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

Hello everyone,
I'm a relatively new Warhammer 40k player, but I love the game and the setting/story. I started playing during 8th edition and while I think its a great edition overall (at least from what I have heard/seen about past editions) I also think it has some serious flaws. I believe these changes would make the game significantly better without changing the game in a massive way or invalidating Codexes/Indexes/Expansion books.

Improved Rules Wording
8th Edition 40K is riddled with annoying inconsistencies in the rules that make learning and playing the game awkward whenever they come up. The root of these issues is (in my opinion) the loosely defined actions like “move”, “shoot”, “attack”, and others. This leads to rules wording like “Shoot as if it is the shooting phase”, “Move as if it were the movement phase”. A major improvement would be defining these actions explicitly; just having better defined sections/sub-sections for the “Movement Phase” and “Moving” would almost instantly solve the issue. For example, instead of having “Moving”, “Minimum Move”, “Enemy Models”, “Falling Back”, and “Advancing” all be under the “Movement Phase section of the rules, create a “Moving” section the defines the action of moving with the appropriate sub sections under that header. Then ALL other rules can reference “Moving” and other subsection headers as needed (eg. “Move up to 7 inches” would be easily understood to disallow you from coming within 1 inch of enemy models, but would allow Falling Back, since it is all defined in the “Moving” section).

Streamlined Stratagems
Stratagems are kind of out of control. Some factions can have nearly 100 stratagems available to their army (Space Marines + 2 other Imperium factions + Assasins + Specialist Detachments). I think the stratagems that you can use during the game should be limited and chosen as part of you army like a unit. Something like choosing 1 stratagem per Command Point your army generates to add to your “Stratagem Roster” would be an easy way to balance and simplify the system. Limiting it to the faction that generated the command point would also help, for example if your Guard brigade generates 12 CP you can choose 12 stratagems to add to your “Stratagem Roster”, but only from the Guard codex/expansions. Also, the “Command Point Reroll” built in stratagem should be changed to 2 CP, at 1 CP it is so strong it ends up overshadowing the more flavorful stratagems from the factions.

Core Game Rules Changes
Under the current rules, combat can quickly turn into an exercise of mass dice rolling with little to no emphasis on positioning or tactics. There are several rules that increase game time and complexity with little benefit, or benefit that can be replicated with less complex rules. The goal of these proposed changes is to add more emphasis on positioning and player choices during the game.

Make Morale and Leadership Matter: (Leadership Changes)

Add Leadership/Morale checks to certain important actions: Falling Back, Charging, and Using a Stratagem on a unit.

For Falling Back, you roll a d6 and add the number of models in the unit that are within 1 inch of an enemy and compare that to the unit’s Leadership. Just like a Morale test you fail the test if the result of the check exceeds the unit’s Leadership. When determining which of your models is within an inch of an enemy, you can choose any number of enemy models to ignore, but must add 3 to the check for each enemy model you choose to ignore. After you roll the d6 you can choose to not Fall Back and lose nothing (ignore the results of the check) or continue to attempt to fall back and accept the results of the leadership test (losing models as required). For Falling Back, you can choose to fall back even if the entire unit would die from losing models to the check. For example, a 10 man squad of Tactical Marines with 8 models within 1 inch of an enemy rolls a 2 on the Leadership check (After rerolling with “And They Shall Know No Fear”). They have a Leadership 8, canceling out the +8 they add to the check for being within 1 inch of enemies, so they fail the check by 2. You can choose to lose 2 models and Fall Back or abandon the attempt to Fall Back.

For Charging, after Overwatch occurs you roll a d6 and add the number of models that died during Overwatch then compare it to the unit’s Leadership. Just like a Morale test you fail the test if the result of the check exceeds the unit’s Leadership. After you roll the d6 you can choose to not Charge and lose nothing from the check, or continue and roll for Charge distance. For Charging, you cannot choose to charge if it would result in the entire unit fleeing/dying.

For using a Stratagem on a unit (Only stratagems that target a single unit are affected by this), before you spend the CP on the stratagem roll a d6 and add the CP cost of the stratagem being used and then compare it to the unit’s Leadership. Just like a Morale test you fail the test if the result of the check exceeds the unit’s Leadership. After you see the result you can choose to not spend the CP and to ignore the results of the test, but be unable to use that stratagem for the rest of the phase (the stratagem does not occur). Alternatively, you can accept the results of the test (and lose models as required), spend the CP for the stratagem and then the stratagem occurs. For using a Stratagem on a unit, you cannot choose to use the stratagem if it would result in the entire unit fleeing/dying.

These checks represent the unit being ordered to do something exceptionally difficult and/or dangerous. Failing a check represents the models panicking and being effectively out of action the rest of the battle, abandoning the fight if forced to attempt the action, or being executed for disobedience by their former comrades. These checks all allow the player to choose how to proceed after seeing the result of the check, increasing the important of player choices during the game. Note that the Morale phase would remain unchanged, so losses from failed Leadership checks performing these difficult actions can cause further losses during the Morale phase.

Add More Important Choices to Shooting: (Shooting Changes)

Change cover from granting +1 to saves to forcing enemies to subtract 1 from their shooting hit rolls, and call the bonus “Obscured” or “Difficult to Hit”, just give it a name separate from “Cover”. This makes the cover bonus stronger in many cases, and weaker in some others.

Allow this bonus to stack, and replace almost all the abilities that force enemies to subtract 1 from their shooting hit rolls to instead grant a stack of “Obscured”. By “stack” I mean each instance of “Obscured” operates independently, forcing the opponent to subtract 1 from the hit roll for each (Note: This is exactly how most -1 to hit abilities work right now). For example, instead of the Alaitoc faction bonus reading “Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls for attacks that target a unit with this attribute at a range of more than 12 inches” it would read “Your opponent must treat a unit with this attribute as being “Obscured” for attacks that target the unit a range of more than 12 inches”.

All abilities that allow a unit to ignore cover are changed to instead ignore ONE instance of “Obscured”. Just ONE instance, not all. This gives more factions options for dealing with -1 to hit effects, but doesn’t completely invalidate them.

Allow certain pieces of terrain to grant “Superior Cover” that provides 2 instances of “Obscured” instead of one. Tournament/Game organizers can decide how much and what kind of terrain is appropriate of course, but the ideally each player will have some access to a piece of terrain that can grant this effect. (The rule could read: “A unit in Superior Cover is treated as being Obscured twice” or “A unit in Superior Cover gains two stacks of Obscured”)

Make Overwatch a special ability. A common one, but one that only units that have the appropriate skills or equipment have. This removes a lot of dice rolling for units that are not likely to do significant damage during Overwatch, and protects melee units from losing models to very lucky/unlucky rolls.

This relatively minor change will weaken shooting overall. Player’s can choose what is in their army and when trying to create the most powerful shooting lineup they need to plan for all of the possible defensive profiles. Armor penetration is already useful and the fact it also can counter the current cover bonus of +1 to armor saves makes it even better. Weapons that counter -1 to hit effects are harder for the player to control. Auto-hitting weapons, more accurate units, and weapons that add modifiers to the hit roll are rare and cost more, so much more they often aren’t as efficient point for point as other weapons. The idea is that a list designed to shoot “through” the “Obscured” bonus will not be able to compete with lists that do not need to rely on it for defense. This should reward players for being flexible in their shooting and for being smart about what they place in cover.

Streamline and Simplify Melee Combat: (Melee Changes)

Change the Pile-In move to take place during the Charge phase and during the movement phase. After a unit successfully gets a model within an inch of an enemy unit that they declared a charge against (using the Charge move, the current rules), all of the other models in the unit can move the Charge distance plus an additional 3 inches. The models in the charging unit must end their move closer to an enemy unit they successfully charged (a unit they got within 1 inch of using the normal Charge move). As another option during the movement phase, units can choose to Pile-In instead of Falling Back or doing nothing (currently units in melee can either Fall Back or do nothing). This speeds up the fight phase, and tends to strengthen the charging unit as opposed to the defending unit (who not cannot Pile-In during the fight phase after they are charged).

Make Consolidate a special ability, that almost all dedicated melee units have. This speeds up the fight phase even more and gives more power to units and lists that are dedicated to melee.

When a unit decides to Fall Back they can choose to “lose” a model or models in order to fall back, but those losses add 1 to the Leadership check to Fall Back for each model they choose to lose (in the Leadership check to fall back in the proposed “Leadership Changes”). This weakens “tri-pointing” and trapping weak units purely to avoid shooting, which is a powerful but unrealistic and unreliable. It is still beneficial to trap models, forcing the opponent to either let them die to Fall Back and also risking losses to the Leadership check or remain in combat, but it no longer provides guaranteed immunity to shooting.

These changes simplify and streamline the Fight phase. The changes to consolidate and pile-in moves reduce the amount of small 3 inch movements units need to make during the Fight phase. This should speed up the Fight phase considerably. The changes to Falling Back weaken tri-pointing, but if the “Leadership Changes” to Falling Back are implemented then melee comes out ahead. Remember that many important units, like units with Fly and many Knights, are already immune to tri-pointing or nearly immune to it. The combined Falling Back changes (In “Leadership Changes” and “Melee Changes”) equalize the playing field between units that ignore tri-pointing and those that can’t in the current rules.

EDIT #1: After suggestions and discussions I have added some important changes to the post, the updates are all in this color

Good post! Some well thought-out ideas there.

Improved Rules Wording...

No argument here.

Streamlined Stratagems
Stratagems are kind of out of control. Some factions can have nearly 100 stratagems available to their army (Space Marines + 2 other Imperium factions + Assasins + Specialist Detachments). I think the stratagems that you can use during the game should be limited and chosen as part of you army like a unit. Something like choosing 1 stratagem per Command Point your army generates to add to your “Stratagem Roster” would be an easy way to balance and simplify the system. Limiting it to the faction that generated the command point would also help, for example if your Guard brigade generates 12 CP you can choose 12 stratagems to add to your “Stratagem Roster”, but only from the Guard codex/expansions. Also, the “Command Point Reroll” built in stratagem should be changed to 2 CP, at 1 CP it is so strong it ends up overshadowing the more flavorful stratagems from the factions.

I agree with your diagnosis, but I'm not sure I love this particular fix. Currently, there are a lot of problems with CP generation. The way in which those issues are addressed will likely impact how stratagems need to change. In general, I feel like a lot of strats could go back to being wargear and others could probably become "orders" available to characters.

Make Morale and Leadership Matter: (Leadership Changes)

Add Leadership/Morale checks to certain important actions: Falling Back, Charging, and Using a Stratagem on a unit.

For Falling Back, you roll a d6 and add the number of models in the unit that are within 1 inch of an enemy and compare that to the unit’s Leadership. Just like a Morale test you fail the test if the result of the check exceeds the unit’s Leadership. After you roll the d6 you can choose to not Fall Back and lose nothing (ignore the results of the check) or continue to attempt to fall back and accept the results of the leadership test (losing models as required). For Falling Back, you can choose to fall back even if the entire unit would die from losing models to the check. For example, a 10 man squad of Tactical Marines with 8 models within 1 inch of an enemy rolls a 2 on the Leadership check (After rerolling with “And They Shall Know No Fear”). They have a Leadership 8, canceling out the +8 they add to the check for being within 1 inch of enemies, so they fail the check by 2. You can choose to lose 2 models and Fall Back or abandon the attempt to Fall Back.

This feels really brutal for units with lots of bodies, and adding dice rolling will slow the game down rather than speeding it up.

For Charging, after Overwatch occurs you roll a d6 and add the number of models that died during Overwatch then compare it to the unit’s Leadership. Just like a Morale test you fail the test if the result of the check exceeds the unit’s Leadership. After you roll the d6 you can choose to not Charge and lose nothing from the check, or continue and roll for Charge distance. For Charging, you cannot choose to charge if it would result in the entire unit fleeing/dying.

The game generally favors shooting armies over melee armies. This would just add another obstacle for melee armies and make overwatch even more annoying than it currently is. Personally, I'd like to remove overwatch entirely (or make it a special rule for a handful of weapons). That speeds the game up and helps disadvantaged melee armies rather than hurting them.

For using a Stratagem on a unit (Only stratagems that target a single unit are affected by this), before you spend the CP on the stratagem roll a d6 and add the CP cost of the stratagem being used and then compare it to the unit’s Leadership. Just like a Morale test you fail the test if the result of the check exceeds the unit’s Leadership. After you see the result you can choose to not spend the CP and to ignore the results of the test, but be unable to use that stratagem for the rest of the phase (the stratagem does not occur). Alternatively, you can accept the results of the test (and lose models as required), spend the CP for the stratagem and then the stratagem occurs. For using a Stratagem on a unit, you cannot choose to use the stratagem if it would result in the entire unit fleeing/dying.

These checks represent the unit being ordered to do something exceptionally difficult and/or dangerous. Failing a check represents the models panicking and being effectively out of action the rest of the battle, abandoning the fight if forced to attempt the action, or being executed for disobedience by their former comrades. These checks all allow the player to choose how to proceed after seeing the result of the check, increasing the important of player choices during the game. Note that the Morale phase would remain unchanged, so losses from failed Leadership checks performing these difficult actions can cause further losses during the Morale phase.

Again, this adds rolling to the game. If you want to speed up the game and also make morale matter, you might like a suggestion I pitched a while back. The short version is:
* Instead of losing models when you fail morale, you become "suppressed"
* Give special abilities, stratagems, etc. the "Command" keyword as appropriate.
* Suppressed units cannot be targeted by or benefit from Command abilities.

Doesn't add any new dice rolling, but still mitigates stratagem use and makes morale more important. Something like Night Lord debuffs become a lot more appealing when they can shut down captain rerolls or stratagems.

Add More Important Choices to Shooting: (Shooting Changes)

Change cover from granting +1 to saves to forcing enemies to subtract 1 from their shooting hit rolls, and call the bonus “Obscured” or “Difficult to Hit”, just give it a name separate from “Cover”. This makes the cover bonus stronger in many cases, and weaker in some others.

Allow this bonus to stack, and replace almost all the abilities that force enemies to subtract 1 from their shooting hit rolls to instead grant a stack of “Obscured”. By “stack” I mean each instance of “Obscured” operates independently, forcing the opponent to subtract 1 from the hit roll for each (Note: This is exactly how most -1 to hit abilities work right now). For example, instead of the Alaitoc faction bonus reading “Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls for attacks that target a unit with this attribute at a range of more than 12 inches” it would read “Your opponent must treat a unit with this attribute as being “Obscured” for attacks that target the unit a range of more than 12 inches”.

All abilities that allow a unit to ignore cover are changed to instead ignore ONE instance of “Obscured”. Just ONE instance, not all. This gives more factions options for dealing with -1 to hit effects, but doesn’t completely invalidate them.

Allow certain pieces of terrain to grant “Superior Cover” that provides 2 instances of “Obscured” instead of one. Tournament/Game organizers can decide how much and what kind of terrain is appropriate of course, but the ideally each player will have some access to a piece of terrain that can grant this effect. (The rule could read: “A unit in Superior Cover is treated as being Obscured twice” or “A unit in Superior Cover gains two stacks of Obscured”)

This relatively minor change will weaken shooting overall. Player’s can choose what is in their army and when trying to create the most powerful shooting lineup they need to plan for all of the possible defensive profiles. Armor penetration is already useful and the fact it also can counter the current cover bonus of +1 to armor saves makes it even better. Weapons that counter -1 to hit effects are harder for the player to control. Auto-hitting weapons, more accurate units, and weapons that add modifiers to the hit roll are rare and cost more, so much more they often aren’t as efficient point for point as other weapons. The idea is that a list designed to shoot “through” the “Obscured” bonus will not be able to compete with lists that do not need to rely on it for defense. This should reward players for being flexible in their shooting and for being smart about what they place in cover.

I could see this working. Maybe give terrain an "Obscuring" and "Blocking" value, the former working as you've described and the latter being a bonus to armor saves (like what we have now). So a patch of trees or mist would be obscuring, but a barricade would be blocking. Smoking ruins might be Obscuring 1, Blocking 1.

Streamline and Simplify Melee Combat: (Melee Changes)

Change the Pile-In move to take place during the Charge phase and during the movement phase. After a unit successfully gets a model within an inch of an enemy unit that they declared a charge against (using the Charge move, the current rules), all of the other models in the unit can move the Charge distance plus an additional 3 inches. The models in the charging unit must end their move closer to an enemy unit they successfully charged (a unit they got within 1 inch of using the normal Charge move). As another option during the movement phase, units can choose to Pile-In instead of Falling Back or doing nothing (currently units in melee can either Fall Back or do nothing). This speeds up the fight phase, and tends to strengthen the charging unit as opposed to the defending unit (who not cannot Pile-In during the fight phase after they are charged).

The main issue I see here is t hat it would make it would deprive charged units of a chance to move into position to get more swings in the first round of combat. This would make it very easy to allow only a couple of models in a charged unit to swing on the first round of combat. Combined with a lack of consolidation moves, this could make it very difficult for a charged unit to ever bring all of its models to bare.

Make Consolidate a special ability, that almost all dedicated melee units have. This speeds up the fight phase even more and gives more power to units and lists that are dedicated to melee.

Not entirely opposed to this, but it adds a small amount of complexity that I"m not sure needs to be there. Combined with my concerns from the point above, I feel like you might be better off just keeping consolidation as-is.

[list]When a unit decides to Fall Back they can choose to “lose” a model or models in order to fall back, but those losses add 1 to the Leadership check to Fall Back for each model they choose to lose (in the Leadership check to fall back in the proposed “Leadership Changes”). This weakens “tri-pointing” and trapping weak units purely to avoid shooting, which is a powerful but unrealistic and unreliable. It is still beneficial to trap models, forcing the opponent to either let them die to Fall Back and also risking losses to the Leadership check or remain in combat, but it no longer provides guaranteed immunity to shooting.[

Feels slightly overcomplicated, but I've definitely seen worse approaches to fixing falling back. Tripointing is silly, but at least it offers melee armies some protection from shooting. I'm concerned that this makes it too easy to reliably escape melee and shoot up the melee unit afterwards. I've suggested in other threads that units that begin the turn within 1" of enemy units not be targetable from more than 9" away for the rest of that turn. This keeps a bassilisk in the far corner from shooting up your melee unit after the enemy falls back but allows bolder units to attack them from closer range.

Some excellent points there Wyldhunt.

This feels really brutal for units with lots of bodies, and adding dice rolling will slow the game down rather than speeding it up.

I agree the added Leadership checks do add more dice rolls which slows down the game, but they also remove models which speeds up the game. Making Leadership a more relevant stat and increasing the differences between elite units and basic units is worth some added time in my book though. Also, many units with lots of bodies already have very powerful ways of dealing with Leadership issues.

This would just add another obstacle for melee armies and make overwatch even more annoying than it currently is.

I think you overestimate how bad the Charge Leadership check will be, usually not that many models die in Overwatch. I agree that Overwatch is annoying, I think your next idea fixes it perfectly though...

Personally, I'd like to remove overwatch entirely (or make it a special rule for a handful of weapons). That speeds the game up and helps disadvantaged melee armies rather than hurting them.

This is a great idea. Overwatch does take a lot of dice rolling for very little effect most of the time. Making it a special ability on a few specialized weapons and/or units so that it only gets rolled out when it really matters will save a bunch of time.

Again, this adds rolling to the game. If you want to speed up the game and also make morale matter, you might like a suggestion I pitched a while back. The short version is:
* Instead of losing models when you fail morale, you become "suppressed"
* Give special abilities, stratagems, etc. the "Command" keyword as appropriate.
* Suppressed units cannot be targeted by or benefit from Command abilities.

Doesn't add any new dice rolling, but still mitigates stratagem use and makes morale more important. Something like Night Lord debuffs become a lot more appealing when they can shut down captain rerolls or stratagems.

Interesting suggestion, but I think adding a state to track like "Suppressed" to each unit and keeping models on the board is going to add a lot more time to the game than a few dice rolls. With the proposed changes something like Night Lords debuffs can still shut down stratagems, if the Leadership check fails so badly the entire unit would flee/die then the stratagem can't be used. And even if the whole unit won't flee/die, losing a lot models in a unit you are trying to buff with a stratagem is usually the opposite of what people want and they will probably abandon the attempt anyway.

The main issue I see here is t hat it would make it would deprive charged units of a chance to move into position to get more swings in the first round of combat. This would make it very easy to allow only a couple of models in a charged unit to swing on the first round of combat. Combined with a lack of consolidation moves, this could make it very difficult for a charged unit to ever bring all of its models to bare.

The change to Pile-In does give the charging unit an advantage in the following Fight phase, but remember a unit would be able to choose to Pile-In during the movement phase. So by the time the second fight phase comes around, assuming the charged unit remained in combat, the defending unit will have had a chance to Pile-In and the charged unit will not. This also gives units in combat something to do in the Movement phase other than just Fallback.

I absolutely love these ideas man, the charge / morale thing im not a fan of, rest seems quite fair, and yes! Melee is waaaay too complicated for what it does right now. All the "pile in before, but not after, then it must be closest, but if its flying its not really flying because its chargeing, but if its moving its flying, but then you cant move if etc etc etc".


However i have absolutely no hopes for GW using common sense for their next edition :(

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:

For Falling Back, you roll a d6 and add the number of models in the unit that are within 1 inch of an enemy and compare that to the unit’s Leadership. Just like a Morale test you fail the test if the result of the check exceeds the unit’s Leadership. After you roll the d6 you can choose to not Fall Back and lose nothing (ignore the results of the check) or continue to attempt to fall back and accept the results of the leadership test (losing models as required). For Falling Back, you can choose to fall back even if the entire unit would die from losing models to the check. For example, a 10 man squad of Tactical Marines with 8 models within 1 inch of an enemy rolls a 2 on the Leadership check (After rerolling with “And They Shall Know No Fear”). They have a Leadership 8, canceling out the +8 they add to the check for being within 1 inch of enemies, so they fail the check by 2. You can choose to lose 2 models and Fall Back or abandon the attempt to Fall Back.

Problem scenario:
A unit of twenty models is surrounding one enemy model (such as a rhino or other large box tank). That single enemy model imposes a -20 penalty if that unit of 20 models decides to fall back.

If you changed that to "Count the number of enemy models within 1" of a model in the unit", you'd have more reasonable results.

 Yarium wrote:
I think treating Leadership as a save against Morale is quite clever. In a way, the rules somewhat already do this, except with no guaranteed failure like with regular saves. While I don't think I like having to roll for each model in a squad, I do like the thought behind it. I quite like the simplicity of rolling 1 dice; the ugly part is having to think of 3 numbers, with 2 of those numbers being things you don't often think of.

Currently; Ld + Dice Roll - Models Lost = Lose 0 if 0 or positive, lose number equal to result if negative.

Well, you don't normally look up Ld, so that's a number that's hard to remember. You have to remember how many models died this turn (usually you keep those models nearby, but sometimes you forget), and then you factor in the die result. Finally, you're looking for a negative number, which is an extra mental flip. None of these things are hard, but 3 of them require a moment of consideration.


How about the following?

Ld Saves:
"If a unit has lost any number of models this turn, it has to make a Ld save during the Morale phase. Roll 1d6 and compare it to the Ld Save of the unit. If the number is equal to or greater than the Ld Save value (Ld+), then the unit is brave and suffers no ill effects. If the result rolled is less than the Ld Save value, that many models flee the unit. For example, if a unit of Space Marines (Ld 3+) rolls a 1, then 1 Space Marine flees and is removed from the battlefield. A natural roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers, and at least one model must flee due to such a result."

So yeah, Characters naturally are fearless, because they're units of 1 model. Same for Knights and most vehicles. Very brave units, such as Terminators, would have a Ld 2+ save. Extra brave units, like Space Marines, would have a 3+ save. Somewhat brave units like T'au would have a 4+ save. Not very brave units like Guardsmen would have a save of 5+. Panicky units like Cultists would have a 6+ save. Cowardly units like Grots would have a - save, meaning they'd always fail and lose models equal to the dice rolled. Two nice things about this system are that it affects both big and small units (and so big units can take the losses more), and that a lot of times it'll keep with GW's way of having consistent stat-lines; 3+'s across the board for Marines, 5+'s across the board for Orks, etc.

Speak of Orks, let's look at a few ways of modifying these values due to special rules:

#1 - And They Shall Know No Fear: One fewer model flees this unit when it fails a Ld save, to a minimum of one.
#2 - Commissars: The first time a friendly unit fails a Ld save whilst within 6" of this model, one model dies instead, and the unit rerolls its Ld save.
#3 - Mob Rule: This unit adds 1 to Ld save rolls for every 10 friendly Ork models within 6" of it.
#4 - Night Lords Terror: Whenever an enemy unit fails a Ld save whilst within 12" of a NIGHT LORDS unit, one additional model flees the unit.
#5 - Terrifying Visions (psychic power): If this power is successfully manifested, up to one target enemy unit within 18" subtracts 1 from its Ld save rolls until the start of your next turn.

Imo to make morale a distinct part of the game and not just an additional way of causing damage, it should have affects on positioning and Activation.

Morale should be about suppression etc.

It could have a range of actions that you either choose to inflict or roll for.

Ie

Pin: unit had half movement
Duck and Cover: target at -1 to BS
Disordered: the unit may only move away from enemy models in its next turn
Overwhelmed: -1 to WS


ETC


what this also does is gets away from how to deal with fleeing units in a game with so many that ignore it.

Orks can still find it harder to move etc. Daemons can still be overwhelmed and so on.


It also allows you to build army lists like marines around thier actual strengths, which is battlefield control rather than trying to make them more and more killy.

It means Eldar armies can fight a strike and fade strategy and the game isn't about just murdering models

Problem scenario:
A unit of twenty models is surrounding one enemy model (such as a rhino or other large box tank). That single enemy model imposes a -20 penalty if that unit of 20 models decides to fall back.

I don't think this is too big of a problem. Most large units have some way of dealing with Morale/Leadership issues, and there is always the Insane Bravery stratagem. If you have a 20 man blob of conscripts or something spread thin to surround a large unit, I think it makes sense for it to be very challenging to Fall Back. Remember a model can attack in melee without being within 1 inch of the enemy unit, it can attack if it is within 1 inch of another model in its unit that is within 1 inch of the enemy.

If you changed that to "Count the number of enemy models within 1" of a model in the unit", you'd have more reasonable results.

I disagree, this would reverse the problem. Now a Chimera with 7 models within 1 inch of it cannot Fall Back without sacrificing itself. I think that would reward hordes too much.

How about the following?

Ld Saves:
"If a unit has lost any number of models this turn, it has to make a Ld save during the Morale phase. Roll 1d6 and compare it to the Ld Save of the unit. If the number is equal to or greater than the Ld Save value (Ld+), then the unit is brave and suffers no ill effects. If the result rolled is less than the Ld Save value, that many models flee the unit. For example, if a unit of Space Marines (Ld 3+) rolls a 1, then 1 Space Marine flees and is removed from the battlefield. A natural roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers, and at least one model must flee due to such a result."

I don't think Leadership saves are a good idea. With a Leadership stat it is easier to have Leadership checks that take into account the in game situation, like the number of models lost, the number of models in combat, and other stuff. I think it is a nice way to have more granularity between different units and have a greater range of morale penalties. Some things might cost 1 model at most, others a few models, and others are guaranteed to make the whole unit flee.

Imo to make morale a distinct part of the game and not just an additional way of causing damage, it should have affects on positioning and Activation.

Well keep in mind the Leadership checks I'm proposing don't have to remove any models, you always have the choice to abandon the action after you see the result of the check. It ends up being a kind of suppression but with more player control over it. None of your models have to flee/die, but in return you have to accept some type of suppression, like not being able to Fall Back, or Charge, or use that Stratagem.

My 2 BIGGEST problems with 8th that i feel need to be fix are the damage is way to high, making elite units needed extreme high survivability, and way to much options for soup and to many detachments. The combination of these two things is what i feel ruined unit diversity.

Some minor things i want fix are;
Terrain
Statagems
Bring back a standard set of USR's (DS/Outflank, teleporting, etc..) dont need many, but 10-15 is good enough.
Bring back unit type keywords, this could really help with balance, some weapons can be more effective again vehicles/MC and less against infantry, etc..
MC/Walkers/Big units should be able to combat on different levels of terrain, WHY TF can't a Trygon not fight a guardsmen on a 2nd level when it is at the claws height? wtf.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:

Problem scenario:
A unit of twenty models is surrounding one enemy model (such as a rhino or other large box tank). That single enemy model imposes a -20 penalty if that unit of 20 models decides to fall back.

I don't think this is too big of a problem. Most large units have some way of dealing with Morale/Leadership issues, and there is always the Insane Bravery stratagem. If you have a 20 man blob of conscripts or something spread thin to surround a large unit, I think it makes sense for it to be very challenging to Fall Back. Remember a model can attack in melee without being within 1 inch of the enemy unit, it can attack if it is within 1 inch of another model in its unit that is within 1 inch of the enemy.

If you changed that to "Count the number of enemy models within 1" of a model in the unit", you'd have more reasonable results.

I disagree, this would reverse the problem. Now a Chimera with 7 models within 1 inch of it cannot Fall Back without sacrificing itself. I think that would reward hordes too much.

How about the following?

Ld Saves:
"If a unit has lost any number of models this turn, it has to make a Ld save during the Morale phase. Roll 1d6 and compare it to the Ld Save of the unit. If the number is equal to or greater than the Ld Save value (Ld+), then the unit is brave and suffers no ill effects. If the result rolled is less than the Ld Save value, that many models flee the unit. For example, if a unit of Space Marines (Ld 3+) rolls a 1, then 1 Space Marine flees and is removed from the battlefield. A natural roll of 1 always fails, regardless of any modifiers, and at least one model must flee due to such a result."

I don't think Leadership saves are a good idea. With a Leadership stat it is easier to have Leadership checks that take into account the in game situation, like the number of models lost, the number of models in combat, and other stuff. I think it is a nice way to have more granularity between different units and have a greater range of morale penalties. Some things might cost 1 model at most, others a few models, and others are guaranteed to make the whole unit flee.

Imo to make morale a distinct part of the game and not just an additional way of causing damage, it should have affects on positioning and Activation.

Well keep in mind the Leadership checks I'm proposing don't have to remove any models, you always have the choice to abandon the action after you see the result of the check. It ends up being a kind of suppression but with more player control over it. None of your models have to flee/die, but in return you have to accept some type of suppression, like not being able to Fall Back, or Charge, or use that Stratagem.

You're claiming that in a 10 to 1 encounter, the 1 should have an easier time falling back than the 10. From that I have to guess that you've made the assumption that large units should not be practical in the game, and that they need to be punished by the game mechanics.

And when you're trying to propose improvements to the game and you make the claim "Well, all sorts of units have special rules to compensate for the morale system", what you're doing is the following:
* You're proposing a set of rules that you claim will make the game better and/or cleaner.
* Saying that your "better and/or cleaner" rules will still need all of the special rules that the game currently uses to patch it so that the big units still work properly.

If the majority of large units in the game ignore your morale mechanics in order to work properly, that should tell you that your proposed mechanics are terrible and the game would be better off (and simpler) without them.

You're claiming that in a 10 to 1 encounter, the 1 should have an easier time falling back than the 10. From that I have to guess that you've made the assumption that large units should not be practical in the game, and that they need to be punished by the game mechanics.

You act as if "10 to 1" is some indication of power. 10 Guardsmen are not stopping a Titan from falling back, but if those 10 Guardsmen are spread out thinly around the Titan's feet, then I think it will be challenging for them to Fall Back without the unit falling apart. Against other, smaller vehicles 10 models can spread out and surround the 1 model, making it impossible for the 1 model to Fall Back. So in 10 to 1 encounters, then 10 still have the advantage. I'm not sure how 10 Guardsmen stop a armored vehicle like a Rhino that weighs several tons, but they can still do it even with the proposed changes.

If the majority of large units in the game ignore your morale mechanics in order to work properly, that should tell you that your proposed mechanics are terrible and the game would be better off (and simpler) without them.

Well welcome to 8th edition, many large units need special rules to operate properly with the Leadership mechanics. Look at Orks or Tyranids. I don't really understand your fascination with large units of models, most multi-model units are 5-10 models. Large units are a special case and sometimes need special rules. You are correct that the proposed changes do not make the system perfect for every possible size of unit and do not remove the need for special rules in special cases.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
I don't think Leadership saves are a good idea. With a Leadership stat it is easier to have Leadership checks that take into account the in game situation, like the number of models lost, the number of models in combat, and other stuff. I think it is a nice way to have more granularity between different units and have a greater range of morale penalties. Some things might cost 1 model at most, others a few models, and others are guaranteed to make the whole unit flee.

Big thing is that, like the change from comparing WS's to determine the roll to now WS just being a "N+" number, this method really IS simpler. There is also surprising granularity with it too, just as there is with the current shooting rules and combat. Having this be a save makes this system more like that. Imagine having Harlequins that force extra loses on a failed save, or Dark Eldar that impose penalties to the roll, etc. There's lots of possible options with it, and the difference between units can be exposed rather than hidden. Units that are panicky, like Cultists, will be equally panicky between large units or small ones. Units that are stoic, are equally stoic between large units or small ones. But the factors that contribute to those saves will be different based on the situation. Just as with BS and shooting and sometimes shooting at something with a penalty to being hit, or rerolls to hit, or that's tougher, or that's weaker, etc.

Either way, something breaks.

10 Terminators shouldn't have any trouble falling back from an IG Scout Sentinel, while the Sentinel should be absolutely wrecked if it does anything to lessen its attention (and is gonna get wrecked soon anyway, but that's besides the point).

But, conversely, 10 Guardsmen shouldn't mean jack diddly to a Land Raider that's trying to fall back, and could quite possibly get run down as they flee.

Waht 9th really need would be finally Faction rules written for the Core Rules and not again a changed Core with the same Faction Stats and Gimmicks carried over from 3rd Edition

Either way, something breaks.

10 Terminators shouldn't have any trouble falling back from an IG Scout Sentinel, while the Sentinel should be absolutely wrecked if it does anything to lessen its attention (and is gonna get wrecked soon anyway, but that's besides the point).

But, conversely, 10 Guardsmen shouldn't mean jack diddly to a Land Raider that's trying to fall back, and could quite possibly get run down as they flee.

You are right, in those extreme cases it becomes an issue that even high Leadership units struggle with. Part of me thinks the Terminator player should just position better, it only takes 3 models within an inch to surround the Sentinel. At the same time the Leadership penalty is too high. I would put a limit on how much one enemy model can penalize a unit with an additional sentence in the rule: "For determining which of your models is within an inch of an enemy, you can choose any number of enemy models to ignore, but must add 3 to the check for each enemy model you choose to ignore."

I think a maximum penalty of 3 per enemy model is more fair then 1 per enemy model. Some models are large and represent major threats, and I think spreading out units into thin lines, getting into melee with something, and then trying to pull them back out again is something that should require high Leadership.

Get rid of fall back so we can get rid of tripointing.

I have always maintained stratagems should be bought with points, there's no need for CP's. At which point they are special abilities etc that you pay for.

If you want to use a stratagem more than once, then you purchase it more than once with points, they just go in a 'deck' you can use, same restrictions apply as before that you can't use the same stratagem in a phase/turn more than once.

Most that involve shenanigans before games should certainly cost points (relics, chapter master upgrade etc etc).

The sooner we can bin the Psychic Awakening books, the better.

Bring on 9E!

Im not a fan of the current set up of strategems either.

It allows you to perfectly choose the best effect for any given situation.

Like changing what heavy weapon a unit has based on the opponent they're shooting at

It's their hamfisted way of making troops desirable but not mandatory.

1) Attach characters back to units. Aura effects are inherently difficult to balance

2) Make chapter/legion/etc abilities paid upgrades. Free army-wide bonuses are inherently difficult to balance.

3) Make strategems into paid upgrades and unit special rules/wargear.

4) Consolidate as many commonly shared special rules as possible into a central (preferably small) list

5) Slow down the game and make heavy weaponry more expensive, so games actually develop over several turns. Combine with more clearly defined anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons.

6) Less rerolls. Less dice rolling in general - like primaris tanks with a dozen guns or melee units with three figure attacks.

Another thing that needs to come back:

Vehicle Facings!

Now the ruling for a Stormlord Super Heavy is that 75% of the vehicle must be obscured for it to benefit from cover...
No problem! Just park right next to a ruin, and stick the front tracks and hull out, whilst obscuring the actual weapons and casemate - as long as it can draw a line of fire from any point on the main hull for the tank on a target, then all guns (sponsons on either side too), can fire at the selected target...
FFS... Same thing for Valkyries, I had to plan my 90 degree turn so I could hit the targets I was going for - now? I can just fly 45" across the board, and fire the whole payload out the cargo bay door...

About the Stratagems, hell I think the Guard Orders can be a bit much (I only play Guard/Stormtroopers), they are already pseudo stratagems that always work... When combined with the goofy regimental doctrines they just become downright broken...
Lambdan Lions using a Precision Drop to put a 10 man squad right next to a Riptide, then using the new Stratagem that causes W rolls of 6+ to cause 1MW, how can we make this stupid? I know! Let's give the Tempestor Prime the Laurels of Command, and Keys to the Armoury... To top it all off, lets give the Orders: FRFSRF, and Elimination Protocols Sanctioned (using the Laurels), and turn that 10 man, 70 point squad into an execution squad. 36 shots, hitting on a 3+, rerolling 1's, so lets assume 28 hits, of that, only 6's W, and the Orders reroll that... See what i mean?

I think a clean slate for 9E:

No Orders
No Stratagems
No CP
Attachable Characters
Vehicle Facings

A.T. wrote:1) Attach characters back to units. Aura effects are inherently difficult to balance

I'd be okay with that. Of course, if you also ditched the current character screening rules and didn't also overhault shooting in the game somehow, it would probably be very easy to wipe out characters joined to units.

2) Make chapter/legion/etc abilities paid upgrades. Free army-wide bonuses are inherently difficult to balance.

That could work, but it probably needs a little more nuance. I'm not sure I want players to have the option to simply not pay for what's meant to be a thematic upgrade on their units that don't benefit from it enough. Like, I don't necessarily want to try and track which marine units do and don't ignore cover or do and don't have salamander rerolls. Maybe more powerful chapter tactics should be an optional upgrade that costs points while less powerful ones are just automatically applied? I play Poisoned Tongue, generally agreed to be the weakest of the kabal traits in the Drukhari codex. How many points cheaper do my units become if I don't buy the Poisoned Tongue trait? Alternatively, someone plays Black Heart, one of the more powerful kabals, but not all that important for drukhari infantry. How many points more efficient does an already powerful kabal become when you skip taking upgrades on units that don't need it?

3) Make strategems into paid upgrades and unit special rules/wargear.

Largely agree. Lots of strats were wargear once and could be again. Even something like an orbital bombardment could be something that you pay points for in list creation or with reserve points. How many points does a deepstrike stratagem cost though? Does it cost the same on a small infantry squad, a big infantry squad, and a tank? How about something like Prismatic Blur (3+ invul when you advance) or Lightning Fast Reactions ( -1 to hit for a phase)? How do you price those? Or do you just rewrite factions around not having access to them again?

I think a lot of strats could go back to being wargear and datasheets. Others seem like they work better as "orders," and others actually work pretty well as they are now (thinking deployment weirdness strats, mostly).

4) Consolidate as many commonly shared special rules as possible into a central (preferably small) list

5) Slow down the game and make heavy weaponry more expensive, so games actually develop over several turns. Combine with more clearly defined anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons.

Sounds good. How?

6) Less rerolls. Less dice rolling in general - like primaris tanks with a dozen guns or melee units with three figure attacks.

Agreed.

Slayer6 wrote:Another thing that needs to come back:

Vehicle Facings!

Now the ruling for a Stormlord Super Heavy is that 75% of the vehicle must be obscured for it to benefit from cover...
No problem! Just park right next to a ruin, and stick the front tracks and hull out, whilst obscuring the actual weapons and casemate - as long as it can draw a line of fire from any point on the main hull for the tank on a target, then all guns (sponsons on either side too), can fire at the selected target...
FFS... Same thing for Valkyries, I had to plan my 90 degree turn so I could hit the targets I was going for - now? I can just fly 45" across the board, and fire the whole payload out the cargo bay door...

Sounds like you're referring to weapon arcs more than armor facings, yeah? I get the weirdness of what you're describing, but what we had before was far from perfect. You had those weird situations where tanks couldn't fire all their weapons because their own chassis blocked their sponsons. You had the confusion around just how wide an imperial knight's angle was because the arms are built to rotate. Back when the serpent shield was a weapon, you had all those different diagrams trying to figure exactly where the shield's weapon arc was supposed to be. Heck, you had a special rule on harlequin voidweavers to let it shoot a single gun backwards because it was modeled oddly.

The current rules are weird but play fast. The old rules were weird but played slow and lead to more arguments. Personally, I'll take the faster, less argument-inducing rules.

If you mean armor facings, well, I'm not a fan of huge chunks of your army (especially guns found on your more or less mandatory troops) being completely unable to interact with an opponent's tank company. So any return to armor facings would ideally have a solution to that particular fun sponge. Plus, you had weird diagrams again. Where exactly is the rear arc on a wave serpent? On a raider? How about your friend's asymmetrical kitbashed ork battlewagon? Plus, a ton (most?) of vehicles had the same front and side armor, so armor facing mostly only came up against guard vehicles, especially heavily armored tanks, and knights. Or if you were deepstriking a unit to sucker punch their butts, which could just be a strat or something these days.

No Orders
No Stratagems
No CP
Attachable Characters
Vehicle Facings

I'm curious, how do you feel about psychic powers? They do the same general things m any orders and strats do, just with a different cost and activation method. I'm okay with backing off on the number of strats, but I'd actually kind of like to grow the number of orders-style mechanics in the game rather than reducing it.

I'd like to see a combination of four play levels and sealing away certain things behind each level.

For instance:

LEVEL 0 - Games of 0-500 points.
3 command points per player.
Level 0 characters (ex, Space Marine Lt)
MUST HAVE two troops. May take 1 other (elite OR fast attack OR heavy) per troop unit.

LEVEL 1 - Games of 501-100 points.
6 command points per player.
Level 1 characters unlocked (for example: Space Marine Chaplain)
MUST HAVE 3 troops. May take 1 other (elite OR fast attack OR heavy) per troop unit.

LEVEL 2 - Games of 1001 - 200 points.
9 Command Points per player.
Level 2 characters unlocked (for example: Marine Captain)
MUST HAVE 4 Troops. May take 1 other (Elite OR fast attack OR heavy) per Troop.
May instead take 1 Super Heavy or Flyer per 2 Troops.
(Can mix and match... ex: 2 heavies and a superheavy with 4 troops)

LEVEL 3 - Games of 2001+ points
12 Command Points per player.
Level 3 characters unlocked (For example: Space Marine Chapter Masters)
MUST HAVE 6 Troops. May take 1 additional unit (elites OR fast attack OR heavy) per Troop.
May instead take 1 Super Heavy or Flyer per 2 Troops.
(Can mix and match... ex: 2 heavies and a superheavy with 4 troops)

***

This creates a true matched play for people, where all factions get the same command points (allowing for costs to be balanced) regardless of the type of build, keeps troops as the backbone of play, and lets player shave some wiggle room. Want to have five troop units and five fast attack? Fair!

Some forces might have somewhat different subdesigns, like Guard needing several units of troopers as one Troop Choice, but the basic mesh works for most armies.

It keeps the big name people, like Gazghul, locked into larger games where they can be more epic, while keeping smaller games more skirmish, with low-level commanders and more common troops in use.

It's not perfect, obviously, but it's a starting guideline that could be shaped into something with work. All you have to do is on each unit's datasheet, add a "Level X play" up by Power Level to show what level of games it's appropriate at.

Many factions don't have that many levels of character, or even that many HQ choices, period.

Wakshaani, some armies will be 1/4 Troops minimum and others will be 1/2 Troops minimum, two Cultist Squads and a Titanic unit vs two Custodes Guard units and a Titanic unit. I think 8th edition WHFB rules with % amounts allotted to each unit type would be better if you wanted to move in this direction, which I am not sure I do. Lords/Heroes/Core/Special/Rare would also be way more elegant than HQ/Troops/Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Support/Flyer/Dedicated Transport/Lord of War.

9th edition should improve on 8th, not create something very different, 10th edition can do that and then I can stick to 8th or 9th edition until I stop hobbying.

Attaching characters forces GW to go with the current wound-allocation rules or accept that possibility of a unit that doesn't take damage until turn 3 and still allows for Deathstars if multiple characters can join a unit. If GW goes back to vehicle facings I want them to go back to the closest enemy model in a unit gets shot first, that to me felt like a fluffy rule, but then you also need to remove or nerf Look Out Sir or just not allow them to join units, but instead of have some form of character protection. Changing auras to wholly within x" fixes some issues with castling, you'd have 2-3 units inside range instead of 2-8.

Better terrain rules, rules for going to ground/dodging/evasive manoeuvres. Removal of bloat and consolidation and sharing of as many abilities, Stratagems and WL traits as possible. I'd like to see Chapter Tactics removed, I think Stratagems and Relics can do the job of differentiating between sub-factions well enough.

I also think all rules changes to the live format should happen once a year to balance the game around the release of new rules with appropriate pts changes instead of changing pts around a patch that is coming after 4 months. It isn't acceptable that Space Wolves and CSM get Fire Raptors at the same price without Doctrines. Fair enough if GW doesn't get around to giving Doctrines to Space Wolves with their yearly rules update, but then they should be cheaper for SW and CSM. GW could focus model-production around factions which are going to get an index update in 1-2 years such that those units can get a look over by the PL community before it gets printed and given a cost.

I don't think Codexes should exist to carry rules for the core game and campaign books definitely should not. Four books is what I think should be the absolute maximum you need to bring to a game, 1 for Adeptus Astartes (including FW), 1 for the larger Imperium (including FW), Chapter Approved (with WL traits, Relics, Stratagems, missions and pts) and the core rules. Most people should be able to get away with 3 books.

3 codexes, a White Dwarf, a FW book, 3 campaign books and the main rulebook is 8 books, then you need rules for missions so that's either a folder for ITC or Chapter Approved on top.

Print the indexes and Chapter Approved on recycled paper in soft-cover so they're as cheap as possible since they'll get updated every 1-4 years. Make the codexes nice, a collector's item with some rules for narrative play, not a gaming aide. Print a mini-version of the core rulebook first and ship it with a White Dwarf that introduces the 40k factions and wait to print a big nice version until it can include two years of core rules FAQ and Errata.

GW could release Chapter Approved, FAQ and Index updates on a clock and release Codexes and Campaign books with a mixture of narrative rules, painting guides etc. as a replacement for the main rules they carry now. GW could release these whenever they felt like it and had the time and nobody would get snubbed by getting rules later than others since index updates would happen on a clock. Falling behind or getting ahead of schedule or creating some crazy rules in a campaign book that dumps out of the blue would not affect matched play.

GW could host an official list on the community website of problems they see with how the rules in the indexes and Chapter Approved in terms of playability and fluff, and a list of problematic pts-costs. GW put a weak unit on the "we think this is way too strong list"? Write them. GW failed to put a totally OP unit on the same list? Write them. Why did nobody have an idea GW were planning on nerfing Ogryn before it happened?

Wyldhunt wrote:
How many points cheaper do my units become if I don't buy the Poisoned Tongue trait? Alternatively, someone plays Black Heart, one of the more powerful kabals, but not all that important for drukhari infantry. How many points more efficient does an already powerful kabal become when you skip taking upgrades on units that don't need it?

I think the problem here is that people have become obsessed with gaining bonuses for playing their chosen paint scheme, rather than representing their faction by picking thematic unit combinations.

Wyldhunt wrote:
How many points does a deepstrike stratagem cost though?

Whatever is appropriate for the unit taking it. Having points in the unit entry itself was always useful for this.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Sounds good. How?

Admittedly more difficult with the less restrictive FoCs of newer editions, but nothing should be piling into combat without at least a turn on the board (and even then not from the far side of it) and those units should be 'fast'. The mid-ranged weapons should be most effective at shorter ranges and most definitely not raining fire endzone to endzone (looking at you primaris), while intervening cover and models should make effective screens against the long ranged stuff which should cost enough or otherwise be limited enough that you aren't shelling your opponent off the board.

I edited the post and added some of the best, least controversial changes that I thought were excellent.

I see a lot of people want changes to the army building and detachment system. I don't think the CP system can be removed without rewriting every book in 8th edition and I like how it encourages people to take Troops.

I would like to see CP a bit more balanced between different factions and allies nerfed a bit. Kind of silly that a Guard brigade with 3 Knights can get 18 CP while a Space Marine battalion and a Vanguard detachment only gets 9 CP. I think players should be encouraged to take Troops with non-Troop specialized units of the SAME faction. I think the simple way to do it is just buff the small Troop detachments and nerf Brigades. Make Patrol detachments give +3 CP, Battalion detachments +6 CP, and Brigade detachments give +9 CP. Now you are heavily encouraged to replace your specialized detachments (Vanguard, Spearhead, Air Wing, etc.) with a Troop detachment of the same faction. I think the maximum unit limits in Patrol detachments are already restrictive, but if they aren't then make them all 1 (Limit of 1 Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, HQ, etc). That way replacing a specialized detachment with a Patrol isn't the best choice in almost every situation.

 THE_LIST_MASTER wrote:
I would like to see CP a bit more balanced between different factions and allies nerfed a bit. Kind of silly that a Guard brigade with 3 Knights can get 18 CP while a Space Marine battalion and a Vanguard detachment only gets 9 CP. I think players should be encouraged to take Troops with non-Troop specialized units of the SAME faction. I think the simple way to do it is just buff the small Troop detachments and nerf Brigades. Make Patrol detachments give +3 CP, Battalion detachments +6 CP, and Brigade detachments give +9 CP. Now you are heavily encouraged to replace your specialized detachments (Vanguard, Spearhead, Air Wing, etc.) with a Troop detachment of the same faction. I think the maximum unit limits in Patrol detachments are already restrictive, but if they aren't then make them all 1 (Limit of 1 Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, HQ, etc). That way replacing a specialized detachment with a Patrol isn't the best choice in almost every situation.

With this system it is super easy to soup 3 different factions for 12 CP with 3 Patrols. Going mono-Knights becomes even less of an option if you can put in 140 pts of units for 6CP and why not include a Patrol from two different factions to get access to 120 Stratagems instead of 80? If you want people to take a single faction you'll want to punish taking more than one Detachment, not reward it.

The Guard Brigade + triple Knight list is a relatively balanced list and is actually what I think should be encouraged, quad Knight + two mini-Knights is a lot less balanced list and should not be encouraged and rewarded as much. The only reason the Knight/Brigade list would be unfun to play against is because it's OP, as long as it is balanced it doesn't necessarily have some terrible and some amazing match-ups the same way mono-Knights does. Short-ranged and melee S4 weapons are useless against the big Knights and the smol-Knights are usually more defensive, if you have 800 pts invested into S4 weaponry you could be in some serious trouble, against the Brigade/Knight army your S4 weapons can be levelled at the screening Guardsmen.

Unfortunately I've only had time to skim over the main points but there's some good ideas there, here are my ideas:

Characters
Make Characters able to attach to squads again. I was a bit dubious about 8th at first but quickly grew to like it, but the character targeting rule still irks me. I get the premise that it's hard to spot a particular individual in a crowd but when you have Guilliman for example 20" away and a Storm Raven 19" away behind you the premise falls apart. I think people are a bit reluctant to accept attaching characters because of the deathstars that you could create, but this was also due to particular character abilities and powers that (mostly) don't exist anymore, such as Invisibility.

My suggestion - Characters can join units of their own unit type, same as in 8th. Any aura abilities now only affect the unit they've joined. Perhaps to avoid deathstars there could be a limit on one character per unit?

Strategems
I don't particularly mind Strategems, but I would personally scrap any of the "Fight/Shoot Twice" ones.

Line of Sight
8th LoS is utter crap, I don't get why they didn't keep the same rules as in 8th.

My suggestion - You must trace LoS from the body (or weapon in the case of a vehicle) to the target. Ignore aspects such as wings, banners and weapons when determining LoS.

Mortal Wounds
Mortal Wounds as a whole are just thrown about too easily. Rather than interesting and unique effects, GW seems to just use MW as a placeholder
- "Yeah we need some rules for this unique relic weapons"
- "Ehh, just say it causes an additional Mortal Wound"
I would keep the mechanic, but with things like vehicle explosions, aircraft bombs, etc, what's wrong with just having a Strength and Ap value?