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.

@Future War Cultist.
I quite like the A.O.S game turn mechanic over the alternating game turn of WHFB for 40k.(It may need a few tweeks obviously.)
This could remove the need for over watch.

A simple multi wound mechanic is just to score an extra wound on the target model, for every 2 pips higher than the score required to wound.

EG a 3 wound IC, is hit by a bolt gun and the attacker needs 5+ to wound, they can only score one wound.

However, if the same IC was hit by a melta gun, and the attacker only needed a 2+ to wound.
If the attacker rolled 4 or 5 they score 2 wounds on the IC. If they roll a 6, they score three wounds on the IC.

This means higher strength weapons have a higher proportional chance of causing multiple wounds.

Removing ramdumness is such a massive improvement to 40k rules, , that what little balance exists should not be used as an excuse not to pursue this goal.IMO.

Meh, appart from the no randomness, none of these appeal to me, especially the nerf to blasts.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Meh, appart from the no randomness, none of these appeal to me, especially the nerf to blasts.

You think assault needs to be weakened, and shooting needs to be stronger.

Put me in the camp of, first deal with the writers and their inability to plan or care about their game, camp. If the writer properly plots their game in to proper stages, it isn't that hard to insert mechanics in to it. For example, Unit Type/Unique Special Rules should not indiscriminately replace base rules without properly addressing those base rules. Be clear when a modifier is modifying the stat or afterward (I'm looking at you Thunderwolves and Quantum Shielding). Without this, none of these changes mean anything, and may help address many of them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
1: Scrap Instant Death and the vehicle Explodes result. Set up a multiple-wounds mechanic to replace it.

I slightly disagree on this. Instant Death and Explodes! should be available, but rare and limited to very very specific circumstances. Str D should be an example of this. If it can blow an arm off of a Titan, it should blow through a Terminator Captain or Predator like it was nothing. Admittedly, a multi-Wound capacity could address this if done properly, but maybe also a converse system for Super-Heavies, such as discounting the first 1 or 2 Wounds made by an Attack to show their resiliency to them..

 AnomanderRake wrote:
2: Blasts really, truly need to be rethought. Artillery shouldn't be able to completely invalidate single-target attacks by doing the same damage only more accurately in a wider area. I'm a fan of the Warmachine/WHFB central-target power/blast damage power system, but any way you look at it there shouldn't be blasts that do the same thing as lascannons/railguns in an AoE.

Blasts and Artillery are slightly different concepts. While all Artillery should be Blasts, not all Blasts should be Artillery (aka Barrage).

Still, having such attacks reduce in power for most Blasts from the directly hit (under the hole) should represent the loss of energy in most of those circumstances. Still something like a fuel-air explosion or a micro-bomb disbursement system is not as discriminatory or have a significant loss of energy in the area of affect. Much like Instant Death, this could be reserved for very unique circumstances.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
3: Transports. The time punishment for getting into or out of them makes them feel clunky and ineffective. Let them move further and drop people off, let people charge out of them.

I disagree to a point. Full basic movement is allowed after Disembarking, after all. I prefer the concept that if the Disembark happens before Vehicle Movement, the unit is treated as normal Movement for the Assault Phase, while if the Disembark happens after Movement, their Charging is Restricted. The Assault Vehicle rule would then discount these Restrictions. Maybe if the Vehicle did a Combat Move, they can do a Disordered Charge, but cannot Charge if the Vehicle did a Cruising Move. The Assault Vehicle rule can either move it up one like Fast does for Shooting, or completely remove it (in unique situations).

Part of the problem lies in "Threat Range" (to use the WMH term). There should be little reward for such a Mechanized Assault at that range without some very unique rules allowing for it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
4: Reserves. Bringing units in piecemeal feels wonky, the 'if you have no units on the table you lose' rule is a bizarrely punishing gimmick, and units that pop up out of nowhere to explode your big thing when you can't do anything about it was an awful design decision. Make people write down in secret when their stuff is coming on, and/or just make the Deep Strikers deploy in no-man's-land.

I can agree with this, to a point. However, I would like to see an "either/or" set up. All the Units of a Detachment can all come in on a set, written down Turn from 3 on, or individual units can come in piecemeal. This allows for one of two concepts of warfare to come in to play. Detachments which are organized and cohesive can plan for their entry, while those Units that are separated from their command are coming in without that cohesiveness. Specific Warlord Traits can address certain aspects of this.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
5: Random army-building elements. Kill them. Kill them with fire. Pick your Warlord Trait (with choices dependent on which character is your Warlord, give you more reason to use different characters), pick or purchase psychic powers. Powers and Warlord Traits would need an overhaul along with this, but you should be able to plan your army instead of having a random chance of characters doing what you want or not doing what you want.

On this, I can agree. Certain Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers can be "free" for selection or default (say, the first 2 or 3 of a list), with point costs being used to exchange for higher abilities. While not everyone can always have the right Warlord to face the right army, the Warlord did pick his army to suit his style. Same with Psykers. Most do not just show up on the field of battle going, "Now, what do I know how to use today?".

You want that Librarian using Invisibility? Great, you just doubled the cost of your Psyker and now you lose out on certain units or unit upgrades.

From the Core Rules...

1.
A lot of the (unnecessary) randomness. Pre-game. During the game. Random psychic powers. Random Warlord Traits. Random Run and Charge distances. Random table edges. Random rolls for a number of (extra) Attacks. I guess you get my drift here. I appreciate that this is a game, and a game played with dice has a random factor in it. But is it really too much to lower the cost of a Psyker by 5 or 10 points base, and assigning point values to psychic powers depending on their power level? (Just an example, of course.) I am surprised there isn't as much randomness after the game, too.

2.
Super-Heavies (both models and weapons). Lords of War. Gargantuans. Anything simply (too) big or (too) strong so it starts to dominate the table easily over your average infantryman or -woman. I have seen games where entire footslogger armies (hordes like Orks and Tyranids) were decimated by D-templates or a line-up of Heavy 20 or worse weaponry. I understood why the fun in that game was rather one-sided.And I wasn't a participant, just a spectator. The same for an Imperial Knight list. I love the models and the concept. If one appears in any game of 2.000 poonts or more, yay! And yes, they can be brought down. But an all-comer list with a few flamers as opposed to just Lascannon spam...

3.
Turn Sequence. Though I played this game for quite a few years now, I always detested the IGYG system, I Go You Go. Except for rolling saves or something like that, and an Assault Phase where everything gets to kill everything else twice in a full game round of two player turns, there is little interaction between players, and sometimes the wait is long. I play Imperial Guard Infantry. I rarely move. I also play Tyranid Horde. I have plenty to move. In the former, my opponent is often surprised at how fast my Movement Phase has been. In the latter, however, people might as well watch something on TV, listen to some music, read a book, to to the lavatory. Anything but wait until my movement is done. Then the Shooting Phase starts, and almost everything in that army start their Run moves... Just...

4.
CAD/Unbound/Organisation shenannigans. Let's be honest about this. Nobody would mind facing an Imperial Guard army (CAD, or some nice formation) that brought along an allied detachment of Space Marines. It's fluffy, its fine. It has a backstory of a Guard Army that called in a favour, or simply got assistence out of the blue.
But unbound? With all-Riptide or all-Wraithknight lists? Tyranids and Space Wolves 'allying' because it is in their best interest to smash an uprising of Necrons 'allied' with Chaos Daemons and a smudgeon of 'Tau' for that little extra oomph?

5.
In my opinion, the Psychic Phase could use a little overhaul. Again, there is a lot of randomness in harnessing Warp power, after getting irritated by not rolling your favourite powers at the start of the game. Some armies can dominate the Psychic Phase by taking along a lot of Psykers just to increase the dice count. Some powers are meh... others the bomb. Theoretically a bunch of Space Marines could summon lithe Daemonettes to play with the survivors after the battle, but using their enticing forms to assault the enemy.

6+.
There is more. Much more. But I'll leave it at this. Five things asked, five things given.

1) rework the entire cover system so that it becomes a BS modifier instead, and also dependent on range, movement, and target size
2) allow blasts and templates to snapfire and hit flyers (with appropriate harsher scattering rules + having to roll to hit in the case of templates)
3) unify the Armor/Hull Point system with the Toughness/Wounds system once and for all
4) Back to point-purchasable psychic powers, fixed warlord traits, etc etc none of this random tables bs
5) Complete redo on detachments and formations and the FOC system in general. Incentivise single-detachment lists

- vehicles get armor saves
- extend basic small arms range to 36
- add range increments
- allow the use of guns in CC
- FNP simply guarantees all units with this rull strikes at their initiative regardless casualties.

I would remove some of the unnecessary random element or reduce it. Run would be a fixed number. Charging would be 1d6 + constant. Move through difficult terrain would be half your move instead of a 1d6, and so on and so on.

People would pick their warlord traits(this would enable people to make their own fluffy HQ hero).

I would make psychic powers non-random, but that would also require rewriting of some of them(so invisibility won't be an autopick).

Change AP system so it won't invalidate a save, only apply a negative modifier to it. If a unit has a save value it can never be made worse than a 6+ save. This would at least allow for heroic save by armor and add to the tension. This would also not make 5+ and 6+ Saves completely useless ina game that is littered with AP 5 weapons. Would also make it more interesting for Guard, Ork, and Tyranid players who can potentially keep their units on the table longer.

1. Grant vehicles an armour save; 5+ for open topped, 4+ standard, 3+ for Heavy and 2+ for Superheavy
2. Barrages pinning at -1 ld again
3. Furious Charge +1 I again
4. Maximum 1 IC per unit
5. Grav cannons become Salvo 1/2 Large Blast

I would extend the range of dice results in close combat, with WS1-10 it's unacceptable that the only results can be 3+,4+,5+. A WS8 dark eldar character hits on a 3+ a unit a of ork boyz or even worse some gretchin, he should hit them on a 2+.

Other than that I would change the grav weapons type, they should have only a single shot in my opinion, not 2-3. Grav cannons with a small blast.

I'd also fix the max amount of dice that can be rolled to cast psychic powers. I'd say no more than 10+D6 regardless of the the amount of psykers involved.

Five changes aren't enough.

Martel732 wrote:
Five changes aren't enough.

The "New Topic" button is right on the forum page, if it bothers you that much.

Make "Attacks" a separate stat for weapons altogether. Most melee weapons will have Attacks: User", most ranged weapons will have fixed values, etc.

Add several "decorator" special rules similar to how Warmachine has Granted, Leadership, and Elite Cadre. This way you could do stuff like Unit Aura[Codex: AM, 6", Furious Charge & Counterattack] for Straken, or Model Aura [All, 6", 5+ Invulnerable Save] for Kustom Forcefields.

No Invulnerable Save may be improved to a 2++ unless explicitly allowed.

Feel No Pain may not be improved beyond 3+, unless explicitly allowed.

D does not have Deathblow. Instead, Invulnerable Saves against non-Dispersed D attacks suffer a -2 penalty.

Relentless makes unwieldy -1 I

Heavy bolters become Range 48 Salvo 4/2 S5 AP4

Number of warp charges given out each turn changed to Number of Ml on the table *D3

FMC Lose hard to hit

Powers and warlord traits are no longer random gen and just cost points now.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Five changes aren't enough.

The "New Topic" button is right on the forum page, if it bothers you that much.

It doesn't bother me, but I got brainlock trying to narrow it down to five, so I was just being honest.

1. Switch to a D10 system so that you can actually have more clearly defined levels of skill in combat/rolls, especially when stats go 1-10.
2. Psychic power reversion: More reliable and less explosive in power.
3. Flyers, and everything around them. I feel like certain armies just come with free counters built in, while others have to over-pay or spam-n-pray. But that's really just a symptom of the problem of flyers to me.
4. Death to random assaults! (or at least, make them much less random.)
5. Random warlord traits/psychic powers/etc. are a thing I hate. I feel like a lot of them are really neat, but half of them need to be built around to really do anything, and getting the right one isn't reliable, therefore all the charts become "Those two things I want and the 'bad rolls.'"

Models that jink on there way to close combat count as disorderly charge.

Models have to move a minimum distance befor it can jink

MC take d3 wounds from large blast.

Snapshot is - 3 to bs, and can only fire blast weapons if bs is 2 or more.

Very bulky models or bulk can be hit with grenades in close combat.

1. Less saturation
2. Ban superheavies and gargantua (permitted only in apo games)
3. Ignore cover reduces better save to 5+
4. Ap6 weapons can only damage AV10, AP 5 AV11 and so on (bye scatterlaser)
5. Infantry in cover can reroll failed 1 on armour save (but not cover or inv save)

The Deer Hunter wrote:

2. Ban superheavies and gargantua (permitted only in apo games)

I've wondered what the big deal with superheavies is. It's not like a baneblade is unstoppable while a baneblade's point cost in Russes are pushovers. GMCs have their fair share of issues, but largely related to wound allocation and how they tank damage (and sometimes point cost), they seem to be roughly balanced as far their offensive punch and rules interact with the rest of the game when properly costed (and it's not as though undercosted units are only an issue when it comes to superheavies and GMCs). It just seems like inertia, they used to be apoc only and so they should never been anything but apoc.

Its not matter of inertia, GMC and SH are simplyout of scale in game of 1500-2000 points, models are out of scale, too big in a 48x72 inches battlefield, their rules are inappropriate (strD, 12' move, almost immune to ID and venom, split fire) too many exceptions to the normal rules.
This game imo needs to come back in time when AP2 weapons were rare and so were 2+armour saves, when a heavy 3 weapons was the pinnacle of saturation.

The Deer Hunter wrote:

3. Ignore cover reduces better save to 5+

I can agree with that only if also make jink saves invuln instead of cover saves. Otherwise with a max 5+ jink save, orks and DE which are currently low-mid tiers, wouldn't pass turn 3 without being tabled.

1) introduce negative to hit modifiers for range, movement, and cover.

2) introduce multiple wound characteristics to certain weapons and scrap the instant death rule.

3) do something other than the igougo turn structure. Maybe scrap phases altogether, ala bolt action.

4) make AP weapons a modifier to armor saves rather than an all or nothing thing.

5) chill the heck out on super duper buffs/units/saves etc... a re rollable low invulnerable save just shouldn't be a thing, strength D is kind of silly in a game of infantry, etc...

Why should modifiers be only negative?

Well, they don't.

Usually I think the base to hit chance is assuming ideal conditions however, so that's what I was thinking.

dosiere wrote:
Well, they don't.

Usually I think the base to hit chance is assuming ideal conditions however, so that's what I was thinking.

Still, it is easier to hit a barn than an outhouse, just like it should be easier to hit a Land Raider standing still than a Land Speeder standing still.

My changes are:
1. Replace all Re-Rolls with Dice Modifiers
2. Go back to 4th or 5th Edition Wound Allocation/Mass Saves instead of the current one all hits on closest model
3. Replace AP with Armor Save Modifiers to make both AP and Armor less all or nothing
4. Change Psychic Power Resolution to something less WFB and more AOS to speed up resolution and eliminate Psychic Dominance
5. Place all movement, except post Assault Consolidation and other "In the Assault Phase" movement, in the Movement phase