual "choice" but mostly busywork that exists to penalize assault. At the same time, 2e overwatch made the game a bit too static.

Proposal: A middle ground/lesser form of 2e overwatch. A unit may skip shooting in its turn in order to enter Overwatch.
If your opponent attempts to Shoot or Charge one of your units that is within 6" of at least one of your units with Overwatch, select one of those Overwatching units.
It may make a round of shooting against the attacking enemy unit at -1 to hit, then it exits Overwatch.
Tau can get a longer (9-12") support range, certain units (I'm thinking the Wyvern) can ignore the Overwatch Penalty, etc.

And the player going 2nd can start with some stuff overwatched too.

Hashtags were a stupid idea from day one.

You're a retard. The keyword system is one of the most objectively clear straight up improvements to the game in 8th edition.

I fucking hated the Avatar of Khaine shitfights. And he doesn't even have his immunity to flame weapons now, anyway. Giving vehicles wounds, this was necessary in some degree.

How?

That's...kinda shitty. There is very little reason not to just shoot in your own turn, since you only get 1 shot at it, it's at a penalty and doing it on your turn gives you more control/lets you remove a unit before they do stuff.

Warmahordes does keywords cleanly enough in tandem with USRs. So you know which models count as Trenchers, as Winter Guard, etc.

Of course, GW gonna GW.

Mind I wrote the rules around late 7th. I imagine the main challenge would be that 8th lets you target multiple units with shooting, and since overwatch is vs one unit, you could create a "thousand papercuts" situation where one player chips away with units not worth overwatching.

The real thing it would defend against is stuff like DS Scions, pop-up units, fire-and-fade, etc.

See:

Was the Avatar itself an actual shitfight? Most flamer weapons were "flamers as defined in the rulebook" or so iirc, and Melta and Soul Blaze (in what was the greatest bit of irony of 7th, the Avatar of Khaine was immune to Gulliman since he had Soul Blaze) were USRs.

The real shitfights happened when asking if Pulse Weapons could be affected by Plasma Syphons/Haemtrope Reactors.

Melta had the special rule, but flamers/flame based weapons didn't. To my great shame, I once conceded the point to a dice roll that a flamer 'isn't a flame weapon, it's a weapon that shoots promethium'.

I'll write most of what bothers me as chaos guy:

Blast templates (No flamer ones)

More elaborate chapter/legion tactics. This is worst part of 8e, all these traits are puny and most are copypaste. compare it to motherfucking Traitor Legions.

More customization options to characters, more reasonable weapon options all round (Why can't plague marines take heavy bolters or missile launchers?).

Some bonuses based on keyword, since as for now there're none.

Fixed RnH.

...Initiative wasn't bad I guess? And yeah, vehicle facings/shooting angles are must.

Less focus on primarchs/big toys.

Tau Auxies, plastic bolter bitches, plastic aspect warriors.

I want Unique Characters to be an army-wide sidegrade.

>Farsight gives +1WS & -1 BS to crysis suits.
>Lysander gives Stubborn but cannot fall back
>Guilliman makes all boltguns Assault 2 20”

There should be a reason to take them and a reason not to.

>Psychic powers for offense are largely shit because mortal wounds are anti-everything and if they're good they become uncounterable
Divorce mortal wounds from shooting powers. Give them regular weapon profiles. Buff them and make them more diverse and flavorful.

>Smite spam and psychic focus
Change psychic focus to the following: any power that has been manifested in a given psychic phase can be attempted again by another psyker that also knows that power, at a stacking -1 penalty. If the power fails to manifest or is Denied or prevented in any way, it cannot be attempted again that phase.

>Soup and overly permissive army compositions
Extend the lockout on faction rules and other special rules from detachment-wide to army-wide. Every detachment must belong to the same faction in order to benefit from said rules. You can still take soup detachments or detachments of different factions, but they lose access to their faction traits and so on.

So... USRs?

The example you gave means taking Farsight is an auto lose.

Not really in favor of the -1 for successive castings. Aside from the whole "Mortal Wounds versus 2+ invul/hitmod creep" kerfluffle, one of the big issues with the 8e psychic phase is the Rule of One as a bandaid over powers lacking internal balance.

I personally like something akin to a "modified 7th" psychic phase and Kings of War Magic, where casting and denial is by "degree of success" instead of simple passfail.

Example: A Primaris Psyker has Smite 4 and rolls 4 dice, rolling 3 4+s. The opponent uses an Astropath for Deny 2, rolling a single 4+. Thus, the Primaris Psyker does (3 - 1 = ) 2 mortal wounds instead.

You could modify most other powers in a similar way. Warptime moves a unit 2" for each success, Renewal heals 1 wound for each success, etc. The end result is you normalize powers and make things less of a coinflip.

I would say vehicles should be revised to “Everything with wheels is a Vehicle”
“Everything with legs is a monster”
“Everything which hovers is a skimmer”

Vehicles are slow but solid, can take a lot of punishment and do not degrade with lost wounds, but always explode when destroyed.
They have facings and cannot assault directly, and have a maximum turn radius/turn
>A Leman Russ absorbs multiple hits as it churns forward over the battlefield, before a quality flanking manouvre hits it in the back and it pops into confetti.

Monsters are faster but more brittle, “bleed” stats as they take wounds and have more manouverability.
They do not have facings, they do not explode when destroyed and can spin on a dime.
>A Redemptor dreadnought moves to take a position, however an overwhelming fusilade of boltgun fire eventually pierces its armor and as severed hydraulic cables whizz about it slumps to motionlessness.

Skimmers spin on a dime, are the most speedy and are as tanky as a wet paper bag. They have facings but no turning limit, can assault directly but only inflict hits on a charge, and scatter before exploding upon losing all wounds.
>Something something wave serpent punches into a unit of Orcs, inflicting many casualties before being overwhelmed in the next fight phase, listing to the side and exploding.

-Facing-
I’d want to keep toughness, Armor saves and wounds... but either:

A) A vehicle has higher or lower toughness based on its facing.
-Leman Russ: 9|8|5
-Wave Serpent 7|7|5

B) Vehicles Armor saves are on a 2d6, based on facing.
-Leman Russ: 4+|5+|8+
-Wave Serpent: 6+|6+|8+

Numbers are probably cancer but I like the ideas.

Doesn’t his supp. have melee weapons for suits?

I like this.
Would there still be perils?

Scoped Keyword user, but imo one of the major issues with usrs was they generally weren't universal, special or even consistently ruled. Also lots of copypasta and rules that sounded similar but were completely different (ex. Crusader vs Zealot, Furious Charge vs Rage).

If USRs were to be used, they should "say what they do," and be "composite" so to speak.

As an example, you could have Charge Bonus[X]: The unit gets this bonus for the remainder of this turn's Assault Phase upon declaring a Charge, unless attempting to Charge a unit with Negate[Charge Bonus]

And then you could have Charge Bonus[+1 Strength], Charge Bonus[+1 attack], Charge Bonus[Ignore[Overwatch]], etc. while having a single inherited rule that defines when the charge bonus triggers.

Numbers are cancer, but that's alright, it's not your job. There needs to be a middle ground, in that shit like Dreadnoughts should be vehicles, not monsters. And vehicles should absolutely degrade with wounds, although it should probably be reworked from the current system. Monsters like daemon princes aren't going to be slowed down by wounds, for instance, but a rhino absolutely is.

I imagine you could do Perils if you wanted. Have two dice in the pool colored/marked separately from the rest, or some other system.

>Bring back facing and fire arcs for vehicles
>Fix the rules for characters in terms of targeting
>Adjust leadership tests so there's a point to running full squads
>Overhaul detachment system to discourage brainless soup lists
>Overhaul list building in general to deal with things like Primarch/Super Heavy/whatever spam

I think that's about it for me.

I’d say the exact opposite.
The point of a tank is that you don’t really know where the weak points are.
It doesn’t slow and it doesn’t stop until you hit someone or something important.
If a tank loses a tread there’s no “slowed down”- it’s dead in the water.

Meanwhile if you blow a hole in the leg of a walker, it’s going to limp.

I like this idea. Lots of granularity. But it's a fairly major overhaul and I was thinking of a minor change to try and make the psychic phase less defanged while also curbing Smite spam.

This works well for smite and similar powers. For movement powers, I wouldn't even bother. A small chance of a big movement buff vs a big chance of a small movement buff is a massive conceptual change. Smite works because it's already doing 1-6 wounds, Wings of Sanguinius or Soulburst is emphatically not going to work with this system.

The main challenge atm is the fact that certain movement powers are as written too good. Warptime and Da Jump both assist in alphastrikes and their pass/fail casting (and Psychic Focus) alongside only a single deny attempt means it converges towards a coinflip.

Perhaps the final boss of that scenario is Da Jump vs Black Templar (or equivalent) A huge casting mod vs a 4+ to deny.

And when the stakes are 30+ Orks getting into Assault...

I get that the stakes are high, but a 2" movement is useless. You aren't balancing those things, you are removing them as options.

Make it a minimum buff of 4 or 5, maybe? Case by case basis.

one and it was a relic that required 2 fusions

What is saying. It's case-by case, and the numbers themselves are tweakable.

So if I'm getting it right, every spell would have a variable number that affects how it works out, presumably with psykers being able to allocate different number of charges depending on their personal strength, and denied on a per-charge basis?

So, something like: Njall Stormcaller is a 4/3/2 psyker, which means he has 4 charges for casting, 3 for denying and knows 2 powers. If he casts Jaws of the World Wolf, he can allocate 1 to 4 charges (where using them all up would leave him unable to cast for the remainder of the turn) to it, rolling 2d6 versus target Move and dealing a mortal wound per result above. And if a 2-deny caster tried to top them, they could try to roll 2d6 twice, with each value higher than Njall's corresponding one preventing a mortal wound? So in this example, he allocates 3 charges, rolls 2d6 three times (let's say versus a M5 target), and gets a 4, 8 and 9. Then the Deny-2 psyker uses both their charges, rolls a 7 and 10, so Njall ends up dealing 1 mortal wound to his target. Something like that?

Sounds interesting, but a couple of quibbles I'd have with it would be if spells like this need to specify the way in which they're denied, or if it's universally a roll-off. Another is for binary spell effects like -1 to hit -- maybe need a minimum of 2 charges to attempt and they need to deny so you end up with less than 2 successes?

I am not sure how to do binary stuff. either make the range dependent on the # of successes, or increase the maximum PL of a unit you can use it on. So if you can (spitball) affect 1 PL for each success, you need 4 successes to assist a PL 4 unit.

It would make it less obvious to put -1 to hit on that unit of 10 Reapers...

Also, it would be a single d6 rolled per charge. Again, 7th psy is the analogy, except in that system where it was a threshold (must roll at least 3 4+s to summon, the defender must match the number of successes the attacker rolled or else tough luck), this is:
-Number of 4+s rolled to manifest minus number of 4+s to deny = net success.

How would that work on spells that require 2d6 rolls like M or Ld checks though?

I think they should make killing special characters work extra victory points.

Ah, I would need to think more on it, but I imagine each success beyond the first adds +1 to the opponent's roll

The tip of my gun barrel, or the antenna of my vehicle should not count as Line of Sight

Biggest meta suggestions:
>1. Quit making everything about Space Marines vs. Chaos.
>2. Quit making everything about Girlyman.
>3. Quit making female Space Marines.
>4. Quit this Chaos Mary Sueing bullshit.
>5. Stop taking 40k the same route Bellend Times and Age of Smegmar took.

*meant lore

an end times for 40k would unironically be good, especially if it meant there could be yearly campaigns with special characters for factions that would only be usable during those campagins (like card games having editions that limit cards that can be taken or how warmahordes has the edition change>army book > campaign book adds 1 character and a few units to each faction)

op characters can be killed off, or maimed to lower stats, under powered ones could get better, temp bonuses, etc.

>aoe character blobs
bring back special characters needing opponents permission

>command point availability
increase the cost of command abiliities by +1 for each one use from the start of a player turn that's cumulative until the start of their next player turn.
let those armies that spam detchaments have access to an overcosted HQ that allows a -1 cp cost on a single ability, but it cant lower the cost below its original cost , and it still counts towards the cumulative cost for further CP abilities. essentially would give a point nerf to the army and still give them some of a CP bonus

armies that can spam detachments are generally weaker models, the effective gain per cp wouldn't favor horde armies as much since the increased cost

>codex layout
it almost feels like they purposefully made the layout shit to get people to just say fuck it lets play power points, can literally be fixed with a trip to kinkos to cut out the pages and spiral bind them for you

-1 Toughness when hitting a vehicle from the back
there brought back facing

no

GW really dropped the ball on Leman Russ turret variants and I've really got to bitch about them.
>The vanquisher battle canon costs more points and is weaker in every way than the regular battle cannon.
>The eradicator nova canon costs more points, has 3 feet less range, and is weaker in every way than the regular battle cannon. The "Ignore Cover" rule barely buffs its damage and still the regular battle cannon outperforms it in damn near every situation.
>The exterminator autocanon costs more points, has 2 feet less range, and is weaker in every way than the regular battle cannon.
>The executioner plasma cannon costs 2 less points but still 3 feet less range and is weaker than the regular battle cannon for a standard shot.
>The executioner plasma cannon's overcharged shots hit harder but with Index rules you've essentially got a 50% chance to do D6 damage to your tank. At least with the Codex rules they realized just how atrocious it was and made it so you'll likely take much less self-damage.
tl;dr the Vanquisher, Executioner Autocannon, and Eradicator Nova Cannon are all straight downgrades and you pay more for them. Taking them means you're purposely hindering yourself, so what's the point? You don't even need to crunch numbers to see how crappy these are. Either don't include them in the rules or add some special buffs (i.e. roll extra shots when targeting x but less shots when targeting y) to make them remotely worthwhile.

everyone was crying about the battle cannon being shit before the dex came out.

That would be nice. Keywords were already pretty great for clarifying faction and how various buffs/debuffs/"synergy" is doled out.

Doing it to guns would be great. Melta, Flamers, Bolters, and Lasguns can all be clarified for their various Stratagems and abilities. Flamers can do flame things, Bolters keyworded would seriously help SM and CSM codify their shooting phase, and the same goes for Lasguns with IG orders.

In all honesty, I'm kind of at a loss as to why they didn't do that much before. Plenty of systems have weapon tags, both more simple and more advanced than 8e, and even previous editions of 40k had them to some degree with all those special rules.

Vanquisher is S9 so that’s... cute

Because it was shit. But fire twice + cost reduction of the Russ kinda overbuffed it.

and now that it's better than it should be, people bitch because everything else isn't also amazing.

NO!!! FUCK YOU!!! YOUR IDEAS SUCK!!!! LET'S GO BACK TO FIFTH WITH SOME OF THE 8TH ED RULES!!!

>I’m sick of people trying to spam only tanks, only death company

welcome to 2E

>bring back special characters needing opponents permission

again, nobody ever refused permission, because of the implication

even way back when they were first introduced, everybody - i mean everybody, except stealers, nids, and squats - got them within about a year

so there was literally no reason not to use them because they gave flavour to a game which at that time still only had about twenty different ranged weapons between all factions

it's also worth pointing out that during this high age of valour any non-special, non-permission character with a spare equipment card slot (because it was all on cards instead of in a list, for speed over final clarity) could take a vortex or virus grenade for 50 points (about 10 points less than a single baseline termie), and - usually - another two cards worth of fuck you, even if it wasn't another grenade of the same type

this system of big fuck yous and the mess of fuck yous which was late amended RT was what originally generated the special, broken characters of early 2E that you needed permission for, because they were ever so slightly more broken than existing rules could make a basic character

limiting special characters to permission in the codex made it easier for TO's and pickup games. In my area, at least. People had usually had a list with a special character and one without, most tourneys had no special characters allowed so that's how most played in my area. thematically i always hated special characters under 3k points

Yeah, sorry as a Guard player I have no sympathy for people bitching about the amount of Russ firepower.

Especially when shit like Dark Reapers, Castellan Robots, and The damn flying rhino exist. It is not unheard of for a guard player to lose 2 Leman Russ or more before they even get to shoot in my meta.

And sure, guard can fill out a list easily to get command points. But that also means more drops, and thus a higher likelihood of going second and thus losing a bunch of your shit turn 1.

There are trade offs to everything. People need to stop bitching about guard and learn to play better. My games against eldar have always been a toss up, and that is with maximized cheese, mainly because my opponents knew what they were doing.

Learn to play better.

Yeah but there are armies (SOB are a big one) that don't have options without Special Characters. Without Celestine the SOB don't really function very well (Since faith points don't scale for shit and she's the 1 HQ in the game that gives bonus ones/she makes shield of faith function).

>meme army needs a special character
Special characters AND lord of wars should be opponents permission, or at least make them restricted to higher point games. Flyers aren't as cancer this edition as they have been, but can't un-add them to the game now

Troops grouping behind armored vehicles is actually counter productive because the vehicle and large group attract enemy fire

I don't think you've understood the point about non-special characters; 50 points per grenade seems like a lot, but remember even modest forces of Guard or Orks (or even Eldar Guardians) would take up huge amounts of space on all but the biggest boards

one well-timed throw of 50 points (and another 100 in invulnerable saves to get you there, or more on a tank) and bam

there goes 3000 points of Orks

Special Characters came along in the middle of this - it had been going on since RT (in fact the basic weapons are there in the original book, I think) - and became what would later be referred to as distraction deathstars; Ragnar Blackmane rampaging through the horde, Ghazkull sending the entire army on the charge in a devastating tarpit-to-the-face attack

but what they were, more than that, was reverse distraction deathstars - they made you want to play the game and actually resolve the combats instead of virusing the horde or sending 100 Harlequins into melee to rape everything in sight while literally 2 Death Jesters pinned down every elite unit with fear tests

it made things fun at a critical point when the simple, skirmish-style rules and abundance of unit choices had led people to build armies based around fuck you; we'd have 10,000 point games of what you'd quaintly call Apocalypse today and we did so not because it was fun but because it made the virus or the Harlequin troupe or whatever obsolete; you could actually tarpit them at that kind of saturation

you couldn't move for shit, but it was worth it

Flyers have essentially been around since RT as well; Jetbikes (specifically Eldar) were always a pain in the neck (and there were true fliers as well, if you wanted to build them), but that's sort of the point of flyers - air superiority is hard for infantry and non-specialists to counter

Lords of War I totally agree with; even just a "game mode"/keyword to make it clear that they're welcome in games below a certain point level

No, I disagree.

I know its realistic, but realism is pointless in 40k. Would just bring back the MCxVehicle imbalance.

>Bring back the Force organization chart and require HQ and elite choice for allied detachments
>Bring back vehicle facings/ firing arcs (have rear armor be -2T or something)
>Bring back templates to punish blobbing/ aura stacking

There really wasn't a MC/vehicle imbalance per se so much as MCs shouldn't have had perfect 360 sight.

Other than the Flyrant, Wraithknight and the Tau MCs, a lot of the MCs were actually rather shitty.

GW FAQs are weird about this. Basically, you only ignore aerials, turrets, etc for LOS if the model does not have a base.

Regarding blobs, one of the other issues is that compared to previous editions, there is no real "outmaneuver" factor. The opponent chooses casualties freely, and there is no real ability to displace your foe: no tank shock, positioning models to dictate flee distance, melee pile-in is optional, etc. I don't want Lash to be brought back by any means at all, but being able to "push/pull" your enemy adds an extra strategic layer.

Although it wouldn't scale 100%, Warmachine has some options. Maybe revive Tank Shock in a manner akin to Bulldoze, or add trampling for larger vehicles or allow Monsters/Dreads to throw each other (or battlefield debris; there is something amusing about the idea of throwing promethium barrels at Tau) around.

I haven't kept up with you guys so I'm just gonna dump my thoughts.
>Brink back vehicle facings.
Flanking on infantry units would be an autistic nightmare, but getting behind a russ with plasma was so damn rewarding.
>-1 penalty to hit w/ heavy weapons
On infantry, it makes sense, but it can make some units with poor BS never see a heavy weapon. Also, I think vehicles in general should get a type of grinding advance buff to ignore the -1. A BS4+ chimera with heavy bolters? and the stats degrade? Fuck that shit, just go heavy flamer all day.
>-1 to hit as a tactic
Let's just make the gunline edition even more gunline.
>Hordes vs. elites
I don't know what the fuck to do. My Grey Knights evaporate in the face of a dozen lascannons/plasmaspam. That's if they can even deepstrike properly, thanks to piss easy screening. I can barely eek out 4 CP with them and Psybolt (our best strat) is 2CP Which brings me to:
>point efficiency
The math hammer anons do good work. I hate how some units just don't have a fucking reason to exist outside of fluff preference.
>no USR's
Why couldn't they just use the keywords with weapons too? They do it in the death guard codex "Plague weapon (see page #)." That way, we could easily say: Weapons with FLAME keyword auto hit, or RENDING is ap-3 on hits of 6+. JUST FUCKING PRINT ALL THE KEYWORDS A CODEX USES IN THE BACK! IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

>The same can ESPECIALLY be said about Flyers.
They have facings for their dog fighting gametype. It's a good idea GW! Bring it back!

>>Hordes vs. elites
>I don't know what the fuck to do. My Grey Knights evaporate in the face of a dozen lascannons/plasmaspam. That's if they can even deepstrike properly, thanks to piss easy screening. I can barely eek out 4 CP with them and Psybolt (our best strat) is 2CP Which brings me to:
Give more melee weapons, like Nemesis weapons, wound spillover. Would make GKs a hell of a lot better vs hordes. Don't know why it's only limited to two weapons.

Alas I guess without real incentive to manauver for advantage in the rules, it's down to the design of the battleground/table to make it interesting. I've gotten back into 40k after a mild interest in my early teens and it does seem really really easy to get into now. But at the same time, most 8e battlereports I see are just pure dice-slinging slugfests. The way their battlegrounds are generally set up means line of sight is barely ever a factor, they just march towards each other or, in the case of the Tau, fire from the other side of the map while never moving.

I think if we were to boil down the tldrs about 40k problems it would boil down to:
>Weight of Dice versus outmaneuvering.
>Too many die rolls are swing-intensive.
>I Go, U Wait. Minimum interaction between turns, players take turn being target dummies.

Food for thought.

^I'm just a noob though, I might be missing things or maybe it was always like that but that's just how it's struck me so far. Terminators popping up behind the firing line should be devastating when everyone was facing the other way in their last turn.

Big issue is also the eternal fight between people that want granularity and the ones that want fast turns.

Remove FB, it's so fucking stupid it hurts. That's mostly a mission thing, but further incentivising this is dumb AF. I think it should actually be reversed, so you get FB if you are the first player to lose a unit. Discourage things like ramming Magnus down people's throat turn 1 and maybe consider peppering a few enemy units to half strength instead.

Remove chapter tactics, it's cancerous, even if I might have helped push the idea on GW, it's tragic that GW made the genius implementation of Stratagems and unique Stratagems for sub-factions but also added this BS that forces players hamfistedly into one of a few playstyles instead of subtly encouraging a playstyle by just having 2 Stratagems for each sub-faction.

There are also far too many stratagems, I honestly can't be bothered to learn all of them, I just kind of have to go "aha ok, aha" when my opponent tells me his stratagem does this or that.

You get to choose 3-5 stratagems for your army, making armies with a theme slightly stronger. There are 10 general stratagems, including things like shoot twice, re-roll a dice, heroic morale, fight twice. Each faction has another 3-20 additional stratagems, but even if they have 20 you only need to learn the 3 your opponent is using in the battle. You pick the stratagems that best represent the force that you're fielding. You don't get punished for fielding a Salamanders unit with 4 heavy bolters or a Black Templars shooty Dreadnought.

It could be personal preference/your dudes talking but I miss the 3.5/early 4th form of army customization. Guard doctrines, chapter traits, etc. Even if the internal balance was off ("gee, do I take Drop Troops or Warrior Weapons?"), I enjoyed the combinatoric nature of being allowed to personalize your force in such a manner...and it's not like "pick one trait" isn't autoinclude for "-1 to be hit" anyway.

Providing a clear copy of your traits should be just basic gaming etiquette.

As for stratagems, a lot of them should have been wargear or loadout options. What exactly do CP represent anyway?

Ok. So we still get rid of templates. BUT flamers have a special rule as follows to help it get back to being an anti-horde weapon

Inferno: Flame weapons are designed to be used against legions of foes. Therefore when a flame weapon is aimed at a unit containing more than 20 models then the weapon profile is 2d6 autohits rather than d6.

Nobody really takes super-large units besides maybe Orks though, and it still does jack versus blobbed-up MSU. Honestly, I imagine there should be movement trays sold to allow units to space out. Ymmv.

Just play the game as it's now you grognards!!!

Or make our own at that rate.

What I was suggesting was exactly this, you pick 3 traits that best represent the force that you're playing. There are such things as a Blood Angels devastator company and an Imperial Fists assault company.

It's not about providing the traits, you don't have time to read 20 traits before the game begins, let alone 40. If you had access to no more than 3 traits then you could quickly read through them before the game begins. You're rarely using more than 5 stratagems anyways.

CP are just a way to make strategic manoeuvres limited and to increase the game's skillcap.

I did something similar for an older project to attempt to consolidate all Loyalist Marines into one codex, a pick-a-trait system of a sort.

-Pick 2 Major Codex Deviations. May substitute a Major Codex Deviation for 2 Minor Deviations or a Renowned Legacy.
-Pick a Geneseed Mutation or a Renowned Legacy.
-Pick a Chapter Controversy or a Renowned Legacy.
-Freebie: Pick a Major Codex Deviation, 2 Minor Codex Deviations, a Geneseed Mutation, Chapter Controversy or Renowned Legacy.

Since anything can be swapped out for a Legacy, you can create a sliding scale of a sort with orthodox chapters on one end, borderline-heretical chapters on another end.

>End bubble hammer

Make character commander abilities army wide and weaken their effect. They're lost if the character dies.

>Vehicle facing

Vehicles shot in the rear get -1 to armour, or -1 to toughness , or +1 to hit against. Literally anything to make positioning matter a bit more.

>Bring back weapon arcs/Los rules

My landraider being able to shoot 360 degrees from its tracks as long as it can see the tip of my opponents model is a little silly.

I'd bring back all the weapon facing rules as before.

>Make morale matter

Simple version, the roll is now 2d6 instead of 1d6. Slightly bump LD across the board to compensate. Now morale checks actually do something.

Trickier version. Units flee if they fail morale checks as before and have to regroup. They can be run down in combat too.

>End infantry hammer

The morale rule above would help with this. I'd make anti-infantry weapons more deadly. Flamers do 2d6 hits against units of more than 5. Same for big and small blast templates.

>Units always hit on a 6.

Being able to stack - modifiers to hit is bollocks and literally goes against 8ths simplified design rules where everything is meant to kill everything a lot more easily.

This is a really excellent idea. Gonna borrow this possibly for something, thanks user.

WHFB here: movement trays are garbage in any kind of template game, and scaling autohits are the dumbest thing you've ever said.

This. Let players point their vehicles (or anything bulky like a dreadnaught or Tau suit) any which way they want at the end of their movement phase.

Even keeping 360 degree fire arcs this would add so much in terms of tactics.

Let players spend points on arse-armour if they're going to get butt hurt about it.

I wish troops mattered more, spam wasn't the name of the game, soup had a fucking down side, named characters weren't borderline mandatory, and more stuff incant think of at the moment because the more I play 8th, the more I don't want to play anymore. Like, I HATED 7th, but I still wanted to play it. With 8th, I don't hate the game, but each new Codex saps my will to play. I don't know what it is, but it's shitty.

>Like, I HATED 7th, but I still wanted to play it. With 8th, I don't hate the game, but each new Codex saps my will to play. I don't know what it is, but it's shitty.
I understand this feel. It's weird. It's like the game has all the mechanics now to work out great if it tried but isn't using them right.

Idiot at our local store is the only remaining xenos player in our group.
All of the xenos players we managed to convert to playing non NPC shit armies and now either play imperium or chaos.
This guy plays Necrons and for how uttelry broken and bullshit they were I had a ton of time crushing him in every possible way this edition. Fuck decurion!
Funny thing is he tries super hard to win against us and does all kind of weird shit like bringing scarabs, blobs of dudes, going super elite.. he even brought forgeworld stuff like a flying donut or a ugly centipede looking thing, but he must have lost like 10 games in a row.
He's been interested in custodes recently, how do we finish converting him to the relevant part of WH40k?

The primary issue with vehicles vs MCs was the fact that vehicles could be one-shotted and MCs often needed at minimum 6+ hits to kill. Now that they have varying wound profiles they could go back to the AV system of previous editions.

Daily reminder that the tourney winning armies are all eldar.

I feel that the game definitely needs more something. It's as if they had a great, but small foundation, and as more and more stuff is hooked on top, it becomes more and more unstable.