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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 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!

2. It's a stupid rule, besides assault troops still can't assault if they run unless they have fleet

4. Because I liked the old days when special characters were uber rare, special circumstance plays, and could only be taken in 2k+ armies. And it flies in the face of the Warlord=You mentality of building your leader character and army around you. Call the RPer in me. Plus a lot of them are over powered. (And some as overpriced and underwhelming)

5. Well we could go back to 1-3 powers per the whole army instead of a massive selection. Or you know balance the powers. Personally in favor of just rolling back the clock. Though I do like the 'concept' of warlord traits to tweak a character.

I agree with the special character one. It feels weird where, at one point, almost every list had a Special Character leading it because they were just more cost-effective for the equipment and their special rules made them heads and shoulders above anything equivalent. Worst was the 5th Ed marine dex, where if you wanted to play another chapter, you were basically forced to take one of the named special characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Psy Powers should return to being something you buy with points and cast on a leadership test. As it stands now, they're unreliable as hell.

No, but they can get closer rather than spend a phase doing nothing. An assault unit typically don't have guns that are in range until they can charge. With no Run moves it'll take longer for them to get in range to use those guns and charge. Who cares if overwatch is gone if assault units can get kited by every unit with a gun more effectively.


Well then just re-add the limits, not delete them entirely. And tbh I can't think of a single OP Character, only characters that are no-brainers to take because of what they do for the army.

CADs, go back to FOC only.

1. Psykers and the psyker phase in general
2. The Tau
3. The Eldar
4. Flyers
5. Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures
6. Super heavy vehicles
7. Rerollable saves
8. D Weapons

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 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.

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

Invisibility on every Psyker ever for free. BALANCED!

Run needs to die, but for the really concerned you can just go back and give fleet its original rules and the units that had it. The introduction of run helped escalate the need for higher ROF weapons, as those assault units were closing too fast.

Also invisibility needs to die as well. That power is easily one of the top three most broken things in the game.

Just because the standard objectives are bad doesn't mean Maelstrom is good.

Each player deploying 2 objectives in their deployment zone then 1 in the center of the table. You score 1 point for each player turn you are on an objective but you can not score off the ones in your own deployment zone.

There, gunlines can gunline all they want, but you need to push up the table to score. It helps close combat armies be a little more viable, and it removes the aspect of the game where the player who has second turn can zip a jetbike up on the last turn to contest and win because of it.

Right off the top of my head:

Get rid of random warlord traits, the idea of it being random is just... Ugh. There are no words to describe how irritated I am with this concept.

Get rid of RANDOM psychic powers. Once again, an extremely irritating and stupid concept IMO.

Get rid of unbound and send it back to apocalypse from whence it came.

Formations could use a massive toning down.

Point percentage restriction on SH and GC, like forgeworld's HH with Primarchs and so on.

And I wouldn't mind getting rid of the psychic phase. I enjoyed the game much more when psychic powers were popped in thee appropriate phase.

Or just remove seventh edition and roughly a third of sixth edition and leave us with something caught between 5th and 6th.

Remove all the random tables

Sort out fear, what is the point in it?

And fix maelstrom. Use actual objectives that remain the same, instead of giving people a first turn victory because they picked up seven they can score.

Lots of great discussion here and yeah, my list kind of shows that I was a 3rd/4th edition player and still love the force org chart. It ain't perfect but at least it was some kind of structure to army building.

Well I promised 10 so I guess I should do 4 more, here's 2:

Random Warlord traits - I think we're all in agreement here. And I LIKE the idea of warlord traits. I especially like the ones that are actually tactical and give your army options in deployment or moving since it shows your warlord is actually leading and not just a the best swordsman in you army. I H8 that they are random. If in my mind Sheik Abdul al-Impurar is a master of infiltration and stealth, then why can't a he reliably get an ability that matches that? What exactly do the random traits represent? "Gee Fred I was just reading a book on targeting priorities so I think this week I'll teach my squads how to split fire just to see what happens." Keep some of the traits, give them point values and let players buy one per army. Or none. But enough of this randomness.

Stupid terrain rules - no one mentioned them, because I think no one uses them, but the stupid, stupid terrain rules have to go. Ruins are ruins. None of this 'you get bonus X because you're in the Manufactorum (tm)'. The rules for fortifications you can buy are fine in principal but the rules for the neutral terrain have to go. And I gather pretty much everyone ignores them anyway.

I have never really used the terrain rules but I do like the idea that some can give bonuses or be dangerous to be in. Just not all of them - maybe have a list of optional rules that can be given to certain appropriate terrain pieces that represent an unusual piece of terrain, something that can add some spice. Currently 40K suffers from the same terrain problem that WHFB 8th ed did - every single piece of terrain is magical or special. A forest can not be just a forest, it has to be a razorwing nest or a haunted wood or something else. A river has to be a caustic ooze or a river of blood or another thing. This is bad for the game and makes the setting seem stupid.
Personally, I play without the terrain rules.

I saw someone earlier complaining about the fortification rules, why? they are really good and allow you to add something else to your army. And my Guard would be useless without their VSG.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 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!

2. It's a stupid rule, besides assault troops still can't assault if they run unless they have fleet

4. Because I liked the old days when special characters were uber rare, special circumstance plays, and could only be taken in 2k+ armies. And it flies in the face of the Warlord=You mentality of building your leader character and army around you. Call the RPer in me. Plus a lot of them are over powered. (And some as overpriced and underwhelming)

5. Well we could go back to 1-3 powers per the whole army instead of a massive selection. Or you know balance the powers. Personally in favor of just rolling back the clock. Though I do like the 'concept' of warlord traits to tweak a character.

Run lets units that have minimal/no shooting to do something in the shooting phase other stand still and wait to be shot.

What's wrong with unbound?

 jer155 wrote:
What's wrong with unbound?

Its a joke. Its the absence of rules.

Unbound always existed. Publishing it is a waste of ink.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Just because the standard objectives are bad doesn't mean Maelstrom is good.

Each player deploying 2 objectives in their deployment zone then 1 in the center of the table.

This. Except we should be clear that Malestrom is bad - the opposite of good. From a thematic / strategic standpoint, it's simply stupid to have your forces running around like a bunch of ADHD idiots. Quite frankly, I fail to see why 40k can't focus more on "classic" KOTH / CTF scenarios, along with asymmetrical attacker/defender scenarios.

I always prefer each player to deploy 1 objective in each DZ and one in No Man's Land. That's 6 objectives, with a better balance to how they deploy.

I'd really love to see more assymetrical missions, but GW seems to go out of their way to find the worst method of executing every concept that comes their way.

Something simple, like Player A has to kill the enemy Warlord by turn 5, player B has to hold the center point or kill at keast 50% of the opposing armies points value or something. If both players achieve their obejctives then they both can count it as a minor victory and if they achieve their objective while denying the opponent theirs then they can call it a major victory, anf if neither get their objectives then its a draw. Simple stuff like that.

I'd love the above to but that requires something that many players are reluctant to do and that's play an uphill mission especially in a tournament (which is a legit concern).


'

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Just because the standard objectives are bad doesn't mean Maelstrom is good.

Each player deploying 2 objectives in their deployment zone then 1 in the center of the table.

This. Except we should be clear that Malestrom is bad - the opposite of good. From a thematic / strategic standpoint, it's simply stupid to have your forces running around like a bunch of ADHD idiots. Quite frankly, I fail to see why 40k can't focus more on "classic" KOTH / CTF scenarios, along with asymmetrical attacker/defender scenarios.

I always prefer each player to deploy 1 objective in each DZ and one in No Man's Land. That's 6 objectives, with a better balance to how they deploy.

To be fair, I think Maelstrom is a lot of fun. I agree, it should be less random (ITC's modified Maelstrom isn't bad), but I like it as opposed to static objectives. Actually I'd be interested in playtesting "Held Maelstrom", I.E. yeah you draw Hold Objective 1, but you have to hold it for one turn, giving your opponent time to assault/shoot you off of it.

The idea of random / hidden objectives is good. But the implementation is very bad.

For example, I'd have players initial draw their primary objective worth 3 VPs prior to deployment; 5 VPs if revealed. At the start of each turn, players may draw an additional objective worth 1 VP (2 if revealed, -1 if revealed but unmet). All objectives to be assessed at the end of the game (random game length).

That has a strategic focus, along with a "push your luck" element for taking more objectives, a risk/reward tied to revealing/hiding objectives, and the opportunity for the opponent to score VPs against revealed objectives.

Something like that.


And yes, objectives should otherwise be a "take and hold", where you have to take it and hold it for an additional turn.

Rather than modifying seventh edition, I'd rather we just got a rewrite like 3rd. Include army lists for all factions in the main rulebook and you can expand them later with campaign supplements (like the old Codex: Armageddon) or theme lists (like the codices of old with unit restrictions).

There are just so many things I'd want removed/modified in seventh, it'd be easier to reboot IMO.

YES! I liked having a book that had all the armies in it.

Notably, having all of the rules and lists condensed and streamlined into the main book made it a lot easier and faster to play.

A big problem with 40k's rules is they release new editions but expect older codexes to be backward compatible.

So for example if they want to buff Assault marines they can't just lower points or raise attacks because Assault Marines appear in 5 different books.

So instead they create a new special rule 'hammer of wrath' that adds an attack to jump troops.

Which means you can't really tell what assault marines do by reading their codex entry you need to see the core rules for jump troops which then point you to the USR hammer of wrath and then and only then do you find out they get an additional attack as I10, S4...

FEH!

Give them a base 2 attacks and call it a day!

While Age of Sigmar has problems beyond number I really do like the idea of all the rules on one card AND the cards for free AND the cards are updated from time to time.

But I'm wandering off of my own subject here which is things to cut.

And the problem with just adding in HOW is that not all jump infantry are created equal. Some could in fact use the extra attack to help them perform their job, but then others who also get the HOW bonus, but were good at their job anyway and now become a little too good for their points.

The biggest problem with 40k's rules is that they keep adding more of them. We don't need No Fear and Fearless and Stubborn - just Fearless. We don't need +1A for 2nd weapon and Hammer of Wrath -- just give the stat as A2. And so on. Cut the special rules and simplify the rest with a vengeance a la AoS!

 master of ordinance wrote:
I have never really used the terrain rules but I do like the idea that some can give bonuses or be dangerous to be in. Just not all of them - maybe have a list of optional rules that can be given to certain appropriate terrain pieces that represent an unusual piece of terrain, something that can add some spice. Currently 40K suffers from the same terrain problem that WHFB 8th ed did - every single piece of terrain is magical or special. A forest can not be just a forest, it has to be a razorwing nest or a haunted wood or something else. A river has to be a caustic ooze or a river of blood or another thing. This is bad for the game and makes the setting seem stupid.
Personally, I play without the terrain rules.

I saw someone earlier complaining about the fortification rules, why? they are really good and allow you to add something else to your army. And my Guard would be useless without their VSG.

Fortifications would be fine as an optional rule section.

The IG ought to be a decent army without having to use a new section of rules published to justify more model kits.

2 more to go, so another one I think will get wide support:

Battle Brothers and Desperate Allies - Cutting 2 of the 4 levels of allies leaving just 2, Allies of Convenience and Come the Apocalypse. Why? Even among the Imperium none of the factions really like each other, Marines think the Guard are incompetent cannon fodder, Guard thinks Sisters are psycho pyromaniacs, Sisters think Mechanicus are a half step from heresy and nobody likes the Inquisition or Assassins. They may all be fighting for the Emperor but they're not at the 'come on and ride in my APC' or 'hey want to lead my squad' level of friendship. So don't allow even natural allies to share transports, characters and buffs. And once you're bringing in various Xeno groups it gets worse. But I'd also go back to the 6th edition practice where all Imperial actions were listed seperately. I'd also make sure everyone, including Nids and Necs, gets at least two friends, probably Orks and Guard. They'll ally with anyone.

For Assassins and Inquisition, I think I'd just say they are elite/HQ picks for all Imperial forces (except maybe Dark Angels and Space Wolfs).

buddha wrote:No unbound.

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

Even Epic Armageddon had point limits for Titans (1/3 of the total points)

Nevelon wrote:

 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.

The big advantages of playing 3rd ed now are that you have proper models for Drop Pods and Wave Serpents, also you can make 7th ed vehicles and creatures with the design rules and with Capter Approved books you have nearly everything you have in 7th edition.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The biggest problem with 40k's rules is that they keep adding more of them. We don't need No Fear and Fearless and Stubborn - just Fearless. We don't need +1A for 2nd weapon and Hammer of Wrath -- just give the stat as A2. And so on. Cut the special rules and simplify the rest with a vengeance a la AoS!

Simplify yes.

Simplify a la AoS noooooooo.

KoW is simple, it has four pages of special rules and every unit in the game will only use those special rules. Once you learn them you can see a new unit on the table and ask what they do. The answer will be that they have X, Y and X, and you know EXACTLY what that unit is capable of.
AoS has no universal special rules, every unit seems to have something totally unique listed on their unit entry. A shield on one model might grant a +1 save if he charged, but on the next model it lets you reroll 1s on your save if you didn't charge, but then yet another rolls a dice for every unsaved wound and on a 6 ignores it.
This is a lot harder to remember when you're on the other side of the table and not as familiar with the army you are playing against, and requires a lot of reading the same rule again and again to remind yourself of it and asking your opponent what a unit does.
This isn't simple, it's just putting the information in the one place.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Lots of great discussion here and yeah, my list kind of shows that I was a 3rd/4th edition player and still love the force org chart. It ain't perfect but at least it was some kind of structure to army building.

The thing I remember about playing in third and fourth editions were that the FOC was wrong for background purposes and boring for gameplay. There should be very few armies than have a Demolisher, a platoon, an iron fist squad, and a random basilisk all together. A battle isn't always going to have 2x troops fighting 2x troops. They did make armies balanced, certainly, but they did make opposing armies very much the same as each other.


The thing about saying that large models and flyers don't belong in the game, are un-fun or unsportsmanlike to play with, or are pay-to-win is that too me it seems pretty confused. You like civilian stuff, right Kid_Kyoto, and gene stealers, arbites etc? Well the entire point of those forces are that that exist in the context of overwhelming industrialized warfare and that they have to accomplish their goals despite there being a Titan marauding through their city.

I hope that once there are enough formations out, that the CAD is written right out of the game. Formations can have assigned objectives, e.g. if you have six basilisks and a command Salamander they can get points for firing off the table, and delay enemy ground reserves. They can also be worth different amounts of kill points, e.g. 1000 points worth of Titan yields eight kill points but 1000 points worth of green tide is worth only three.

This is the kind of thing that gets me excited when Vaktathi talks about asymmetrical missions. Even meat grinder or any type of break through mission is great. They would be really great if they were automatic, e.g. if you bring X formation you get x objective, and if you're out gunned by G points you get g objective.