Hi guys,

As the title says- If GW were to make a sweeping update to the 8th core rules in order to give the rules a little added depth/refine existing rules what would you like to see?

An obvious one is the return of some form of intervening cover- nothing egregious, just if you're within an inch of something that obscures theres probably a logical argument for a cover save.

Another would be adding a little bit of complexity to vehicles and how they both fire and receive fire- I was never a fan of firing arcs but when paired with different armour values it did add a little more strategy to using a vehicle- personally id like to see a return of some kind of targeting rule paired with a vehicle facing buff like +1 to wound if targeting the rear of a vehicle. Again this is nothing huge but it definitely removes the cheese of targeting a unit using lets say the long prow of a ravager sticking out from behind a building and gives a massive benefit to trying to maneuver around a vehicle to hit the rear armour.

So what would you do?

Process wrote:
Hi guys,

As the title says- If GW were to make a sweeping update to the 8th core rules in order to give the rules a little added depth/refine existing rules what would you like to see?

An obvious one is the return of some form of intervening cover- nothing egregious, just if you're within an inch of something that obscures theres probably a logical argument for a cover save.

Another would be adding a little bit of complexity to vehicles and how they both fire and receive fire- I was never a fan of firing arcs but when paired with different armour values it did add a little more strategy to using a vehicle- personally id like to see a return of some kind of targeting rule paired with a vehicle facing buff like +1 to wound if targeting the rear of a vehicle. Again this is nothing huge but it definitely removes the cheese of targeting a unit using lets say the long prow of a ravager sticking out from behind a building and gives a massive benefit to trying to maneuver around a vehicle to hit the rear armour.

So what would you do?

I was literally going to say +1 AP to side, +2 to rear

The most needed change is one i hope they don't do. Rescaling strenght and thoughness to make full use of the over 10 values. Lascannons should end somewehere within the 15-16 Str value, marine and bolters base strenght at 5.

This would be good for the game, but would scrap all the balancing made up until now and start from scratch.

So, more realistically, for 8.5 a rule for cover like kill team would be nice (with bonus save though, not with modifiers). Also a bit more lenient true LOS, nothing much, just specifying that antennas, wings and such don't count for LOS.

Way better LOS/terrain rules.

Also general toning down of offensive abilities. Things are way too lethal when even biggest most expensive models short of titans are routinely 1 shotted and looking at army lists first questions are "can you 1 shot knight? Whatabout Magnus? Mortarion? If not army sucks".

Not much inspiring to buy 100e model and spend time assembling and painting it if it's basically just temporal marker! (oh and don't forget carrying...Stompa isn't easy model to carry and then if I don't get 1st turn it will be one shotted just like that. Makes one go instead "screw that. I take infantry". Has more impact on game and easier to haul to the gaming area)

Alas I think that's more for 9th ed or even more realistically 10th or 11th or 12th as it will basically require redoing codexes and if you start toning down gradually new armies will suck big time until all codexes are redone. Or alternatively you up the defensive to ridiculous level creating huge spiral of power creep.

But when you can lose like half the army in T1 it's not particularly good. I much more prefer the approach adeptus titanicus has where even ONE unit is hard to remove at once and generally most likely candinate for that is very hard and risky to pull off(knights charging up will make short work in mass but getting there intact is very hard)

No further layer of sophistification.
But I'd fix
- cover for vehicles (obscured 50% OR in fully in cover, not AND) and
- farming of CP (such that CP are only available for the detachment which generated them).

I'd reintroduce vehicle facing. The current rule does not require maneuvering and makes 40k more a board game.

* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

Vehicle facing and more complex terrain rules.

IMO the problem with vehicle facings is that it's a good idea in principle but a terrible one in execution. Even setting aside the vehicle vs. MC balance issues of previous editions it just doesn't work well for many units. Yeah, you can draw the facing lines on a Rhino easily, but where is the line on a Hammerhead or Valkyrie? Is the arc on that sponson gun 170* or 160*? Etc. You can't give clear answers to those questions that every player will agree on, so you have endless arguments over whether a unit is 0.1" in a given arc or not. To do this effectively you'd have to put all vehicles on square bases (or at least round bases with arc/facing lines on them) and replace the weapon arcs with one or more of the four facings.

I don't really need more sophistication, but a couple of things that irk me the most:

Remove Fall Back or at least make it more detrimental if not lethal to the unit falling back. Say a full round of attacks from the unit that they fall back from sounds about right.

Tone down the special snowflake rules that FLYing units get. Make FLY useful without making it the best keyword in the game in the process.

Generally just make melee more feasible compared to shooting. "But Smash Captains..." well I said _generally_. Nerf the OP outliers if you must.

Oh and revamp the turn sequence to curb the 1st turn advantage. I.e. alternate activations.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problem with vehicle facings is that it's a good idea in principle but a terrible one in execution. Even setting aside the vehicle vs. MC balance issues of previous editions it just doesn't work well for many units. Yeah, you can draw the facing lines on a Rhino easily, but where is the line on a Hammerhead or Valkyrie? Is the arc on that sponson gun 170* or 160*? Etc. You can't give clear answers to those questions that every player will agree on, so you have endless arguments over whether a unit is 0.1" in a given arc or not. To do this effectively you'd have to put all vehicles on square bases (or at least round bases with arc/facing lines on them) and replace the weapon arcs with one or more of the four facings.

So what's the problem? Marked bases as you suggest or use standardised facings possibly also marked on bases. It's used in many other games. I also find your suggestion of standardised fire arcs more than palatable. We are not talking realism here. As to your argument over a model that's very close to a given arc. Use the same procedure as you do for anything else (is a model 50% obscured for cover?) and roll for it.

Aren't the new buggies coming on bases....

 KRakarth wrote:
So what's the problem? Marked bases as you suggest or use standardised facings possibly also marked on bases. It's used in many other games. I also find your suggestion of standardised fire arcs more than palatable. We are not talking realism here. As to your argument over a model that's very close to a given arc. Use the same procedure as you do for anything else (is a model 50% obscured for cover?) and roll for it.

Aren't the new buggies coming on bases....

Not all vehicles comes on vehicles and some vehicles would end up with silly shaped ones. GW would have to make lots of custom bases or you could end up in situations where vehicles can't enter gaps that are wide enough for vehicle with room to spare.

But then again never had problems with front/side/rear arcs before 8th ed. Don't see why it would suddenly become problem either.

Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

with respect Peregrine, I'm not sure you appreciate how long this would take to play out a turn,

Los and cover rules. Bring back 4th Edition's rules, please.

Introduce free strikes vs opponents who fall back.

1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.
2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.
3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.
4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

As for facings - I'm happy that they are gone, but I would love for all those people who miss them that there were rules for them in the main rulebook that can be used optionally. +1 to wound from the rear sounds like a great idea, too, assuming there is a clear definition of what "rear" is. The square base Idea is pretty great actually, I remember some game I saw having clear bases for their units that had the arcs engraved on them.

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

Alternating activations from kill team would indeed be interesting. I disagree with the rest.

 Weazel wrote:
Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

Or you could have 2 units that work differently(as they should) but both viable.

I'd abandon the antiquated igougo system in favour of alternate activation.

Getting first turn is too big of an advantage in 8th.

I'd also improve the pathetic cover system and reinstate you can only kill what you see.

- The simple rule of "draw LoS from the weapon to the target's body/hull, don't count banners, antennas or anything like that". If the tip of my Battle Cannon can see a guy's foot, it can shoot everything and wipe out the whole unit. Makes LoSBlock cover useless pretty much.

- I wouldn't want to ban soup entirely, as this would screw over armies who choose soup for non-competitive reasons, such as a Marine force with a couple squads of Deathwatch. A better option would be to limit the particularly-nuscience units.

- Falling back should have a degree of risk to it, even something like "Roll D6 for each model falling back, unit takes a Mortal for every 6, representing them being cut down or caught in crossfire".


-

tneva82 wrote:

 Weazel wrote:
Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

Or you could have 2 units that work differently(as they should) but both viable.

Well maybe. I have always felt at a disadvantage in previous editions against Eldar since my Dreadnoughts being vehicles could be oneshotted whereas Wraithlords being monsters could not be oneshotted and their profile never degraded (no immobilizes, no weapon destroyed, shaken etc).

Actually you could say that at this point most of my irritation towards the game comes from Craftworld Eldar. My mate plays them (skillfully I must admit) and it's always an uphill battle against them. Just nerf them sufficiently and I wouldn't really have that many complaints.

 Jidmah wrote:
1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.

That 1.5" is not that good in terms that what covers one model isn't enough to cover really others. Either have X% of model covered or have it based on abstract size rating of model. Adeptus Titanicus has this stat called "scale" which is used for various parts in rules. Could be used for 40k terrain rules as well.

What is enough to give cover benefit for grot isn't much of help for Mortarion!

2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.

How would they shoot twice? Surely they couldn't shoot both in shooting and close combat. And with IGOUGO gone and alternative there wouldn't really be "my turn, your turn" either now would there? If game goes 6 turns it would be 6 times movement phase of altering moving, 6 times shooting with alternating shootins and 6 times h2h alternating it.

3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.

Something needs to be done to ensure rhino doesn't move full speed, unit disembark, shoot, possibly move and then charge as well. That sort of super ninja thing doesn't make sense either. Getting out of transport organized isn't fast either. At least that half speed forward before disembark.

Generally things should be toned down in lethality. Both shooting AND T1 assaults. Less T1 decides the game TYVM. Things move too fast, manouvering matters less.

4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

Also please no "I charge this unit, don't charge that unit but pile in/consolidiate so that one model is surrounded by 3 models so can't fall back so I'm safe from shooting" crap. ATM it's essential to prevent shooting from dominating and I don't grudge anybody using it but I hate such a micromanaging gaming the system. It breaks suspension of disbelief in several places. If that's there deliberately to limit shooting power do it in more sensible way! Less artificial gaming, more on how things would be reasonably expected to work. You can't get that to perfection but I'm doubtful present is best anybody can come up with.

Spoletta wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

Alternating activations from kill team would indeed be interesting. I disagree with the rest.

problem with alternating activation is how long it would take, I've played games with 12 units a side with AA, each turn took a long time.

Fallback should give the unit left behind a "overwatch" phase. Same deal, hit only on 6s.
Bigger vehicles (tanks) should be left on the board after they are destroyed.
No command-reroll on exploding units, This should be outside of the players control.
Each side can only stack a -1 minus to hit modifier to a unit. (So -1 to hit max from all your actions and abilities, then I make it worse by moving with heavy weapons or similar actions.)
Hit rolls of 6 always hit.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.

That 1.5" is not that good in terms that what covers one model isn't enough to cover really others. Either have X% of model covered or have it based on abstract size rating of model. Adeptus Titanicus has this stat called "scale" which is used for various parts in rules. Could be used for 40k terrain rules as well.

What is enough to give cover benefit for grot isn't much of help for Mortarion!

2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.

How would they shoot twice? Surely they couldn't shoot both in shooting and close combat. And with IGOUGO gone and alternative there wouldn't really be "my turn, your turn" either now would there? If game goes 6 turns it would be 6 times movement phase of altering moving, 6 times shooting with alternating shootins and 6 times h2h alternating it.

3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.

Something needs to be done to ensure rhino doesn't move full speed, unit disembark, shoot, possibly move and then charge as well. That sort of super ninja thing doesn't make sense either. Getting out of transport organized isn't fast either. At least that half speed forward before disembark.

Generally things should be toned down in lethality. Both shooting AND T1 assaults. Less T1 decides the game TYVM. Things move too fast, manouvering matters less.

4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

Also please no "I charge this unit, don't charge that unit but pile in/consolidiate so that one model is surrounded by 3 models so can't fall back so I'm safe from shooting" crap. ATM it's essential to prevent shooting from dominating and I don't grudge anybody using it but I hate such a micromanaging gaming the system. It breaks suspension of disbelief in several places. If that's there deliberately to limit shooting power do it in more sensible way! Less artificial gaming, more on how things would be reasonably expected to work. You can't get that to perfection but I'm doubtful present is best anybody can come up with.

Some good points there. Would be nice if some vehicles designed for assaulting positions could disembark after moving, such as Land Raiders.

Also the whole idea of "my Nurglings can trap your Land Raider in combat since it can't physically move between them". Vehicles should be better in CC in general; it's a bloody 80-ton tank grinding over anything in its path, yet it gets 3 attacks which hit on 6+ with no Ap at all?

Oh yeah some dedicated transports could be more relaxed on the restrictions. When you are paying to teeth to get that land raider it's less of issue than some cheap transport you could spam giving huge movement boost and logical enough if vehicle is BUILT for quick disembarkation in coherent formation it makes more sense than any old transport(rhino's btw weren't originally even designed as fighting vehicle but the STC was repurposed for that...)

And good point on the nurgling thing. How the nurglings physically stop land raider anyway? Driving safety rules super strictly followed in 42M?-)

Problem of having bases indicate all arcs and facing like X-wing brings several problems. First it means that you have to keep the bases clear or at least introduce similar bases to Warmahordes that have lines on them to indicate firing arcs(ugly as sin if you ask me). Second it means that flying stuff now needs to have extremely large and unwieldy bases. I am trying to imagine the base that would fit this requirement and be easy to use on a Serpent chassis. Third it means that we would have to start reducing a lot of board clutter and it would mean fancy boards are a big no no as the big bases would have issues on boards that have debris, especially bad for skimmers that are hovering to begin with and have a different center of gravity.

Removing facings and different armor values was the most fun change in 8th. Made the game less irritating as someone couldn't argue that their meltagunner saw the rear thanks to a 2 mm gap they claimed to see which usually meant one had to take it on good faith and allow them to one shot a vehicle despite all your maneuvering.

Regarding changes in 8.5 I would want to see cover being a bit more useful than the current rules.

I would also like to see faction wide -1 to hit rules disappear.

Ally limitation similar to the one in AoS.

 Weazel wrote:
Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

Monsters also needed facings though. A creature that size should not be able to rotate on the spot on the spot instantly like infantry. They should have had a 180 degree arc of vision, and there should have been a hit bonus against its rear or something.

Remove all rules providing rerolls in any form. I believe mosts effects of rerolls could be replaced with faster mechanics. (rerollable 3+ becomes 2+ etc)

The game design to me would be alot more elegant that way

Gitdakka wrote:
Remove all rules providing rerolls in any form. I believe mosts effects of rerolls could be replaced with faster mechanics. (rerollable 3+ becomes 2+ etc)

The game design to me would be alot more elegant that way

Problem with that is then you hit into limits of d6 system. Rerolls give way different probability curve. When you have only 6 possible results.

However there's waaaaaaay too many rerolls as it is especially with the huge amount of dices involved.

Oh and FEEL NO PAIN! Change that. Current one is horribly slow especially as multi damage weapons are far and wide. Have fun with 6+++ on ork boyz who then has to take dozen+ FNP from hits that cause 2-3 wounds. That's 1/36 or 1/216 odds by rolling 2-3 dice individually once at a time per model so lots of time, little gain. My slowest games incidentally are always against dark eldars...Hmmm...Wonder why? Maybe because they have tons of rerolls AND FNP. Super annoying combo.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.

That 1.5" is not that good in terms that what covers one model isn't enough to cover really others. Either have X% of model covered or have it based on abstract size rating of model. Adeptus Titanicus has this stat called "scale" which is used for various parts in rules. Could be used for 40k terrain rules as well.

What is enough to give cover benefit for grot isn't much of help for Mortarion!

Who cares? 1.5" just serves to exclude scatter terrain and terrain bases. Anything lower than an ADL simply doesn't provide cover. Any percentage rule is a reason for arguments, so feth those. If a model is too large to receive cover normally, I'd just say so in the bespoke rules.
Mortarion is an interesting example, by the way. If he were less intent on looking bad-ass all the time he would land, fold his wings, put his scythe down and be smaller than most tyranid monsters. He should have not trouble taking cover behind a rhino

2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.

How would they shoot twice? Surely they couldn't shoot both in shooting and close combat. And with IGOUGO gone and alternative there wouldn't really be "my turn, your turn" either now would there? If game goes 6 turns it would be 6 times movement phase of altering moving, 6 times shooting with alternating shootins and 6 times h2h alternating it.

Eh, I kind of explained that badly:

In a full turn 40k you currently have

In my suggestion you have


Which really doesn't make sense when you think about it, so you could just do movement like in KT as well. But you still end up with half the amount of fighting. In KT this is balanced by combat being more deadly and shooting being less likely to hit anything (-1 to hit is the default, you rarely have clear line of sight). 40k has no such balancers (yet).

3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.

Something needs to be done to ensure rhino doesn't move full speed, unit disembark, shoot, possibly move and then charge as well. That sort of super ninja thing doesn't make sense either. Getting out of transport organized isn't fast either. At least that half speed forward before disembark.

Exactly. After disembarking within [Movement Speed] you should not be able to move any further during the movement phase. A unit of marines jumping out of a rhino would move a total of 12" that turn, a unit of possessed would be slightly faster, a unit of tartaros terminators jumping out of a land raider a bit slower. And, of course, no embarking and disembarking on the same turn.

Generally things should be toned down in lethality. Both shooting AND T1 assaults. Less T1 decides the game TYVM. Things move too fast, manouvering matters less.

I fully agree, but I would wait first to see how my 2) plays out. T1 assaults without your opponents cooperation are usually due to psychic powers or stratagems. They should just crack down on those to make them more limited.

4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

Also please no "I charge this unit, don't charge that unit but pile in/consolidiate so that one model is surrounded by 3 models so can't fall back so I'm safe from shooting" crap. ATM it's essential to prevent shooting from dominating and I don't grudge anybody using it but I hate such a micromanaging gaming the system. It breaks suspension of disbelief in several places. If that's there deliberately to limit shooting power do it in more sensible way! Less artificial gaming, more on how things would be reasonably expected to work. You can't get that to perfection but I'm doubtful present is best anybody can come up with.

Probably change the Fly keyword/rule to "models can move over other models/terrain in the movement phase only" (incl. obviously, effects allowing you to move as if in the movement phase), but not during charge/pile-ins, etc., removing vertical 10" charges succeeding on snake-eyes, teleport-consolidates and other silly things.

Again, some exceptions for individual models might be needed.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Probably change the Fly keyword/rule to "models can move over other models/terrain in the movement phase only" (incl. obviously, effects allowing you to move as if in the movement phase), but not during charge/pile-ins, etc., removing vertical 10" charges succeeding on snake-eyes, teleport-consolidates and other silly things.

Again, some exceptions for individual models might be needed.

The 10" charge on snake-eyes: Howabout simply counting the vertical distance through air? Why would guy with jump pack suddenly walk the charge when he could use jump pack?

Sure it doesn't really matter when you are charging straight up/down but when you are charging partway straight ahead and then toward up if you measure distance by direct route(rather than just horizontal) jump packs etc would still help you charge guys above(logical enough) but not give you snake eye charges from 10" distance.

(and it shouldn't be too hard to make rule that gives fly unit charge distance distance of straight line from base to base)

Copy a lot of AOS.

-Reduce the overall movement rate of the fastest stuff, but give greater options for infantry movement (this could come in a variety of ways and be army dependent).

-falling back is too easy a choice, perhaps give a free attack or a deadly terrain test on units who withdraw? some kind of penalty at least

-generate command points on a turn by turn basis (scaled to game size?), with 1 additional generated at the start of the game for each full battalion/brigade

-get rid of the command reroll. it is so undramatic and dull. Instead, provide a generic stratagem for rerolling charges and morale

-terrain is the biggest area requiring change. Not sure on the exact solution, but minuses to hit for obscured targets sounds good?

tneva82 wrote:

Oh and FEEL NO PAIN! Change that. Current one is horribly slow especially as multi damage weapons are far and wide. Have fun with 6+++ on ork boyz who then has to take dozen+ FNP from hits that cause 2-3 wounds. That's 1/36 or 1/216 odds by rolling 2-3 dice individually once at a time per model so lots of time, little gain. My slowest games incidentally are always against dark eldars...Hmmm...Wonder why? Maybe because they have tons of rerolls AND FNP. Super annoying combo.

You make it harder than it have to be. You only need to roll them individually when its multi-wounds models.
Otherwise, say 20 wounds on your boys. Roll 20dice, then re-roll all successes.

 Wibe wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Oh and FEEL NO PAIN! Change that. Current one is horribly slow especially as multi damage weapons are far and wide. Have fun with 6+++ on ork boyz who then has to take dozen+ FNP from hits that cause 2-3 wounds. That's 1/36 or 1/216 odds by rolling 2-3 dice individually once at a time per model so lots of time, little gain. My slowest games incidentally are always against dark eldars...Hmmm...Wonder why? Maybe because they have tons of rerolls AND FNP. Super annoying combo.

You make it harder than it have to be. You only need to roll them individually when its multi-wounds models.
Otherwise, say 20 wounds on your boys. Roll 20dice, then re-roll all successes.

Holy smoke TYVM. Why didn't I think up on that before.

So vs D3 roll dices, reroll any 6's, if somehow still I have somebody that might survive(hah) roll 6's once more and see if I have 6's left.

Thanks. Got to try painboys again.

Still annoying but bit more bearable.

CassianSol wrote:
Copy a lot of AOS.

-Reduce the overall movement rate of the fastest stuff, but give greater options for infantry movement (this could come in a variety of ways and be army dependent).

-falling back is too easy a choice, perhaps give a free attack or a deadly terrain test on units who withdraw? some kind of penalty at least

-generate command points on a turn by turn basis (scaled to game size?), with 1 additional generated at the start of the game for each full battalion/brigade

-get rid of the command reroll. it is so undramatic and dull. Instead, provide a generic stratagem for rerolling charges and morale

-terrain is the biggest area requiring change. Not sure on the exact solution, but minuses to hit for obscured targets sounds good?

I think AoS has quite a few ideas that 40k could benefit from.

I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

The Kill Team activation system, it would fix quite a few problems with the 40k. It's so much more fun than 40k's, and so much more complexed. Winning first turn doesn't mean shooting out half of the opponent's force, it isn't always favorable even.

The other thing that should get ported from KT/AoS are fixed and limited CPs. Stratagems are way too important now.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

Isn't there a rumor on the Ork codex they always hit on 6? Otherwise I think that with all these -1 to hit modifiers in the game there should be an always hit on 6 core rule. Just like 1 is always a fail. In a game with stacking -1 to hit it is stupid to have it so that you can never hit. I mean, an Ork bolter won't hit by chance, but Ork flamer will hit it.

 Eldarsif wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

Isn't there a rumor on the Ork codex they always hit on 6? Otherwise I think that with all these -1 to hit modifiers in the game there should be an always hit on 6 core rule. Just like 1 is always a fail. In a game with stacking -1 to hit it is stupid to have it so that you can never hit. I mean, an Ork bolter won't hit by chance, but Ork flamer will hit it.

I think that's confirmed. 6's are now an automatic hit and explode into more shots.

 Eldarsif wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

Isn't there a rumor on the Ork codex they always hit on 6? Otherwise I think that with all these -1 to hit modifiers in the game there should be an always hit on 6 core rule. Just like 1 is always a fail. In a game with stacking -1 to hit it is stupid to have it so that you can never hit. I mean, an Ork bolter won't hit by chance, but Ork flamer will hit it.

You don't need to go to 7+ to screw ork shooting. -1(hits on 6+) is already 4++++(it's even better than having 4++ or 4+++ because you can also have 4++ and 4+++ as well as this 4++++) against entire ork army for any unit that has -1 to hit on it.

Try playing game where your BS is halved. So your marine/eldar/whatever with BS3+ hit on 5+ rather than 3+. That's how it feels like for orks against alaitoc etc. Actually even worse than that but at least basic situation is like that. At least new rule will remove thatn "even worse" but it's still basically 4++++ for the enemy.

(and yes always hit on 6 would be core rule on any professionally made rules)

I'd stop worrying about exactly where the heavy weapon, special weapon, sergeant, etc are in a squad; treat the "squad" as the entity and be done with it. That basically means that individual powerful units such as vehicles and monsters have a degrading statline, whereas units of troops have a degrading footprint as they take damage.

If you're going for alternate activation, I'd add something like Necromunda or Middle Earth has, to allow heroes to activate multiple additional units.

I'd consolidate a lot of the weapons down; how many different lascannons are there now? Separate the number of shots from the main weapon stat line and you can get rid of a few duplicates, and something where certain terms always mean the same thing so you can make it easy to remember ("extended-barrel" means +x" range, "enhanced" means +x S, etc). In addition, I preferred it in 1st and 2nd editions where "meltagun" was a generic name for the same weapon used by Imperials, Orks, Eldar and whoever else. If one faction's weapon is pretty much the same as anothers, make it the same.

You could differentiate cover (bonus to saves) and concealment (penalties to hit). For hit rolls modified to 7+ or worse, something like "make hit rolls, then any 6s are re-rolled, needing the shooters' standard BS score". Or something like halving the number of shots, rounding down if the hit roll goes worse than 6+.

Things I’d want changed.

Weapons scaling to unit size. Particularly Flamer weapons. Flamers should get a D6 per 5 models in the target. Or even something like a second D6 for 10+ models.

Power levels redone, and made the normal play in the game. Power levels should have always been put at the highest level, and then let people downgrade from there, and it would solve all the bitching. If you put a Tac squad was 10 points, and came with a Lascannon, and Plasmagun and 10 guys, but you can certainly run with less guys, or remove the special and heavy weapon, or reduce the Lascannon, to a ML, HB, PC, all at no cost, same with the Plasmagun and its options, I think people would be okay with it much more than they are.

Same with A Devastator squad. Comes with 10 guys, 4 lascannon, and a Cherub. But swap it to any other option at no cost. See?

Organize play rules. This is where you get match play. No Allies, rigorously fair missions, and less detachment options.

HTH rethink. Falling back should be something that is an option even when surrounded, and I think something like when a unit if fleeing combat, some sort of you get 1 attack, hits on a 6, causes a mortal wounds or something like that to balance it a bit.

Change the system to d8/d4 system to add more granularity.

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice

Came to post this^^

Agreed, IGOUGO is the most game breaking feature of all 40K editions.

GW its time to move away from this antiquated system.

 skchsan wrote:
Change the system to d8/d4 system to add more granularity.

I'd love to see D8 saves in particular. Termis save on a 2+ on a D8. And Mortal would save on 5+ on a D6 from the Crux Terminus.

My wishlist to solve most of current problems:

1. Add <keywords> to unit skills and weapons. So then there could be rules/changes/spells/skill etc. relating for example to all <flamers> (for example flyers shoudln't be valid target for them) or we could have <deep strike> to any skill like teleport strike that can be addresed in FAQ not going through all possible name variant. THey can still have name, fluff and different versions but they could have tag to be addresed by rules/other skill interactions

2. Make GW learn statistics. Single-dice weapons damage should increase greatly over d6 to be comparable with multi-dice weapons like cawl plasma vs harpoon. Make "blast" weapons scale with target unit size...

3. ... size could have two component - number of units and model size. Unify and define model bases according to "size". Make big targets easier to hit and single model small size almost impossible to hit - here we can deal with characters targeting without complicated rules

4. make points online / list builder and keep updating it often to address broken stuff

5. Overhaul CP system into something else like make HQ units generate them and make them expensive. Grand master should generate a lot of them for his price. Grand strategist of IG could also do that but should be expensive or named character like Creed.

6. Overhaul LD system that is useless now. Kill team have good ideas regarding this, maybe something similar? Give -to hit for failed LD etc.

7. Remake charge phase to something like run move. Just merge advance with charge and make charging just runing into enemy

8. Make going first part of strategy that have price not random dice - give some units like scouts some bonus to initiative and who got more of them (or with some roll-off + bonuses) start.

9. Remove invul saves from game and redesign weapons that have too high AP. Make termies viable. Remove mortal wounds aswel, just give spells weapon profiles.

10. Give proper 3d ruling. How we can place bases in angles or not, proper 3D measurment etc. No more pseudo-2D-into-3D stuff please.

11. Remove ynnari from the game or give them total redesign.

Also fold Ld into MF (Mental Fortitude) - use it for abilities (i.e. orders) or other core mechanics (Fall Back, as it's supposed to be a tactical retreat, not a scramble), morale etc.

Essentially combination of initiative (I) and (Ld)

Forfiter wrote:
11. Remove ynnari from the game or give them total redesign.

They should just release an Ynnari codex with all units from the Eldar codices inside that they are allowed to take. That wouldn't be any different from a Legion or Chapter-Specific codex.

1. Take the LotR SBG rule book, remove the LotR references, replace with 40k references

2. adapt the codexes accordingly

3. play a much better game

Terrain, terrain, terrain changes.

And some sort of buff for close combat. Seems to be slipping away more and more these days.

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

While soup is a problem, with out allowing allies you just killed at least half a dozen factions from being usable. Can't really field an entire army of Assassins or Rogue Trader Star Striders.

I'm really, really hoping that Kill Team is beta testing for potential 40K rules. The alternate turn order, hit modifiers for range and cover, and generally better cover system are all great mechanics that I'd like to see ported over to 40K.

How does the alternate turn order work in kill team? Is it something like infinity ?

Karol wrote:
How does the alternate turn order work in kill team? Is it something like infinity ?

It basically goes like this:
At the beginning of a round, you roll off an "initiative" order with d6/2d6. The highest roll goes first, then second, then third, then fourth. For simplicity, let's assume two players.

1) Movement
Player with highest initiative moves his models, declares charges or declares the unit to be aiming (no movement if aiming)
Then the other player does the same.

2) Shooting
Player with highest initiative picks a unit that was aiming during movement and shoots with it. Then the other player picks a unit that was aiming and shoots with it. Take turns until no one is left aiming.
Afterwards the two players take turns shooting all the units which were not aiming.
This usually leads to models with good weapons standing still and aiming for most of the game, since you want to get your shots before you someone might shoot you.

3) Combat
Just like 40k. Take turns, charged units first


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Probably change the Fly keyword/rule to "models can move over other models/terrain in the movement phase only" (incl. obviously, effects allowing you to move as if in the movement phase), but not during charge/pile-ins, etc., removing vertical 10" charges succeeding on snake-eyes, teleport-consolidates and other silly things.

Again, some exceptions for individual models might be needed.

By any chance, can your provide me with some random numbers to put on my lottery slip?

As many have said before me.

Decent terrain rules. Also vehicle facings. Templates too!

Re-introduce USR's

Make Flyers a USR

Bring back Vehicle Facings

Redo the Psychic phase into a dice management system

Being back the old Leadership system, I honestly don't know who the feth thought of the trash we have now. Bring back things like fear and pinning and actually make them important, psychology should be a huge part of this game and it isn't.

Bring back the old way of rolling dice. None of this modify the number bs. What you roll is what you roll. If its -1 to hit then if you normally hit on 3's, now you need 4's. Not you actually rolled a 3, but it's reduced by 1 down to 4 so you only get a re-roll if it's a sunday and the all the planets are aligned, but it stacks with these other 5 special rules in my unit card that require you to re-roll 6's if it's unmodified, but 5's if it is modified but not after the hit roll is made...etc. Why is this so fething unnecessarily complicated?

1's always fail, 6's always pass.

Fix the cover system. I shouldn't have to make house rules with every opponent I meet to agree that standing behind a giant tank would give a unit a cover save if they were obscured.

Fix the terrain system. I don't need every blade of grass to have it's own special rules. Just give me generic ones in the main rulebook.

Bring back Deep Striking on first turn. It already had a hard counter with scouting units. It actually made units like terminators good again for a couple months, why are we punishing these units again?

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While soup is a problem, with out allowing allies you just killed at least half a dozen factions from being usable. Can't really field an entire army of Assassins or Rogue Trader Star Striders.

Those "factions" can go back to being narrative-only options to be used where they fit the story. Or, for something like an assassin that is clearly a single supplemental unit and not a full faction, it could get a special rule that you can take it in addition to your codex units. It would just require GW to be careful to ensure that all factions have options like this, and Imperial armies don't get way more options than everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

with respect Peregrine, I'm not sure you appreciate how long this would take to play out a turn,

It wouldn't take any longer than it already takes. Except now instead of having IGOUGO where you can go take a lunch break while your opponent does their turn both players are involved at all times.

 KRakarth wrote:
So what's the problem? Marked bases as you suggest or use standardised facings possibly also marked on bases. It's used in many other games. I also find your suggestion of standardised fire arcs more than palatable. We are not talking realism here. As to your argument over a model that's very close to a given arc. Use the same procedure as you do for anything else (is a model 50% obscured for cover?) and roll for it.

Aren't the new buggies coming on bases....

The problem is that GW doesn't currently do it. It's certainly possible to use marked bases and standardized arcs, but it requires way more than a simple rule change. You have to manufacture new bases and then get everyone to put their existing vehicles on the new bases.

And no, "4+ it" is not a substitute for a rule that actually works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Bring back Deep Striking on first turn. It already had a hard counter with scouting units. It actually made units like terminators good again for a couple months, why are we punishing these units again?

no. Turn 1 deep striking removes the whole point of fast units and proper deployment and was a big part of 8th edition's alpha strike problems. Units with close-range weapons (melee or shooting) should not be using them on turn 1, you should have to spend time and effort getting them into position to take advantage of their superior firepower. Deploying directly into attack range removes the intended drawback of these units.

I'd add a required monthly desalination treatment for all players.

Create rules to destroy terrain. At the moment non-flying, non-infantry assault units have no way whatsoever to interact with infantry hiding in ruins bar the Imperial Knight stratagem that allows a Questoris or Dominus class to fight through the walls and that bugs me to no end as a fervent Thunderwolf Cavalry and Space Wolf Swoard&Board dread fan. Besides, it doesn't make sense. A Dreadnought hammering a building in CC or a Predator Annihilator shooting all it's Lascannons at a rock formation serving as cover for a bunch of Orks should have consequences.

Basic idea is to give buildings and other terrain a wounds, T and armor save statistic depending on their size and type, and add special effects upon the building being destroyed (ie infantry-sized models in a ruin that is destroyed suffering a mortal wound on a 1 due to it collapsing on top of them, triggering a landslide when a rock formation is destroyed, etc.). After it's destroyed the piece of terrain would be removed from play and the terrain is treated as rubble, inflicting movement, advance and charge distance penalties on everything that doesn't have the Fly or Titanic keywords.

1) Apply the Kill Team charge rules. If I fail, I can at least get close and if I barely connect you might be able to get away.

2) Alternating Activations. I've tried it and it works, giving the game a much more dyanmic feel without lengthening the turns. Nothing sucks worse then sitting there for 15 minutes, able to do nothing but roll armor saves.

3) Apply the Max Model stat from Kill Team. That way GW can specify exactly what should only show up 2 or 3 times in a list and what is ok to take with impunity.

I forgot to add, change the way the game turns are set up to be like Kill Team.

Pinning rules, or failing that, alternate activations.

vehicle facings...

the irony is the issue that removed them was the first issue that could actually do them properly..

on each data card add two silhouettes, one for damage arcs - this shows the toughness and save for each arc - on a model by model basis, using points on specific models to make it easier - arcs no longer need to be equal, models can have different numbers of arcs and variosu special rules can key on the arcs

second silhouette is for the vehicle firing arcs for the different weapons. again special rules can key on them. e.g. -1 to hit when firing some weapons to the rear or within say 6" or whatever.

done, works for monsters, heck even stuff like bikes getting a fixed forwards firing arc, fliers also firing fixed weapons forwards in a 90 or 45 degree arc. could even produce some little arc templates to go with it

point being, since everything now has its own data card this sort of stuff becomes seriously easy to add to the game - and can be added as a rolling change - existing vehicles are just noted to have a single 360 degree arc for damage and weapons fire

Current 40k is a hot mess. 8th edition came very close to being a good edition, but sadly GW messed it up.

Command points, strategems, igoyougo, character targeting rules, lack of psychology, no arcs, easily exploted FoCs with allies, lazy terrain rules, no pinning mechanics, flamers auto hitting super sonic jets, super sonic jets being on the battlefield turning and what not, etc etc..

I think the system needs an overhaul. A complete from the bottom up rework. Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

I like the models and the setting, but the rules are just so bad. The only people who can honestly defend a rules system where a flamer can auto hit a super sonic jet are GW diehard fans, people who think that the HH book series is great sci-fi.

Current 40k is pretty great, honestly.

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

Current 40k is great and continues to get better.

Sure if you are looking for illogical shallow unbalanced junk where game changes are not made for sake of balance but to change buying patterns

leopard wrote:
vehicle facings...

the irony is the issue that removed them was the first issue that could actually do them properly..

on each data card add two silhouettes, one for damage arcs - this shows the toughness and save for each arc - on a model by model basis, using points on specific models to make it easier - arcs no longer need to be equal, models can have different numbers of arcs and variosu special rules can key on the arcs

second silhouette is for the vehicle firing arcs for the different weapons. again special rules can key on them. e.g. -1 to hit when firing some weapons to the rear or within say 6" or whatever.

done, works for monsters, heck even stuff like bikes getting a fixed forwards firing arc, fliers also firing fixed weapons forwards in a 90 or 45 degree arc. could even produce some little arc templates to go with it

point being, since everything now has its own data card this sort of stuff becomes seriously easy to add to the game - and can be added as a rolling change - existing vehicles are just noted to have a single 360 degree arc for damage and weapons fire

streamlining aside I never liked the facing. Take my battlewagons, they are long models so while front armor was 14 previously it almsot always got hit on side armor 12... and for some reason GW decided rear armor should be 10 so the ork "land raider equivilant" was consistantly beaten by drop podding sternguard. I think overall toughness is faster to play and fairer overall as it gives GW modelers more artistic freedom.

am not oppossed to firing arcs though. left sponson shooting a target on the far right side of a tank is kinda dumb.

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

If by boring you mean no faction special rule, no sub-faction, no warlord trait, no relics, no strategems, and no models/units with more special rules than is necessary... See, these are the things that break the game. When the game boils down to who had the better selection of special rules to out special rule their opponent it stops being a game about tactics.

Maybe it is because I have been playing these sort of games since the late 80's, I no longer find the appeal of the type of game GW are offering. When I was in my teens and mid 20's, sure. As a mature gamer, nope I want to play a game were choices I make on the table are the focus, and not what list I have brought.

As a mature gamer, I want my evil space marine hero that is entombed in a walking sarcophagus to go on rampage after an elf space clown poked it with a needle and smash him to pulp with a dual-barreled laser-cannon.

It worked, just yesterday. I like 8th edition

 stonehorse wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

If by boring you mean no faction special rule, no sub-faction, no warlord trait, no relics, no strategems, and no models/units with more special rules than is necessary... See, these are the things that break the game. When the game boils down to who had the better selection of special rules to out special rule their opponent it stops being a game about tactics.

Maybe it is because I have been playing these sort of games since the late 80's, I no longer find the appeal of the type of game GW are offering. When I was in my teens and mid 20's, sure. As a mature gamer, nope I want to play a game were choices I make on the table are the focus, and not what list I have brought.

Good for you, glad you have a simpler game you can play then.

Now, if we can get back to talking about Warhammer 40k in the Warhammer 40k thread in the Warhammer 40k section of the website, that would be just swell.

Timing on an 8.5 edition should probably be a decent amount after the last main codex releases. Gives more time to let Kill Team be the test bed for future 40k changes, as it clearly seems to be doing wonders in that role if this thread is any indication. Folks seem to really like the turn system there.

Without going into rules I would tweak, I would bring back tank shock. Charging infantry with a tank should have some extra oomph, the current rules just don't do it for me.

I'd like that. Obvious a tank wouldn't be great in protracted close contact with infantry, ( a threat that even modern tanks still deal with), but yea if a tank drives straight at you best get out the way or crunch.

Total overhaul of stats. Right now there's one cost-effective infantry profile (Guardsmen), the statistical advantages of other units don't matter enough in the face of their costs. Spammable volume of D2+ makes "target priority" a joke (volume of battle cannons/plasma/that kind of profile is the most efficient weapon against anything that isn't a Guardsman), grandfather-claused 4e-vintage stat/unit composition assumptions ("a Space Marine has one Attack, a Terminator has two!")...On top of that the sheer unrestricted nature of army composition screws over certain units; because Imperial Knights exist as a faction an "all-comers" army needs to be able to fight them, which means things like the Rhino chassis feel really squishy because every army they face has to be able to easily engage a bunch of things twice their size with Invulnerable saves.

More wounds on vehicles, more damage on dedicated anti-tank weapons, non-uniform blasts (use the conversion beamer's "if this weapon kills a model do 2d6 S(x)/AP-/D1 hits to the rest of the unit" rule instead of writing things that fire d6+ S8/AP-2/D2 shots), re-statting/re-pricing everything in context of other army books, and going back to one detachment to actually curtail spam might make some difference.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Without going into rules I would tweak, I would bring back tank shock. Charging infantry with a tank should have some extra oomph, the current rules just don't do it for me.

I feel like tanks should do mortal wounds when they slam into a unit. Then again I feel like Dozer blades should come back as a way to give vehicles like Rhinos extra attacks on the turn they charge.

I don't think I would really add one just one thing to the rules; IMO the game could use a comprehensive rewrite. I don't think one change is enough.

That being said, alternating activation is the first thing that comes to mind. I think it would open up so much more space for positioning to matter and tactics in general, even if the rest of the game stayed as is.

Other changes I would also like to see:

A meaningful suppression/ morale system.

Firing arcs especially if they were applied to all units.

Replacement of fixed rolls with comparing an attacker value to a defender value.

More abstracted LOS.

Double moves instead of d6" run/charge.

Special rules that allow you the "do something" as opposed to some sort of numerical increase to defense or offense.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Total overhaul of stats. Right now there's one cost-effective infantry profile (Guardsmen), the statistical advantages of other units don't matter enough in the face of their costs. Spammable volume of D2+ makes "target priority" a joke (volume of battle cannons/plasma/that kind of profile is the most efficient weapon against anything that isn't a Guardsman), grandfather-claused 4e-vintage stat/unit composition assumptions ("a Space Marine has one Attack, a Terminator has two!")...On top of that the sheer unrestricted nature of army composition screws over certain units; because Imperial Knights exist as a faction an "all-comers" army needs to be able to fight them, which means things like the Rhino chassis feel really squishy because every army they face has to be able to easily engage a bunch of things twice their size with Invulnerable saves.

More wounds on vehicles, more damage on dedicated anti-tank weapons, non-uniform blasts (use the conversion beamer's "if this weapon kills a model do 2d6 S(x)/AP-/D1 hits to the rest of the unit" rule instead of writing things that fire d6+ S8/AP-2/D2 shots), re-statting/re-pricing everything in context of other army books, and going back to one detachment to actually curtail spam might make some difference.

I think there's definitely a lot of good points here, some of which can conceivably occur in CA too.

Generate Command Points per turn like Kill Team instead of all at once. Burning as many command points as early as possible being the optimal thing to do only emphasizes going first and ruins the long game/armies without enough offensive stratagems.

No Titanic in regular 40k. They've become too good again.

No allies.

 Jidmah wrote:
As a mature gamer, I want my evil space marine hero that is entombed in a walking sarcophagus to go on rampage after an elf space clown poked it with a needle and smash him to pulp with a dual-barreled laser-cannon.

It worked, just yesterday. I like 8th edition

This is a great post.

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

If by boring you mean no faction special rule, no sub-faction, no warlord trait, no relics, no strategems, and no models/units with more special rules than is necessary... See, these are the things that break the game. When the game boils down to who had the better selection of special rules to out special rule their opponent it stops being a game about tactics.

Maybe it is because I have been playing these sort of games since the late 80's, I no longer find the appeal of the type of game GW are offering. When I was in my teens and mid 20's, sure. As a mature gamer, nope I want to play a game were choices I make on the table are the focus, and not what list I have brought.

Good for you, glad you have a simpler game you can play then.

Now, if we can get back to talking about Warhammer 40k in the Warhammer 40k thread in the Warhammer 40k section of the website, that would be just swell.

Timing on an 8.5 edition should probably be a decent amount after the last main codex releases. Gives more time to let Kill Team be the test bed for future 40k changes, as it clearly seems to be doing wonders in that role if this thread is any indication. Folks seem to really like the turn system there.

Ok.

Here are things that I personally would do to make the current 40k a better experience.

Alternative activation, this would also incorporate the removal of the phases of the game as it is. Now when units are activated they can choose to do one of several actions. Run (double movement), move and shoot, hold ground, and assault (run followed by a melee attack if within 2" of an enemy unit).

No more random number of attacks or wounds, set a fixed value.

Pinning, if a unit sustains hits equal to their leadership value in one turn, the unit is pinned and must skip it's next activation.

Active armour, opponents attack must equal or beat a models armour value to inflict damage. This would mean models would need their toughness and armour rolled into one new stat, similar to GW's LotR games.

Introduce Universal Special Rules, stick to these, no more no less.

Every model has a 180 arc to their front. Turret mounted weapons have a 360 arc.

A 1 is an auto miss and a 6 is an auto hit.

Removal of TloS.

No more just d3 and d6, add d4, d8, and d10 for rolls depending on skill and such.

Commanders have a command value, this gives them access to a number of abilities they can throughout a game use equal to this valie. So Orks would have a low value, and Marines would have a high value. Abilities would be universal, things such as allow a nearby unit to stop being pinned, or for another unit to activate out of sequence. This would replace Command Points and strategems.

Why would orks have a low value? The lore is full of Space Marines or Astra Militarum Generals getting outsmarted by orks.

Any rule that randomly shafts some faction(s) out of part of the games is a bad rule.
That said, give Necrons and Tau some psykers. Just have them do technology magic or inspiring speeches instead of warp-fueled sorcery.

KT rules -> 40k rules.

That's it. Done.

You really don't want have 2000 points of orks rolling whether a bolter actually kills them.

Interesting, a lot of the suggested changes are quite familiar to me as a 2e player just starting to get interested in 40k again.

What surprised me was I recall when 3e appeared the selling point was that it sped up the game, made it less important to cower in cover if you've got 'tough' troops (i.e.l space marines), and was overall more suitable as a 'battle' game than a 'skirmish' game (i.e Necromunda).

Having played a few small scales games this does not seem to be the case - if you march space marines across open ground they die and die, and with big units you have to roll A LOT of dice. It is not a fast game to play.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why would orks have a low value? The lore is full of Space Marines or Astra Militarum Generals getting outsmarted by orks.

Any rule that randomly shafts some faction(s) out of part of the games is a bad rule.
That said, give Necrons and Tau some psykers. Just have them do technology magic or inspiring speeches instead of warp-fueled sorcery.

While it is true that the occasional Ork commander can be cunning enough to outsmart Imperial and even Eldar it is just that, an occasional occurance.

Not sure if you played 2nd edition, but in that system each force had a strategy rating, Orks were low in that department, due to not how they operate. They aren't a drill army that practices routines and such, but rather a large mob that is lead by the biggest and hardest Ork looking to bash some heads in. That is the difference, and something like that can help reflect it. What the Ork commander loses out in tactical leadership ability they certainly make up for in sheer brute strength and endurance.

I would add an extra -1 to hit if you can't see the target, for all those weapons that don't require a line-of-sight. Getting my balls shot off by a parking lot still sucks.

Spoletta wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

Alternating activations from kill team would indeed be interesting. I disagree with the rest.

I agree with him on TLOS as well, that's never been a good rule.

I don't know that I'd go so far as eliminating soup, but I do prefer the "fixed CP total based on game size, with 1 CP penalties for each force type after the first and each detachment that isn't at least a battalion" model. You're already rewarded with more tactical flexibility when you soup, that needs to be balanced somehow and CP penalties for mixed command structures seems like a good way to do that.

I think I'd add a -1 to-hit penalty for indirect fire, with a further -1 if no friendly unit has LOS to the target either.

Limit CP generation and strats to the units that come from the warlord's codex (So if you have an IK warlord then only IK detachments generate CPs and you only can use IK strats). This would allow for soup but, I think, take a lot of the advantages out of play.

Have rerolls occur after modifiers. This is much more intuitive, at least to me.

I would add classifications for armor types.

For instance, Unbreakable Armor, Heavy Armor, Medium Armor, Light Armor, and Flimsy Armor.

Some weapons would gain increased effectiveness based on certain types of armor.

For instance, Boltguns gain AP-2 against Light Armor & Flimsy Armor. So weapons can be more effective against certain armor types.

Tone down lethality.

A return to S+2 wounds on 2s, and S-2 wounds on 6s.
A removal of AP-1/2 from almost all current AP-1/2 weapons.
A drop or reduction of most ++ saves (wtf do DA exarchs have a free 4++?).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and if a Tactical Squad gets up to a standard tank or transport with a pair of Meltas, there should be a reasonable chance the tank is going boom - even if it's unhurt.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Have rerolls occur after modifiers. This is much more intuitive, at least to me.

40k really does need the notion of "unmodified" rolls added to clarify this sort of thing. It would also make some of the patches unnecessary. If a Plasma Gun only exploded on an unmodified to-hit roll of 1 then you wouldn't need the extra rule to spell out that a +1 to-hit doesn't make the gun completely safe to overload.

Cover and Terrain is about the only thing I'd really want more detail in currently with the range of units and force sizes 40k plays at, especially if staying with D6's. I actually didnt mind the old 5E-7E TLoS rules too much, the 3E/4E area terrain rules made it really easy to keep entire offensive wings hidden until you were right on top of someone, especially with some of the faster armies out there.

Vehicle facings and firing arcs are no big loss, especially when they didn't apply to Monstrous Creatures and other similar units like artillery. Nobody ever seemed to mind a Wraithlord shooting out its butt and being T8 from all angles It also didnt help that most vehicles had similar or identical front/side armor so maneuver wasnt huge most of the time unless with something like a Deep Striking unit hitting a transport that had rolled up the board.

If we want to move away from D6's and into smaller force sizes or much longer games, D10's and greater stat varition would be great, but that would be a whole other edition at that point.

Armour facings should make a come back, even if it's as simple as 'hitting a target from X removes Y additional wounds'.

I see a lot of ideas confusing sophistication for complexity.

The only thing I can think of right now is to remove auto wound on 6. There really should be a cap on when a grot or nurgling can deal damage. It makes hordes and small arms fire much stronger than it has any right to be. Throwing pebbles at a steel door wont do anything, whether you throw 5, or 500. Something that brought a lot of tactical choices to the previous editions was the ability to literally tie up a unit in CC with a dreadnought or tank. It made armored targets feel like they were legitimately armored. Instead dreadnoughts and many vehicles have lost a deal of their utility. I enjoy the simplicity of every model being toughness based, but miss the tactical choices that armor value brought.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
I see a lot of ideas confusing sophistication for complexity.

The only thing I can think of right now is to remove auto wound on 6. There really should be a cap on when a grot or nurgling can deal damage. It makes hordes and small arms fire much stronger than it has any right to be. Throwing pebbles at a steel door wont do anything, whether you throw 5, or 500. Something that brought a lot of tactical choices to the previous editions was the ability to literally tie up a unit in CC with a dreadnought or tank. It made armored targets feel like they were legitimately armored. Instead dreadnoughts and many vehicles have lost a deal of their utility. I enjoy the simplicity of every model being toughness based, but miss the tactical choices that armor value brought.

When you do the math behind that, you'll find that it's not a problem at all. Anything that couldn't damage AV10 bevor is still so ineffective at damaging T7/3+ that you would only ever do it if there is no better target to attack.

 Jidmah wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
I see a lot of ideas confusing sophistication for complexity.

The only thing I can think of right now is to remove auto wound on 6. There really should be a cap on when a grot or nurgling can deal damage. It makes hordes and small arms fire much stronger than it has any right to be. Throwing pebbles at a steel door wont do anything, whether you throw 5, or 500. Something that brought a lot of tactical choices to the previous editions was the ability to literally tie up a unit in CC with a dreadnought or tank. It made armored targets feel like they were legitimately armored. Instead dreadnoughts and many vehicles have lost a deal of their utility. I enjoy the simplicity of every model being toughness based, but miss the tactical choices that armor value brought.

When you do the math behind that, you'll find that it's not a problem at all. Anything that couldn't damage AV10 bevor is still so ineffective at damaging T7/3+ that you would only ever do it if there is no better target to attack.

Ah yeah it was so bad idea for me to destroy wraithknight on overwatch wih my conscripts. Yep yep.

Better terrain rules, yes, but also better rules for all the fortifications / kits they sell. At the moment very few of these are worth taking.

Actually, even just some missions where one / both players gets an allowance to spend on fortifications would go a long way.

In terms of vehicle facings, I would use the crossfire rules from Epic Armageddon. Basically if you can draw a line from the firing unit through the target to a friendly unit then the the target gets an additional negative to it's save (I would suggest -1). This would apply against infantry as well and would give another role for deep striking/ outflanking units.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
I see a lot of ideas confusing sophistication for complexity.

The only thing I can think of right now is to remove auto wound on 6. There really should be a cap on when a grot or nurgling can deal damage. It makes hordes and small arms fire much stronger than it has any right to be. Throwing pebbles at a steel door wont do anything, whether you throw 5, or 500. Something that brought a lot of tactical choices to the previous editions was the ability to literally tie up a unit in CC with a dreadnought or tank. It made armored targets feel like they were legitimately armored. Instead dreadnoughts and many vehicles have lost a deal of their utility. I enjoy the simplicity of every model being toughness based, but miss the tactical choices that armor value brought.

When you do the math behind that, you'll find that it's not a problem at all. Anything that couldn't damage AV10 bevor is still so ineffective at damaging T7/3+ that you would only ever do it if there is no better target to attack.

Ah yeah it was so bad idea for me to destroy wraithknight on overwatch wih my conscripts. Yep yep.

I wasn't aware you could pick other targets for overwatch.

Removed, rule#1 please! - BrookM

Sonsoftherock wrote:
Better terrain rules, yes, but also better rules for all the fortifications / kits they sell. At the moment very few of these are worth taking.

Actually, even just some missions where one / both players gets an allowance to spend on fortifications would go a long way.

They already have this via all of the Planet Strike missions. The defender can include an unlimited number of fortifications for FREE! They even recommend that you take a minimum of 6 fortifications and make each one a mission objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't play competitively so many of the rule changes I would like to see regarding things like terrain, I've already house ruled with my friend. The terrain section of the rulebook even suggests that players implement their own special terrain rules, and makes some suggestions for "advanced terrain rules." With the tournament scene being what it is, I can understand GW wanting to keep the core game as simple as possible. There's nothing stopping you from introducing your own rule changes with your local group.

One thing I would like to see, however, is the elimination of weapons that get D3 or D6 shots in favor of replacing them with blast templates and scatter dice. D6 weapons are usually too expensive to justify a string of rolling 1s and 2s because you forgot to sacrifice your first born to the dice gods. Plus blast templates seems far more believable. As it is now, it feels like there's a rookie on the tank crew loading shells and he keeps dropping them.

The need to address the horde durability issue, and the allies issue.

I'd prefer to see the Horde durability addressed through making Flamers (all factions have these) do 1D6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.

I'd prefer to see the ally issue fixed by nerfing Stratagems. I feel the game would get better if you only had access to the stratagems available to your Warlord.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yeah it was so bad idea for me to destroy wraithknight on overwatch wih my conscripts. Yep yep.

Considering it takes an average of 1,296 Conscripts rapid-firing on Overwatch to kill a Wraithknight from full health, over 5000pts of Conscripts, I'm going to guess that either a unit of Conscripts was the very last straw that broke the camel's back after actual AT weapons had done their job, or you rolled the mother of all flukes that shouldn't be considered representative of typical behavior.

I mean, needing 54 Conscripts rapid-firing on Overwatch to average a single wound sounds pretty much like 'so ineffective at damaging T7/3+ that you would only ever do it if there is no better target to attack' as Jidmah put it.

Reemule wrote:
I'd prefer to see the Horde durability addressed through making Flamers (all factions have these) do 1D6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.

I'd really like to see something like that implemented for all former Blast weapons- maybe throw in that you only get 1 attack if the target is a single model. As a Guard player it bothers me that weapons historically intended for anti-horde use are now poor at killing hordes, but are better tankbusters than dedicated AT weapons.

Remove pre-measuring from the game. It slows the game down and is one of the few things I feel really removes player skill from decisions. Being able to eye ball a shot was a skill and messing that up could really effect the game.

Reemule wrote:
Flamers (all factions have these)...

Not Necrons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Remove pre-measuring from the game. It slows the game down and is one of the few things I feel really removes player skill from decisions. Being able to eye ball a shot was a skill and messing that up could really effect the game.

As a player with substantial vision issues, I'd rather we don't go back to a game style that highlights my disability. Premeasuing has made the game far far more playable.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Remove pre-measuring from the game. It slows the game down and is one of the few things I feel really removes player skill from decisions. Being able to eye ball a shot was a skill and messing that up could really effect the game.

Coming from the changeover between Warmachine Mk2 and Mk3 (which introduced full pre-measuring) I find the idea that eyeballing distance should be a stand-in for player skill kind of silly; it's a simple gate mechanic that makes the game annoying to new players and is completely uninteresting once you get over the curve. It doesn't make the making of decisions any more interesting, it just makes the actual carrying out of the decisions you've made more annoying; it's like mandating all players roll their dice by throwing them into a tray from a distance of at least five feet and any dice that bounce out of the tray count as failures.

While I wouldn't say these add sophistication, the things our group does are pretty simple...

1) We play tokenhammer, so the IGOUGO is gone and it changes entirely the way you think about the game of 40K.
2) We tone down the "shoot from any point on a model" to be more fair...generally if 1/3rd of your model can see the other we go with it.
3) We keep vehicle carcasses on the table as added terrain, so disabling or destroying vehicles on bridges or key points is valuable.
4) We've invented new deployment cards and a "control of the battle space" deployment method where the person controlling the engagement has deployment options.
5) We've added plenty of house rules for terrain, frequently playing with acid oceans of rivers (savvy tank drivers will park in the acid and risk damage to protect themselves from infantry swarms)
6) We've used basic old school line of sight. If your unit is obscurred you get cover - we don't care if you're "in" cover.
7) We've modified some units (Terminators etc.) to be more reasonable so people actually get to play them.
8) We play with heavier terrain when possible...but this is something we've always done.

We're working on revamping drop pods, etc. Always fiddling with the game to make it more enjoyable. We've hit a pretty good spot so far - the biggest change of course being Tokenhammer.

 Elbows wrote:
While I wouldn't say these add sophistication, the things our group does are pretty simple...

1) We play tokenhammer, so the IGOUGO is gone and it changes entirely the way you think about the game of 40K.
2) We tone down the "shoot from any point on a model" to be more fair...generally if 1/3rd of your model can see the other we go with it.
3) We keep vehicle carcasses on the table as added terrain, so disabling or destroying vehicles on bridges or key points is valuable.
4) We've invented new deployment cards and a "control of the battle space" deployment method where the person controlling the engagement has deployment options.
5) We've added plenty of house rules for terrain, frequently playing with acid oceans of rivers (savvy tank drivers will park in the acid and risk damage to protect themselves from infantry swarms)
6) We've used basic old school line of sight. If your unit is obscurred you get cover - we don't care if you're "in" cover.
7) We've modified some units (Terminators etc.) to be more reasonable so people actually get to play them.
8) We play with heavier terrain when possible...but this is something we've always done.

We're working on revamping drop pods, etc. Always fiddling with the game to make it more enjoyable. We've hit a pretty good spot so far - the biggest change of course being Tokenhammer.

I've never heard of tokenhammer before, can you explain?

Without going into too much detail, each unit in your army creates a token. Tokens are gathered into a cup/mug/bag and players play a battle round "together" by drawing tokens from the bag --- drawing until an opposing token is drawn. Players then apply the tokens to units of their choice and play a mini turn with those units. It removes IGOUGO and removes 1st turn bonuses or alpha strikes. I'm doing a proper write-up on it now, and may have it on my blog at some point, so I'll link it if I do.

 Elbows wrote:
Without going into too much detail, each unit in your army creates a token. Tokens are gathered into a cup/mug/bag and players play a battle round "together" by drawing tokens from the bag --- drawing until an opposing token is drawn. Players then apply the tokens to units of their choice and play a mini turn with those units. It removes IGOUGO and removes 1st turn bonuses or alpha strikes. I'm doing a proper write-up on it now, and may have it on my blog at some point, so I'll link it if I do.

So, basically the system from Bolt Action?

Similar, but different. Bolt Action is one dice at a time, using tokens you can draw until your opponent's token is drawn --- and we occasionally add tokens in for environmental effects, etc. (another highlight is that this allows multi-army games, such as three-player games to be played without issue - something more or less impossible in standard 40K).

This allows you to have the occasional run of tokens (which you know ahead of time, unlike something like Bolt Action). However, a run of 3-5 tokens means you're more likely to have your opponent gain a run later in the turn.

It requires some minor changes to the basic game rules but fits in pretty well - we started using it playing 2nd edition a couple years ago. When 8th become popular we just switched it over to the current game with little issue. It's not reinventing the wheel, just ditching the IGOUGO nature of 40K for something more involving.