No1 rule that you think needs changed.

[The Unseen]

Alright, then the only characters that see play are the stupid cheap ones, since taking an expensive character, like say a captain, just gets vaporized by a volley at the start of the game, because cover, as has been mentioned before, is :cuss.

 

Some armies don't even HAVE transports to hide characters in, and aura characters don't work inside transports.

 

And anyone who thinks using vehicles to block LOS to everything but a slit was "smart" or is more realistic needs to re-evaluate, like, everything. Its gamey as hell and makes even less sense than not being able to pick out a single goddamn infantry model in the midst of an entire army.

I'm glad no one ever tried doing that to me, as I'd have just packed up and left.

 

Also, it really isn't that hard to kill characters.

It's called melee, and snipers.

Most armies have one or both of them as options.

 

Gman and character dreads are about the only characters I can think of that I find irritating to not be able to fire at, just because theyre rather larger than most things they hide behind.

 

Are your sure your playing the right game volt?

You seem to hate characters being important, and well, that's been a 40k thing since forever.

That and not wanting melee to be a thing, ever.

 

Ohh, and I have another one that personally drives me up the wall.

The "there isn't any empty space on this level of the ruin, so you can't get into combat with me, na ne ne na" bull:cuss.

Which GW made worse with the FAQ.

[kombatwombat]

I have no issues with the character rules as they are. They are infinitely better than the super units that were possible in past editions.

Can you please explain exactly what things are better about the current character targeting rules than the previous editions, that are explicitly due to the changed character targeting mechanics and not other rules changes?

 

Invisible super duper deathstar units were a problem in previous editions, true. That wasn’t due to the character mechanics though, it was down to the abilities of those characters to give out invisibility, 2++, 4+++ and rerolls to Saves. Those abilities are what changed, not the character mechanics; invisibility is gone, reroll Saves and FNP granting are gone, and invuls are capped at 3++. The character buffs have just been weakened.

 

Furthermore, what’s the difference between a character surrounded by 10 Terminators giving them a buff aura, and the character being part of that Terminator unit? Either way, you can’t target the character without a sniper. Hell, the only differences are that the character can give out his buff to more than one unit at a time (making him stronger in that sense than in the deathstar days), excess damage to the unit can’t possibly roll over to the character, and the unit can succeed in a charge but the character leading them can fail the charge and be left behind.

 

If anything, the new character mechanics are more broken than the old ones. It’s just that the buff powers have been significantly nerfed.

[Volt]

Alright, then the only characters that see play are the stupid cheap ones, since taking an expensive character, like say a captain, just gets vaporized by a volley at the start of the game, because cover, as has been mentioned before, is .

 

Some armies don't even HAVE transports to hide characters in, and aura characters don't work inside transports.

 

And anyone who thinks using vehicles to block LOS to everything but a slit was "smart" or is more realistic needs to re-evaluate, like, everything. Its gamey as hell and makes even less sense than not being able to pick out a single goddamn infantry model in the midst of an entire army.

I'm glad no one ever tried doing that to me, as I'd have just packed up and left.

 

Also, it really isn't that hard to kill characters.

It's called melee, and snipers.

Most armies have one or both of them as options.

 

Gman and character dreads are about the only characters I can think of that I find irritating to not be able to fire at, just because theyre rather larger than most things they hide behind.

 

Are your sure your playing the right game volt?

You seem to hate characters being important, and well, that's been a 40k thing since forever.

That and not wanting melee to be a thing, ever.

 

Ohh, and I have another one that personally drives me up the wall.

The "there isn't any empty space on this level of the ruin, so you can't get into combat with me, na ne ne na" bull:cuss.

Which GW made worse with the FAQ.

It's not hard to pick out a single unit of infantry amongst a detachment that is completely covered in bling, waving around a fancy weapon, and screaming at the top of its lungs - quite the opposite in fact. And it is a PIA to kill characters, especially against armies that specialize in fielding durable units that even when you get a chance to shoot at them can shrug off most firepower due to high invul saves, FNP's, or stacked minuses to hits. Those would all be fine, but only if there isn't a silly rule preventing you from picking off some characters who are quite easy to pick out from the crowd. You shouldn't have to bring some dedicated snipers just to take gakky potshots at some characters with a poor chance of actually killing them unless you dump re-rolls on them. Although this all part of a much bigger problem with the general poor design of 8e lethality/simultaneous lack there of and dice volume.

[Ishagu]

Guys, let's calm down on the character hating lol

In case you've already forgotten, Guilliman received a pretty big nerf to his aura - you won't be seeing him very much.

 

To me the most obnoxious use of characters is Chaos smite spam with lots of cheap hordes as shields - but even that is a unique way to play the game. I just find it hard to deal with, personally (not because of the characters but because the Chaos Daemons can be more durable than they should be)

 

I'm not sure if you're all aware but Eliminators are pretty effective at sniping out characters. If you're really getting so much grief (and I have no idea why as you can still destroy all the units around a HQ if you have a balanced list) then alter your army. Indirect fire and Snipers are available to most armies. Granted they aren't available to all, but there are plenty of ways to move around the board to get firing arcs on units.

 

The hatred and outrage I see from some is hyperbolic and really doesn't reflect the reality of the game very much.

 

Remember, the models on the tabletop are simply gaming pieces to reflect units. The game isn't accurate with sizes even amongst the same faction - vehicles generally being too small, heroes being larger than other units with the sane armour, etc etc.

[Rogue]

Generate CP somehow throughout the game instead of at the beginning. Helps lessen the impact of alpha striking and works well in other games.

True - I really like it as a mechanic in kill team, for example.

 

It could work with the detachment system too. You could give armies the regular 3CPs to start with (or none if they're not battle-forged), then they generate more each turn. Say:

 

1 for a surviving warlord

0 for each specialist detachment

1 for each battalion

2 for each brigade

 

So a battalion would generate 5-7CP if it survives the game, for example.

 

And it gives you the tactical challenge of using a few each turn, or saving up for a big push mid-game.

[Panzer]

I just returned from a festival and haven't read the whole thread, but the very first thing I'd like GW to change is their whole terrain section.

[Ishagu]

I would like CP generation to be done differently, with larger detachments generating more CP and mono armies receiving a further bonus.

[MARK0SIAN]

I would like CP generation to be done differently, with larger detachments generating more CP and mono armies receiving a further bonus.

I actually prefer bonuses like combat doctrines for monodex armies instead of more cp.

[Guest]

Impulsor rule

 

Assault Vehicle: After this model moves in your Movement phase, if this model did not Advance, any units embarked aboard it can disembark. Units that do so cannont be chosen to charge with that turn.

 

It should be

 

Assault Vehicle: After this model moves in your Movement phase, if this model did not Advance, any units embarked aboard it can disembark. Units that do so can be chosen to charge with that turn. Measure charge distance from hull of vehicle, not from disembark.

[Ishagu]

 

I would like CP generation to be done differently, with larger detachments generating more CP and mono armies receiving a further bonus.

I actually prefer bonuses like combat doctrines for monodex armies instead of more cp.

You know, I also think this is a great start. If GW update all the books to receive such bonuses it would be great. Let's hope they do so!

[Closet Skeleton]

The terrain LOS rules are way worse than the character rules.

 

I think the birds eye view players have of the battlefield greatly distorts what they think is reasonable to target. In older editions there were rules that forced you to shoot the closest target. If two targets are the same height but one occupies a 20 degree slice of available fields of vision while another takes up 45 degrees half of which are blocking the other target then its not simple to just single out the group behind.

 

In 8th laser guns can shoot a blob of termagants stooping behind a blob of genestealers with no chance of hitting the front group and you're complaining about not being able to single out individuals.

 

Impulsor rule

Assault Vehicle: After this model moves in your Movement phase, if this model did not Advance, any units embarked aboard it can disembark. Units that do so cannont be chosen to charge with that turn.

It should be

Assault Vehicle: After this model moves in your Movement phase, if this model did not Advance, any units embarked aboard it can disembark. Units that do so can be chosen to charge with that turn. Measure charge distance from hull of vehicle, not from disembark.

 

That's awkward. It made more sense when it was that you could disembark but not move afterwards.

[Ishagu]

I think the Impulsor rule is great - it's only the name that upsets people because it suggests an assault into close combat.

 

The rule should have been called: "Offensive transport"

[Guest]

The rule should have been called: "Offensive transport"

agreed, or something like rapid disembarkment.

[Marshal Rohr]

8th Edition v2 is on its way next summer if they have formalized the release patterns for the two big games. Now is the time to start emailing the FAQ box.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I'd like to see Spearhead, Vanguard and Outrider provide the same CP as Battalions. Each provides Objective Secured to their force org focus but nothing else.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I would like CP generation to be done differently, with larger detachments generating more CP and mono armies receiving a further bonus.

I actually prefer bonuses like combat doctrines for monodex armies instead of more cp.

You know, I also think this is a great start. If GW update all the books to receive such bonuses it would be great. Let's hope they do so!

I think they will start to do that, certainly with the more elite ones that struggle for cp.

 

It’s a fine line to walk though. I’d hate for them to make the monodex bonuses so good/indispensable that they effectively eliminate allies altogether.

[Ishagu]

8th Edition v2 is on its way next summer if they have formalized the release patterns for the two big games. Now is the time to start emailing the FAQ box.

Yeah it needs a clean up. A mild tweak of terrain rules (also clear guidelines for how much should be on a table).

 

They just need a book with all the erratas and FAQs to the rules in one place.

[Azaiel]

Mortal wounds.

[chapter master 454]

Whoever said GWs policy about datasheets and options for things they don't sell. Seriously. It costs them nothing to just add those in but then again, I suppose I will get shouted at, yelled at and made fun of because "the chapterhouse issue". Going to lay it down, if GW weren't making kits with the options in it then all those people were doing was filling gaps. I agree it gets out of hand once it is full blown copying and stealing but they can be a healthy relationship there because both can benefit.

 

Seriously, I look at the codex and continue to see this. Its pathetic. I mean, technically GW don't sell any of their relics in the codex so why do they have rules? I thought it was a "no model, no rule" policy. Just shows how inflexible the policy is and quite frankly it is the one RULE they should redact.

 

Other than that, there are some actual game rules I would like to see changed so.

Going to be controversial here and say the current transport rules actually are a good way of handling things. With how the game is now, if that was a common rule then there would have to be changes to how disembarking works like it did in older editions like no charging when you get out (otherwise Eldar will be getting turn 1 charges like candy). Not saying the concept can't work but it needs to be given to appropriate transport if you want it and should really only be a special rule, not a system given. I agree the land raider does deserve it (and not this wonky impulsor thing that failed at being what we wanted as far as I can see).

 

Mortal wounds are fine. I can see the frustration with them but they have been handled to being a niche. After all, we all have that one thing we hate (like me...and eldar!)

 

I would say Terrain rules do need an overhaul to help differ them from each other.

 

And I agree with character rules needing to have a distance cap. I would argue somewhere between 6-9" is when the rule begins to stop working. I can believe you would have issues keeping a track of the leader at a full boards length but not when he is right there!

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

All the people talking about the character targetting rule...

Would you prefer lascannons that can snipe your characters when they have a friendly vehicle block their los to anything else?

 

I don’t mind the character targeting rule too much but I would amend it so that the unit preventing you shooting the character must be between the shooter and the character.

 

It is silly that they could be behind the unit shooting at the character but because they’re still technically closer they prevent you shooting them.

Alright, define "between shooter and character" in a way that would stand up to tournament scrutiny, doesn't have any exploits like the aforementioned los blocking rhinos, and ALSO doesn't require you to get out a protracter at the table.

If anyone can do that, I'd agree it should be changed too that.

I’m not insisting the unit blocking the shot has to be visible though as I agree you shouldn’t be able to block your own line of sight deliberately. I’d just keep the rule simple:

 

The player whose character is targeted draws a straight line from his character to any point on the attacking unit. If the character’s line crosses any models/units from his own army, the character cannot be targeted.

 

It’s still slightly abstract but it prevents units in completely different directions blocking shots against characters for no other reason than they’re a bit closer to the shooting unit.

[Special Officer Doofy]

The can't shoot a character if there's infantry closer rule needs to be tweaked. The whole I can place Troops closer to your gun line in cover and blocked line of sight but you can't shoot my character standing in the open because he is further away thing is dumb. They need to add a line of sight rule. I get it, people can then move and use line of sight to their advantage to target characters but that takes clever moving and most likely multiple turns and the character player can move and adjust accordingly. Better then the unfair deployment where you'll never be able to shoot the character. It won't be game changing, and it's kind of six in one hand half a dozen in the other, but the rule seems more unfair the way it is now versus the other. And this is coming from a player who uses lots of characters.

 

The spirit of the rule was in the heat of battle you can't distinguish the general from the soldiers and snipe them out when they are together, not there's a general dancing in the open but I got to shoot at his twelve henchmen in an enclosed building first because they are one inch closer.

[Lexington]

+1 to the terrain/LoS crowd. I know that this is primarily done the way it is to keep things simple for sales purposes, but 8th Ed hasn’t actually been simple as a whole game in a while. An Advanced section of the rulebook with things like useful terrain rules would be great.

 

Also wouldn’t mind seeing characters able to join units again in exchange for the current convoluted character targeting practices. As someone’s said, most of what made Death Stars back in 7th is no longer part of the game anyway, so it could be brought back. Another “Advanced” ruleset maybe.

[Emicus]

Terrain rules are fine.

Just have better terrain and define it properly. If all you do is throw down 2 ruins and a crater you can't blame the rules. The first terrain rule is to define what it does with your opponent, yes?

 

Terrain is the magical second army list that both you and the opponent share. If to you both agree that the trees are carnivorous... They are!

 

Rust disease in the ruins! The bunker being intact giving a better coversave. A defensive emplacement gun is operational. Have more than 3" between levels on buildings. Cover when ducking behind a prometheum line, But on 1s to save it lights the fuel. The void shields are active; melee battle! Throw down a river of acid that does d6 mortal wounds a turn with a single bridge across.. And make it a massive VP to hold

[Schlitzaf]

I’d go back to 5th Ed style cover and/or have stacking cover. Basically can get cover (+1) from three sources. 1) Terrain, 2) Army Rules, and 3) Intervening Terrain And Units.

[Klod]

You go, I go. I would like the game to be redesigned for alternate activation.