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.

Well the other idea would've been Trazyn, seeing as he had an entire regiment stuck with him.

I just didn't want to tie the battalions to an SC.

I'm going to make this new epic one day.

Dividing 40k up into factions is tricky but possible and ultimately I think it's the best way to go. Obviously you could have the imperium of man, the eldar (craft world, dark, harlequins, extro...those hippie ones and the corsairs) and chaos. I guess the tyranids can go with the stealer cults. Orks...what about dividing them up into the six clans? Get a bit of variantion there? Then the tau and their allies...yeah, it's the necrons who complicate things.

Make something called the Necron Nexus, composed off all of the different dynasties who have their own thing (like craftworld Illyden), as well as slaves, non-necron flunkies, rogue AI and C'tan.
To me, it makes perfect sense for the necrons to use slaves and human lackies as cannon fodder, negociation and labour; it still takes resources to repair living metal (especially if the TW is small and/or has faulty equipment), and having a bunch of lesser races serving them would fit with their new megalomaniacal personality and Egyptian Shtick (see : Goa'Uld). The use of human emissaries could reintroduce a return of silent necron lords, and reintroduce the mystery and foreboding that was lost in the 5th ed book.
Even for the traditional genocidal crons it would make sense; the Daleks in doctor who were known to use human slaves, and they have pretty much the same MO. Not to mention that slaves that can no longer work would be "upgraded" into necrons.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Make something called the Necron Nexus, composed off all of the different dynasties who have their own thing (like craftworld Illyden), as well as slaves, non-necron flunkies, rogue AI and C'tan.
To me, it makes perfect sense for the necrons to use slaves and human lackies as cannon fodder, negociation and labour; it still takes resources to repair living metal (especially if the TW is small and/or has faulty equipment), and having a bunch of lesser races serving them would fit with their new megalomaniacal personality and Egyptian Shtick (see : Goa'Uld). The use of human emissaries could reintroduce a return of silent necron lords, and reintroduce the mystery and foreboding that was lost in the 5th ed book.
Even for the traditional genocidal crons it would make sense; the Daleks in doctor who were known to use human slaves, and they have pretty much the same MO. Not to mention that slaves that can no longer work would be "upgraded" into necrons.

I like this a lot.

Also I was re reading the rules for AoS and here's a good one; models with more than one attack can split them up between different targets. It's as easy as that. And it's done at the model level, not the unit level. And this got me thinking; imagine if 40k was that simple? There would be no need for Split Fire, because this is a much better version of it.

Take the imperial guard orders. Smite at will and First Rank Fire and Second Rank fire could be combined into one order that simply grants the unit an extra attack with each one of their ranged weapons. The las guns can now go from firing one shot at range to two, which can either be targeted against one enemy unit (that's FRFSRF) or divided amongst several different targets (SAW).

Now I could be wrong about this but as it's at the model level and not the unit level, I think you would have to resolve all of their 'base attacks' against the 'main target' before you start declaring targets for the bonus attacks. I'm making it sound more complicated than it really is, and instead of having just one model in the unit split their fire, now the whole unit can do it.

Edit: I am indeed wrong. AoS is even more flexible than that. It is literally just picking target(s) on a model by model basis and resolving all similar attacks against their shared target. So in 40k, you could say "heavy weapon marine targets vehicle with missile launcher (resolve now), then Bolter marines and Sergeant fire 4 shots at target A (resolve now) then 4 shots along with plasma gun marine at target B (resolve now). Split fire has now been improved and placed into the core rules.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Make something called the Necron Nexus, composed off all of the different dynasties who have their own thing (like craftworld Illyden), as well as slaves, non-necron flunkies, rogue AI and C'tan.
To me, it makes perfect sense for the necrons to use slaves and human lackies as cannon fodder, negociation and labour; it still takes resources to repair living metal (especially if the TW is small and/or has faulty equipment), and having a bunch of lesser races serving them would fit with their new megalomaniacal personality and Egyptian Shtick (see : Goa'Uld). The use of human emissaries could reintroduce a return of silent necron lords, and reintroduce the mystery and foreboding that was lost in the 5th ed book.
Even for the traditional genocidal crons it would make sense; the Daleks in doctor who were known to use human slaves, and they have pretty much the same MO. Not to mention that slaves that can no longer work would be "upgraded" into necrons.

I like this a lot.

Also I was re reading the rules for AoS and here's a good one; models with more than one attack can split them up between different targets. It's as easy as that. And it's done at the model level, not the unit level. And this got me thinking; imagine if 40k was that simple? There would be no need for Split Fire, because this is a much better version of it.

Take the imperial guard orders. Smite at will and First Rank Fire and Second Rank fire could be combined into one order that simply grants the unit an extra attack with each one of their ranged weapons. The las guns can now go from firing one shot at range to two, which can either be targeted against one enemy unit (that's FRFSRF) or divided amongst several different targets (SAW).

Now I could be wrong about this but as it's at the model level and not the unit level, I think you would have to resolve all of their 'base attacks' against the 'main target' before you start declaring targets for the bonus attacks. I'm making it sound more complicated than it really is, and instead of having just one model in the unit split their fire, now the whole unit can do it.

Edit: I am indeed wrong. AoS is even more flexible than that. It is literally just picking target(s) on a model by model basis and resolving all similar attacks against their shared target. So in 40k, you could say "heavy weapon marine targets vehicle with missile launcher (resolve now), then Bolter marines and Sergeant fire 4 shots at target A (resolve now) then 4 shots along with plasma gun marine at target B (resolve now). Split fire has now been improved and placed into the core rules.

Yeah, I'd love a split fire/attacks per model (declared before rolling any, of course) like AoS. Shooting into/out of combat though in 40K I'm not feeling. But, who knows.

The inability to fire a squad's missile launcher at a tank and the bolters at infantry is always one of the biggest non-intuitive stumbling blocks I run into when teaching new players - it almost always prompts "That doesn't make sense.".

Fixing that would make learning/teaching the game easier, and make common troops choices not feel so much like a tax.

I look forward to psychic powers getting gutted down to an individual character basis.

I'd like them to do something about the Franken-armies too, AoS has the same problem but it rewards you more for matching factions.

Like a blood angel libby could only cast his basic powers on allies and his main power only works on blood angels. That I would be fine with.

The other plus is that 40k going to a living rulebook APP means GW could update obviously broken things whenever they'd like. Even a 6 month to a year rotation would be a fantastic idea.

Obviously the floating initiative point has been made. Clearly a bad idea. I'm not a fan of the degrading stats for mc either. It usually takes me to at least turn 3 to get into combat with them, so being at half of its original ability when I get there is less than appealing. I'm not much of a fan of the 40k cc hitting system (guardsmen hitting an avatar of khaine on 5+?) But AoS system is worse. To be honest, the only thing 40k needs, in my opinion is a rework/trimming of the rules, codex consolidation, and a slight advance in the story.

Also one more thing I should throw in:

Stats not capped at 10. In AoS you can see movement speeds at 16" for really fast monsters, 16 wounds for big tanky monsters.

 Madoch1 wrote:
Obviously the floating initiative point has been made. Clearly a bad idea. I'm not a fan of the degrading stats for mc either. It usually takes me to at least turn 3 to get into combat with them, so being at half of its original ability when I get there is less than appealing. I'm not much of a fan of the 40k cc hitting system (guardsmen hitting an avatar of khaine on 5+?) But AoS system is worse. To be honest, the only thing 40k needs, in my opinion is a rework/trimming of the rules, codex consolidation, and a slight advance in the story.

But here's the thing. In AoS those beasts would be able to charge by turn two. Everything is faster. Everything dies faster. Everything can die.

Future War Cultist wrote:@ Dakka Flakka Flame

I think that is an absolutely fantastic idea! Especially making Apocalypse having a simplified rule set to speed it up. Like a spiritual successor to Epic? And this way everyone has the level of game that they're comfortable with. Someone should develop this further! Someone like me, for example. When I get the time...if ever.

This is what I thought so as well. Have Kill Teams as the "intro" or "learn to play" then have 40K as the "standard" and then Apocalypse to "be the huge games". Thing is I have to say I am wrong. If anything, Age of Sigmar The General's Handbook has proved that there will only be "one standard" way of playing. No fault from GW at all but will be the players who cause this. Just like in 40K and old Fantasy, if you couldn't come up with a 1500 point army there is no use in starting. This just happened to me a few weeks ago with 40K. I asked on our Facebook page if anyone wants to play small point games and I was basically told, "once you come up with a 1000 point CAD army, come back". I can see this happening as well. It doesn't matter how many options GW gives us to play, it will be the community who sets the standard on how to play. Just look at the General's Handbook. Who is really playing the other 2 ways? Hardly anyone. I know I can't get any of those games at my store.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Give me back my Silver Legions, GW.

Why? How did they disappear? Only you make them disappear if you choose to. Or are you saying they had special rules that you can't no longer use because nobody will let you use them?

@ VeteranNob

I will admit, the shooting into combat is the one rule I'm not keen on in AoS. But, it's small fry really.

@ Asmodai

Yes, exactly. Also, this would hopefully encourage people to mix up their weapon load outs. Heavy Bolters on a Vanquisher wouldn't be wasted now because they could target the infantry around the main target. Y'know, like real life.

@ TheIronCrow

I think a combo of 5th ed and AoS Magic would work really well. Two universal powers (smite and defend?) plus one or two unique powers for the psyker in their entry.

No thank you to Rhino Rush on last turn. That is all I think of in 5th edition.

Davor wrote:
No thank you to Rhino Rush on last turn. That is all I think of in 5th edition.

The thing is, outside of the wound allocation and overpowered vehicles, 5th edition was the best written ruleset the game's ever had. Just get rid of that, and 40k would be at its strongest.

I agree, I think 5th ed was the best edition we had. It had a few flaws but overall it played out very well.

Also, maybe this isn't the place to post this but I've created a sort of AoS inspired profile for 40k. It gives the model the same stats as found in AoS but to get around the wider range of wargear found in 40k I've basically replace the separate individual ranged and melee weapon profiles with one catch all profile for shooting attacks and one catch all profile for melee attacks. Here's a sample:

Imperial Guardsman with Grenade Launcher:

Movement: 5" Save: 5+ Wounds: 1 Bravery: 5

Shooting: Range: 24" Attacks: 1 Anti-Infantry: 4+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: D3

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: 1 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 6+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: 1

Basically, for both you roll one D6 for each attack you have, and if this score meets your required result for your target type your attack is successfully struck. Infantry and light vehicles use anti infantry, heavy vehicles and the biggest MCs use anti tank and aircraft and flying monsters are anti-aircraft. Your opponent then takes a save minus the rend (cover is +1 to save) for each successful attack, and each failed save inflicts the profiles damage.

In this case, I've merged both grenade types into one. In my system a marine would have 2 wounds like the stormcast, so whereas this guy could kill multiple weaker targets with his shot (representing a frag round) he's likely to only kill 1 marine (a krak round). I do have options to include wargear for some models such as characters.

It's really crude and WIP at the moment but am I on to something here?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I agree, I think 5th ed was the best edition we had. It had a few flaws but overall it played out very well.

Also, maybe this isn't the place to post this but I've created a sort of AoS inspired profile for 40k. It gives the model the same stats as found in AoS but to get around the wider range of wargear found in 40k I've basically replace the separate individual ranged and melee weapon profiles with one catch all profile for shooting attacks and one catch all profile for melee attacks. Here's a sample:

Imperial Guardsman with Grenade Launcher:

Movement: 5" Save: 5+ Wounds: 1 Bravery: 5

Shooting: Range: 24" Attacks: 1 Anti-Infantry: 4+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: D3

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: 1 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 6+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: 1

Basically, for both you roll one D6 for each attack you have, and if this score meets your required result for your target type your attack is successfully struck. Infantry and light vehicles use anti infantry, heavy vehicles and the biggest MCs use anti tank and aircraft and flying monsters are anti-aircraft. Your opponent then takes a save minus the rend (cover is +1 to save) for each successful attack, and each failed save inflicts the profiles damage.

In this case, I've merged both grenade types into one. In my system a marine would have 2 wounds like the stormcast, so whereas this guy could kill multiple weaker targets with his shot (representing a frag round) he's likely to only kill 1 marine (a krak round). I do have options to include wargear for some models such as characters.

It's really crude and WIP at the moment but am I on to something here?

On a good step. Movement should be 3 though. Why 5 unless you are going to make Eldar and Tyranids like a movement 9 then. On the right path. I say make a thread in the 40K Proposed Rules and continue there.