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.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:


Spells have different values that they are cast on. A low level spell would be like 6+ or 7+ to cast. Where as a high level powerful spell would be 18+ or 21+ to cast. You choose how many power dice you want to throw at the spell in order to cast it. So a higher level spell would require more dice to cast it successfully. Then you add +1 to the casting value for every magic level (psychic mastery level) your wizard is. So if you had a level 3 wizard you add +3 to whatever you rolled to cast the spell. The opponent then gets to attempt to dispel the cast the exact same way but they have to match or beat what you rolled and add their wizard levels too.

I think this style of psychic power casting would be better overall for the game because it promotes more complex game play by needing to properly manage casting and dispelling pool as opposed to throwing a bunch of dice and praying for 4+ or 6+ if you are attempting to stop a spell, which is in my opinion, a gakky, overly simplified way of adding a magic phase. It makes an all or nothing situation for many armies which I hate.

The WHFB spellcasting system also had a neat risk/reward system. If you rolled two or more 6s, the spell was cast with "irresistible force" and couldn't be dispelled, but it would also cause a miscast (basically Perils of the Warp). It was pretty cool because you could brute force a spell through if you really needed to but there would be consequences. You wouldn't always want to cast with irresistible force for that reason, so how many dice you put into a spell took a little consideration, especially since if a caster failed to cast a spell he couldn't cast any further spells that turn.

The currently terrible WS chart - units with twice or more WS than their opponent should hit on better than 3+.

 koooaei wrote:

You can't wound a model when it's Toughness >= 2 * Str of the attack

And S6+ is much more common than T10 so the theoretical cap is just that

 Mr Morden wrote:
The currently terrible WS chart - units with twice or more WS than their opponent should hit on better than 3+.

to hit should be the same for ranged and melee attacks
WS VS WS makes no sence if the common value is 3+ or 4+ while for ranged attacks 2+ to 6+ is possible

Remove tables. Pick what you want instead of random roles. WS/BS are straight to hit numbers (i.e. 3+).
Remove hull points. Use the AoS Monster system instead.
No instant death.
Remove special rules from the main rules. Units special rules are on that unit's entry.
Release points for formations (and back date).
Combat is IGUG.
Scrap overwatch.
Scrap templates.
Change AP to -s to save.

Those are my quickfire thoughts.

1: Ditch Allies entirely. The rules aren't needed for thematic games, but having them in there provides a very powerful tool for powergamers to cheese lists out more than they could have ever dreamed of prior to 6th ed. Good riddance.

2: 40% Troops requirement for all armies, whether they're formations or not. You want that formation that doesn't have any Troops in it? Better have a CAD detachment with your Troops requirement. Troops are supposed to be the most common units in any faction's army. Lists should reflect this.

3: Selfish psykers. Psykers can only use their own power dice and those generated by the Harness the Warp roll at the beginning of the psychic phase. Tones down the cheese the psychic phase currently allows, and lets a single psyker be relevant against an army full of psykers.

4: Generally make assault easier - allow a unit to disembark from a transport that hasn't moved and assault in the same turn. Allow units to assault when they come onto the table from Reserves, except when they Deep Strike. Allow units that Infiltrate and make Scout moves the possibility of assaulting on the first turn.

5: Instead of having a separate LOW slot, I'd make superheavies/GMCs take up all of an army's Heavy Support slots. Maybe make superheavies/GMCs only available in a CAD.

6: For a simple change, maybe give all vehicles +1 HP rather than rewriting how they work wholesale.

7: Give all weapons that are S8+ Instant Death 6, where a to-wound roll of 6 results in Instant Death if not saved against. Puts MCs closer to being in the same boat as vehicles, and represents the possibility of hitting them in a vital area.


I like the idea of Formations in general. I like seeing armies have incentives to bring thematically-appropriate lists. How often were Space Marine players bringing to tourneys armies consisting of 30 Tac Marines, 10 Assault Marines, and 10 Devastator Marines before they were getting free transports from the Gladius formation? Plus, it's how GW does variant lists like the Deathwing and the Ravenwing now instead of having FOC swaps. That said, the balance could be better. Personally, I'd like the Gladius-style formations better if you could take just 1 and get free transports, but you have to take full 10-man squads to unlock the free tranports.

I also kind of wish that SM Tac, Assault, and Dev squads were all 10pts more expensive and came with veteran sergeants automatically. I can never bring myself to spend those points, but it feels wrong to not have the vet sergeants.

To be honest? I'd make things closer to AoS in the following regards:

* 3x styles of play (Casual/Open, Narrative, Matched Play)
* App with datasheets available for free for every unit, unlocking formations is okay
* Simplified rules: X+ to hit, X+ to wound, Rending replaces AP, Invulnerable saves stay as they are, mortal wounds likely are not a thing except maybe for ordinance weapons (not sure here)
* Reduce the scale of the game just a small bit, comparable to average AoS size + vehicles
* Focus on campaign type supplements that highlight ways to play the game in a narrative style, instead of "Here's some big expensive models buy buy buy!!"
* Not sure how to handle alliances, honestly. It makes sense Imperium can take say Guard + Marines, but it can be overpowering. maybe not allow it in matched play only?
* Matched Play puts a limit on monstrous creatures and the like (e.g. Riptides, Wraithknights).

Just some thoughts.

 kodos wrote:

And S6+ is much more common than T10 so the theoretical cap is just that

There's plenty of s3 and s4 that often meet t7 and t8.

Change AP to -s to save.

This is so needed. I understand that AP needs to be relevant.. but also having dope armor shouldnt just be TOTALLY negated by some weapons. Also on your instant death point.. I also agree. I never thought about it before.. but yeah removing instant death is a really good idea. Whats the difference if a bolter shot pops you in the face or a lascannon wounds you in the leg.. why would that instantly kill you? my meganobs would get a huge buff

-Vehicle gains Armour saves of some kind (preferably between 3+ & 5+, with very rare occasions of 2+)
-Melta & Ordanance weapons do D3 wounds to multi-wound models (looking at MCs here)
-Allies toned down, BBs treat each other like friendly units, but cannot embark at all in each others transports nor can IC's join BB units. Come the Apoc allies are only allowed in Unbound games.
-No longer unlimited Detachments, possibly limit only 1 Detachment per 500 pts of game size (so only 3 detahments allowed in 1850, 4 for 2000).
-All jetbikes get the jet-pack move (hence "jet" bike) and 24" turbo-boost including Eldar jetbikes. no more 36" just for Eldar
-"6" results on D only causes D3+2 wounds/HPs with no saves
-"6" results on Stomp is str10, AP1 Armourbane instead of outright being removed
-GMCs are only -1 to wound for Poison. So Poison 4+ needs a 5+ to wound, not the current 6+
-Only Infantry (including Jump- & Jetpack-) Troops can have Objective Secured

I think that would fix about 90% of the imbalances between armies, without even needing to change anything in the Codices. Obviously there will still be armies that are better than others, but these changes should bring the gaps much closer.

-

2: 40% Troops requirement for all armies, whether they're formations or not. You want that formation that doesn't have any Troops in it? Better have a CAD detachment with your Troops requirement. Troops are supposed to be the most common units in any faction's army. Lists should reflect this.

That would hurt some of the lower Dex's even worse, considering the better armies tend to have much better troops as well.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

2: 40% Troops requirement for all armies, whether they're formations or not. You want that formation that doesn't have any Troops in it? Better have a CAD detachment with your Troops requirement. Troops are supposed to be the most common units in any faction's army. Lists should reflect this.

That would hurt some of the lower Dex's even worse, considering the better armies tend to have much better troops as well.

That would also INCREASE the number of Scatterbikes you'd see. And no one wants that to happen.
I think the easiest solution is to go back to the earlier additions idea that only Troops can score, but modify it.
As I suggested above, only Infantry Troops should have Objective Secured.

By only allowing Troops to score, players will bring more Troops. By only allowing INFANTRY Troops to have ObSec, you tone down Scatterbike spam and Gladius free Transport spam.

-

D6's are frequently used in any game that requires rolling large volumes of dice.

D6's are commonly available outside of specialty shops, making them easier to aquire.

D6's are often less expensive to aquire in large quantities, making them more affordable to aquire.

D6's are often available in smaller sizes, making rolling large quantities of them easier.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only commercially succesful game I have ever played that required you roll more than a few dice, that weren't 6 sided, is the White Wolf storyteller line of RPGs. White Wolf's RPG line revovles around rolling D10's, and generally caps at 10 dice per interaction, with a possible exception in old editions where NPC ancient vampires/mummies, could have stats up to 8, unlike players who capped at 5.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D10s sound cool in theory, but I don't want to roll 60 of them when my Ork boyz rapid fire. Were talking like $60 in dice and having to roll mulitple times to accomplish it.


P.S. If anyone knows where I can buy small d10 singles, for less than a $1 I'd be interested, because in the last 30 years I haven't seen it.

a more detailed list what or how I would change things:

starting with Saves because they are the best example of problem GW have with rule design (or why their rules never work on the long run)

the AP system is not bad and it worked well at the beginning of 3rd edition.
but as soon as low AP weapons could be “spamed” armour was not worth any more
so the tanky units got a 5+ ward save with a WD Errata which sounds not much, but to remember Stormshields were not common and only added a 4+ save in melee at the time.
This “power spiral” turned around and standard marines could have 5+ shield, those turned from “melee only” to general use, Stormshields get a 3+ save etc.
Still not worked that well because to many ward saves broke the game and cover was the new way to go.
In 5th everyone got cover everywhere and armour was not a thing any more.
And now, Cover is not that big because more and more units have access to long range Ignore Cover and a single save for all is not enough and stuff like Feel no Pain appears on more units and get better values (there was a time were 5+ FnP was the best you could get, same like ward saves).
There is now way out without a reset.
The whole system makes it also impossible to calculate a point value, because the value is not based on the save you have, but on how many AP2 weapons are in your opponents list.
A Terminator armour can be worth 60 points if there is no AP2 weapon available or 0 because everyone carries one.

An easy solution for the whole problem would be to roll back and make AP and armour modification again.
Of course it is easier for kids if they don't need to calculate how good the save against a specific weapon is, but for the game it solves a lot of problems.

If it gets more deadlier or not depends on what happens to the cover save and if weapons that negate armour are still on every soldier or not.

For Cover, there are 2 possibilities and the game should use both.
A negative “to hit” modification and an additional save. Just split the current save up and everything like Jink is simple to hit modification while area terrain adds to the save (yeah, if we have modifications it is best that AP is a negative one and reduce armour while cover will add up)



@ detailed rules for bases/models/TLOS
with a large range of different models and ongoing changes of their size, shape and base size, some more detailed descriptions are needed to keep the rules up to date with model releases.

a Size value additional to TLOS instead of “the current model count” would remove the entire problem of conversions or using older (smaller) models giving an advantage.
same for fire arcs, it won't hurt the unit entry to add of the hull mounted weapon can shoot 90° to the front or left/right.

using different base sizes is a problem because not everyone will change bases of finished models and the rule still say “the base the model was delivered with” which can be 25mm for CSM Terminators if you have the old ones.
but the base size is an essential part of the game, it defines melee range and is needed for all measurements.
simple solution would be to add the base size to the unit entry or link the base size to the size value of the unit.

or more complicated solution would be to remove the base size from the rules so it doesn't matter any more which base you are using or if the model has a base at all.
instead of leaving it with this (like AoS did) some other rules need to be added, like a “point blank range” to determine melee range (can be linked to the model size) and how measurements are resolved (no, not like “any part of the model”, more like “always measure from the centre or fixed point of a model, like the top of the helmet of a marine)

This should remove the need to use only new and unconverted models, to re-base them.



@ to hit/wound
the current rules are not bad, but a little streamlining would help.
the “to hit” system should be the same for melee and range attacks and while WS VS WS is nice (in theory) BS VS BS is somehow strange. Also if a table is used, there should be only one table for everything.
So for “to hit” a simple value without a comparison chart would be better and give the possibility to treat ranged and melee attacks similar
like one would say, that going from WS VS WS removes the possibility of units the avoid getting hit because of a high WS but now you have the option to get one USR which says “-x to hit” for Harlequin (as an example) they are now harder to hit with both kind of attacks.

for “to wound” a table with S VS T is fine, but 40k has problem that there are low strength+high ROF weapons which are the solution for everything.
A hardcap of +/-2 would help in general to add more depth to the game because there would be no “one solution for everything” any more.
And this also need to be streamlined and be the same mechanic against every model in the game. Tank Armour can stay, but it should use the same “to wound” mechanics, have health points like everything else etc. (no glancing hits to death or lucky 6 kills)

now there are 2 possibilities, either add armour saves for vehicles, and lower their armour to a value to match the weapons, or add a Strength bonus to weapons against vehicles (eg, Tank Armour is a higher value but has no armour save, so weapons add the AP to their Strength or 7-AP with the current system)

A damage table is not needed, but if it stays it should count for all big things not only vehicles
No reason why a Battle Tank with destroyed tracks cannot move, but a Carnifex without legs and arms can.



@ movement and unit types
the basic idea of 40k was that one unified value for all units make the game much easier and fast and keep it different from fantasy
but now it got more complicated and unit types are only there to add different movement values in a complicated way
adding a value in the units profile will remove a lot of unnecessary stuff from the game and make it less complicated



@ IGYG, reactions and Alpha Strike
Yes, 40k uses a reaction system, which fit well into an IGYG system
the problem is, we don't have one mechanic but three.

the oldest are “striking back in melee” which are a initiative based reactions.
than some reactions take place before the actual action really happen (intercept) and some interrupt it.

using one kind for everything would help to streamline the system and also solve some problems with them.
imagine overwatch being in line with the other reaction and is resolved by initiative, this will help some melee units to get into combat.
but ini based reactions are not that good to be used for everything and while they work in melee (and were only there to keep melee different from fantasy) they are bad for everything else.

So to unify reactions we can take a look to StarShip Troopers, which could have been 40k if GW would not have refused it.
Reactions are done by models in reactions range and not by whole units (like not all models of a unit can attack in melee, only those in range) and are always only triggered after an action is finished (of a unit just moves by and ends the movement with all models outside reaction range, nothing happen).

this allows the passive player to chose if and how they react (strike back in melee, run away or shoot) and the active player as chance to do something (and not get wiped out by overwatch before he reaches melee)

Alpha Strikes is a problem with all IGYG systems but also related to the mission design and how powerful ranged attacks are.
Not an overall solution but a necessary thing is, that the player who deploys first, never ever get the first turn.
Another thing that helps is to let the player decide how he get on the table (deploy, move in at his first turn, or arrive from reserve) and or count all units as being moved in the first turn.


@random tables
just remove them


@ mission design
tournament had some nice stuff over the years, and random missions as solution for bad balanced rules is not the best idea.
I would take something similar to the Nova Open mission design

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

Change AP to -s to save.

This is so needed. I understand that AP needs to be relevant.. but also having dope armor shouldnt just be TOTALLY negated by some weapons. Also on your instant death point.. I also agree. I never thought about it before.. but yeah removing instant death is a really good idea. Whats the difference if a bolter shot pops you in the face or a lascannon wounds you in the leg.. why would that instantly kill you? my meganobs would get a huge buff

Probably because a Lascannon would do more than just "wound" the leg, and a Bolt to the face might be survivable for a 400lb Nob with an obscenely thick skull, especially if behind an armored helmet.

Having a heavy artillery shell land right at your feet and leave nothing but meaty vapor and a red smear is what ID is representing, something where the the attack is so powerful that the target's body loses structural integrity, as opposed to having a hole poked in an important bit to make it not work.

That said, yeah EW makes that whole visual very odd XD

I would keep the battle game size people like, and the background that inspires people to get into 40k in the first place.
And I would write a rule set from scratch with clearly defined scale, scope and game play using these two elements as a starting point.

Because it would be a lot quicker to do ,than try to reverse engineer decades of sales influenced rules decisions that totally screw over the game play and the players.

If you use a D6 in more intelligent ways you can get enough proportional variety to remove the need for pointless special rules and additional complication.Without having to increase the dice size.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

Change AP to -s to save.

This is so needed. I understand that AP needs to be relevant.. but also having dope armor shouldnt just be TOTALLY negated by some weapons. Also on your instant death point.. I also agree. I never thought about it before.. but yeah removing instant death is a really good idea. Whats the difference if a bolter shot pops you in the face or a lascannon wounds you in the leg.. why would that instantly kill you? my meganobs would get a huge buff

I like how my power swords treat power armor like it's not even there, then they go up against artificer armor and aren't at all more effective at penetrating the armor than a Guardsman clubbing the Marine with the butt of their lasgun.

 adamsouza wrote:
D10s sound cool in theory, but I don't want to roll 60 of them when my Ork boyz rapid fire. Were talking like $60 in dice and having to roll mulitple times to accomplish it.

Part of any move to D10's would require a re-think of how pretty much all rolls are resolved. Combining rolling to wound and save into a single roll would reduce required rolls, high RoF weapons could have a lower value "to hit" to reflect the number of shots fired, and/or a better chance of wounding rather than just rolling more dice for everything, etc.

Personally my biggest gripe with 7E is all the USR's. They are not special rules if every single bloody unit has a handful. Write them into the unit profile (like +1T for being a bike, +1A for 2x CCW that they always have, etc). And there are far too many which repeat other rules, or reference about 3 others. Also, while it is cool to have a fluffy name, simplify them and just describe the mechanics of the rule... you can still give them a fluffy description if you really want.