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.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
One take away from my playing 40k a bit this Christmas break is there much too much out there in the rules.

So with no further ado, here's what I think could be cut and no one would miss them...

Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.

Unbound - No, just no.

Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.

Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.

Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.

Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.

I agree with everything, barring Unbound. Given the new bonuses of Formations, Unbound really isn't that bad. Sure, someone could plop down 3 Knights and 4 Flyrants, but that's rare, and you could just tell that person to go feth themselves. The stuff I fear more is the Decurion, the new Tau formations, etc.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Remove the closest wound.

Challenges.

Malestrum of War.

Unbound.

Anything like D weapons and superheavies that were once Apoc only.

Including fliers.

Remove the randomness wherever possible.

Formations.

Keep Allies rules but trim it down.

All of this.

And everything else you've said in this thread.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 General_K wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Remove the closest wound.

Malestrum of War.


Remove the randomness wherever possible.

Why malestrum of war? I've enjoyed the addition of objectives that make the game about more than merely kill points (esp beceause I have a friend in my group who only ever cares about kill points, only plays this game to kill stuff, and it gets super stale). I do think Maelstrum needs some work...my friends and I are working on houserules for a deck building component, whereby we select 25 or so cards we'd like to use in the game, shuffle, and draw from those. It eliminates some of the problems of malestrum, like drawing psychic cards when you've no psykers in the army, for example. I imagine something similar may help?

Randomness? So, removing all dice from the game, then? Because randomness is kind of inherent to Warhammer, and always has been. The randomness also helps level the game at times, which is very welcome.

Objective based games are great, but those objectives need to remain the same turn to turn, otherwise it isn't a strategic game, it is a mad dash turn to turn to reach X then Y and you can't plan ahead. I much prefer the way Infinity does it, with a major objective that has nothing to do with killing people, then secondary objectives that more or less act as tiebreakers which can be about killing. My last game I got tabled, but both me and my opponent only activated 2 objectives each, so it was a 2-2 draw even though i had nothing on the board.

Completely disagree, the objectives I believe make it a moving battle where things can actually happen, most of the standard missions turn into who brought the better gun line and can get to objectives at the end of turn 5. Even weaker armies like Orks and Dark elder can actually hope to win these types of battles against stronger codexes like Tau Eldar and Necrons. As for narrative it makes more sense as it would be a moving battle, make it to this point to extract data or some piece of technology/artifact this turn then go on to further objectives.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 General_K wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Remove the closest wound.

Malestrum of War.


Remove the randomness wherever possible.

Why malestrum of war? I've enjoyed the addition of objectives that make the game about more than merely kill points (esp beceause I have a friend in my group who only ever cares about kill points, only plays this game to kill stuff, and it gets super stale). I do think Maelstrum needs some work...my friends and I are working on houserules for a deck building component, whereby we select 25 or so cards we'd like to use in the game, shuffle, and draw from those. It eliminates some of the problems of malestrum, like drawing psychic cards when you've no psykers in the army, for example. I imagine something similar may help?

Randomness? So, removing all dice from the game, then? Because randomness is kind of inherent to Warhammer, and always has been. The randomness also helps level the game at times, which is very welcome.

Objective based games are great, but those objectives need to remain the same turn to turn, otherwise it isn't a strategic game, it is a mad dash turn to turn to reach X then Y and you can't plan ahead. I much prefer the way Infinity does it, with a major objective that has nothing to do with killing people, then secondary objectives that more or less act as tiebreakers which can be about killing. My last game I got tabled, but both me and my opponent only activated 2 objectives each, so it was a 2-2 draw even though i had nothing on the board.

Completely disagree, the objectives I believe make it a moving battle where things can actually happen, most of the standard missions turn into who brought the better gun line and can get to objectives at the end of turn 5. Even weaker armies like Orks and Dark elder can actually hope to win these types of battles against stronger codexes like Tau Eldar and Necrons. As for narrative it makes more sense as it would be a moving battle, make it to this point to extract data or some piece of technology/artifact this turn then go on to further objectives.

Agreed. As annoying as random objectives can be, I've definitely had better odds at outscoring my opponents versus "Stand there and shoot at each other, then Turn 5 run for the Objectives"

 jonolikespie wrote:
Remove the closest wound.

This was my favorite change when going from 5th to 6th edition. I would be mad if it went away.

GMCs and super heavies.

Martel732 wrote:
GMCs and super heavies.

What, you don't think they belong in regular games? I for one think the Wraithknight and Stormsurge are extremely well balanced.

/sarcasm.

I would remove the CAD. Its a dated concept.


I would remove the no charge from infiltration and outflank rule.


I would remove the challenge rules


I would remove the vehicule stat lines and make them more like monstrous creatures.

My personal list of things I'd love to see go away.

Formations (hooray massive free stuff for no reason!)

Allies (lets be real, almost nobody is using this for "fluff")

Destroyer Weapons on anything not at least 500pts.

Multiple detachments.

Not being able to assault out of stationary transports

Hull Points (we scratched the paint 3 times...that killed it!)

Kill Points (because a Drop Pod is totally worth as much as a Land Raider right?)

Maelstrom (High Command says to stab something...no wait now they want you to nab every critical location on the field...no wait now they want you to shoot down something flying...no now they want you to cast psychic powers...)

First Blood & Line Breaker.

T5 multiwound/overlapping Sv "speed" units (looking at you TWC's/Ravenwing/Necron Wraiths).

Theres more, but thats the first that came to mind.

EDIT: Jink...oh man how did I forget about that. Jink downsides should affect vehicle passengers and have some sort of downside on assaults too, not just shooting (either bo assault after jinking or attacks must be made at ws1 I1 or something). Also, FMC's not actively Swooping should not be able to Jink.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Special rules that can be built into stats - Feel No Pain is the first one I think of, turn it into a blanket +1 toughness.

I like FNP. What I'd do is get rid of special rules that just give other special rules. I'd also go through and get rid of any redundant special rules. And the Lance rule. I hate that rule.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Unbound - No, just no.

Agreed. At this point, I think Unbound is a colossal failure so universally rejected by the community that it's just an embarrassment to GW.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Superheavies in every game - Give each a minimum game size before they can be used. And yeah that includes Knights, and Dreadknights and Riptides and all that stuff.

I agree. In addition, get rid of the Lord of War slot. Instead, give such units a rule titled Lord of War, which makes it take up all 3 of the Heavy Support slots in a FOC, and appropriate similar considerations for formations. That'd make people have to make some real choices in their list building.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Formation special rules - I actually kind of like the idea of formations, but not the idea that buying XYZ gives you some random benefit like bonuses in overwatch or free Rhinos. So keep formations as a way to do odd armies like Deathwing, or 10th Company or whatever but don't offer bonuses for them.

I think some formation bonuses are appropriate if they encourage fluffy builds. The Eldar Guardian Hosts are a good example, as is the Gladius Strike Force. Players weren't playing armies full of Guardians or Tac/Assault/Dev squads minus those formations' bonuses. I'm not entirely happy with how the GSF hands out its bonuses - I think one GSF ought to give free Transports to every squad you buy to full size - but I approve of the principle.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Giant Robots that count as models - OK, from now on if you're bigger than like an ogre, you're a vehicle. You have front/side/rear armor so there's a point in flanking you. You lose weapons and attacks as you take damage. You follow the same rules as everyone else.

Yes, yes, and all the yes.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Granular weapon rules - One thing I really liked about 3rd edition was the belated realization that when there's 50+ models on the table and tanks and robots and demons... no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a board with a nail through it. So everything short of a lightsaber became a generic close combat weapon. Not only did this cut book keeping, it also freed up modelling opportunties. Now if I wanted to give my assault marines spears or nunchucks or broken bottles I could! But now... Different rules for power swords, axes and maces, plus every army seems to get newer and siller weapons. Trans-sonic blades? What do they even do? So back to basics. CC weapons get a simple AP, or maybe rending and they're in broad categories so there's still some modelling freedom.

Well, I hear what you're saying, but at the same time we have a broad range of rules for guns, so why not for melee weapons?

Here's a few other things I'd get rid of.

1: The Allies rules: The Allies rules are almost a complete failure as a tool for creating fluffy armies, but they are a fantastic tool for min-maxing abuse. They need to just go away entirely.

2: Windrider Jetbikes as Troops. The complaint about Windriders used to be that they were an anemic Fast Attack choice and didn't compete well against the other choices. Scatbikes say this isn't true anymore. If someone wants to play a Windrider-themed army, there's a formation for that now. There's no reason to keep Jetbikes in Troops except to pander to min-maxers.

3: Random tables in general. It's obnoxious to have to roll on tables all the time, especially in the middle of a game.

 undertow wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Remove the closest wound.

This was my favorite change when going from 5th to 6th edition. I would be mad if it went away.

Why is agonizing over individual model placement in a game with 200 models on the table a good thing? This is a classic case of GW trying to escalate everything, and then throwing a bunch of hyper detailed skirmish rules in that just slow down the game. They need to decide what they want more, giant tanks, planes and big stompy robots running around or detailed, model by model interactions. When you try to do both at the same time, the ruleset suffers. If they want us all to cover the table in models, they should probably give us a simpler way to resolve things.

No unbound.

Do the 30K thing and just limit LoW to a percentage system.

If you jink you cannot assault or overwatch. There has to be some downside to that rule.

GC and super heavies should have some rule that gives rerolls or +1 to hit in shooting and CC for being so damn big like the old large target rules in fantasy.

I actually like most of 7th though. I love formations, flyers, challenges, etc. I just wish the rules were more streamlined.

Walkers. Turn all existing Walkers into Monstrous Creatures and get rid of the Walker Vehicle type.

Boom. Dreadnoughts are viable again.

IRT Walkers vs MC, I would not mind if they kept the two classifications, but apart from a couple specific applications, the rules should be identical.

 Toofast wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Remove the closest wound.

This was my favorite change when going from 5th to 6th edition. I would be mad if it went away.

Why is agonizing over individual model placement in a game with 200 models on the table a good thing? This is a classic case of GW trying to escalate everything, and then throwing a bunch of hyper detailed skirmish rules in that just slow down the game. They need to decide what they want more, giant tanks, planes and big stompy robots running around or detailed, model by model interactions. When you try to do both at the same time, the ruleset suffers. If they want us all to cover the table in models, they should probably give us a simpler way to resolve things.

It’s also a case of them putting rules in place to fix things that are no longer in the rules. We have precision shots if the shooter wants to pick who dies. This fixes the wound allocation issues of past editions, where the guy getting shot could mess with the wound allocation (or even just pick who way back when). You want to pick off the sarge/heavy weapon guy? Bring snipers. Finicky wound allocation, like many rules, adds a lot of time spent on overhead while not actually bringing much fun to the table.

Now I appreciate some of the aspects of directional wound allocation. It makes flank attacks actually worth something. If I swing some speeders around behind your squad, where the guy with the ML is hiding, I get to kill him first. Nice little shot of realism. It also means I can’t have my sergeants heroically leading from the front, and need to micro manage model placement. And game play slows down every time hits get handed out. Net loss IMHO.

But every iteration of wound allocation has issues that are irritating or exploitable. Just what people prefer.

Some of the things mentioned would be fine if moved back into optional add-on expansion rulebooks (like Apocalypse used to be) rather than being part of the core rules.

10 things to cut:

1. Overwatch

2. Run

3. Flyers (just make ALL flyers count as SKIMMERS and it's PROBLEM SOLVED!)

4. Special Characters

5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)

6. No Random charge rules

7. Agree wholeheartedly on returning to basic ccws, 'power weapons', fists (thunder hammers should be treated as fists, LCs should be fists that either reroll to hits, or something, but still act as power fists), and the occasional force weapon.

8. Neuter or remove grav weapons

9. Fortifications (even if I am warming up to the ADL)

10. Lots of special rules: HoW, Bulky (just say what can and can not use a transport or how many models it counts as in the unit descriptions), Crusader, Hatred/ Preferred Enemy (one or the other please), Jink, Rampage, Scout (just make this as Infiltrate), Shrouded, Interceptor/Skyfire (again one or the other), and Smash.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
10 things to cut:

1. Overwatch

2. Run

3. Flyers (just make ALL flyers count as SKIMMERS and it's PROBLEM SOLVED!)

4. Special Characters

5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)

6. No Random charge rules

7. Agree wholeheartedly on returning to basic ccws, 'power weapons', fists (thunder hammers should be treated as fists, LCs should be fists that either reroll to hits, or something, but still act as power fists), and the occasional force weapon.

8. Neuter or remove grav weapons

9. Fortifications (even if I am warming up to the ADL)

10. Lots of special rules: HoW, Bulky (just say what can and can not use a transport or how many models it counts as in the unit descriptions), Crusader, Hatred/ Preferred Enemy (one or the other please), Jink, Rampage, Scout (just make this as Infiltrate), Shrouded, Interceptor/Skyfire (again one or the other), and Smash.

.

... so you just want to play 4th? Because, you can just play 4th still.

3rd. I miss 3rd. 3rd was freaking perfect.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
7. Agree wholeheartedly on returning to basic ccws, 'power weapons', fists (thunder hammers should be treated as fists, LCs should be fists that either reroll to hits, or something, but still act as power fists), and the occasional force weapon.

I agree with this to a degree. The power weapons should be streamlined to a single statline: user strenght and AP2 - that's it. Then power fists as they are now (just instead of "Concussive", say "Strikes Last", which removes the need of a special rule just for the sake of a special rule). Not sure about Lightning Claws though, I'd probably leave them as they are now (they're not supposed to be power fists, despite most models representing them as power fists with loooong nails). Regarding force weapons... I'd probably do away with them entirely. Psyker gets power weapon, and that's it.

About the vehicles vs. monstruous creatures thing, I'd agree about merging them into a single statline, perhaps doing away with the front, side and rear armor thing and the random damage table. Give them all wounds and toughness value. Once down to half the wounds, movement and attacks capability reduced to half and can only fire a single weapon per turn. I agree with the proposed "mechanical/flesh" distinction.

Overwatch out of the window = nice.

Something should be done aboug Grav, too. As it is right now, it simply breaks the game to me. Change it to a crowd control weapon with small blasts, not really about mass murdering everything with an armor but pinning units down and disrupting vehicles' rate of fire temporarily. Make it an interesting weapon with a tactical purpose.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
3rd. I miss 3rd. 3rd was freaking perfect.

3rd was not without problems. It is far enough back that rose colored nostalgia takes care of most of the rough edges.

The rules got better throughout the time of third. They were actively tweaking things in WD to make it better.

But codex creep was horrible. The last book out would stomp earlier books, and the poor souls still working out of the main rulebook would just eat it.

I love third. Probably my happiest time playing 40k. And I miss it as well. I also miss being young, not having mortgage payments, and hair.

Totally agree with all of them with two caveats:

Instead of "no Unbound" and "No Formations with Special Rules", I say revert back to the old FoC, while Formations just shifts units from different slots (think 3rd Edition Deathwing, where it not only shifted DW terminators to various slots, but also took away options for taking non-DW models).

For Granular weapons, I'd also say cut back on the massive amount of rules in each army. Especially Space Marines.

First off, they have ATSKNF, then Combat Squads. This is decently complex already. Then you have the Sergeant, who has to have the Sergeant special rule. Then you tack on Chapter Tactics, which adds anywhere from 1 to 2 extra rules on top of that. THEN you get specialist units like Sternguards who get Specialist Ammunition. And THEN you add on Detachment or Formation rules. Suddenly that 1 model has something like 6-7 separate rules doing a bunch of different things that you gotta keep track of despite the fact that, if balanced correctly, only 2 at most is needed (for sternguards, probably just ATSKNF and Specialist Ammunition).

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

You'd have *hated* Second Edition, eh?

2nd edition?

Now let's spend a half hour rolling for our blind grenades...

What's not to love?

Please. The best is when you have random movement of models on fire, vortex grenades, etc. The random swirling death was the best part of 2E!

Also the pre-game shenanigans, like the Tyranids used to bring. Tables and tables of stuff before you actually play the game. Which means to bunker down and declare Overwatch!


But really, rolling the clock back to something more simplified & streamlined like 3E/4E would be very welcome.

It sure looks like a lot of people would like to go back to 4th or 5th edition. I know I personally play 4th ed, and haven't even bothered to look back (or is it a head at this point). So much simpler, the game flows better, and whats more you once again know what your fighting. No special formation bonus or some crap to suddenly spring up that you were not prepared or even know about.

Also, when talking about an edition, it helps to seperate the core rules from the codexs. Yes, there was some bad codex creep in those days too, but the nice thing is that since your now playing an older edition, why not modify the glaring problems with the codexs too. Its amazing how much more fun it is to play against Eldar when Holofields have had their rules changed to a 5+ inv save throw instead of the 2D6 pick the lowest on the chart. Eldar players don't even complain.

I'd 'roll back the prices' to 5th edition, make everything inclusive by consent instead of exclusive by consent. LoW, Unbound, D weapons, all that gak would revert to 'by mutual player consent' instead of 'unless you both agree not to'.

Would make pick up games and tourneys a lot bloody easier.

All great points that would improve a lot to the game. Only the last one I have never felt was an issue. There is not so many weapons that you can't easily memorise the profiles for power axes, swords etc. I also really like the fact that different weapons actually feel different, as they should. An axe is not a sword, after all.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:First off, they have ATSKNF, then Combat Squads. This is decently complex already. Then you have the Sergeant, who has to have the Sergeant special rule. Then you tack on Chapter Tactics, which adds anywhere from 1 to 2 extra rules on top of that. THEN you get specialist units like Sternguards who get Specialist Ammunition. And THEN you add on Detachment or Formation rules. Suddenly that 1 model has something like 6-7 separate rules doing a bunch of different things that you gotta keep track of despite the fact that, if balanced correctly, only 2 at most is needed (for sternguards, probably just ATSKNF and Specialist Ammunition).

I'd write off ATSKNF entirely. What's really the point? The rule is absolutely expendable from beginning to end.

Iron_Captain wrote:All great points that would improve a lot to the game. Only the last one I have never felt was an issue. There is not so many weapons that you can't easily memorise the profiles for power axes, swords etc. I also really like the fact that different weapons actually feel different, as they should. An axe is not a sword, after all.

The current Power Axe rules are not axes, either. They don't work like axes at all. Same for maces. At the very least, they should have their rules exchanged with each other. It would be easier to merely write all of them as power weapons with the same rules, that way if a slaanesh champion comes running at you with a power dildo, you don't have to think too much about what it can do to you.

I miss the old chainaxes. That and the +1 attack was when Berserkers were king.

Oh yeah and the old ork choppas. Watch a Space Marine player's face turn white in shock! 'My Terminators only get a +4????'

So....beautiful...should of brought...a poet...

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
10 things to cut:
2. Run

Yes, because let's just kill Assault units entirely unless they have a Bike or are Jump Infantry.

4. Special Characters

Why?

5. Random Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (No points, just PICK WHAT YOU WANT)

Invisibility on every Psyker ever for free. BALANCED!