One take away from my playing 40k a bit this Christmas break is there much too much out there in the rules.
So with no further ado, here's what I think could be cut and no one would miss them...
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
Unbound - No, just no.
Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.
Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.
Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: One take away from my playing 40k a bit this Christmas break is there much too much out there in the rules.
So with no further ado, here's what I think could be cut and no one would miss them...
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
Disagree with FnP. It's a save after saves. I still remember my bionics from 3rd edition. I would miss it.
Unbound - No, just no.
Agreed.
Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.
Agreed. 30k has a good approach to this problem.
Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
Then there would be no point in using them. Give them a bonus fitting of the formation. But not some broken gak like free transport or Decurion.
Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.
IF it's a vehicle. I'm fine with big Tyranids having a T value. But Mechanicum robots? Tau suits, regardless how big? No way.
Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.
I have to say, I quite like the different power weapon sytles, even if it's a lot to remember.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: One take away from my playing 40k a bit this Christmas break is there much too much out there in the rules.
So with no further ado, here's what I think could be cut and no one would miss them...
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
Unbound - No, just no.
Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.
Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.
Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.
Thought you were gonna say Space Elves.
My vote goes for dreadknights. Irredeemably ugly. And stupid. Centurions and wulfen could be salvaged with good models. But dreadknights? *vomit*
Well, 40k evolved in to an apocalyptic game on a regular basis, with unbound lists and superheavies as LoW. This makes the game hardly playable at the pickup level since you never know what to expect from the opponent.
GW would probably say that the rule set is a service to the customer reflecting the units and models produced atm.
I like FNP and how a T4 model with FNP can still be instant killed by Str 8 which ignores the FNP save where as a T5 model cannot be instant killed.
Unbound as a "official" format can go explode in a trukk. Between friends there is nothing stopping you from throwing a pile of models on the table with no regard for FOC and play a game. I don't want any justification for Timmy to throw down 5 wraithknights in a pickup game because "unbound".
Superheavies can zog off for all I care. Great for apoc and silly games but the current rules for them move to further make standard vehicles and even infantry irrelevant. 40K needs less bazooka in its rock, paper, scissors. I don't think Dreadknights and Riptides are as problematic considering things like the Riptide are super easy to tar pit into uselessness and its not all that hard to just shoot them to death. Toe in cover is something that needs to be addressed for MCs.
Formations done right can create a lot of variety in gameplay and spice up the game. Formations done wrong just feed the power creep. Bonuses are fine if they contribute to that style of play but often times the bonuses become the reason you take the unit instead of an extra that sweetens the deal.
Dreadknight/RIptides are a symptom of the bigger problem that the core Vehicle and especially Walker rules are just bad. Fixing vehicles is required before we go about ruining functional units (and I say this as a person who strongly dislikes the Riptide).
Semi related to the concept of simplifying weapons is that the standard weapons (las gun, bolter, lascannon, shoota, chainsword, etc) need to be keep relevant by toning down some of the more over the top weapons (looking at you grav). It feels weird seeing tactical marines being basically special/heavy weapon platforms while the bolters are a nearly irrelevant afterthought. Power creep in general is to blame but it doesn't have to be the case. It would help to tone down certain unit durability as well as certain weapon firepower so the bread and butter stuff is a little bit more useful.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: One take away from my playing 40k a bit this Christmas break is there much too much out there in the rules.
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
At first, I thought agreed with others on this thread, that I'd prefer this remain an independent save. But as I think more on it, I'm realizing how much I've been annoyed by the increased number of units that are getting 'bonus' invulnerables "just because", so I think I'd actually agree with such a change.
I don't know. Unbound lists receive no bonuses, like Obsec, and so there is little strategic advantage to taking an unbound list, other than to take whatever you like. That said, I also think that the whole point to apocalypse games was precisely to be able to take whatever you like, so why do normal games of 40K have to have similar rules? What's the difference/point any more?
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.
This I easily agree with. Points values be damned, bringing my Stompa to a standard 1850 game puts me at an advantage because unless my opponent's got a rhino full of meltas, there isnt' much they'll be able to do to Stompy. That's not fair, that's not sportsmanlike - imposing such a restriction (no superheavies in games below 3000 pts) would make sense.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
What's the point of having formations otherwise? I get the sense that you're just unsatisfied with 7th in general, and would prefer to go back to 3rd-5th editions, in which case, what's stopping you? We're not obliged to play the most current rule set if we don't want to.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.
I could get behind this.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.
PLaying as Orks, I would like this simplification as well....but we've *always* had different kinds of weapons in CC - thunderhammers, powerfists/powerklaws, and the like. Unless I'm confused and you're referring exclusively to basic troop types here. You'd have *hated* Second Edition, eh?
As for my own contribution, I'd throw in Fliers of all kinds. I just don't think the game needed them, and I see fliers entirely as GW forcing a mechanic change that blatantly encourages us to spend more money (because in order to deal effectively with my opponent's fliers, I almost *must* purchase the anti air capabilities avaialble). It's silly, a blatant cash grab, plus, I plain don't like the look of fliers on the table - they make a table look way too crowded, and they constantly get in the way of reaching around the table.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
What's the point of having formations otherwise? I get the sense that you're just unsatisfied with 7th in general, and would prefer to go back to 3rd-5th editions, in which case, what's stopping you? We're not obliged to play the most current rule set if we don't want to.
Well, it would be like Bolt Action. Rather than having to bring a generic 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 everything else you would have different force organisation charts.
Now let's spend a half hour rolling for our blind grenades...
What's not to love?
haha! And let's not forget waiting for my opponent to individually fire each of his models' guns as different targets....and again on overwatch...
Looking back, I'm surprised I stuck with the game considering how clunky 2nd ed was. Though I do miss individual vehicle data sheets. I liked the different damage charts and potential explody goodness
Challenges.
Or if we have to keep them then remove the overspill to the rest of the unit. Challenges should be a way to guarantee a snipe at a single character at the expense of hurting anything else.
Why malestrum of war? I've enjoyed the addition of objectives that make the game about more than merely kill points (esp beceause I have a friend in my group who only ever cares about kill points, only plays this game to kill stuff, and it gets super stale). I do think Maelstrum needs some work...my friends and I are working on houserules for a deck building component, whereby we select 25 or so cards we'd like to use in the game, shuffle, and draw from those. It eliminates some of the problems of malestrum, like drawing psychic cards when you've no psykers in the army, for example. I imagine something similar may help?
Randomness? So, removing all dice from the game, then? Because randomness is kind of inherent to Warhammer, and always has been. The randomness also helps level the game at times, which is very welcome.
Why malestrum of war? I've enjoyed the addition of objectives that make the game about more than merely kill points (esp beceause I have a friend in my group who only ever cares about kill points, only plays this game to kill stuff, and it gets super stale). I do think Maelstrum needs some work...my friends and I are working on houserules for a deck building component, whereby we select 25 or so cards we'd like to use in the game, shuffle, and draw from those. It eliminates some of the problems of malestrum, like drawing psychic cards when you've no psykers in the army, for example. I imagine something similar may help?
Randomness? So, removing all dice from the game, then? Because randomness is kind of inherent to Warhammer, and always has been. The randomness also helps level the game at times, which is very welcome.
Objective based games are great, but those objectives need to remain the same turn to turn, otherwise it isn't a strategic game, it is a mad dash turn to turn to reach X then Y and you can't plan ahead. I much prefer the way Infinity does it, with a major objective that has nothing to do with killing people, then secondary objectives that more or less act as tiebreakers which can be about killing. My last game I got tabled, but both me and my opponent only activated 2 objectives each, so it was a 2-2 draw even though i had nothing on the board.
Anything like D weapons and superheavies that were once Apoc only.
Including fliers.
Remove the randomness wherever possible.
Formations.
Keep Allies rules but trim it down.
And again with the Fliers. There's nothing wrong with Fliers.
Also, don't get rid of Maelstrom, as I find it quite fun. I think they should just add official rulings to it to make it a bit more fair, like being able to discard ones you can't physically complete, as well as give you a once per game mulligan.
A 1500pt 2nd ed SM army might have had 25 troopers and 1-2 vehicles.
Personally I'd like to see the release spam toned down and the rampant power creep dialled back somewhere below 11. I've been on a break from 40k and from what I read I really don't miss it much sadly.
All the stuff that just costs time and doesn't do anything for the game.
Roling for Warlordtraits (give them a Point value)
Roling for psychic powers (give them a Point value)
Overwatch
Throwing granades
Challenges in CC Look out sir (you can autopass wounds on models in 1", if there are no models in 1" you take the wound)
That fething demonic Environment table.
Mob rule (go back to the old one)
jonolikespie wrote: Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.
Well, what is your proposed rework?
I liked the concept behind them in the original Apoc rules, where they simply came in off one table edge, picked a target they fly over, and leave off the opposite table edge that turn. That way they are actually strafing a battlefield instead of flying at ridiculously low speeds in circles over a tiny battlefield.
jonolikespie wrote: Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.
Well, what is your proposed rework?
I liked the concept behind them in the original Apoc rules, where they simply came in off one table edge, picked a target they fly over, and leave off the opposite table edge that turn. That way they are actually strafing a battlefield instead of flying at ridiculously low speeds in circles over a tiny battlefield.
Hmm, that's actually not a bad idea. I'd be okay with that change, as that's essentially all my Night Scythes do anyway.
von Hohenstein wrote: All the stuff that just costs time and doesn't do anything for the game.
Roling for Warlordtraits (give them a Point value)
Roling for psychic powers (give them a Point value)
Overwatch
Throwing granades
Challenges in CC Look out sir (you can autopass wounds on models in 1", if there are no models in 1" you take the wound)
That fething demonic Environment table.
Mob rule (go back to the old one)
Yes to all of that. I actually forgot Overwatch was a thing, so add that to my list. It's yet another dumb mechanic that slows the game down just to get you rolling more dice. 40k needs a lot less of those kinds of mechanics.
master of ordinance wrote: Challenges.
Or if we have to keep them then remove the overspill to the rest of the unit. Challenges should be a way to guarantee a snipe at a single character at the expense of hurting anything else.
Agreed, but let's let excess wounds still count for combat res. I don't want to lose a CC because I caused 3 wounds to a sarge to get rid of him. If a deamon prince kills Sarge 4 times over, it's likely to be a grisly, demoralising sight.
I'd like to see a vehicle update to make them as viable as an MC.
I'd like to see GMC and Superheavy removed from normal games but, doesn't effect me since I won't play against them usually anyway.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Soul Blaze yet.
Make a D3 roll to see if you inflict D3 S4 hits on a unit. This is *FUN* when you do something silly like Warpflame Gargoyles on a Vindicator, or take a Firesabre. Slow the game down for the sake of...the equivalent of a bolter plinking off a wound?
Randomly rolled Daemonic Gifts are the other one. When a player can make a 1500 point list with 53 pre-game rolls to determine what powers it has...
jonolikespie wrote: Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.
Well, what is your proposed rework?
I liked the concept behind them in the original Apoc rules, where they simply came in off one table edge, picked a target they fly over, and leave off the opposite table edge that turn. That way they are actually strafing a battlefield instead of flying at ridiculously low speeds in circles over a tiny battlefield.
That would be great - but GW'd never go with that because then there'd be absolutely no point to having the models themselves--you could just as easily write the 'unit' as a strafing run rule, like an orbital bombardment, and never purchase a model. No model = no money for GW.
Well, I'd like to see all information (units and models, profiles, special rules, formations) about an army in a single place. Stop the scattering of army-wide rules and whatnot.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: One take away from my playing 40k a bit this Christmas break is there much too much out there in the rules.
So with no further ado, here's what I think could be cut and no one would miss them...
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
Unbound - No, just no.
Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.
Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.
Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.
I agree with everything, barring Unbound. Given the new bonuses of Formations, Unbound really isn't that bad. Sure, someone could plop down 3 Knights and 4 Flyrants, but that's rare, and you could just tell that person to go feth themselves. The stuff I fear more is the Decurion, the new Tau formations, etc.
Why malestrum of war? I've enjoyed the addition of objectives that make the game about more than merely kill points (esp beceause I have a friend in my group who only ever cares about kill points, only plays this game to kill stuff, and it gets super stale). I do think Maelstrum needs some work...my friends and I are working on houserules for a deck building component, whereby we select 25 or so cards we'd like to use in the game, shuffle, and draw from those. It eliminates some of the problems of malestrum, like drawing psychic cards when you've no psykers in the army, for example. I imagine something similar may help?
Randomness? So, removing all dice from the game, then? Because randomness is kind of inherent to Warhammer, and always has been. The randomness also helps level the game at times, which is very welcome.
Objective based games are great, but those objectives need to remain the same turn to turn, otherwise it isn't a strategic game, it is a mad dash turn to turn to reach X then Y and you can't plan ahead. I much prefer the way Infinity does it, with a major objective that has nothing to do with killing people, then secondary objectives that more or less act as tiebreakers which can be about killing. My last game I got tabled, but both me and my opponent only activated 2 objectives each, so it was a 2-2 draw even though i had nothing on the board.
Completely disagree, the objectives I believe make it a moving battle where things can actually happen, most of the standard missions turn into who brought the better gun line and can get to objectives at the end of turn 5. Even weaker armies like Orks and Dark elder can actually hope to win these types of battles against stronger codexes like Tau Eldar and Necrons. As for narrative it makes more sense as it would be a moving battle, make it to this point to extract data or some piece of technology/artifact this turn then go on to further objectives.
Why malestrum of war? I've enjoyed the addition of objectives that make the game about more than merely kill points (esp beceause I have a friend in my group who only ever cares about kill points, only plays this game to kill stuff, and it gets super stale). I do think Maelstrum needs some work...my friends and I are working on houserules for a deck building component, whereby we select 25 or so cards we'd like to use in the game, shuffle, and draw from those. It eliminates some of the problems of malestrum, like drawing psychic cards when you've no psykers in the army, for example. I imagine something similar may help?
Randomness? So, removing all dice from the game, then? Because randomness is kind of inherent to Warhammer, and always has been. The randomness also helps level the game at times, which is very welcome.
Objective based games are great, but those objectives need to remain the same turn to turn, otherwise it isn't a strategic game, it is a mad dash turn to turn to reach X then Y and you can't plan ahead. I much prefer the way Infinity does it, with a major objective that has nothing to do with killing people, then secondary objectives that more or less act as tiebreakers which can be about killing. My last game I got tabled, but both me and my opponent only activated 2 objectives each, so it was a 2-2 draw even though i had nothing on the board.
Completely disagree, the objectives I believe make it a moving battle where things can actually happen, most of the standard missions turn into who brought the better gun line and can get to objectives at the end of turn 5. Even weaker armies like Orks and Dark elder can actually hope to win these types of battles against stronger codexes like Tau Eldar and Necrons. As for narrative it makes more sense as it would be a moving battle, make it to this point to extract data or some piece of technology/artifact this turn then go on to further objectives.
Agreed. As annoying as random objectives can be, I've definitely had better odds at outscoring my opponents versus "Stand there and shoot at each other, then Turn 5 run for the Objectives"
My personal list of things I'd love to see go away.
Formations (hooray massive free stuff for no reason!)
Allies (lets be real, almost nobody is using this for "fluff")
Destroyer Weapons on anything not at least 500pts.
Multiple detachments.
Not being able to assault out of stationary transports
Hull Points (we scratched the paint 3 times...that killed it!)
Kill Points (because a Drop Pod is totally worth as much as a Land Raider right?)
Maelstrom (High Command says to stab something...no wait now they want you to nab every critical location on the field...no wait now they want you to shoot down something flying...no now they want you to cast psychic powers...)
First Blood & Line Breaker.
T5 multiwound/overlapping Sv "speed" units (looking at you TWC's/Ravenwing/Necron Wraiths).
Theres more, but thats the first that came to mind.
EDIT: Jink...oh man how did I forget about that. Jink downsides should affect vehicle passengers and have some sort of downside on assaults too, not just shooting (either bo assault after jinking or attacks must be made at ws1 I1 or something). Also, FMC's not actively Swooping should not be able to Jink.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
I like FNP. What I'd do is get rid of special rules that just give other special rules. I'd also go through and get rid of any redundant special rules. And the Lance rule. I hate that rule.
Agreed. At this point, I think Unbound is a colossal failure so universally rejected by the community that it's just an embarrassment to GW.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.
I agree. In addition, get rid of the Lord of War slot. Instead, give such units a rule titled Lord of War, which makes it take up all 3 of the Heavy Support slots in a FOC, and appropriate similar considerations for formations. That'd make people have to make some real choices in their list building.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
I think some formation bonuses are appropriate if they encourage fluffy builds. The Eldar Guardian Hosts are a good example, as is the Gladius Strike Force. Players weren't playing armies full of Guardians or Tac/Assault/Dev squads minus those formations' bonuses. I'm not entirely happy with how the GSF hands out its bonuses - I think one GSF ought to give free Transports to every squad you buy to full size - but I approve of the principle.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.
Yes, yes, and all the yes.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.
Well, I hear what you're saying, but at the same time we have a broad range of rules for guns, so why not for melee weapons?
Here's a few other things I'd get rid of.
1: The Allies rules: The Allies rules are almost a complete failure as a tool for creating fluffy armies, but they are a fantastic tool for min-maxing abuse. They need to just go away entirely.
2: Windrider Jetbikes as Troops. The complaint about Windriders used to be that they were an anemic Fast Attack choice and didn't compete well against the other choices. Scatbikes say this isn't true anymore. If someone wants to play a Windrider-themed army, there's a formation for that now. There's no reason to keep Jetbikes in Troops except to pander to min-maxers.
3: Random tables in general. It's obnoxious to have to roll on tables all the time, especially in the middle of a game.
This was my favorite change when going from 5th to 6th edition. I would be mad if it went away.
Why is agonizing over individual model placement in a game with 200 models on the table a good thing? This is a classic case of GW trying to escalate everything, and then throwing a bunch of hyper detailed skirmish rules in that just slow down the game. They need to decide what they want more, giant tanks, planes and big stompy robots running around or detailed, model by model interactions. When you try to do both at the same time, the ruleset suffers. If they want us all to cover the table in models, they should probably give us a simpler way to resolve things.
Do the 30K thing and just limit LoW to a percentage system.
If you jink you cannot assault or overwatch. There has to be some downside to that rule.
GC and super heavies should have some rule that gives rerolls or +1 to hit in shooting and CC for being so damn big like the old large target rules in fantasy.
I actually like most of 7th though. I love formations, flyers, challenges, etc. I just wish the rules were more streamlined.
IRT Walkers vs MC, I would not mind if they kept the two classifications, but apart from a couple specific applications, the rules should be identical.
This was my favorite change when going from 5th to 6th edition. I would be mad if it went away.
Why is agonizing over individual model placement in a game with 200 models on the table a good thing? This is a classic case of GW trying to escalate everything, and then throwing a bunch of hyper detailed skirmish rules in that just slow down the game. They need to decide what they want more, giant tanks, planes and big stompy robots running around or detailed, model by model interactions. When you try to do both at the same time, the ruleset suffers. If they want us all to cover the table in models, they should probably give us a simpler way to resolve things.
It’s also a case of them putting rules in place to fix things that are no longer in the rules. We have precision shots if the shooter wants to pick who dies. This fixes the wound allocation issues of past editions, where the guy getting shot could mess with the wound allocation (or even just pick who way back when). You want to pick off the sarge/heavy weapon guy? Bring snipers. Finicky wound allocation, like many rules, adds a lot of time spent on overhead while not actually bringing much fun to the table.
Now I appreciate some of the aspects of directional wound allocation. It makes flank attacks actually worth something. If I swing some speeders around behind your squad, where the guy with the ML is hiding, I get to kill him first. Nice little shot of realism. It also means I can’t have my sergeants heroically leading from the front, and need to micro manage model placement. And game play slows down every time hits get handed out. Net loss IMHO.
But every iteration of wound allocation has issues that are irritating or exploitable. Just what people prefer.
Some of the things mentioned would be fine if moved back into optional add-on expansion rulebooks (like Apocalypse used to be) rather than being part of the core rules.
3. Flyers (just make ALL flyers count as SKIMMERS and it's PROBLEM SOLVED!)
4. Special Characters
5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)
6. No Random charge rules
7. Agree wholeheartedly on returning to basic ccws, 'power weapons', fists (thunder hammers should be treated as fists, LCs should be fists that either reroll to hits, or something, but still act as power fists), and the occasional force weapon.
8. Neuter or remove grav weapons
9. Fortifications (even if I am warming up to the ADL)
10. Lots of special rules: HoW, Bulky (just say what can and can not use a transport or how many models it counts as in the unit descriptions), Crusader, Hatred/ Preferred Enemy (one or the other please), Jink, Rampage, Scout (just make this as Infiltrate), Shrouded, Interceptor/Skyfire (again one or the other), and Smash.
3. Flyers (just make ALL flyers count as SKIMMERS and it's PROBLEM SOLVED!)
4. Special Characters
5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)
6. No Random charge rules
7. Agree wholeheartedly on returning to basic ccws, 'power weapons', fists (thunder hammers should be treated as fists, LCs should be fists that either reroll to hits, or something, but still act as power fists), and the occasional force weapon.
8. Neuter or remove grav weapons
9. Fortifications (even if I am warming up to the ADL)
10. Lots of special rules: HoW, Bulky (just say what can and can not use a transport or how many models it counts as in the unit descriptions), Crusader, Hatred/ Preferred Enemy (one or the other please), Jink, Rampage, Scout (just make this as Infiltrate), Shrouded, Interceptor/Skyfire (again one or the other), and Smash.
.
... so you just want to play 4th? Because, you can just play 4th still.
KingmanHighborn wrote: 7. Agree wholeheartedly on returning to basic ccws, 'power weapons', fists (thunder hammers should be treated as fists, LCs should be fists that either reroll to hits, or something, but still act as power fists), and the occasional force weapon.
I agree with this to a degree. The power weapons should be streamlined to a single statline: user strenght and AP2 - that's it. Then power fists as they are now (just instead of "Concussive", say "Strikes Last", which removes the need of a special rule just for the sake of a special rule). Not sure about Lightning Claws though, I'd probably leave them as they are now (they're not supposed to be power fists, despite most models representing them as power fists with loooong nails). Regarding force weapons... I'd probably do away with them entirely. Psyker gets power weapon, and that's it.
About the vehicles vs. monstruous creatures thing, I'd agree about merging them into a single statline, perhaps doing away with the front, side and rear armor thing and the random damage table. Give them all wounds and toughness value. Once down to half the wounds, movement and attacks capability reduced to half and can only fire a single weapon per turn. I agree with the proposed "mechanical/flesh" distinction.
Overwatch out of the window = nice.
Something should be done aboug Grav, too. As it is right now, it simply breaks the game to me. Change it to a crowd control weapon with small blasts, not really about mass murdering everything with an armor but pinning units down and disrupting vehicles' rate of fire temporarily. Make it an interesting weapon with a tactical purpose.
3rd was not without problems. It is far enough back that rose colored nostalgia takes care of most of the rough edges.
The rules got better throughout the time of third. They were actively tweaking things in WD to make it better.
But codex creep was horrible. The last book out would stomp earlier books, and the poor souls still working out of the main rulebook would just eat it.
I love third. Probably my happiest time playing 40k. And I miss it as well. I also miss being young, not having mortgage payments, and hair.
Instead of "no Unbound" and "No Formations with Special Rules", I say revert back to the old FoC, while Formations just shifts units from different slots (think 3rd Edition Deathwing, where it not only shifted DW terminators to various slots, but also took away options for taking non-DW models).
For Granular weapons, I'd also say cut back on the massive amount of rules in each army. Especially Space Marines.
First off, they have ATSKNF, then Combat Squads. This is decently complex already. Then you have the Sergeant, who has to have the Sergeant special rule. Then you tack on Chapter Tactics, which adds anywhere from 1 to 2 extra rules on top of that. THEN you get specialist units like Sternguards who get Specialist Ammunition. And THEN you add on Detachment or Formation rules. Suddenly that 1 model has something like 6-7 separate rules doing a bunch of different things that you gotta keep track of despite the fact that, if balanced correctly, only 2 at most is needed (for sternguards, probably just ATSKNF and Specialist Ammunition).
Now let's spend a half hour rolling for our blind grenades...
What's not to love?
Please. The best is when you have random movement of models on fire, vortex grenades, etc. The random swirling death was the best part of 2E!
Also the pre-game shenanigans, like the Tyranids used to bring. Tables and tables of stuff before you actually play the game. Which means to bunker down and declare Overwatch!
But really, rolling the clock back to something more simplified & streamlined like 3E/4E would be very welcome.
It sure looks like a lot of people would like to go back to 4th or 5th edition. I know I personally play 4th ed, and haven't even bothered to look back (or is it a head at this point). So much simpler, the game flows better, and whats more you once again know what your fighting. No special formation bonus or some crap to suddenly spring up that you were not prepared or even know about.
Also, when talking about an edition, it helps to seperate the core rules from the codexs. Yes, there was some bad codex creep in those days too, but the nice thing is that since your now playing an older edition, why not modify the glaring problems with the codexs too. Its amazing how much more fun it is to play against Eldar when Holofields have had their rules changed to a 5+ inv save throw instead of the 2D6 pick the lowest on the chart. Eldar players don't even complain.
I'd 'roll back the prices' to 5th edition, make everything inclusive by consent instead of exclusive by consent. LoW, Unbound, D weapons, all that gak would revert to 'by mutual player consent' instead of 'unless you both agree not to'.
Would make pick up games and tourneys a lot bloody easier.
All great points that would improve a lot to the game. Only the last one I have never felt was an issue. There is not so many weapons that you can't easily memorise the profiles for power axes, swords etc. I also really like the fact that different weapons actually feel different, as they should. An axe is not a sword, after all.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:First off, they have ATSKNF, then Combat Squads. This is decently complex already. Then you have the Sergeant, who has to have the Sergeant special rule. Then you tack on Chapter Tactics, which adds anywhere from 1 to 2 extra rules on top of that. THEN you get specialist units like Sternguards who get Specialist Ammunition. And THEN you add on Detachment or Formation rules. Suddenly that 1 model has something like 6-7 separate rules doing a bunch of different things that you gotta keep track of despite the fact that, if balanced correctly, only 2 at most is needed (for sternguards, probably just ATSKNF and Specialist Ammunition).
I'd write off ATSKNF entirely. What's really the point? The rule is absolutely expendable from beginning to end.
Iron_Captain wrote:All great points that would improve a lot to the game. Only the last one I have never felt was an issue. There is not so many weapons that you can't easily memorise the profiles for power axes, swords etc. I also really like the fact that different weapons actually feel different, as they should. An axe is not a sword, after all.
The current Power Axe rules are not axes, either. They don't work like axes at all. Same for maces. At the very least, they should have their rules exchanged with each other. It would be easier to merely write all of them as power weapons with the same rules, that way if a slaanesh champion comes running at you with a power dildo, you don't have to think too much about what it can do to you.
Yes, because let's just kill Assault units entirely unless they have a Bike or are Jump Infantry.
4. Special Characters
Why?
5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)
Invisibility on every Psyker ever for free. BALANCED!
2. It's a stupid rule, besides assault troops still can't assault if they run unless they have fleet
4. Because I liked the old days when special characters were uber rare, special circumstance plays, and could only be taken in 2k+ armies. And it flies in the face of the Warlord=You mentality of building your leader character and army around you. Call the RPer in me. Plus a lot of them are over powered. (And some as overpriced and underwhelming)
5. Well we could go back to 1-3 powers per the whole army instead of a massive selection. Or you know balance the powers. Personally in favor of just rolling back the clock. Though I do like the 'concept' of warlord traits to tweak a character.
I agree with the special character one. It feels weird where, at one point, almost every list had a Special Character leading it because they were just more cost-effective for the equipment and their special rules made them heads and shoulders above anything equivalent. Worst was the 5th Ed marine dex, where if you wanted to play another chapter, you were basically forced to take one of the named special characters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Psy Powers should return to being something you buy with points and cast on a leadership test. As it stands now, they're unreliable as hell.
No, but they can get closer rather than spend a phase doing nothing. An assault unit typically don't have guns that are in range until they can charge. With no Run moves it'll take longer for them to get in range to use those guns and charge. Who cares if overwatch is gone if assault units can get kited by every unit with a gun more effectively.
Well then just re-add the limits, not delete them entirely. And tbh I can't think of a single OP Character, only characters that are no-brainers to take because of what they do for the army.
1. Psykers and the psyker phase in general
2. The Tau
3. The Eldar
4. Flyers
5. Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures
6. Super heavy vehicles
7. Rerollable saves
8. D Weapons
Yes, because let's just kill Assault units entirely unless they have a Bike or are Jump Infantry.
5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)
Invisibility on every Psyker ever for free. BALANCED!
Run needs to die, but for the really concerned you can just go back and give fleet its original rules and the units that had it. The introduction of run helped escalate the need for higher ROF weapons, as those assault units were closing too fast.
Also invisibility needs to die as well. That power is easily one of the top three most broken things in the game.
Why malestrum of war? I've enjoyed the addition of objectives that make the game about more than merely kill points (esp beceause I have a friend in my group who only ever cares about kill points, only plays this game to kill stuff, and it gets super stale). I do think Maelstrum needs some work...my friends and I are working on houserules for a deck building component, whereby we select 25 or so cards we'd like to use in the game, shuffle, and draw from those. It eliminates some of the problems of malestrum, like drawing psychic cards when you've no psykers in the army, for example. I imagine something similar may help?
Randomness? So, removing all dice from the game, then? Because randomness is kind of inherent to Warhammer, and always has been. The randomness also helps level the game at times, which is very welcome.
Objective based games are great, but those objectives need to remain the same turn to turn, otherwise it isn't a strategic game, it is a mad dash turn to turn to reach X then Y and you can't plan ahead. I much prefer the way Infinity does it, with a major objective that has nothing to do with killing people, then secondary objectives that more or less act as tiebreakers which can be about killing. My last game I got tabled, but both me and my opponent only activated 2 objectives each, so it was a 2-2 draw even though i had nothing on the board.
Completely disagree, the objectives I believe make it a moving battle where things can actually happen, most of the standard missions turn into who brought the better gun line and can get to objectives at the end of turn 5. Even weaker armies like Orks and Dark elder can actually hope to win these types of battles against stronger codexes like Tau Eldar and Necrons. As for narrative it makes more sense as it would be a moving battle, make it to this point to extract data or some piece of technology/artifact this turn then go on to further objectives.
Agreed. As annoying as random objectives can be, I've definitely had better odds at outscoring my opponents versus "Stand there and shoot at each other, then Turn 5 run for the Objectives"
Just because the standard objectives are bad doesn't mean Maelstrom is good.
Each player deploying 2 objectives in their deployment zone then 1 in the center of the table. You score 1 point for each player turn you are on an objective but you can not score off the ones in your own deployment zone.
There, gunlines can gunline all they want, but you need to push up the table to score. It helps close combat armies be a little more viable, and it removes the aspect of the game where the player who has second turn can zip a jetbike up on the last turn to contest and win because of it.
And fix maelstrom. Use actual objectives that remain the same, instead of giving people a first turn victory because they picked up seven they can score.
Lots of great discussion here and yeah, my list kind of shows that I was a 3rd/4th edition player and still love the force org chart. It ain't perfect but at least it was some kind of structure to army building.
Well I promised 10 so I guess I should do 4 more, here's 2:
Random Warlord traits - I think we're all in agreement here. And I LIKE the idea of warlord traits. I especially like the ones that are actually tactical and give your army options in deployment or moving since it shows your warlord is actually leading and not just a the best swordsman in you army. I H8 that they are random. If in my mind Sheik Abdul al-Impurar is a master of infiltration and stealth, then why can't a he reliably get an ability that matches that? What exactly do the random traits represent? "Gee Fred I was just reading a book on targeting priorities so I think this week I'll teach my squads how to split fire just to see what happens." Keep some of the traits, give them point values and let players buy one per army. Or none. But enough of this randomness.
Stupid terrain rules - no one mentioned them, because I think no one uses them, but the stupid, stupid terrain rules have to go. Ruins are ruins. None of this 'you get bonus X because you're in the Manufactorum (tm)'. The rules for fortifications you can buy are fine in principal but the rules for the neutral terrain have to go. And I gather pretty much everyone ignores them anyway.
I have never really used the terrain rules but I do like the idea that some can give bonuses or be dangerous to be in. Just not all of them - maybe have a list of optional rules that can be given to certain appropriate terrain pieces that represent an unusual piece of terrain, something that can add some spice. Currently 40K suffers from the same terrain problem that WHFB 8th ed did - every single piece of terrain is magical or special. A forest can not be just a forest, it has to be a razorwing nest or a haunted wood or something else. A river has to be a caustic ooze or a river of blood or another thing. This is bad for the game and makes the setting seem stupid.
Personally, I play without the terrain rules.
I saw someone earlier complaining about the fortification rules, why? they are really good and allow you to add something else to your army. And my Guard would be useless without their VSG.
Yes, because let's just kill Assault units entirely unless they have a Bike or are Jump Infantry.
4. Special Characters
Why?
5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)
Invisibility on every Psyker ever for free. BALANCED!
2. It's a stupid rule, besides assault troops still can't assault if they run unless they have fleet
4. Because I liked the old days when special characters were uber rare, special circumstance plays, and could only be taken in 2k+ armies. And it flies in the face of the Warlord=You mentality of building your leader character and army around you. Call the RPer in me. Plus a lot of them are over powered. (And some as overpriced and underwhelming)
5. Well we could go back to 1-3 powers per the whole army instead of a massive selection. Or you know balance the powers. Personally in favor of just rolling back the clock. Though I do like the 'concept' of warlord traits to tweak a character.
Run lets units that have minimal/no shooting to do something in the shooting phase other stand still and wait to be shot.
jonolikespie wrote: Just because the standard objectives are bad doesn't mean Maelstrom is good.
Each player deploying 2 objectives in their deployment zone then 1 in the center of the table.
This. Except we should be clear that Malestrom is bad - the opposite of good. From a thematic / strategic standpoint, it's simply stupid to have your forces running around like a bunch of ADHD idiots. Quite frankly, I fail to see why 40k can't focus more on "classic" KOTH / CTF scenarios, along with asymmetrical attacker/defender scenarios.
I always prefer each player to deploy 1 objective in each DZ and one in No Man's Land. That's 6 objectives, with a better balance to how they deploy.
I'd really love to see more assymetrical missions, but GW seems to go out of their way to find the worst method of executing every concept that comes their way.
Something simple, like Player A has to kill the enemy Warlord by turn 5, player B has to hold the center point or kill at keast 50% of the opposing armies points value or something. If both players achieve their obejctives then they both can count it as a minor victory and if they achieve their objective while denying the opponent theirs then they can call it a major victory, anf if neither get their objectives then its a draw. Simple stuff like that.
I'd love the above to but that requires something that many players are reluctant to do and that's play an uphill mission especially in a tournament (which is a legit concern).
jonolikespie wrote: Just because the standard objectives are bad doesn't mean Maelstrom is good.
Each player deploying 2 objectives in their deployment zone then 1 in the center of the table.
This. Except we should be clear that Malestrom is bad - the opposite of good. From a thematic / strategic standpoint, it's simply stupid to have your forces running around like a bunch of ADHD idiots. Quite frankly, I fail to see why 40k can't focus more on "classic" KOTH / CTF scenarios, along with asymmetrical attacker/defender scenarios.
I always prefer each player to deploy 1 objective in each DZ and one in No Man's Land. That's 6 objectives, with a better balance to how they deploy.
To be fair, I think Maelstrom is a lot of fun. I agree, it should be less random (ITC's modified Maelstrom isn't bad), but I like it as opposed to static objectives. Actually I'd be interested in playtesting "Held Maelstrom", I.E. yeah you draw Hold Objective 1, but you have to hold it for one turn, giving your opponent time to assault/shoot you off of it.
The idea of random / hidden objectives is good. But the implementation is very bad.
For example, I'd have players initial draw their primary objective worth 3 VPs prior to deployment; 5 VPs if revealed. At the start of each turn, players may draw an additional objective worth 1 VP (2 if revealed, -1 if revealed but unmet). All objectives to be assessed at the end of the game (random game length).
That has a strategic focus, along with a "push your luck" element for taking more objectives, a risk/reward tied to revealing/hiding objectives, and the opportunity for the opponent to score VPs against revealed objectives.
Something like that.
And yes, objectives should otherwise be a "take and hold", where you have to take it and hold it for an additional turn.
Rather than modifying seventh edition, I'd rather we just got a rewrite like 3rd. Include army lists for all factions in the main rulebook and you can expand them later with campaign supplements (like the old Codex: Armageddon) or theme lists (like the codices of old with unit restrictions).
There are just so many things I'd want removed/modified in seventh, it'd be easier to reboot IMO.
A big problem with 40k's rules is they release new editions but expect older codexes to be backward compatible.
So for example if they want to buff Assault marines they can't just lower points or raise attacks because Assault Marines appear in 5 different books.
So instead they create a new special rule 'hammer of wrath' that adds an attack to jump troops.
Which means you can't really tell what assault marines do by reading their codex entry you need to see the core rules for jump troops which then point you to the USR hammer of wrath and then and only then do you find out they get an additional attack as I10, S4...
FEH!
Give them a base 2 attacks and call it a day!
While Age of Sigmar has problems beyond number I really do like the idea of all the rules on one card AND the cards for free AND the cards are updated from time to time.
But I'm wandering off of my own subject here which is things to cut.
And the problem with just adding in HOW is that not all jump infantry are created equal. Some could in fact use the extra attack to help them perform their job, but then others who also get the HOW bonus, but were good at their job anyway and now become a little too good for their points.
The biggest problem with 40k's rules is that they keep adding more of them. We don't need No Fear and Fearless and Stubborn - just Fearless. We don't need +1A for 2nd weapon and Hammer of Wrath -- just give the stat as A2. And so on. Cut the special rules and simplify the rest with a vengeance a la AoS!
master of ordinance wrote: I have never really used the terrain rules but I do like the idea that some can give bonuses or be dangerous to be in. Just not all of them - maybe have a list of optional rules that can be given to certain appropriate terrain pieces that represent an unusual piece of terrain, something that can add some spice. Currently 40K suffers from the same terrain problem that WHFB 8th ed did - every single piece of terrain is magical or special. A forest can not be just a forest, it has to be a razorwing nest or a haunted wood or something else. A river has to be a caustic ooze or a river of blood or another thing. This is bad for the game and makes the setting seem stupid.
Personally, I play without the terrain rules.
I saw someone earlier complaining about the fortification rules, why? they are really good and allow you to add something else to your army. And my Guard would be useless without their VSG.
Fortifications would be fine as an optional rule section.
The IG ought to be a decent army without having to use a new section of rules published to justify more model kits.
2 more to go, so another one I think will get wide support:
Battle Brothers and Desperate Allies - Cutting 2 of the 4 levels of allies leaving just 2, Allies of Convenience and Come the Apocalypse. Why? Even among the Imperium none of the factions really like each other, Marines think the Guard are incompetent cannon fodder, Guard thinks Sisters are psycho pyromaniacs, Sisters think Mechanicus are a half step from heresy and nobody likes the Inquisition or Assassins. They may all be fighting for the Emperor but they're not at the 'come on and ride in my APC' or 'hey want to lead my squad' level of friendship. So don't allow even natural allies to share transports, characters and buffs. And once you're bringing in various Xeno groups it gets worse. But I'd also go back to the 6th edition practice where all Imperial actions were listed seperately. I'd also make sure everyone, including Nids and Necs, gets at least two friends, probably Orks and Guard. They'll ally with anyone.
For Assassins and Inquisition, I think I'd just say they are elite/HQ picks for all Imperial forces (except maybe Dark Angels and Space Wolfs).
3rd was not without problems. It is far enough back that rose colored nostalgia takes care of most of the rough edges.
The rules got better throughout the time of third. They were actively tweaking things in WD to make it better.
But codex creep was horrible. The last book out would stomp earlier books, and the poor souls still working out of the main rulebook would just eat it.
I love third. Probably my happiest time playing 40k. And I miss it as well. I also miss being young, not having mortgage payments, and hair.
The big advantages of playing 3rd ed now are that you have proper models for Drop Pods and Wave Serpents, also you can make 7th ed vehicles and creatures with the design rules and with Capter Approved books you have nearly everything you have in 7th edition.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The biggest problem with 40k's rules is that they keep adding more of them. We don't need No Fear and Fearless and Stubborn - just Fearless. We don't need +1A for 2nd weapon and Hammer of Wrath -- just give the stat as A2. And so on. Cut the special rules and simplify the rest with a vengeance a la AoS!
Simplify yes.
Simplify a la AoS noooooooo.
KoW is simple, it has four pages of special rules and every unit in the game will only use those special rules. Once you learn them you can see a new unit on the table and ask what they do. The answer will be that they have X, Y and X, and you know EXACTLY what that unit is capable of.
AoS has no universal special rules, every unit seems to have something totally unique listed on their unit entry. A shield on one model might grant a +1 save if he charged, but on the next model it lets you reroll 1s on your save if you didn't charge, but then yet another rolls a dice for every unsaved wound and on a 6 ignores it.
This is a lot harder to remember when you're on the other side of the table and not as familiar with the army you are playing against, and requires a lot of reading the same rule again and again to remind yourself of it and asking your opponent what a unit does.
This isn't simple, it's just putting the information in the one place.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Lots of great discussion here and yeah, my list kind of shows that I was a 3rd/4th edition player and still love the force org chart. It ain't perfect but at least it was some kind of structure to army building.
The thing I remember about playing in third and fourth editions were that the FOC was wrong for background purposes and boring for gameplay. There should be very few armies than have a Demolisher, a platoon, an iron fist squad, and a random basilisk all together. A battle isn't always going to have 2x troops fighting 2x troops. They did make armies balanced, certainly, but they did make opposing armies very much the same as each other.
The thing about saying that large models and flyers don't belong in the game, are un-fun or unsportsmanlike to play with, or are pay-to-win is that too me it seems pretty confused. You like civilian stuff, right Kid_Kyoto, and gene stealers, arbites etc? Well the entire point of those forces are that that exist in the context of overwhelming industrialized warfare and that they have to accomplish their goals despite there being a Titan marauding through their city.
I hope that once there are enough formations out, that the CAD is written right out of the game. Formations can have assigned objectives, e.g. if you have six basilisks and a command Salamander they can get points for firing off the table, and delay enemy ground reserves. They can also be worth different amounts of kill points, e.g. 1000 points worth of Titan yields eight kill points but 1000 points worth of green tide is worth only three.
This is the kind of thing that gets me excited when Vaktathi talks about asymmetrical missions. Even meat grinder or any type of break through mission is great. They would be really great if they were automatic, e.g. if you bring X formation you get x objective, and if you're out gunned by G points you get g objective.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: 2 more to go, so another one I think will get wide support:
Battle Brothers and Desperate Allies - Cutting 2 of the 4 levels of allies leaving just 2, Allies of Convenience and Come the Apocalypse. Why? Even among the Imperium none of the factions really like each other, Marines think the Guard are incompetent cannon fodder, Guard thinks Sisters are psycho pyromaniacs, Sisters think Mechanicus are a half step from heresy and nobody likes the Inquisition or Assassins. They may all be fighting for the Emperor but they're not at the 'come on and ride in my APC' or 'hey want to lead my squad' level of friendship. So don't allow even natural allies to share transports, characters and buffs. And once you're bringing in various Xeno groups it gets worse. But I'd also go back to the 6th edition practice where all Imperial actions were listed seperately. I'd also make sure everyone, including Nids and Necs, gets at least two friends, probably Orks and Guard. They'll ally with anyone.
For Assassins and Inquisition, I think I'd just say they are elite/HQ picks for all Imperial forces (except maybe Dark Angels and Space Wolfs).
Agreed. Nothing makes my blood boil more than seeing SW and DA allied together. Seriously, that would never happen, DA are supposed to be loners. Probably the most offensive one I saw was a DE detachment, Eldar detachment, and TWC detachment. It was built just to spam OP units.
AoS plays exactly like 40k, and it's far less messy than 40k. If they were to take the next step and clean up the unit abilities a la 3E / KOW, that would be even better.
Unbound - I understand the concept. It's to let people make nice fluffy lists like Assault Companies, Tyranid Winged hordes or Kult of Speed style lists....but in practice it's just too easy to abuse and stack the uber units from different armies without care for theme or composition. Really, these variant armies could be better suited by a 'pool' of generic detachments that allow greater emphasis on specific aspects and could be taken by anyone.
Rule Retrogression - KK covered this with the weapon profiles. I will come out and state that this is also the case with the Wulfen (people saying they got 'old' Fleet back) and seems to crop up every other release. When we moved to 3rd ed everything got chopped and streamlined, to avoid the 2nd ed. 'skirmish' game dragging on forever and a day with everything (and I mean everything) having its own unique rules, profiles, charts, tables...
We've started moving back towards that. We have old rules cropping up in new units or as Formation bonuses. We have weapons getting different profiles (which almost immediately shafts people based on their modelling choices - how do you like your almost all I1 Khornate army because you thought Axes were fluffy, eh?) and we have more and more random charts for individual units, formations and so on.
Seriously, the Wulfen pissed me off in this respect. Not only are they a slathering of special rules but they also have 'unique' rules and 'unique' charts for interacting with other models in their own army.
Formation Freebies - No. Stop. Seriously. The most obvious one that comes to mind is the SM ones that give them free transports. In Exterminatus BA got formations that gave all their Veterans free weapon upgrades. In CotW the Wolves get a formation that gives their transports free upgrades.
This needs to stop. There's a reason weapons, transports and upgrades have point costs. There's a reason points exist within the structure of the game and indeed are used as the underlying factor to determine a balanced composition to play against someone else. So it'd be mighty nice if formations could just...STOP...ignoring that.
Apocalypse Rules at 40k Levels - Superheavies and the D - KK made a good point. There needs to be some sort of restriction on this. Between this and unbound it's just...meh. My local club had a no holds barred tournament recently - the restriction was no Unbound. Ok. I worked out a legal 1850 Eldar force that consisted of around 4 CADs that pretty much netted me 4 Wraithknights and 8 units of jetbikes to claim objectives with. Did I play? No. For one that sort of thing is pretty much blah for anyone not playing that sort of army.
But Superheavies and Gargantuans...do NOT belong in 40k without restriction. They are just too dominant at lower point values - hence why they originally only cropped up in Apocalypse games at 3k+ or had a whole slew of penalties in the forms of bonuses for your opponent in Escalation.
I personally loathe Imperial Knights. They have no right to be a standard 40k army. One superheavy is enough to imbalance a game against certain factions unless they specifically tailor their army to deal with that and ONLY that so bringing multiple along is just out of line.
D-weapons are another Apocalypse relic that cropped up in 40k and again, completely screw certain factions over with ease unless their tailor specifically to deal with it.
Flyers - Hey, remember the Apocalypse relics that made their way into 40k? Here's another. Before they were essentially slightly faster skimmers that switched modes for Apocalypse games. Ok. Fair enough. That's fine. Now they're something that is downright irritating or invulnerable depending on what faction you chose to play and paint. Do you play Sisters of Battle? Sucks to be you friend.
Revert these please and take another Apocalypse ruleset OUT of 40k.
Consistency of Units - Ok, can we talk Land Raiders? Can we talk why that Land Raider painted blue can carry more guys than this Land Raider painted red, this one painted silver or this one covered in spikes?
Can we talk about why the blue, red and silver ones can fire an additional weapon but the spiky one can't?
Can we talk about why the red Rhino inexpilicably moves faster than the blue, silver and spiky Rhinos?
Also, why do the silver vehicles generate warp charge dice?
Can we talk about why we are all paying pretty much the same points for the same models and yet they all have half a dozen different rules depending on what book you use?
40k has this thing called a Standard Template Construct - so why are these things not 'standard' in any way, shape or form?
Let's just...make all these vehicles that are used in different armies but the same thing (Land Raiders, Rhinos, Predators, Chimeras, Stormravens, Valkyries) actually have the same profile, cost and options. Let's make the faction-specific option an upgrade for that particular book rather than a free additional special rule just tacked on.
Speaking of things which are the same but used in different armies...
How about some 'generic' no-faction units?
The old 40kCCG had no-faction generic units in it that could be used by any of the decks. They were cheap. They were not amazing but they opened up options.
So how about some generic PDF? Some generic gangers? Some generic STC vehicles?
All these factions mention that units chosen can only be of X faction or No Faction...but there's not a single NO FACTION unit.
This would also open up some fluff and theme options for modellers out there.
Want a Genestealer Cult? Take the GC units, splash in some generic gangers and PDF!
Want Gue'vesa? Take Tau, splash in generic PDF.
Want Diggas? (DIGGA DIGGA DIGGANOB!) Take Orks, splash in generic gangers.
Want Frateris Militia? Take Sisters, splash in generic Gangers.
Unbound always existed. Publishing it is a waste of ink.
That's a really good point actually. If you're not playing in tournament, you can just play without the standard force organisation without it being published officially.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The biggest problem with 40k's rules is that they keep adding more of them. We don't need No Fear and Fearless and Stubborn - just Fearless. We don't need +1A for 2nd weapon and Hammer of Wrath -- just give the stat as A2. And so on. Cut the special rules and simplify the rest with a vengeance a la AoS!
Simplify yes.
Simplify a la AoS noooooooo.
KoW is simple, it has four pages of special rules and every unit in the game will only use those special rules. Once you learn them you can see a new unit on the table and ask what they do. The answer will be that they have X, Y and X, and you know EXACTLY what that unit is capable of.
AoS has no universal special rules, every unit seems to have something totally unique listed on their unit entry. A shield on one model might grant a +1 save if he charged, but on the next model it lets you reroll 1s on your save if you didn't charge, but then yet another rolls a dice for every unsaved wound and on a 6 ignores it.
This is a lot harder to remember when you're on the other side of the table and not as familiar with the army you are playing against, and requires a lot of reading the same rule again and again to remind yourself of it and asking your opponent what a unit does.
This isn't simple, it's just putting the information in the one place.
This, all of this.
Why bother with a Special Rules and Weapons section in the main rulebook when every single codex basically requires it's own version in their own book (and sometimes subsections for THOSE ones as well. Specialist Ammunition comes to mind and that's not even a 7th or 6th edition thing!).
Also I think Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should both be purchasable upgrades. This give some dynamic to design as there can be wildly powerful warlord traits/psychic powers and very weak ones, but balanced out by points so that you don't have to rely on a randomized table to ensure "fairness".
The old 40kCCG had no-faction generic units in it that could be used by any of the decks. They were cheap. They were not amazing but they opened up options.
So how about some generic PDF? Some generic gangers? Some generic STC vehicles?
All these factions mention that units chosen can only be of X faction or No Faction...but there's not a single NO FACTION unit.
This would also open up some fluff and theme options for modellers out there.
Want a Genestealer Cult? Take the GC units, splash in some generic gangers and PDF!
Want Gue'vesa? Take Tau, splash in generic PDF.
Want Diggas? (DIGGA DIGGA DIGGANOB!) Take Orks, splash in generic gangers.
Want Frateris Militia? Take Sisters, splash in generic Gangers.
I really like this idea. A Scum and Villiany book with human gangs/priates/cults, Kroot, Hurd and some generic technical type vehicles would be fantastic.
Hell throw in Ambulls, Grox herds and other random ideas too. Just take John Blanche's sketch book and dump it into a 3d printer!
Oh, i'd also gut Tau from 40k. Or at least most of the new stuff. I really like the Vespids and Kroot armies, but that never sees play. Its usually Riptides, Stormsurges, Ghostkeels, etc.
jreilly89 wrote: Oh, i'd also gut Tau from 40k. Or at least most of the new stuff. I really like the Vespids and Kroot armies, but that never sees play. Its usually Riptides, Stormsurges, Ghostkeels, etc.
My co-worker who recently got into the game would be upset, as he came from building Gundams and really likes the look and feel of the Suits. Granted, he also brings things like Infantry, Ethereals, and Devilfish, but still.
That's like me saying "Get rid of Eldar because people don't use Guardians".
jreilly89 wrote: Oh, i'd also gut Tau from 40k. Or at least most of the new stuff. I really like the Vespids and Kroot armies, but that never sees play. Its usually Riptides, Stormsurges, Ghostkeels, etc.
Have an exalt. The newer suits are shoehorned into the fluff and lack any place in the Tau theme.
That said I would be quite happy for the Tau to keep their big suits if they became what they should have been from the start: Vehicles. To be specific Super Heavy Walkers. Give them an armour of 12/12/10 and let them keep their FNP save as an Invun save.
The old 40kCCG had no-faction generic units in it that could be used by any of the decks. They were cheap. They were not amazing but they opened up options.
So how about some generic PDF? Some generic gangers? Some generic STC vehicles?
All these factions mention that units chosen can only be of X faction or No Faction...but there's not a single NO FACTION unit.
This would also open up some fluff and theme options for modellers out there.
Want a Genestealer Cult? Take the GC units, splash in some generic gangers and PDF!
Want Gue'vesa? Take Tau, splash in generic PDF.
Want Diggas? (DIGGA DIGGA DIGGANOB!) Take Orks, splash in generic gangers.
Want Frateris Militia? Take Sisters, splash in generic Gangers.
I really like this idea. A Scum and Villiany book with human gangs/priates/cults, Kroot, Hurd and some generic technical type vehicles would be fantastic.
Hell throw in Ambulls, Grox herds and other random ideas too. Just take John Blanche's sketch book and dump it into a 3d printer!
I'd love that myself. Just...a pool of generic things, complete with generic MCs, beasts and the like that could be used for missions or theme alone.
But the best bit is that as No Faction units...they could be taken by anyone. It lets GW do the oddball units and themes that don't really fit in currently with the armies but also makes it for anyone to buy. Plus, it covers that one really odd statement in every detachment or formation they seem to have produced.
Hell, a generic No Faction army might be an army in itself. Probably weaker overall than any of the others but a lot more varied and aesthetically mixed.
This was my favorite change when going from 5th to 6th edition. I would be mad if it went away.
Why is agonizing over individual model placement in a game with 200 models on the table a good thing? This is a classic case of GW trying to escalate everything, and then throwing a bunch of hyper detailed skirmish rules in that just slow down the game. They need to decide what they want more, giant tanks, planes and big stompy robots running around or detailed, model by model interactions. When you try to do both at the same time, the ruleset suffers. If they want us all to cover the table in models, they should probably give us a simpler way to resolve things.
What you refer to as 'agonizing' I see as tactical flexibility. When I was learning the game in 5th edition, one of the things that annoyed me to no end was people keeping special weapons-bearing models alive until it was the last thing remaining in a unit. Or people allocating one wound each to multi-wound models.
Removing the closest model allows you to place your shooting until in locations that remove a specific model, or avoids really tough models that are sporting a stormshield or re-rollable save of some sort.
Random Warlord Traits. My 400 year old chapter master fething knows how to wage war his own goddam way.
Random Psychic Powers. I spent the points on my fething psycher, let me pick my goddam powers. What, do people buying Power Weapons randomly roll to see if it's a Power Sword or a Power Axe this game? No? Then feth you! Let me pick my powers.
kronk wrote: Random Psychic Powers. I spent the points on my fething psycher, let me pick my goddam powers. What, do people buying Power Weapons randomly roll to see if it's a Power Sword or a Power Axe this game? No? Then feth you! Let me pick my powers.
... and if you don't have the appropriate model, the PW weapon is treated as a regular Close Combat Weapon with no special effects.
Dammit, don't give give those fethers at GW any new ideas!
I thought long and hard on this one, yeah for old time's sake I considered my old stand by of 'Space Elfs'. The Eldar after all are a Mary Sue army, required by the fluff to be the best there is at EVERYTHING and as result they've had more than their share of bad rules and broken units. WAY back in the 90s my friends and I talked about the 'cheezy eldar weapons phase' of the game and things haven't gotten any better.
I also thought about S4, T4 space marines as the #1 thing to go. Like the Eldar they're a Mary Sue army, the best and the coolest. And it's their relatively lackluster stats (just 1 higher than the cannon fodder army) that has led to an endless succession of patches and picky rules from Rogue Trader onwards (remember Rapid Fire? Shaken and Stirred? Or the '@#$% this Marines are now T4' article?). I wonder how the game would have evolved if Marines had been T5, S5 (etc) from 3rd edition onwards? Yeah there are good commerical reasons not to have marines too powerful (imagine if you only needed 10 of them for an army) but it would be interesting.
But no... the winner is... the #1 thing that has to go is...
One size fits all - The problem with 40k (any most large open ended rule systems) is the problem of human nature. Like the politician who hates special interests, but will fight to the death to protect soy bean subsidies, we all hate silly rules, broken rules, trivial rules, EXCEPT for the ones we like.
So the best answer seems to be to go back towards 4th and 5th edition where the game just had different levels of detail depending on size.
So at the skirmish level you have flash grenades, conversion fields that blind people, Autarch powers, random daemon weapon tables etc.
At the battle level you drop those but still keep track of whether Rhino #5 is stunned or decide if you need to remove the heavy weapon guy or can just take rifleman.
At the apocalypse level it's all about speed. Tanks are either 100% intact or dead, you remove whomever you want, wargear is rounded off to easy counterparts (rending becomes +1 strength, deamon swords and lighting claws become power weapons).
Rules would be marked with some icon for skirmish, battle or apoc so people would know what applies when.
IE: Daemon Sword (Skirmish) Roll on this table to see what power you have
(Battle) AP2 power weapon, causes a wound (saves apply) on roll of a 1
(Apoc) Power weapon
This would add some complexity, some additional length to rules but would let people have their cake and eat it too.
Like everything else on my list it probably won't happen. Or if it did it would be overturned when the next edition comes around.
If there's one thing 20 years (off and on) of playing GW games taught me it is that they didn't get where they are by making well-balanced, well-written or fun rules.
Like I said before I prefer the walker rules to MCs. Walkers can be shot in rear armor, they can be damaged, they can be hurt by various anti-tank special weapons etc.
You can actually use tactics against them.
MCs follow the drastically simplified rules for models, rules that work fine for 1W models but not for giant bugs/demons/robots the size of Chevys.
This was my favorite change when going from 5th to 6th edition. I would be mad if it went away.
Why is agonizing over individual model placement in a game with 200 models on the table a good thing? This is a classic case of GW trying to escalate everything, and then throwing a bunch of hyper detailed skirmish rules in that just slow down the game. They need to decide what they want more, giant tanks, planes and big stompy robots running around or detailed, model by model interactions. When you try to do both at the same time, the ruleset suffers. If they want us all to cover the table in models, they should probably give us a simpler way to resolve things.
What you refer to as 'agonizing' I see as tactical flexibility. When I was learning the game in 5th edition, one of the things that annoyed me to no end was people keeping special weapons-bearing models alive until it was the last thing remaining in a unit. Or people allocating one wound each to multi-wound models.
Removing the closest model allows you to place your shooting until in locations that remove a specific model, or avoids really tough models that are sporting a stormshield or re-rollable save of some sort.
Which is fine in a game like WMH where there are 20-30 models per side. Not in 40k where that number can simply be one unit.
The best wound allocation system was 5th's (yes, it was exploitable but by literally a handful of (admittedly popular due to being able to exploit it. Go figure) units) with a couple of caveats from 4th brought back.
Use the wound allocation from 5th but with the caveat you can only remove models from range and LOS of the unit (not from anywhere like in 5th) and add back in the "torrent of fire" where if you cause more wounds than there are members of the unit then you as the shooter can allocate one.
Done. No agonising over where individual models are to an extent, but tactical enough that you can snipe out those key models with some good positioning.
As for people allocating multiple wounds to multi wound units. Either you only ever faced Nob Bikers, TWC, Bloodcrushers and GK Paladins or you got cheated. The model's needed to be equipped differently to spread out wounds like that and only the above units could actually make use of said rule to its fullest extent in 5th.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Like I said before I prefer the walker rules to MCs. Walkers can be shot in rear armor, they can be damaged, they can be hurt by various anti-tank special weapons etc.
You can actually use tactics against them.
This is something I 110% agree with. Unlike MC's, positioning counts for a hel of a lot against a vehicle and using high S low AP weapons matters.
Kilkrazy wrote:MCs should work like the big monsters in AoS, with their capabilities declining as their hit points are reduced,
This. If MC's lost abilities as they took damage then they would be far more acceptable.
Nobody probably has any sympathy for this or interest in even reading this, but apocalypse is exactly the place where there should be more detail, not less.
It should matter that a veteran unit is better at getting cover against airstrikes and Titan guns. It should matter that a better squad leader is the spotter/commander for a squad anti tank weapon and they can do more damage to a Knight Engine than a less competent sergeant. It should matter that a single character can be in command of an entire front so killing him can cause extreme damage, but that flyers or Titan engines don't even have the ability to see where single individuals are, so you need to send a kill team or a champion to kill him at speaking range.
Also, there are a variety of reasons for MCs, including mechanical MCs, to be different than walkers. Mostly they have to do with the models not being good indicators of, just like infantry models, where the creature is facing at any given moment, because of the wife variety of poses it could adopt while shooting, jumping, crouching, running, etc. They are also different structurally from walking vehicles.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: One take away from my playing 40k a bit this Christmas break is there much too much out there in the rules.
So with no further ado, here's what I think could be cut and no one would miss them...
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
Disagree with FnP. It's a save after saves. I still remember my bionics from 3rd edition. I would miss it.
Unbound - No, just no.
Agreed.
Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.
Agreed. 30k has a good approach to this problem.
Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.
Then there would be no point in using them. Give them a bonus fitting of the formation. But not some broken gak like free transport or Decurion.
Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.
IF it's a vehicle. I'm fine with big Tyranids having a T value. But Mechanicum robots? Tau suits, regardless how big? No way.
Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.
I have to say, I quite like the different power weapon sytles, even if it's a lot to remember.
Almost agree on everything what you ve mentioned but i would add a limit to formations. like 1 or two each but both got to got some in their army for equality of power.
What i would change is almost evry change which have ben made for orks from 6th to 7th. they are totally nerfed. not good 0... not good. there should be some bonus for melee armies like 500 points bonus for evry game against a shooty army.
most important change psychic phase to second edition. instaed of using dice use cards. nerf chaos d3mons spam liwts. make summoning demons harder, if not with cards with a successful roll of 6 + instead of 4+.
pelicaniforce wrote: Nobody probably has any sympathy for this or interest in even reading this, but apocalypse is exactly the place where there should be more detail, not less.
Nope.
While I like to play the occasional Apoc game, I'd like to get past Turn 2.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Like I said before I prefer the walker rules to MCs. Walkers can be shot in rear armor, they can be damaged, they can be hurt by various anti-tank special weapons etc.
You can actually use tactics against them.
MCs follow the drastically simplified rules for models, rules that work fine for 1W models but not for giant bugs/demons/robots the size of Chevys.
The two main differences between walkers and MC are the fixed/360° fire arc and the possibility to insta-kill walkers: keep both profiles to differentiate slow walkers and agile MC but find a way to insta kill a MC with a meltagun (6 to wound with a VP1 weapon maybe?).
out there in the rules.
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.
Unbound - No, just no.
So back to basics. 
Stupid terrain rules - no one mentioned them, because I think no one uses them, but the stupid, stupid terrain rules have to go. Ruins are ruins. None of this 'you get bonus X because you're in the Manufactorum (
Battle Brothers and Desperate Allies - Cutting 2 of the 4 levels of allies leaving just 2, Allies of Convenience and Come the Apocalypse. Why? Even among the Imperium none of the factions really like each other, Marines think the Guard are incompetent cannon fodder, Guard thinks Sisters are psycho pyromaniacs, Sisters think Mechanicus are a half step from heresy and nobody likes the Inquisition or Assassins. They may all be fighting for the Emperor but they're not at the 'come on and ride in my APC' or 'hey want to lead my squad' level of friendship. So don't allow even natural allies to share transports, characters and buffs. And once you're bringing in various Xeno groups it gets worse. But I'd also go back to the 6th edition practice where all Imperial actions were listed seperately. I'd also make sure everyone, including Nids and Necs, gets at least two friends, probably Orks and Guard. They'll ally with anyone.
One size fits all - The problem with 
