Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 agnosto wrote:
Instead of making more special rules, work within the confines of what already exists.

Pretty much this. Our current iteration of 40k is based on 18 years of tacking stuff on to what was originally a reasonably simple ruleset (3rd edition).

In addition to that I just think the core rules are poorly written. Way too many pages and too much bloat, the rules are spread too thinly instead of being clear and concise and instead of building on a solid core there's rules which interject themselves on existing rules.

 SDFarsight wrote:
As someone who's having to learn 7th edition after not being active in the tabletop club scene since 4th/5th edition, the rules-bloat certainly doesn't help with picking it up again. What makes it even harder is that along with the extra rules you also have things like Unwieldy, Armourbane, Shreading etc which already existed in older editions but without the fancy buzzword.

And the psyker rules; I've played a good few games in 7th now and I still have no idea where this "witch" is and how I'm supposed to deny her sultry advances.

Also a returning player, and I get confused by how many of the buzzwords are near synonyms - e.g. "Rend" and "Shred". Makes it that much harder to keep track of them all.

http://the-difference-between.com/shred/rend wrote:"As verbs the difference between rend and shred is that rend is to separate into parts with force or sudden violence; to tear asunder; to split; to burst while shred is to cut or tear into narrow and long pieces or strips."

Clearly different rules are required to capture that distinction.

 Asmodai wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:
As someone who's having to learn 7th edition after not being active in the tabletop club scene since 4th/5th edition, the rules-bloat certainly doesn't help with picking it up again. What makes it even harder is that along with the extra rules you also have things like Unwieldy, Armourbane, Shreading etc which already existed in older editions but without the fancy buzzword.

And the psyker rules; I've played a good few games in 7th now and I still have no idea where this "witch" is and how I'm supposed to deny her sultry advances.

Also a returning player, and I get confused by how many of the buzzwords are near synonyms - e.g. "Rend" and "Shred". Makes it that much harder to keep track of them all.

http://the-difference-between.com/shred/rend wrote:"As verbs the difference between rend and shred is that rend is to separate into parts with force or sudden violence; to tear asunder; to split; to burst while shred is to cut or tear into narrow and long pieces or strips."

Clearly different rules are required to capture that distinction.

That's a really good point. Re-rolls to wound (Shred) could be called "Anatomical Precision" or something like that. Something that indicates having literally anything to do with wounding a living thing and not hurting a vehicle.

 Asmodai wrote:

Also a returning player, and I get confused by how many of the buzzwords are near synonyms - e.g. "Rend" and "Shred". Makes it that much harder to keep track of them all.

In a similar situation, good god yes. So many rules, many of which are just renaming of other rules or combinations of them. Or rules that interfere with other rules. The USR section of the rulebook is astoundingly large (and apparently not even very 'universal'), and the special rules sections of each codex is now similarly bloated. The game of 'Strange Formations and Where to Find Them' also does not make for an encouraging situation.

There's so much bloat right now, it just seems all so impenetrable.

Having returned to the game after an absence since 5th ed, overall i think its good except for:

The psychic phase - i think its waayyyy too convoluted. Surely psychic powers could just be absorbed into other phases. ie a power which affects movement is able to be used in the movement phase, a power that projects an attack in the shooting phase, summoning happens when reserves are rolled for etc. Also i think there needs to be a rethink of the whole warp charge dice pool as this punishes players who dont run psychics.

Charge phase - There should be a minimum charge distance ie it used to be 6 inches. I get rolling for further but it a) slows and complicates that part of the game and b) just doesn't make sense that some units will not be able to charge eg if you roll under 3 or 4.

Fight phase - while not to simplify too much, there are just too many rules/stats going on here to make it intuitive or fast. These include WS, Initiative, strength, toughness, AP, and a myriad of special rules. If you could tighten fights to be more like shooting it would be so much better. I just feel there are too many steps so my (working) suggestion would be to remove iniative steps and maybe give higher iniative models an iniative save or a to hit modifyer?

Also as too many special rules which are really similar.

I don't have thw answer but it just seems too convoluted.

Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.

In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.

 Fafnir wrote:
Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.

In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.

Actually random charge distances were added to help assault armies, believe it or not. When premeasuring was added to the game, it was assumed that players would be able to accurately calculate charge distances down to the micron (which is true) and therefore shooting armies would deftly be able to step out of way of assault armies by .00000001" every single turn (or so the argument goes). With random charge distances, uncertainty is introduced and shooty armies are not able to make 100% sure they are out of assault range unless they stay outside of 18", which is considerably further than staying outside of 12".

Which doesn't necessarily make it a good solution.

It'd be much better to develop assault armies and general rules systems around tools that would allow them to land the charge based off of the merits of good planning and movement, rather than the patented GW solution of simply throwing dice at the problem.

I'm also a bit sore about most of my last 40k games before I stopped playing being spent with my assault units angrily staring at an enemy unit 3 or 4 inches away because they just couldn't be arsed to put in a little hustle. All before being summarily blown to pieces or countercharged in the subsequent turn, of course.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

As an example a Vehicle is a difficult model to simplify into numbers because bumping up its armour would make it straight up immune to large amounts of opposing models, Murderfang in particular because so many of his rules are situational.
That said, I don't like the vehicle damage table anyway.

I personally hate 6th/7th idea of "everybody gets Overwatch but vehicles for some totally illogical reason.
That and "CC always hits rear because it's easy to hit a small spot on a tank".

The first one is just " we have no idea what Overwatch on vehicle could do so we're removing it from the game".
The second is "somehow, it's easy for everyone to drop a grenade in the 10x10cm left air intake on a tank moving at 120kph+".

It makes CC against vehicles auto win when there is no reason for it - a rule that worked PERFECTLY in prior editions, where fast moving vehicles were very hard to hit (I dare you to land an axe hit on a Bike zooming past at 200kph), and immobile vehicles were easy to hit.


At the same time, surrounding a Dreadnought still means nobody gets to hit its rear... lmao.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spudasaurous wrote:
Having returned to the game after an absence since 5th ed, overall i think its good except for:

The psychic phase - i think its waayyyy too convoluted. Surely psychic powers could just be absorbed into other phases. ie a power which affects movement is able to be used in the movement phase, a power that projects an attack in the shooting phase, summoning happens when reserves are rolled for etc. Also i think there needs to be a rethink of the whole warp charge dice pool as this punishes players who dont run psychics.

Actually it's the exact opposite, players who don't run psykers have a decent amount of dice, whereas people who bring lots of psykers don't get many more dice for it.
When I play psykers and you don't, and I roll 6 for the psychic phase, it puts me at a disadvantage - and it never hurts you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.

In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.

Actually random charge distances were added to help assault armies, believe it or not. When premeasuring was added to the game, it was assumed that players would be able to accurately calculate charge distances down to the micron (which is true) and therefore shooting armies would deftly be able to step out of way of assault armies by .00000001" every single turn (or so the argument goes). With random charge distances, uncertainty is introduced and shooty armies are not able to make 100% sure they are out of assault range unless they stay outside of 18", which is considerably further than staying outside of 12".

That makes sense, but clearly charging 3" makes no sense, so a mix of both would be a good thing.

Something like 6+ 1d3 (+1d3 if the first d3 hit 3).

 Fafnir wrote:
Which doesn't necessarily make it a good solution.

It'd be much better to develop assault armies and general rules systems around tools that would allow them to land the charge based off of the merits of good planning and movement, rather than the patented GW solution of simply throwing dice at the problem.

I'm also a bit sore about most of my last 40k games before I stopped playing being spent with my assault units angrily staring at an enemy unit 3 or 4 inches away because they just couldn't be arsed to put in a little hustle. All before being summarily blown to pieces or countercharged in the subsequent turn, of course.

Or make existing game mechanics actually work. Imagine if assault armies had access to pinning weapons and the pin mechanic actually had a chance of working instead of it being yet another USR that every army is immune to in some way.

I actually like the fact there's a Psychic Phase in 7e. I remember 5th, how Psychic powers were an ambiguous mess, right down to casting powers in the enemy turn. Warp Charge creates a system that allows for resource allocation/risk management and I like that too.

The thing I dislike, as mentioned, is the logarithmic scaling in power/the way the game does "pooling." If the game was "2 Warp Charge per Mastery Level, but models may only use their own Warp Charge" or something along those lines, it would probably make more sense overall.

The other issue is powers and denial are both "all or nothing". I cast a WC 3 summon with 4 successes, my opponent needs to roll 4 sixes to deny. Roll 3...nope, that summon goes off. If powers were effective based on number of successes (Scouring Flame does more if you manifest with 4 successes instead of 1, etc), and denial reduced the number of successes instead of it being match the number of successes, it would feel more "measured" overall and less of a complete crapshoot.

To sum up my Position here:

* There are just too many universal(!) "Special" rules. You get marginal benefits, but have to remember the exact difference between over a dozen of similar rules for just one army. If you want to differentiate Units, give them better - or worse - values, Points changes, whatever. But having to remember that you can reroll Charge range in the first round against an Inquisitors Player in July and against Orks when it's full moon is just not worth it. Yeah, the big, rare, unique character may have the odd Special rule, but not every grot and their pet squig.

* The game process is too damn slow. Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save. Reroll applicable rerolls. Roll for feel no pain. Roll for some resurection protocols or whatever your army may or may not have. By the time you are done with one Action, your Opponent is asleep.
My Suggestion: A unit has a ranged and a melee attack value and a defence value. Cover, Actions, Equipment, bubbles etc. increase or decrease said value. The attacker rolls his attack rolls against the defence value. Everything that hits, hits. End of Story.

* Random tables. Random tables everywhere! Especially if you Play something chaosy. Roll for your warlords, roll on the chaotic Environment, roll for your psyker skills, roll on the boon, roll this, roll that... The process sucks and if you get precisely what you want least, it sucks double, since the model paid the Price for the potential good stuff and ended up with something you wouldn't take for free.

Remove that and suddenly you are able to Play a game within 2-3 hours without needing a small library too look up whether you may deploy an assault squad within 23,8 inches distance of the objective when it is Held by both a carnifex and an allied necron Lord.

Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:

Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375

Total: 1500 points.

That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.

Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.

This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:

Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375

Total: 1500 points.

That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.

Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.

This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.

That looks like a ScreamerStar got cancer and the HoTz cells just took over the entire body.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:

Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375

Total: 1500 points.

That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.

Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.

This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.

wtf, why is that a thing. -_-
Dammit GW, just because its chaos doesn't mean you have to give them superfluous random nonsense.

Hate the psychic phase - would prefer that psychic attacks and defences were just normal with the "Pyschic or Warp" keyword

Then anti-psyker stuff can ignore them and its part of the normal game system.

I really sat down and read the 40k rulebook for the first time recently and the issue with it isn't really that the game is that complicated; its simply not particularly well organized.

I'd blame the Codex system for this personally. Maintaining compatibility with rulebooks written for previous editions creates a very patchwork ruleset where little unnecessary differentiation exists between similar models, leading to situations where understanding the total compilation of "what this does" involves checking a half dozen places across 2-3 different books. There really aren't THAT many rules in actual play, its just that they're not presented together in a way that instructs players intuitively.

The game could probably really benefit from some simplification, though not of special rules, but of model types (ie things like Jump and Bikes could have their rules moved to the units themselves). Beyond that though, I think the game really just needs to be app based so that players can quickly see all the rules associated with a model rather than try to figure out how they all go together.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I actually like the fact there's a Psychic Phase in 7e. I remember 5th, how Psychic powers were an ambiguous mess, right down to casting powers in the enemy turn. Warp Charge creates a system that allows for resource allocation/risk management and I like that too.

The thing I dislike, as mentioned, is the logarithmic scaling in power/the way the game does "pooling." If the game was "2 Warp Charge per Mastery Level, but models may only use their own Warp Charge" or something along those lines, it would probably make more sense overall.

The other issue is powers and denial are both "all or nothing". I cast a WC 3 summon with 4 successes, my opponent needs to roll 4 sixes to deny. Roll 3...nope, that summon goes off. If powers were effective based on number of successes (Scouring Flame does more if you manifest with 4 successes instead of 1, etc), and denial reduced the number of successes instead of it being match the number of successes, it would feel more "measured" overall and less of a complete crapshoot.

I'll disagree by saying that the psychic phase it pretty dumb. They took an old WHFB mechanic that didn't work all that well and applied it to 40k where it faired even worse. I agree with others that they should just roll the powers into being applied to other phases of the game. Summoning something? Do that in the reserves phase. Shooting a unit? Do that in the shooting phase. Moving somewhere? Do that in the movement phase. The psychic phase is exactly the same problem as the copious amounts of USRs; it could all be done in an existing part of the game but they decided to tack on an extra, time consuming, phase just for...reasons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I really sat down and read the 40k rulebook for the first time recently and the issue with it isn't really that the game is that complicated; its simply not particularly well organized.

I'd blame the Codex system for this personally. Maintaining compatibility with rulebooks written for previous editions creates a very patchwork ruleset where little unnecessary differentiation exists between similar models, leading to situations where understanding the total compilation of "what this does" involves checking a half dozen places across 2-3 different books. There really aren't THAT many rules in actual play, its just that they're not presented together in a way that instructs players intuitively.

The game could probably really benefit from some simplification, though not of special rules, but of model types (ie things like Jump and Bikes could have their rules moved to the units themselves). Beyond that though, I think the game really just needs to be app based so that players can quickly see all the rules associated with a model rather than try to figure out how they all go together.

I agree, the basic rules themselves, outside of useless USRs, aren't the biggest issue. The biggest problem is that the army books focus completely on negating certain aspects of the game. I can get on board with special characters having their own rules to some extent, though it starts to look like herohammer, but basic grunts don't need 3 USRs and additional special snowflake rules that break other USRs.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:

Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375

Total: 1500 points.

That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.

Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.

This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.

No, that's willfull idiocy on the part of the army-building user. If I applied the logic of that post to another product, like hammers, I'd get something like this: "Theoretically, I can buy a hammer at my local hardware store, and then swing it at my own head! That really hurts! That's why GW shouldn't sell hammers."

I agree, GW's layout for their rules is atrocious. First example that comes to mind: why in the Emperor's name are a unit's unique special rules given in completely the opposite end of the book from that unit's actual composition and cost?

recalcitrantQ wrote:
I agree, GW's layout for their rules is atrocious. First example that comes to mind: why in the Emperor's name are a unit's unique special rules given in completely the opposite end of the book from that unit's actual composition and cost?

It's to make it harder for someone to photocopy just what you need to play an army. Seriously, check your codex. Actual rules are usually 20-30 pages, everything else is fluff, pictures, and other filler to make the book big enough to sell for that premium price. So by putting half of a unit's rules (USRs, etc) in the unit description while putting points/equipment in the army list, you now need to copy twice the number of pages...

 Insectum7 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:

Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375

Total: 1500 points.

That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.

Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.

This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.

No, that's willfull idiocy on the part of the army-building user. If I applied the logic of that post to another product, like hammers, I'd get something like this: "Theoretically, I can buy a hammer at my local hardware store, and then swing it at my own head! That really hurts! That's why GW shouldn't sell hammers."

The difference being someone (or a group of people) could hypothetically bring a list like this to a event just to grief other players. After all, how can you be booted for slow play when the round finishes before the game even began?

Also, how does putting all powers in one phase slow down the game exaxtly? If anything, it should speed things up since the system favors one or two big powers rather than spamming tons of small ones.

 don_mondo wrote:

recalcitrantQ wrote:
I agree, GW's layout for their rules is atrocious. First example that comes to mind: why in the Emperor's name are a unit's unique special rules given in completely the opposite end of the book from that unit's actual composition and cost?

It's to make it harder for someone to photocopy just what you need to play an army. Seriously, check your codex. Actual rules are usually 20-30 pages, everything else is fluff, pictures, and other filler to make the book big enough to sell for that premium price. So by putting half of a unit's rules (USRs, etc) in the unit description while putting points/equipment in the army list, you now need to copy twice the number of pages...

Which still doesn't work IMO, it may have worked 20 years ago but in the age of pdf documents and cheap home printers, not so much. If someone wants to do it illegally, they'll do it and still not spend as much, if your take on it is accurate, GW is punishing the people who purchase the books just for spite.

Honestly? It's easier if you do it illegally, since you can print out the relevant pages and place them with the relevant units...

If they are going to keep with the exploding number of supplements I seriously wish they would go back to something they have done before, and do it properly.

Drill the books, have a binding like a pad of paper (i.e. peals off) and sell ring binders with dividers. (codex Titanic, the Space Marine rulebook etc)

Now have a logical way of identifying sections, and number the rules - you buy you 'whatever' codex, the fluff bit goes in this folder, on a shelf, where it stays, the paint pictures go here where they also stay.

the units description pages go into that units section of the big army book of lists, or the part of it you take with you to use, any actual new rules are integrated into the rulebook - even if largely on a blank sheet of paper they go in the right place.

Instant updatable rulebook, write so there is whitespace on each page and your errata could actually be a collection of pages to print and swap out.

Plus gets so everything to do with a model moving is under 'M' (for example)

 Kosake wrote:
To sum up my Position here:

* There are just too many universal(!) "Special" rules. You get marginal benefits, but have to remember the exact difference between over a dozen of similar rules for just one army. If you want to differentiate Units, give them better - or worse - values, Points changes, whatever. But having to remember that you can reroll Charge range in the first round against an Inquisitors Player in July and against Orks when it's full moon is just not worth it. Yeah, the big, rare, unique character may have the odd Special rule, but not every grot and their pet squig.

* The game process is too damn slow. Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save. Reroll applicable rerolls. Roll for feel no pain. Roll for some resurection protocols or whatever your army may or may not have. By the time you are done with one Action, your Opponent is asleep.
My Suggestion: A unit has a ranged and a melee attack value and a defence value. Cover, Actions, Equipment, bubbles etc. increase or decrease said value. The attacker rolls his attack rolls against the defence value. Everything that hits, hits. End of Story.

* Random tables. Random tables everywhere! Especially if you Play something chaosy. Roll for your warlords, roll on the chaotic Environment, roll for your psyker skills, roll on the boon, roll this, roll that... The process sucks and if you get precisely what you want least, it sucks double, since the model paid the Price for the potential good stuff and ended up with something you wouldn't take for free.

Remove that and suddenly you are able to Play a game within 2-3 hours without needing a small library too look up whether you may deploy an assault squad within 23,8 inches distance of the objective when it is Held by both a carnifex and an allied necron Lord.

I like these suggestions a lot. Especially the second one. How do you think that would look? Would you still include saves in this system or would you scrap them? Personally I like saves because they give your opponent something to do doing your own turn. It helps to keep them interested.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kosake wrote:
To sum up my Position here:

* There are just too many universal(!) "Special" rules. You get marginal benefits, but have to remember the exact difference between over a dozen of similar rules for just one army. If you want to differentiate Units, give them better - or worse - values, Points changes, whatever. But having to remember that you can reroll Charge range in the first round against an Inquisitors Player in July and against Orks when it's full moon is just not worth it. Yeah, the big, rare, unique character may have the odd Special rule, but not every grot and their pet squig.

* The game process is too damn slow. Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save. Reroll applicable rerolls. Roll for feel no pain. Roll for some resurection protocols or whatever your army may or may not have. By the time you are done with one Action, your Opponent is asleep.
My Suggestion: A unit has a ranged and a melee attack value and a defence value. Cover, Actions, Equipment, bubbles etc. increase or decrease said value. The attacker rolls his attack rolls against the defence value. Everything that hits, hits. End of Story.

* Random tables. Random tables everywhere! Especially if you Play something chaosy. Roll for your warlords, roll on the chaotic Environment, roll for your psyker skills, roll on the boon, roll this, roll that... The process sucks and if you get precisely what you want least, it sucks double, since the model paid the Price for the potential good stuff and ended up with something you wouldn't take for free.

Remove that and suddenly you are able to Play a game within 2-3 hours without needing a small library too look up whether you may deploy an assault squad within 23,8 inches distance of the objective when it is Held by both a carnifex and an allied necron Lord.

I like these suggestions a lot. Especially the second one. How do you think that would look? Would you still include saves in this system or would you scrap them? Personally I like saves because they give your opponent something to do doing your own turn. It helps to keep them interested.

Keep saves but if you need granularity make FnP and RP a save (if you don't like just giving an extra W), not a save on top of a save. Example: FnP allows saves versus any weapon that's less than 2x the model's T value instead of "roll your armor, now roll FnP, now...." It's special but not roll dice forever special; the same with RP, get rid of RP and make it FnP. Extra granularity is in the save value. Regular troops get a 4+ with FnP, characters a 3+, etc.

I would keep saves. It gives your opponent a chance to survive if he gets alpha striked (in theory, anyway. One will have to limit the availability of long ranged AoE weapons that ignore armor)

Make RP more like how it was in 3rd and 5th ed (there was actual counterplay then), make FNP only available if the model cannot use his save and if the blow will not instantly kill him.
I find it odd how FNP is more effective at keep models alive than invulnerable saves.
It should be armor -> FNP -> Invul
Cover should be a negative hit modifier. Because its cover; it stops you from getting hit.

leopard wrote:
If they are going to keep with the exploding number of supplements I seriously wish they would go back to something they have done before, and do it properly.

Drill the books, have a binding like a pad of paper (i.e. peals off) and sell ring binders with dividers. (codex Titanic, the Space Marine rulebook etc)

Now have a logical way of identifying sections, and number the rules - you buy you 'whatever' codex, the fluff bit goes in this folder, on a shelf, where it stays, the paint pictures go here where they also stay.

the units description pages go into that units section of the big army book of lists, or the part of it you take with you to use, any actual new rules are integrated into the rulebook - even if largely on a blank sheet of paper they go in the right place.

Instant updatable rulebook, write so there is whitespace on each page and your errata could actually be a collection of pages to print and swap out.

Plus gets so everything to do with a model moving is under 'M' (for example)

This.
I would love something like this.
Before the first dice is even rolled things have already been made simpler.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.

In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.

Actually random charge distances were added to help assault armies, believe it or not. When premeasuring was added to the game, it was assumed that players would be able to accurately calculate charge distances down to the micron (which is true) and therefore shooting armies would deftly be able to step out of way of assault armies by .00000001" every single turn (or so the argument goes). With random charge distances, uncertainty is introduced and shooty armies are not able to make 100% sure they are out of assault range unless they stay outside of 18", which is considerably further than staying outside of 12".

Not to mention, the expected result of 2D6 > 6