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.

1. Do away with all random movement. Difficult terrain becomes half distance while you're in the terrain. Run becomes half your movement. Charge becomes movement + 3" or similar.

2. Battle Brothers allies can no longer join other faction units, cast blessings on each other, or ride in their transports. With the VERY SMALL exception of Inquisitors.

3. Look Out Sir passes automatically, but you must declare if you'll LOS before the enemy rolls to hit, exactly like jinks; and its per shooting attack rather than per allocated wound. No more tanking hits on an IC until they're nearly dead and then mooks jumping in front of them; make it all or nothing.

4. Fix up movement so that everything is less mobile, except for infantry. Make facing more important. In effect reverse the movement rules so that bog standard infantry are the least affected by movement hampering abilities and the best affected by cover. Tanks should NOT be more nimble than a dude on foot. Faster under ideal situations, but it shouldn't be able to pirouette. For example this might look like:
- Infantry are not affected by difficult terrain
- Bikes, Cavalry are affected by difficult terrain
- Tanks must spend 25% of their movement to turn 90 degrees: or a free 45 degree turn for every 25% of forward movement. They must move in the direction of their facing (except for skimmers).
- While you're fixing up tank movement, add some very hard rules about firing arcs. Every weapon on a vehicle should have a well defined firing arc, not just whatever it looks like on the model.

5. Get rid of the D.

I think it defeats the purpose of bringing battle brother allies if I get no benefit from bringing them like with Allies of convenience... As an Armies of the Imperium guy, I'll just have to happily ally with Eldar all the time

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I think it defeats the purpose of bringing battle brother allies if I get no benefit from bringing them like with Allies of convenience... As an Armies of the Imperium guy, I'll just have to happily ally with Eldar all the time

Considering the purpose of Battle Brothers 99% of the time is to create unstoppable psychic deathstars and completely counteract all the problems that exist within a unit, I'm ok with that.

Battle Brothers just make the game even more impossible to balance than it already is.

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.
2. Ranged weapons gain hit bonuses at close range and against large targets. Essentially this would work as follows; +1 to-Hit within 8", +1 to-Hit vs vehicles (+1 more if they moved less than 6"), +2 to-Hit vs buildings. Right now close range firefights feel incredibly inaccurate, and vehicles and freakin' buildings are no easier to hit than a gretchin cowering behind a wall.
3. Chainswords gain minimum Strength 4 and AP5; a god-damned chainsaw sword shouldn't be equivalent to an unaugmented human slapping you. Shotguns (possibly other weapons) gain Quick to Fire, letting them fire one shot at full BS for Overwatch. There's probably a bunch of other weak weapons in need of tweaks, but these are the ones that stand out in most of my games.
4. Nerf And They Shall Know No Fear; if a unit falls back but is caught by Sweeping Advance, then it may not attack at all in the next round of combat. Instead of immunity to Fear, its penalty is reduced to -1 Weapon Skill, right now with so many marine armies Fear is basically pointless, yet it's on practically every Warlord Trait table.
5. Nerf assault grenades; now that everyone has them, except for some weird exceptions that probably should, defending obstacles is pointless. I'd rather see a different effect like forcing the enemy to re-roll successful to-Hit rolls in the first round; it's not quite as fluffy, but isn't as severe as eliminating their advantage completely.

Damn, really I need 6, since several of these nerf combat units even more than they already have; one house-rule I've used and like is that a unit charges as if it is Fleet if it does nothing in the Shooting phase, which can make charges a lot easier for units that have to get into combat.

Trasvi wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I think it defeats the purpose of bringing battle brother allies if I get no benefit from bringing them like with Allies of convenience... As an Armies of the Imperium guy, I'll just have to happily ally with Eldar all the time

Considering the purpose of Battle Brothers 99% of the time is to create unstoppable psychic deathstars and completely counteract all the problems that exist within a unit, I'm ok with that.

Battle Brothers just make the game even more impossible to balance than it already is.

They aren't unstoppable deathstars, not by a long shot. Send one Culexus Assassin in there. No more invisibility. You've got a couple Vindicators? Pound those fether's into oblivion. They aren't unstoppable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haravikk wrote:

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.
2. Ranged weapons gain hit bonuses at close range and against large targets. Essentially this would work as follows; +1 to-Hit within 8", +1 to-Hit vs vehicles (+1 more if they moved less than 6"), +2 to-Hit vs buildings. Right now close range firefights feel incredibly inaccurate, and vehicles and freakin' buildings are no easier to hit than a gretchin cowering behind a wall.
3. Chainswords gain minimum Strength 4 and AP5; a god-damned chainsaw sword shouldn't be equivalent to an unaugmented human slapping you. Shotguns (possibly other weapons) gain Quick to Fire, letting them fire one shot at full BS for Overwatch. There's probably a bunch of other weak weapons in need of tweaks, but these are the ones that stand out in most of my games.
4. Nerf And They Shall Know No Fear; if a unit falls back but is caught by Sweeping Advance, then it may not attack at all in the next round of combat. Instead of immunity to Fear, its penalty is reduced to -1 Weapon Skill, right now with so many marine armies Fear is basically pointless, yet it's on practically every Warlord Trait table.
5. Nerf assault grenades; now that everyone has them, except for some weird exceptions that probably should, defending obstacles is pointless. I'd rather see a different effect like forcing the enemy to re-roll successful to-Hit rolls in the first round; it's not quite as fluffy, but isn't as severe as eliminating their advantage completely.

Damn, really I need 6, since several of these nerf combat units even more than they already have; one house-rule I've used and like is that a unit charges as if it is Fleet if it does nothing in the Shooting phase, which can make charges a lot easier for units that have to get into combat.

1: Marines do not need another thing negating their armour saves.
2: Great, can't wait to get Devilfish rushed and blown off the board because those fire warriors have 50 shots at BS4
3: What is the purpose of this?
4: If I have to use ATSKNF, I am being tabled. Fear is the most useless USR in the game.
5: Because Assault units need another nerf right?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.
2. Ranged weapons gain hit bonuses at close range and against large targets. Essentially this would work as follows; +1 to-Hit within 8", +1 to-Hit vs vehicles (+1 more if they moved less than 6"), +2 to-Hit vs buildings. Right now close range firefights feel incredibly inaccurate, and vehicles and freakin' buildings are no easier to hit than a gretchin cowering behind a wall.
3. Chainswords gain minimum Strength 4 and AP5; a god-damned chainsaw sword shouldn't be equivalent to an unaugmented human slapping you. Shotguns (possibly other weapons) gain Quick to Fire, letting them fire one shot at full BS for Overwatch. There's probably a bunch of other weak weapons in need of tweaks, but these are the ones that stand out in most of my games.
4. Nerf And They Shall Know No Fear; if a unit falls back but is caught by Sweeping Advance, then it may not attack at all in the next round of combat. Instead of immunity to Fear, its penalty is reduced to -1 Weapon Skill, right now with so many marine armies Fear is basically pointless, yet it's on practically every Warlord Trait table.
5. Nerf assault grenades; now that everyone has them, except for some weird exceptions that probably should, defending obstacles is pointless. I'd rather see a different effect like forcing the enemy to re-roll successful to-Hit rolls in the first round; it's not quite as fluffy, but isn't as severe as eliminating their advantage completely.

Damn, really I need 6, since several of these nerf combat units even more than they already have; one house-rule I've used and like is that a unit charges as if it is Fleet if it does nothing in the Shooting phase, which can make charges a lot easier for units that have to get into combat.

1: Marines do not need another thing negating their armour saves.
2: Great, can't wait to get Devilfish rushed and blown off the board because those fire warriors have 50 shots at BS4
3: What is the purpose of this?
4: If I have to use ATSKNF, I am being tabled. Fear is the most useless USR in the game.
5: Because Assault units need another nerf right?

I should point out that these wouldn't be intended as bolt on directly to the current edition as-is, stuff would need some balancing to account for it; the question didn't specify "how would you change the current rules without requiring changes to codexes because those are perfect as they are" after all. So:

1. Actually this makes Marines more resistant to AP3, there isn't a whole lot of AP4 out there these days anyway.
2. Then make it only if the unit didn't move then. That issue is partly a problem with how units can shoot when disembarking from vehicles (and largely thanks to Rapid Fire being significantly buffed for no reason), with 5 tweaks I can't fix everything
3. Because chainswords and shotguns suck badly; chainswords are chainsaws described in the fluff as carving through armour, but they're about as effective as a wet paper bag in-game. Shotguns are fine for shooting then assaulting, but just horrible if you're the one that gets charged, which makes little sense; if they're so convenient to fire while charging, then they should be similarly convenient to fire when being charged. It might be a waste of one of five when there are more major problems, but I want these weapons to actually serve some kind of purpose dammit!
4. Fear is useless because of ATSKNF, though I'll admit it could with being non-dependent on a Leadership test, as many armies have high leadership anyway, still, ATSKNF is basically one of those bad game-design rules that effectively eliminates a bunch of penalties that everyone else has, which messes around with core mechanics far too much. It may not fix the game, but it's a rule that I hate as when it does kick in it's largely annoying.
5. Again, can't fix everything. It's not intended to nerf assault units specifically, but to eliminate the fact that defending obstacles is pointless; either defending obstacles should just be removed from the game (so grenades are just for throwing) or assault grenades need to change so there's a reason to not just fight everyone out in the open. That also has issues with things like cover saves being useless on well armoured units and such, but again, the game has a lot more than five problems that need fixing

 Haravikk wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.
2. Ranged weapons gain hit bonuses at close range and against large targets. Essentially this would work as follows; +1 to-Hit within 8", +1 to-Hit vs vehicles (+1 more if they moved less than 6"), +2 to-Hit vs buildings. Right now close range firefights feel incredibly inaccurate, and vehicles and freakin' buildings are no easier to hit than a gretchin cowering behind a wall.
3. Chainswords gain minimum Strength 4 and AP5; a god-damned chainsaw sword shouldn't be equivalent to an unaugmented human slapping you. Shotguns (possibly other weapons) gain Quick to Fire, letting them fire one shot at full BS for Overwatch. There's probably a bunch of other weak weapons in need of tweaks, but these are the ones that stand out in most of my games.
4. Nerf And They Shall Know No Fear; if a unit falls back but is caught by Sweeping Advance, then it may not attack at all in the next round of combat. Instead of immunity to Fear, its penalty is reduced to -1 Weapon Skill, right now with so many marine armies Fear is basically pointless, yet it's on practically every Warlord Trait table.
5. Nerf assault grenades; now that everyone has them, except for some weird exceptions that probably should, defending obstacles is pointless. I'd rather see a different effect like forcing the enemy to re-roll successful to-Hit rolls in the first round; it's not quite as fluffy, but isn't as severe as eliminating their advantage completely.

Damn, really I need 6, since several of these nerf combat units even more than they already have; one house-rule I've used and like is that a unit charges as if it is Fleet if it does nothing in the Shooting phase, which can make charges a lot easier for units that have to get into combat.

1: Marines do not need another thing negating their armour saves.
2: Great, can't wait to get Devilfish rushed and blown off the board because those fire warriors have 50 shots at BS4
3: What is the purpose of this?
4: If I have to use ATSKNF, I am being tabled. Fear is the most useless USR in the game.
5: Because Assault units need another nerf right?

I should point out that these wouldn't be intended as bolt on directly to the current edition as-is, stuff would need some balancing to account for it; the question didn't specify "how would you change the current rules without requiring changes to codexes because those are perfect as they are" after all. So:

1. Actually this makes Marines more resistant to AP3, there isn't a whole lot of AP4 out there these days anyway.
2. Then make it only if the unit didn't move then. That issue is partly a problem with how units can shoot when disembarking from vehicles (and largely thanks to Rapid Fire being significantly buffed for no reason), with 5 tweaks I can't fix everything
3. Because chainswords and shotguns suck badly; chainswords are chainsaws described in the fluff as carving through armour, but they're about as effective as a wet paper bag in-game. Shotguns are fine for shooting then assaulting, but just horrible if you're the one that gets charged, which makes little sense; if they're so convenient to fire while charging, then they should be similarly convenient to fire when being charged. It might be a waste of one of five when there are more major problems, but I want these weapons to actually serve some kind of purpose dammit!
4. Fear is useless because of ATSKNF, though I'll admit it could with being non-dependent on a Leadership test, as many armies have high leadership anyway, still, ATSKNF is basically one of those bad game-design rules that effectively eliminates a bunch of penalties that everyone else has, which messes around with core mechanics far too much. It may not fix the game, but it's a rule that I hate as when it does kick in it's largely annoying.
5. Again, can't fix everything. It's not intended to nerf assault units specifically, but to eliminate the fact that defending obstacles is pointless; either defending obstacles should just be removed from the game (so grenades are just for throwing) or assault grenades need to change so there's a reason to not just fight everyone out in the open. That also has issues with things like cover saves being useless on well armoured units and such, but again, the game has a lot more than five problems that need fixing

Admittedly, my gaming group house ruled Fear to "Pass a Ld test or flee combat" just like when you lose combat. Considering none of the people I play regularly have any large amount of Fear units around, this was essentially a none issue.

1) You must move in order to claim a jink save

2) Warhammer fantasy esque charge distances

3) A change to how grav weaponry functions (still good vs. MCs and other such things, but weaker against infantry. maybe to wound roll based on the 'bulk-level' of the model?)

3.5) make it so vehicles can only loose 1 HP to glances per turn? the rest must be pens?

4) Give vehicles an armor save (related to AV or a 'per vehicle' number)

5) change WS to function more like "to wound" rolls. same WS = 4+, 1 better WS = 3+ (so on and so forth)

All in all I think there needs to be some simplification, but at the same time there should be a bit more 'common sense' rulings, things like toe-in cover saves being gone for giant creatures and what not.

change WS to function more like "to wound" rolls. same WS = 4+, 1 better WS = 3+ (so on and so forth)

That's what I want too. My idea was:

Roll a D6 and apply the following modifiers:

+1 if your WS is higher than the targets WS
+2 if your WS is double the targets WS
-1 if your WS is lower than the targets WS
-2 if your WS is half the targets WS or lower

If the result is 4+, you score a hit. So the big chart is replaced with a simple paragraph, and it's now possible to hit on 2+ or only 6. And we're no longer bound to a 1-10 system.

1. Cover is no longer a save, but affects shooting unit's Ballistic Skill. Cover is either "Light" or "Heavy". Light imposes a -1 BS. Heavy imposes a -2.

2. Armor Penetration for non-vehicles is now a save modifier, not an instant-success. Boltguns, for example would become -1 AP. Guardsmen have Armor Save 5+. So now Guardsmen can save a boltgun shot on a 6+ instead of instant dead.

3. Cover is on a Unit against Unit basis, using the majority of models. If 3/4 of your unit is behind a wall, then they all get a cover save.

4. Unit owner assigns wounds to models in the unit. All wounds are assigned to one model until it is removed, then the owner assigns remaining wounds to another model and so on.

5. Special and Heavy Weapons can fire at a different target than the rest of the unit.

Your last suggestion could be done by improving Split Fire. Change it to up to half of the squad can target a different unit rather than just one.

Problem with cover being To-Hit modifier is the way it will affect low-BS units (Ork Boyz). If they shoot in heavy cover, is their BS 0? Or is it 1? If so, there is no difference between light and heavy cover for Orks.

Reroll your 6's if you succeed, but that reroll passes on a 4+

shyzo wrote:
Problem with cover being To-Hit modifier is the way it will affect low-BS units (Ork Boyz). If they shoot in heavy cover, is their BS 0? Or is it 1? If so, there is no difference between light and heavy cover for Orks.

Always hit on 6's in shooting? That might work.

Then there would be no differences between cover types, as Orks will always hit on 6's, regardless of any modifiers,

Yay this sort of thread is really useful to people re-writing the game like I am.

I think this is my personal top 5 core rules to change
1. Redesign army selection to limit the more obnoxious things. Percentages seem like a useful if cumbersome method. e.g. no single model can cost more than 20% of total army points
2. Re-write the psychic phase, closer to 6th than 7th.
3. Vehicle damage table, hull points and glancing hits. Make glances a -2 on the damage table. Anything under a result of 4 is no effect. Replace 'explodes' with 'lose 2 hull points'
4. Remove pre-game rolls - warlord traits, psychic powers
5. Replace random movement distances (run, difficult terrain, charge)

and the honourable mentions: Look Out Sir and Challenges can both be removed entirely.

Keep 'em coming. I'm tallying up the different suggestions as a guide for writing my own edition exactly like I did with a similar thread on Warseer last year. I'll post the tally after more people chime in.

shyzo wrote:
Then there would be no differences between cover types, as Orks will always hit on 6's, regardless of any modifiers,

That's true. It would effectively remove all Ork shooting.

So, scrap that idea, then.

Zustiur wrote:
Yay this sort of thread is really useful to people re-writing the game like I am.

I think this is my personal top 5 core rules to change
1. Redesign army selection to limit the more obnoxious things. Percentages seem like a useful if cumbersome method. e.g. no single model can cost more than 20% of total army points
2. Re-write the psychic phase, closer to 6th than 7th.
3. Vehicle damage table, hull points and glancing hits. Make glances a -2 on the damage table. Anything under a result of 4 is no effect. Replace 'explodes' with 'lose 2 hull points'
4. Remove pre-game rolls - warlord traits, psychic powers
5. Replace random movement distances (run, difficult terrain, charge)

and the honourable mentions: Look Out Sir and Challenges can both be removed entirely.

Keep 'em coming. I'm tallying up the different suggestions as a guide for writing my own edition exactly like I did with a similar thread on Warseer last year. I'll post the tally after more people chime in.

1) It's less the game and more people abusing the best things I limitation such as percentages would help, but in a day and age where people are asking for simplified rules (not AOS simplified mind you) it could lead to whining
2) I like 7th's psychic phase. it's not to broken (unless the player chooses to break it) and it functions fine in both fantasy and 40k, though it does go against that 'simple' ideal
3) I like
4) I'm not sure on this one. I know a lot of players whine about it, but I don't honestly think it's that bad
5) Kinda sorta agree. there needs to be some degree of random, but something like adding you're movement to charge ranges or something along those lines would be nice

5.5) No challenges are cool I think if the rule was reworked so ONLY challenges could hit inside of challenges, and spare wounds were discarded rather than turned on the squad, it would be better, but I wouldn't remove it.

1) WS vs WS table now uses exact same table as Toughness vs Strength.

2) Charge distance is 4" Plus Initiative. (Orks 'ere we go adds 2 to charge distance, +4 on a waagh)

3) MCs and Vehicles both use the VDT, VDT is now a bonus to wounds caused by AP3/2/1 weapons. Weapons with AP currently at 4 or worse can only glance. Explodes is changed to +D3HP. Tank type vehicles have a 6++ armor plating save, Heavy type vehicles have 5++ armor plating.

4) AP 4, 3, 2, 1 reworked to be -1, -2, -3, -4 to armor save. AP5/6 removed.

5) Charging is allowed when disembarking from a stationary vehicle, and outflanking. Charging from Deep Strike or Infiltrate is allowed if the unit forgoes its shooting phase, and results in a disorganized charge.

6) Morale is....fixed. This will take more than 1 specific change, but basically, morale affects everybody SOMEHOW.

 Brennonjw wrote:

1) It's less the game and more people abusing the best things I limitation such as percentages would help, but in a day and age where people are asking for simplified rules (not AOS simplified mind you) it could lead to whining
2) I like 7th's psychic phase. it's not to broken (unless the player chooses to break it) and it functions fine in both fantasy and 40k, though it does go against that 'simple' ideal
3) I like
4) I'm not sure on this one. I know a lot of players whine about it, but I don't honestly think it's that bad
5) Kinda sorta agree. there needs to be some degree of random, but something like adding you're movement to charge ranges or something along those lines would be nice

5.5) No challenges are cool I think if the rule was reworked so ONLY challenges could hit inside of challenges, and spare wounds were discarded rather than turned on the squad, it would be better, but I wouldn't remove it.

2) Yes and no. It is open to abuse in its 7th ed form. Also the tyranid player in my group demonstrated to me just how messed up it is. For the express purpose of demonstrating, he took a 1000pt army entirely of zoanthropes. He failed to kill a single unit in my army before I tabled him. It was at this point that I wrote my draft rules for the Psychic phase. He's been a lot happier ever since.

4) Pregame rolls aren't 'that bad' in terms of overpowering or unbalancing. In fact the opposite is true. Often we forget to roll for warlord traits, or forget to use them after rolling. They just don't make a difference, so why waste 2 pages of core rules + a table in every codex? It'd be better to just assign a fluffy rule to each possible warlord in the codex and be done with it. At least they might get remembered that way because they might factor into your decision for choosing that warlord.

5) That's what I get for oversimplifying to fit the format of this thread. Charge still has an element of random in my rules. It's half-unit-type-speed +1d6". So normal infantry get 3+1d6", giving a range of 4-10" with an average of 6.5". The rest are just fixed numbers though.

Pop on over to my thread, I'd love your input. Just PM me here if you don't have an account on Warseer.

IF the force organisation system did its job properly , we would not need all this 'add on stuff' like Detachments and Formations.

1)Force organisation is now based on rarity of units in 6 to 12 themed forces for each faction.
HQ allows 2 to 8 Common units,
For every 2 Common units, you may take a Support unit,
For every 2 Support units you may take a Specialized unit.

This allows a series of balanced fluffy lists , suitable for everyone!

2)Do we need a separate psychic phase?

3)Vehicles should be covered the same as every other unit in the game with the new core rules.

4)Pre game rolls , no, just not fun or fluffy just randum.

5) Have movement rates and give limited modifiers for terrain, to remove more randum rolls from the game.

1. No toe in cover nonsense. partial cover is based on direction of firing unit.

2. Cover is stated has pros and cons. Your unit moves into cover, you state "my pathfinders are in cover" and mark them with a token" so there is no true line of sight crud. If you want that save for being in cover, you move slow.

3. Ruins are dangerous terrain. This is personal, I feel like the game has just turned into, lets load the table with ruins, because everything is ap2 or ap3, so we might as well all have a 50% chance to live. That isn't a really good solution to a bigger problem though. I do think there should be stated terrain types with more pros/cons. It should be easy for us to state what terrain is what when the game starts.

4. Psychic.... everything. Powers, random rolling, the phase, all changed. Don't know to what, but it kind of stinks right now. Never heard a good word about it. No more random ass rolls, put point values on that stuff. Nut up and do some game balance or something! My Rune priest with Runic Axe and Bike, rolling with thunderwolves all ready to punch face totally stinks when he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and knows how to overwatch at full ballistic skill or some nonsense. "Sorry guys, didn't have my ale this morning..."

5. My biggest want/need: More specific game types. We have Maelstrom and Eternal war. I want Escalation back, and I know a good grip of people would like it back too. It had some good rules! It makes it easy to get games with giant stuff without giving your list away. Right now I don't want to show up to the shop with a warhound, I might face someone new, or no one at all. I don't want to post "Hey guys, looking for a game with my warhound" online, because then its tailor central. Just bring all your drop pod haywire stuff. If I could say, "Looking for a 3K escalation game" you know what is up. I am bringing something big, and inviting you to do the same. It isn't apoc, so no nillywilly crap, just some big lords of war slapping each other in the face.

As soon as it becomes apoc, all bets are off and its the most cheesy invisible ++2 rerolling stuff ever. I know because I do it too! I know Ill be facing 3 taunar suits and the biggest farsight bomb in existance while 6 wraithknights shoot me. Its just a cheesefest. Bring back escalation and give us more game modes.

1. Re-roll de-buff or no rerolls.
2. Make vehicles less likely to Explode.
3. Make perils of the warp ALL bad outcomes.
4. Allow jump/jet infantry vector strike + assault fliers.
5. Either spread the D around to other factions or remove entirely.

GMC's allow reroll of successful poison to wound rolls, rather than poison wounding on 6+.

Double HP for all vehicles. With Pennn Hits doing two HP damage.

Instant Death changed to doing D3 wounds, EW means you roll two dice for IC, picking the lowest.

Invulnerable Save after Armour save. Inv Save also becoming rarer and crapper.

Fearless means reroll failed leadership tests.

Overwatch requires a successful initiative test (once per unit), still fire at BS1.

As promised, a summary of this thread so far. You may feel I've over generalized some of the categories but that's the only way to avoid listing 1000 different issues.
Rule # of Mentions Lords of War/Gargantuan Creatures/Superheavies 13 Vehicle damage 13 Charge distance 10 Psychic phase and psychic mechanics 10 Charge restrictions (reserves, deep strike, transports) 9 Army selection: CAD vs Detachments vs Formations vs %s 8 Psychic power balance 8 Specific army hate 7 Weapon skill table 7 Save mechanics: AP/armour save modifiers 7 Strength D 7 Random warlord traits and psychic powers 6 Cover saves 6 Jink 5 Relentless 5 Cover determination 5 Weapons causing multiple wounds 5 Casualty selection/wound allocation 4 Overwatch 4 Movement speed 4 Battle brothers 3 Snap fire mechanics 3 Phase order, I-go-you-go etc 3 Mission scoring methods 3 Rerolled saves 3 Monstrous Creatures damage 3 Game scale 2 Sweeping advance 2 Overall game complexity 2 FAQs/speed of rules updates 2 Movement as a stat 2 Random movement distances 2 Walker movement 2 Tactical options 2 Assault vs Shooting balance 2 Ballistic skill modifiers 2 Blast markers vs number of hits 2 Blast targeting 2 Weapon range 2 Barrage Pinning 2 Fear 2 Flying (flyers and FMC mechanics) 2 AV vs Toughness 2 Chainswords 2 Look Out Sir 2 Morale should be more important 2 Allies existing at all 1 Flyers existing at all 1 Transports with objective secured 1 Assault grenades 1 Initiative during charge 1 Deployment of detachments vs formations etc 1 Movement in the movement phase only 1 Shooting at flyers/FMCs 1 Target selection 1 And They Shall Know No Fear 1 Ignores Cover 1 Sniper 1 Special rule bloat 1 Special rule spreading in mixed units 1 Number of phases 1 Jump infantry 1 Monstrous creature special rules 1 Sudden death/tabling 1 Grav weapons 1 Night fighting 1 Strength or availablility of Rerolling 1 Invulnerable saves 1

5 things to change?

1: The BRB
2: The Codexes
3: GW's rules writers
4: GW's fluff writers
5: TFG's


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I vote for game scale to be reduced, and for light infantry to get a damn role.

Accidental necro, sorry.

1 no to roll of a 6 does X. It's often way to easy to just throw dice and by sheer volume guarentee the result (guass, rending, touch of rust, GRAV.

2 following up on grav. It does not strip a hull point and temporarily immobilises vehicles.

3 MC are not ap2 built in

4 any form of bike is not relentless

5 cover modifies the to hit instead of being its own save, anything beyond a 6+ cannot be hit. Jinking while charging adds a +2 to the charge distance

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely yes to all five. AoS has a good way to tackle a multi-wound mechanic. And I think we could ditch templates altogether. Seriously, they only slow the game down. Everyone should be be able to charge out of a transport, with assault transports simply providing a bonus of some sorts. Reserves can be looked at again. And no more randomness. Although that would require a rethink about balance.