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.

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.

 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.

Disagree with FnP. It's a save after saves. I still remember my bionics from 3rd edition. I would miss it.

Unbound - No, just no.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed. 30k has a good approach to this problem.

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.

Then there would be no point in using them. Give them a bonus fitting of the formation. But not some broken gak like free transport or Decurion.

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.

IF it's a vehicle. I'm fine with big Tyranids having a T value. But Mechanicum robots? Tau suits, regardless how big? No way.

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 have to say, I quite like the different power weapon sytles, even if it's a lot to remember.

 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.

Thought you were gonna say Space Elves.

My vote goes for dreadknights. Irredeemably ugly. And stupid. Centurions and wulfen could be salvaged with good models. But dreadknights? *vomit*

Well, 40k evolved in to an apocalyptic game on a regular basis, with unbound lists and superheavies as LoW. This makes the game hardly playable at the pickup level since you never know what to expect from the opponent.
GW would probably say that the rule set is a service to the customer reflecting the units and models produced atm.

I like FNP and how a T4 model with FNP can still be instant killed by Str 8 which ignores the FNP save where as a T5 model cannot be instant killed.

Unbound as a "official" format can go explode in a trukk. Between friends there is nothing stopping you from throwing a pile of models on the table with no regard for FOC and play a game. I don't want any justification for Timmy to throw down 5 wraithknights in a pickup game because "unbound".

Superheavies can zog off for all I care. Great for apoc and silly games but the current rules for them move to further make standard vehicles and even infantry irrelevant. 40K needs less bazooka in its rock, paper, scissors. I don't think Dreadknights and Riptides are as problematic considering things like the Riptide are super easy to tar pit into uselessness and its not all that hard to just shoot them to death. Toe in cover is something that needs to be addressed for MCs.

Formations done right can create a lot of variety in gameplay and spice up the game. Formations done wrong just feed the power creep. Bonuses are fine if they contribute to that style of play but often times the bonuses become the reason you take the unit instead of an extra that sweetens the deal.

Dreadknight/RIptides are a symptom of the bigger problem that the core Vehicle and especially Walker rules are just bad. Fixing vehicles is required before we go about ruining functional units (and I say this as a person who strongly dislikes the Riptide).

Semi related to the concept of simplifying weapons is that the standard weapons (las gun, bolter, lascannon, shoota, chainsword, etc) need to be keep relevant by toning down some of the more over the top weapons (looking at you grav). It feels weird seeing tactical marines being basically special/heavy weapon platforms while the bolters are a nearly irrelevant afterthought. Power creep in general is to blame but it doesn't have to be the case. It would help to tone down certain unit durability as well as certain weapon firepower so the bread and butter stuff is a little bit more useful.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Thought you were gonna say Space Elves.

I'm only up to #6 y'know

My vote goes for dreadknights. Irredeemably ugly. And stupid. Centurions and wulfen could be salvaged with good models. But dreadknights? *vomit*

I'm not even talking about models, this just rules and rules and rules and rules.

 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.


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.

At first, I thought agreed with others on this thread, that I'd prefer this remain an independent save. But as I think more on it, I'm realizing how much I've been annoyed by the increased number of units that are getting 'bonus' invulnerables "just because", so I think I'd actually agree with such a change.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Unbound - No, just no.

I don't know. Unbound lists receive no bonuses, like Obsec, and so there is little strategic advantage to taking an unbound list, other than to take whatever you like. That said, I also think that the whole point to apocalypse games was precisely to be able to take whatever you like, so why do normal games of 40K have to have similar rules? What's the difference/point any more?

 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.

This I easily agree with. Points values be damned, bringing my Stompa to a standard 1850 game puts me at an advantage because unless my opponent's got a rhino full of meltas, there isnt' much they'll be able to do to Stompy. That's not fair, that's not sportsmanlike - imposing such a restriction (no superheavies in games below 3000 pts) would make sense.

 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.

What's the point of having formations otherwise? I get the sense that you're just unsatisfied with 7th in general, and would prefer to go back to 3rd-5th editions, in which case, what's stopping you? We're not obliged to play the most current rule set if we don't want to.

 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.

I could get behind this.

 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.

PLaying as Orks, I would like this simplification as well....but we've *always* had different kinds of weapons in CC - thunderhammers, powerfists/powerklaws, and the like. Unless I'm confused and you're referring exclusively to basic troop types here. You'd have *hated* Second Edition, eh?


As for my own contribution, I'd throw in Fliers of all kinds. I just don't think the game needed them, and I see fliers entirely as GW forcing a mechanic change that blatantly encourages us to spend more money (because in order to deal effectively with my opponent's fliers, I almost *must* purchase the anti air capabilities avaialble). It's silly, a blatant cash grab, plus, I plain don't like the look of fliers on the table - they make a table look way too crowded, and they constantly get in the way of reaching around the table.

 General_K wrote:

 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.

What's the point of having formations otherwise? I get the sense that you're just unsatisfied with 7th in general, and would prefer to go back to 3rd-5th editions, in which case, what's stopping you? We're not obliged to play the most current rule set if we don't want to.

Well, it would be like Bolt Action. Rather than having to bring a generic 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 everything else you would have different force organisation charts.

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?

 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?

haha! And let's not forget waiting for my opponent to individually fire each of his models' guns as different targets....and again on overwatch...

Looking back, I'm surprised I stuck with the game considering how clunky 2nd ed was. Though I do miss individual vehicle data sheets. I liked the different damage charts and potential explody goodness

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.

Challenges.
Or if we have to keep them then remove the overspill to the rest of the unit. Challenges should be a way to guarantee a snipe at a single character at the expense of hurting anything else.

 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.

 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.

 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.

And again with the Fliers. There's nothing wrong with Fliers.

Also, don't get rid of Maelstrom, as I find it quite fun. I think they should just add official rulings to it to make it a bit more fair, like being able to discard ones you can't physically complete, as well as give you a once per game mulligan.

Strength D is the first thing I would like to see go.

Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.

 General_K wrote:
You'd have *hated* Second Edition, eh?

Apples and Oranges.

A 1500pt 2nd ed SM army might have had 25 troopers and 1-2 vehicles.

Personally I'd like to see the release spam toned down and the rampant power creep dialled back somewhere below 11. I've been on a break from 40k and from what I read I really don't miss it much sadly.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.

Well, what is your proposed rework?

All the stuff that just costs time and doesn't do anything for the game.

Roling for Warlordtraits (give them a Point value)
Roling for psychic powers (give them a Point value)
Overwatch
Throwing granades
Challenges in CC
Look out sir (you can autopass wounds on models in 1", if there are no models in 1" you take the wound)
That fething demonic Environment table.
Mob rule (go back to the old one)

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.

Well, what is your proposed rework?

I liked the concept behind them in the original Apoc rules, where they simply came in off one table edge, picked a target they fly over, and leave off the opposite table edge that turn. That way they are actually strafing a battlefield instead of flying at ridiculously low speeds in circles over a tiny battlefield.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.

Well, what is your proposed rework?

I liked the concept behind them in the original Apoc rules, where they simply came in off one table edge, picked a target they fly over, and leave off the opposite table edge that turn. That way they are actually strafing a battlefield instead of flying at ridiculously low speeds in circles over a tiny battlefield.

Hmm, that's actually not a bad idea. I'd be okay with that change, as that's essentially all my Night Scythes do anyway.

 von Hohenstein wrote:
All the stuff that just costs time and doesn't do anything for the game.

Roling for Warlordtraits (give them a Point value)
Roling for psychic powers (give them a Point value)
Overwatch
Throwing granades
Challenges in CC
Look out sir (you can autopass wounds on models in 1", if there are no models in 1" you take the wound)
That fething demonic Environment table.
Mob rule (go back to the old one)

Yes to all of that. I actually forgot Overwatch was a thing, so add that to my list. It's yet another dumb mechanic that slows the game down just to get you rolling more dice. 40k needs a lot less of those kinds of mechanics.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Challenges.
Or if we have to keep them then remove the overspill to the rest of the unit. Challenges should be a way to guarantee a snipe at a single character at the expense of hurting anything else.

Agreed, but let's let excess wounds still count for combat res. I don't want to lose a CC because I caused 3 wounds to a sarge to get rid of him. If a deamon prince kills Sarge 4 times over, it's likely to be a grisly, demoralising sight.

I'd like to see a vehicle update to make them as viable as an MC.

I'd like to see GMC and Superheavy removed from normal games but, doesn't effect me since I won't play against them usually anyway.

Get rid of Ignores Cover. Get rid of Str D (well, at least Ranged D...close combat D has it's place, in my opinion). Allow assaulting from reserves.

Boom...instantly better product.

Allow assaults out of stationary vehicles.

 von Hohenstein wrote:
Allow assaults out of stationary vehicles.

Not only stationary transports. In the 3rd edition, rhino rush was a tactics fun to play.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Soul Blaze yet.

Make a D3 roll to see if you inflict D3 S4 hits on a unit. This is *FUN* when you do something silly like Warpflame Gargoyles on a Vindicator, or take a Firesabre. Slow the game down for the sake of...the equivalent of a bolter plinking off a wound?

Randomly rolled Daemonic Gifts are the other one. When a player can make a 1500 point list with 53 pre-game rolls to determine what powers it has...

 jonolikespie wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Fliers... don't have to go, but really need a rework to actually fit into the scale of the game.

Well, what is your proposed rework?

I liked the concept behind them in the original Apoc rules, where they simply came in off one table edge, picked a target they fly over, and leave off the opposite table edge that turn. That way they are actually strafing a battlefield instead of flying at ridiculously low speeds in circles over a tiny battlefield.

That would be great - but GW'd never go with that because then there'd be absolutely no point to having the models themselves--you could just as easily write the 'unit' as a strafing run rule, like an orbital bombardment, and never purchase a model. No model = no money for GW.

Well, I'd like to see all information (units and models, profiles, special rules, formations) about an army in a single place. Stop the scattering of army-wide rules and whatnot.