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.

I think the ultimate issue with 40k is the fact we have a BRB and army codex that combine to make the rule system. AoS for example, yes it has its own issues, but if you compare the size of its rules to 40k.. I would argue it plays a lot better in comparison.

The codex system is essentially designed as a way to make more money and introduce some modularity to add new forces at will without having to change the core system. however, I dislike how essentially every codex rewrites or alters the majority of the brb when it comes to ignoring general rules or adding new ones.

In general I think 40k has become a little fat and needs a little bit of a diet.


@the_scotsman. I am quoting essentially everything you posted, because I agree on most things, except for the first two points =)

the_scotsman wrote:1) No assault out of reserves/infiltrate/deep strike/outflank.

EITHER A) all those things should disallow shooting too, OR

B) you can admit that with random scatter and mishaps, interceptor, overwatch, reserve rolls, random charge distance, and not being able to come in T1, you take enough risks deep striking/reserving and your opponent has enough chance to play against you.

"But drop pods/WWP/some other specific thing will be broken!" So fix that. Make drop pods not assault vehicles. Disallow assault after WWP.

I think maybe.. if you walk on from reserves or come in on an assault transport from reserves. Anything deepstriking I think is fine as is. It would become too powerful. GKs deepstrike entire army, and get into combat on the same turn for example..

the_scotsman wrote:
2) Roll assault move, move to base to base, then resolve overwatch before the first assault phase. No more shooting models to make the assault move harder.

What would the point of overwatch be? You actively want to shoot your opponent out of range of assault, its the only viable strategy with overwatch. Generally speaking if a non melee unit gets into cc with a melee threat, you might as well just pick the unit off the table.

the_scotsman wrote:
3) consolidate as normal after assaulting a vehicle. This is just stupid and is just another unnecessary assault hamstring

100% agree with this. It has killed my units more times then I would like =(

the_scotsman wrote:
4) change WS/WS table to be identical to S/T table. It's beyond ridiculous that there is in 99% of cases only a single die shift at stake between the skill of combatants.

Again 100% agree the table needs rework. Maybe not exactly the same as S/T.. but something ws1 should not hit a ws10 unit on 5s, it should be EXTREMELY hard to hit at that extreme difference if not impossible.

the_scotsman wrote:
4) and with all the buffs to assault: change sweep to cause the difference between the results as AP2 wounds rather than instantly removing the whole unit, and if a sweep is successful let the winner choose whether the enemy runs or they stay locked.

As a tau player that usually loses units to nothing other then assault sweeps I wouldn't mind some change. But I am unsure with generally how lack luster cc is in 40k, that changing anything would make cc units useless.

bhollenb wrote:I'm fine with most of the rules except...the cover save system. Cover should be reduced or improved with modifiers and never simply ignored. Ignores Cover is a travesty that makes balance between shooting armies and assault armies simply impossible to acheive.

Cover used to be different in previous editions right? I started in 7e so my knowledge is a little weak on older ones. I thought though that cover used to effect the range on a units weapon or something like that ?

the_scotsman wrote:
Lastly if you don't like randomness you're playing the wrong game. The entire challenge of this game at all stages is discovering and mitigating sources of randomness through list efficiency, rerolls, and redundancy.

100% agree, its based on dice, its random, get over it =D

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It would be much shorter and more efficient to have a thread asking what rules people don't hate. Virtually the entire rulebook is full of awful game design that would drive most people to commit honorable suicide in shame.

This.

Also, the fact that I can't shoot a Super Heavy or Gargantuan creature, because it's engaged with a squad of infantry who barely reach its shins. Oh and to add to the enjoyment, it can stomp my unengaged units up to 15" away. There is no middle-finger big enough.

I am going to jump in here before anyone hopefully and say..

If you want to argue this (stompoing unengaged models etc) move to the YMDK thread discussing this.. it might even be on the first page of threads

@vipoid.. this is in no way directed at you.. but at anyone who wants to jack the thread and talk about this XD

cheers!

On the point of cover saves... in WHF, cover gave a penalty to a units shooting correct? Rather then a save modifier?

I think this approach could be interesting. Essentially units that gain "ignore cover" bonuses would be negating penalties first before gaining any buffs to their firing (if they would get any in this system)

To do this though, Jink saves would need to become their own thing, and many units I would then assume would become more like dark reapers (ignore jink) or gain some bonus to hit jinking models.

Tycho wrote:
Rules that require me to turn to page 40 then to page 74 then to page 6 of a different book then to a dataslate and the finally to an faq before I have the complete rule.


No assault on th first player turn or out of reserve etc. If there's no assault on the first player turn why is there an assault on the second? That makes no sense. Either allow both or say no assault in the first game turn. It makes no sense that a fast shooty army can alpha strike me and blow me off the table turn 1 but my assault army has to run right up to them .... And stare menacingly for a turn before swinging the chain axe. The blood god is not known for his patience....

The fact tha you can't shoot into cc. Certain armies should be able to imo. Certainly someone like Tau would never do it, but can you imagine orks even hesitating to charge grots into an enemy unit and then opening fire while the unit was dealing with the grot assault? Heck, orks would probably even find it funny! Can't imagine abbadon not shooting into a melee involving cultists either.

I have thought about that possibility, the best solution that comes to mind in the current system is that you "snap fire" at units in CC, because you are afraid to hit your own men.. or are taking extra aim to not do so.

Don't some chaos forgeworld army have a vehicle that can fire into cc ?

you can also hope to scatter blasts into cc units currently. And Mawlocs can also eat units in cc (I sacrifice gaunts for this all the time!)

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

Martel732 wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

Anti-infantry weapons are now S6. That kills all the Rhinos. Yesterday.

You can't use scatbikes as your basis for argument. MOST armies troops are using <=s4 weapons. Which rhinos are immune too. I suppose I was mistaken in that I should have said Rhinos are immune to small arms fire.

But that is what multiple threats are for. And why drop pods are so awesome. Drop some marines in their face meanwhile your cruising across the board.>