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.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


Actually the opposite is true, it doesn't work model to model (like we have now) it only works unit to unit. You are arguing that cover would be determined model by model, not by unit. It would be simple to say cover is determined by unit. If the majority of the squad is in cover the unit has cover. Then add focus fire, so you can choose to fire on only those models that don't have cover if you want. This means that if there are 10 guardsman and 9 are in cover, but one is not, you likely accept the penalty to your shooting, but if 6 are in cover and 4 are not you may choose to shoot only the 4 not in cover, giving up on wounding the 6 in cover, but forgoing the negative modifier.

I would actually like that a lot, it adds a lot of depth to the decision making in the shooting phase.

Issue with that though is if say you need 50% in cover, if you have 4 in and 6 out the 4 in get zero benefit from being in cover.
I believe cover worked this way in 5th and it wasn't the most popular.

However, model-model cover that we have now still falls apart since shooting is done per unit, so if a model in in cover from the left side of the shooting Tactical squad but not the right, what does that mean?

What do you mean it wasn't popular? I've never heard a complaint about majority cover. It was an elegant system, imo.

As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.

 cuda1179 wrote:
As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.

Technically there's still "area terrain" (like ruins), but yes, essentially classifying more things as area terrain would help a lot. It would be even better if they brought back the fully-blocks-LOS rule (i.e. you can't shoot through a forest to the other side).

Saves, FnP and the growth of bigger and more save-ey MCs came after TLOS was reintroduced into the game. If terrain is better at blocking LOS, there's less pressure to ramp up the toughness of units because you can actually use terrain to not get shot at.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


Actually the opposite is true, it doesn't work model to model (like we have now) it only works unit to unit. You are arguing that cover would be determined model by model, not by unit. It would be simple to say cover is determined by unit. If the majority of the squad is in cover the unit has cover. Then add focus fire, so you can choose to fire on only those models that don't have cover if you want. This means that if there are 10 guardsman and 9 are in cover, but one is not, you likely accept the penalty to your shooting, but if 6 are in cover and 4 are not you may choose to shoot only the 4 not in cover, giving up on wounding the 6 in cover, but forgoing the negative modifier.

I would actually like that a lot, it adds a lot of depth to the decision making in the shooting phase.

Issue with that though is if say you need 50% in cover, if you have 4 in and 6 out the 4 in get zero benefit from being in cover.
I believe cover worked this way in 5th and it wasn't the most popular.

However, model-model cover that we have now still falls apart since shooting is done per unit, so if a model in in cover from the left side of the shooting Tactical squad but not the right, what does that mean?

I don't see why that is a problem because it was your choice to position your models in that way. It is way less convoluted than model by model cover where technically I need to roll separately for each models shots, and saves need to be taken by model. I personally would love terrain to go back to 4e (no TLOS), and have wound allocation return to 4e as well. Taking individual saves for stock troopers slows the game down. I don't want 5e allocation where you can game the system, but closest model is sometimes annoying (if multiple models are very close). If instead you rolled all same saves together, and then removed whichever models you chose from that group it would go much quicker.

I like area terrain.

True line of sight is really cool when it's a unit of Catachan veterans going up against a unit of ork kommandoz in a Kill Team kind of game. It's less cool when it's over a hundred Catachans going up against over a hundred orks.

Breng77 wrote:
have wound allocation return to 4e as well. Taking individual saves for stock troopers slows the game down. I don't want 5e allocation where you can game the system, but closest model is sometimes annoying (if multiple models are very close). If instead you rolled all same saves together, and then removed whichever models you chose from that group it would go much quicker.

100% agree. 4E Wound allocation was fantastic.

Breng77 wrote:
Yup, points costing powers is the best option. My only issue with it is that powers are not worth the same to all psykers or all armies.

As do power weapons. An Imperial Guard T3/S3 5+ save platoon commander pays the same 15 points a T5/S4 3+/4++ save Nurgle champion with a few extra wargear options does.
but that is why extensive play testing, and a living document online, would be ideal. Things such as point cost can be adapted as and when needed.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.

Technically there's still "area terrain" (like ruins), but yes, essentially classifying more things as area terrain would help a lot. It would be even better if they brought back the fully-blocks-LOS rule (i.e. you can't shoot through a forest to the other side).

Saves, FnP and the growth of bigger and more save-ey MCs came after TLOS was reintroduced into the game. If terrain is better at blocking LOS, there's less pressure to ramp up the toughness of units because you can actually use terrain to not get shot at.

THIS!!! so much this.

I long for the days of forrests and patches of woods that blocked line of sight to the other side.

It looks like my preferance for 8th editon boils down to:
A mash-up of 7th and 3rd edition rules, minus rhino rush, with 4th edition wound alocation, a simplified version of 7th edition's Universal Special Rules, getting rid of templates, and streamlining the heck out of things. Playtest until balanced.

I really think a living document for the rules is key.

Without a living document the only way to ensure the game is balanced through printed editions would be to severely reduce the complexity of the game, to a point of simplification that I think would be unacceptable to most players.

We all seem to agree the game is far too bloated at the moment. But equally many of us agree that part of the appeal of wargaming is the complexity compared to other board games.

I would propose the following:

(1.) Living document, either free or subscription based.

(2.) Printed rule book for those (including myself) who like a hardcopy book. However this should not have a load of fluff or pictures. It should be very basic and consequently very cheap. Almost like a free handout (except not because otherwise kids will take a new one everytime they enter a GW). Also available as a free PDF for people to print at home.

(3.) Amend rules as necessary on a periodic basis- every 4 or 6 months.

(4.) When rules have been amended, cheaply re-print the hardcopy or make available via PDF for people to print themselves

Curiosity question in regards to Independent Characters:

Age of Sigmar removed the ability for their equivalent of Independent Characters to join units while at the same time greatly increasing their Wounds.

Dawn of War 2 also went with this method as well (but also went with very small units, too, so...).

Would you prefer 40K 8th to use this route?

It would solve a few rules issues in 40K that have become more and more pronounced as Formations started picking up steam (both in interpretation and balance). On the other hand, it makes Characters much more vulnerable and easy to pick out and destroy, especially if things like First Blood remain available.

 Charistoph wrote:
Curiosity question in regards to Independent Characters:

Age of Sigmar removed the ability for their equivalent of Independent Characters to join units while at the same time greatly increasing their Wounds.

Dawn of War 2 also went with this method as well (but also went with very small units, too, so...).

Would you prefer 40K 8th to use this route?

It would solve a few rules issues in 40K that have become more and more pronounced as Formations started picking up steam (both in interpretation and balance). On the other hand, it makes Characters much more vulnerable and easy to pick out and destroy, especially if things like First Blood become available.

Yes. I would very much like to see AoS hero rules applied to 40k. Prevent them from joining units, but give them increased survivability and give their buffs a range. It's a system I really like.

On a broad scale, I'd like to see realistic point values applied. An Eldar scatbike and GK interceptor should not cost the same points.
More specifically, I'd like to see a toning down of the "buffs" that psychic powers and characters can bring to armies, with free formation benefits removed entirely. It's ok to have enhancements, it's just that they should be more limited in scope so they can be costed appropriately. A character giving +1 BS to his unit is fine; a formation giving +1 BS to the entire army is not. Things like invisibility should be toned down to -1 to hit (for example); it's too hard to cost a power that can drastically benefit either a unit of thunderwolves or a unit of tactical marines. Furthermore, there should be limits to how many characters/benefits can join/apply to a unit, to prevent unforeseeable combos from creating extremely undercosted units. Formations could be ok, provided that they pay for the benefits they provide and those benefits aren't too far off the baseline units they are comprised of.
Alot of the current issues in 7th edition come from units that effectively cost less than they should due to various buffs being applied, and it throws the entire concept of points as a balancing mechanism out the window. By reducing the benefits of those buffs and limiting their scope, you can get much closer to having point values that actually ensure a balanced game between armies.

I'm not 100% sure about that. I have made it a point to try to kill enemy characters in AoS. Have to shut down those buffs.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

Curiosity question in regards to Independent Characters:

Age of Sigmar removed the ability for their equivalent of Independent Characters to join units while at the same time greatly increasing their Wounds.

Dawn of War 2 also went with this method as well (but also went with very small units, too, so...).

Would you prefer 40K 8th to use this route?

It would solve a few rules issues in 40K that have become more and more pronounced as Formations started picking up steam (both in interpretation and balance). On the other hand, it makes Characters much more vulnerable and easy to pick out and destroy, especially if things like First Blood become available

.

Yes. I would very much like to see AoS hero rules applied to 40k. Prevent them from joining units, but give them increased survivability and give their buffs a range. It's a system I really like.

I would not mind as long as Characters still got LoS to the nearest model within 3" or something like that. While I agree that IC shenanigans are a big issue in 40K right now, an opponent being able to consistently snipe your characters would be beyond annoying.

-

It will be interesting to see what they do with very minor characters like mekboys and Ministorum priests. It seems like it would be weird to make the crazy tanks able to survive on their own. It might cause taret priority issues, like having to choose between shooting the unit or wasting a whole turn shooting at that one minor HQ choice. On the other hand everyone has split fire in AoS, right? That would make sniping low-wound characters easy.

I'm sure there are lots of ways to make things like mekboyz work. It will be interesting to see what GW does.

 Madoch1 wrote:
I may get shot for saying this, but I like the cover save format as it is, that is , having it as a separate save.

I get it that it makes the reality in which a plasma shot is deflected by a bush possible. But, you have to remember that terrain pieces are abstract in 40k, they are representations.

A terrain piece that looks like just a tree grove could be a representation of a tree grove with a crap ton of foliage, a hill, metal debris, and a scarecrow. There is just no feasible way of showing that much detail on the piece. This is why it makes sense to me to make it a separate save. Plus, it cuts down on book keeping. But i do think night fighting should be a modifier to BS, it makes more sense like that

If I were to write up a game that had Cover work as a "Save" roll, I would have it rolled before the To Wound rolls. Think about it: The cover gets in the way of the shot, before the shot hits the target. Make it a light save that is rolled after To Hit, but before To Wound.

I have mentioned in other threads that I would like to see a distinction between Cover and Concealment. A brick wall will protect you from a shot coming at you (Cover) while a smokescreen makes it harder to hit the target (Concealment), and ducking down into a trench can provide both benefits. I'm not sure how exactly I would make it work in current 40K rules, but I would like to see it used in some way.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
Having dabbled a bit in AoS, and loving WH40K for its setting more than its rules per se... I give you six items I'd like to see (personal opinion alert!):

Simple to hit modifiers. Such as for size and cover. Maybe for (long) range as well. Having finished kindergarten and a bit more, I know how to add and subtract below and up to 10 and maybe a bit higher.

AoS style damage charts for vehicles, able to even differentiate between contemporary Imperial Rhinos and ancient Chaos Rhinos and show different strengths and weaknesses. Why not give Hellbrutes even an extra attack for being hit (and damaged) over and over, until they topple?

Armour Save modifiers instead of an AP system. and an end to app that AP1/AP2 spam by revising some weapons. Heck, while at it, revise a lot more weapons. Have grav weapons drop a gravity-counter and models in a unit or squadron struck must pass a Strength test or suffer some movement penalty for one turn, after which the counter is removed.

Make leadership count again. Put an end to all the fearlessness shenanigans so that the Fear special rule is, in fact, largely superfluous. I don't think a 'suffer casualties for suffering leadership' style rule is the solution (it, again, removes models faster than you can set them up), but something can be done about psychology in the game.

Far less randomness. I want to use point-buy to get specific psychic powers. Give my warlord one warlord trait of my choice, but balance them against each other. Have first turn be dependent on the Initiative value of the warlord (before rolling dice in case of a tie). That sort of thing. I roll enough dice as is.

Free rules and army lists online, in a living document. I understand all my codices are expensive books, but I'll still have them for their fluff and art and such. Balance issues could be solved in the living part of the rules, by monthly or bi-monthly updates.

I like these. While an out-right "AoS-ing" of 40K may or may not be the best move (and currently in discussion in another thread), there are several concepts in Age of Sigmar that I do like. To me, the best things that Age of Sigmar can give to 40K is the:
- 3 Ways to Play, in so far as Narrative, Open, and Matched play being different ways to set up your armies and filter out certain opponents.
- Damage tables for large models, and being applied to all vehicles and monsters.
- "Living Ruleset", as in Free Rules, frequent updates, and GW's continued community involvement
- And less random tables to roll on. Warlord Traits are cool, but are often useless to my army even if I remember them! Using the same one over and over would help me to actually use it!

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.

Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?

I think that would be cool. On the other hand, since Apocalypse games are generally for fun and planned out in advance they are ideal for negotiating house rules that streamline things.

It would totally be cool if GW came up with a more streamlined version of Apocalypse, but I still don't see people heading down to the FLGS looking for a 10,000 point pickup game.

Or were you thinking of a sort of "mini-apocalypse" set of rules for ~2500-5000 point games or something? That would be cool too.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
It seems like GW is putting out more games using the same models, which I think is a good thing. Going with what BunkhouseBuster was saying, in addition to the "three ways to play" I think it would be good if they had different rules for four different scales of 40k.

Something along the lines of:
Kill Team: ~200 points, ~45 minutes
Combat Patrol/Oldhammer: ~500-1000 points, ~1.5 hours
Newhammer/Mini-Apoc: ~1000-3000 points, ~3 hours
Apocalypse: 3000+ points, a lot of hours

I'm not sure how long SW:A takes, but it might be a replacement for Kill Team. I can see having a game like Kill Team be more focused on fast pick-up games with simpler rules while SW:A has longer games with more complex rules.

Combat Patrol/Oldhammer could have no allies, no LoW, no special characters and much more limiting detachment/formation options. There might need to be rules like being able to split most squads into combat squads, not just SM, or letting small 1-3 units like Tyranid Warriors operate independently of eachother. This might be a good format for competitive play.

Newhammer: Something kind of like what we have now, with multiple detachments, formations, allies and the like. Lords of War could be included, but it would be nice to see a 25% limit. This seems like it would allow for big, fun games with lots of toys but still be something that you could do as a pick-up game on a weeknight.

Apocalypse could be much as it is now, an all-day kind of thing where people bring out all their toys. They might have more streamlined rules to speed it up a bit though.

All of this can easily be done by just talking with people and arranging things in advance, similar to the "three ways to play" but by spelling things out a bit more and including them in a handbook GW can give us a shorthand and set of expectations we can use to better communicate with eachother.

That is almost exactly what I was suggesting! We already have Shadow War: Armageddon (though this seems more in line with being an RPG style 40K game) and Kill Team giving us different levels of abstraction for different levels of in-game detail, why not make things less complicated at each higher level of game size? Do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less significant. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW were to give some good guidelines or ideas, that would be awesome!

Not only could we have Open, Narrative, and Matched Play, but we could also have Kill Team, Patrol, Skirmish, Large Battle, and Apocalypse scaled battle tiers in those different game types. More options can only be a good thing for us players!

A lack of IC would ruin units that are meant to be bodyguards.

Command Squads would just be pimpable veterans.

Why can't a warboss roll with some mega nobz?

NivlacSupreme wrote:A lack of IC would ruin units that are meant to be bodyguards.

Command Squads would just be pimpable veterans.

Why can't a warboss roll with some mega nobz?

I think the solution, in this case, would be to have the unit and character as a single choice. Like, you don't add a chapter master + command squad to your list, you just add a command squad which has a chapter master as a part of the unit.

cuda1179 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.

Technically there's still "area terrain" (like ruins), but yes, essentially classifying more things as area terrain would help a lot. It would be even better if they brought back the fully-blocks-LOS rule (i.e. you can't shoot through a forest to the other side).

Saves, FnP and the growth of bigger and more save-ey MCs came after TLOS was reintroduced into the game. If terrain is better at blocking LOS, there's less pressure to ramp up the toughness of units because you can actually use terrain to not get shot at.

THIS!!! so much this.

I long for the days of forrests and patches of woods that blocked line of sight to the other side.

It looks like my preferance for 8th editon boils down to:
A mash-up of 7th and 3rd edition rules, minus rhino rush, with 4th edition wound alocation, a simplified version of 7th edition's Universal Special Rules, getting rid of templates, and streamlining the heck out of things. Playtest until balanced.

The group I play with essentially never got rid of those rules when 7th rolled around. We generally updated the rules we played with, but TLOS wasn't working for any of us. Like you said, having forests and such actually block line of sight just meant we weren't ALWAYS using whole buildings whenever we wanted to make a board that was fair to play on.

NivlacSupreme wrote:A lack of IC would ruin units that are meant to be bodyguards.

Command Squads would just be pimpable veterans.

Why can't a warboss roll with some mega nobz?

A good point. As someone just pointed out, either they could be part of the unit already or able to bring the models in to their unit as part of army build.

Alternatively, the Lizardmen Temple Guard were exactly that from the ground up. For a time, if a Slann and Temple Guard were in the same army, the Slann HAD to be in that Temple Guard unit.

When AoS launched, they got this rule:

Sworn Guardians: Temple Guard were created to protect their masters. If this unit is within 8" of any Seraphon Heroes, add 2 to its Bravery and 1 to the result of any save rolls for it.

An alternative can be, as someone pointed out, is to provide a special rule for a Key Word of "Heroes" or "Character" which allows for them to allocate Wounds away from them to nearby units.

AoS didn't do that, but shooting isn't quite as prevelant or dangerous as in 40K. But most 2-3 Wound models were also upgraded to having 6-7 Wounds, on average, making them more survivable. But another question would be if Ranged Weapon Rates of Fire change at all, too.

 docdoom77 wrote:

kirotheavenger wrote:
Issue with that though is if say you need 50% in cover, if you have 4 in and 6 out the 4 in get zero benefit from being in cover.
I believe cover worked this way in 5th and it wasn't the most popular.
...

What do you mean it wasn't popular? I've never heard a complaint about majority cover. It was an elegant system, imo.

I just remember people complaining about a model being completely in the open and getting protected from his buddy a few feet away behind a wall (who couldn't die since he was out of LoS).
Maybe it's because you don't hear people saying how much they don't hate something.

I would really like a major increase in area terrain as well. True LoS I feel really takes the life out of a model. With are terrain they're ducking down, taking cover. The actual model is just an abrstract representation of roughly where the model is and more importantly, what it is. With true LoS your model is just standing there, upright exactly like he currently is and the game doesn't allow you to imagine them doing anything else.
I saw for another game (AFTERLIFE, by Anvil Industries) in which if a model was within 2'' of an obstacle ''they could easily duck behind'' they got cover from it. I understand that that's a bit grey for a game game like 40k with a nice competitive edge, but it might be a nice 'forging the narrative' box to have something like that as a suggestion for friendly games.

Area terrain does present an issue for vehicles and MCs though, things which are obviously too big or immobile to duck in a crater.
Perhaps area terrain could have sizes. Like small (only regular infantry), medium (bulky and V.bulky get it too) and large (MCs/vehicles as well). That way your small cover craters can't hide a Landraider or a Terminator, but your abandoned factory could hide a Landraider or Carnifex.

I'm not so sure on no more ICs. AoS is all well and good when all infantry are roughly man sized, they're not compared to astartes. Things like Ministorum Priests I don't think could ever logically be made tanky enough to be anything but a liability without a unit.
Perhaps characters could be allowed to LoS hits to nearby squads, but still be counted as independent units for all other purposes?

I would also remove the restriction that all models in a unit must fire at the same target, for me that really destroys the imagery of an elite unit fighting tactically and replaces it with the image of a bunch of models picking a target.
I think a better system could be similar to what we have now. You choose one weapon (eg bolters) and it's/their target, then resolve the entire attack for all models with that weapon. Then choose the next weapon and it's/their target (which could be the same or different to the first weapon's) and resolve it, then pick the next and repeat until you're out of weapons.

How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple

 kirotheavenger wrote:

How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple

90% of the time the owner of the target unit chooses who dies, and can't split wounds between models. There were some caveats to that when it came to units partially in cover (you could choose to shoot at only the part of the unit out of cover, for example, and then those models had to be taken first.) Another rule existed where if you rolled more wounds than there were models in the target squad, you could force the opponent to take a save on a model of your choice. (Orks shoot at a squad of 5 Space Marines, one with a Lascannon. The Orks roll 14 hits, and then 7 wounds. Because the amount of wounds is greater than the number of Space Marines in the squad, the Ork player decides to force a save on the Lascannon model.)

It's not that 5th ed isn't simple, but it can be more time consuming. Rolling saves for models individually can take time if you have a number of different models in a squad, which isn't so bad. The thing that kills me though is that I wind up taking longer in the movement phase being sure that some models are in front of others. In 4th ed individual model positioning didn't matter as much, and thus made the movement phase a bit smoother.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple

IIRC, Owner allocated wounds, unless there was an overkill threshold at which point the attacking player could choose to have one model of his choice take one of the wounds. Multi-wound models had to keep receiving wounds until dead (i.e. a unit of tyranid warriors could not take one wound on model A and then another on model B... once model A took a wound they had to be allocated to model A until it was removed as a casualty).

There's probably more, but it's been a LOOOOONG time. I do remember it being the best wound allocation system in the history of 40k.

Most important changes:

1. Alternate unit activation in a turn
Players activate units alternately in a game turn.
A lucky first turn of shooting by your opponent wouldn´t cripple your force substantially as it is now. The gameplay would also be more dynamic because you can respond immediately to your opponent´s moves with your following activation. You don´t have to remain passive for a whole turn and see with horror how your grunts/vehicles get blasted into oblivion.

2. Different "game modes"
Strict implementation of game modes is mandatory here.

Game modes:
A: Kill Team. A small squad of grunts like in the movie The Dirty Dozen (1967).
B: Standard 40K. Several squads and few vehicles. No flyers, superheavies & big gribblies.
C: Apoc. Anything goes.

3a. Reintroduction of To-Hit modifiers like in SWA
The modifiers apply to quality of cover, range, weapon type, environment.

3b. Reintroduction of armour save modifiers like in SWA

4. Bury TLOS and bring back area terrain
You can look into 6 inches of cover for line of sight purposes but you can never look through area terrain if you are outside of it, regardless how wide the terrain feature is.
Close combat armies will last longer with this rulesset. You can actually hide behind a forest and the opponent is not allowed to shoot you with direct fire. It also removes the hassle to go to the eye level of your grunts to affirm line of sight.

5. Mechanical Walkers & Organic Walkers (Monstrous Creatures)
All mechanical walkers are vehicles and follow the vehicle rules for the next edition. Tau (Riptide), Eldar (Wraithlord) and Grey Knights (Dreadknight) would then be treated like any other army.

Mechanical Walkers:
- Dreadnoughts: Imperial, Chaos (Hellbrute), Ork (small and big version), Eldar (Wraithlord), Tau (Riptide) and Grey Knights (Dreadknight).
I might have missed some units but you get my drift. These units can be damaged as usual (shaken, stunned, weapon destroyed, destroyed, explosion).

Organic Walkers (Monstrous Creatures):
- Tyranid Monstrous Creatures, Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, etc.
These units can be injured/mutilated and suffer then a corresponding decrease in efficiency (stat decrease, weapon destoyed, deletion of certain special rules, etc.).



Lesser changes
1. Delete the concept of challenges

Challenges are fine for Warhammer Fantasy but not credible for 40K. You just don´t invite your enemy for a chivalric knife fight while battle cannon shells and whatnot are raining down the battlefield. An Imperial Guard Colonels should not be forced to fight Chaos Lords in close combat. There might be instances where this could be justified (Black Templar Captain vs. Chaos Lord) but it just leaves a wrong impression as a whole.

2. Tone down some psychic powers
Invisibilty for example is just too strong when applied to a good unit. The focus of the game is on guns and not on some frail Harry Potter lookalikes who pull off eldritch shenanigans.

3. Reintroduction of armour saves on 2D6 for very heavy armoured units like in SWA
Off the top of my hat this should be applied to Imperial & Chaos Terminators, Ork Meganobs and Monstrous Creatures.



Minor changes
1. Use of special characters should only be possible, if your opponent agrees.
These vips are just out of place when they are seen in every minor skirmish. They really shine in epic battles and therefore their rules can be over the top.

2. Storm Bolters & Kombi-Bolters
Get rid of their superfluous differences, use one profile for the gun and name it whatever floats your boat.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple

I don't think it was complicated unless (one of) the players made it complicated by having a unit with every model having different weapons/wargear

It was definitely better than the "Guy at the front miraculously protects his unit from a battle cannon because he has artificer armour" method we have now.

Jbz` wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple

I don't think it was complicated unless (one of) the players made it complicated by having a unit with every model having different weapons/wargear

It was definitely better than the "Guy at the front miraculously protects his unit from a battle cannon because he has artificer armour" method we have now.

In 5th edition, the only time it could be truly abused was on multi-wound model units which had options for each model to have unique equipment. Due to the wording, it allowed for the shenanigans to happen, but it didn't happen in every game. I only ever recall it being an issue with Grey Knight Paladins and Ork Nob Bikers, and that was because they had Feel No Pain, which that extra survivability is how they could abuse the system. And even then, they could still fail their saves and FNP rolls. Nothing a Demolisher Cannon couldn't solve

I do find it interesting how everyone is asking for a Wound allocation system in 40K that is the exact same as in Age of Sigmar

That said, I would also like to see the Psychic Phase removed or changed. I remember back in 5th edition, it was a Leadership check, and most of the powers were not crazy broken and game altering like they are now. 6th edition brought in the really powerful, army bending Psychic shenanigans, but 7th edition broke it further. Nowadays, it's either bring more Psykers than your opponent to win at the Phase, or have nothing happen because they had more or better Psykers. Summoning is also far too abusable as is. Any time I play Psykers anymore, it's a Librarian on Bike with Biomancy for my Iron Hands Biker list CAD army, that's it!

 Strg Alt wrote:
1. Alternate unit activation in a turn

4. Bury TLOS and bring back area terrain

1. Delete the concept of challenges

No, simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine.

TLoS is great, so is Area Terrain - a game can use both.

OK, yes, Challenges are nonsense in 40k, and should go.

Jbz` wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple

I don't think it was complicated unless (one of) the players made it complicated by having a unit with every model having different weapons/wargear

It was definitely better than the "Guy at the front miraculously protects his unit from a battle cannon because he has artificer armour" method we have now.

yea, but to be fair that was the only thing holding up some armies/units at the time. ork nob s and nob bikers with different gear for wound shenanagins were part of any ork tournament list. that is no longer the case. agreed on the 2+ armor out front now blocking it all... oh look 30 incoming shots at the squad, luckily they all bounced off the one guy out front who did some amazing gymnastics to catch all the shots iand in terminator armor no less .

 Strg Alt wrote:

1. Use of special characters should only be possible, if your opponent agrees.
These vips are just out of place when they are seen in every minor skirmish. They really shine in epic battles and therefore their rules can be over the top.

2. Storm Bolters & Kombi-Bolters
Get rid of their superfluous differences, use one profile for the gun and name it whatever floats your boat.

1. I disagree. However I wish they wouldn't emphasis that they are that ONE person, but rather someone like that person.
For example you can have Brother Corbulo in the codex, but be encouraged to have Chief Sanguinary Priest Whatshisface of the Whojacallit chapter (BA successors) or whatever.
So far it's only really the SM codex that prevents you doing this, because you have to play Marnius Calgar the Ultramarine, you can't pretend he's a Flesh Tearer (Personally I think Calgar would make a decent Amit, but NOPE :( )

2. I disagree, they're entirely separate weapons. I do however wish stormbolters didn't suck.
I think they should function like 2 bolters fired as a single weapon. That way they actually feel like a better version of the combi-bolter which they're supposed to be.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
That is almost exactly what I was suggesting! We already have Shadow War: Armageddon (though this seems more in line with being an RPG style 40K game) and Kill Team giving us different levels of abstraction for different levels of in-game detail, why not make things less complicated at each higher level of game size? Do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less significant. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW were to give some good guidelines or ideas, that would be awesome!

I think you’re right about the guidelines. Theoretically everyone could have detailed discussions about what kind of game they want to play before they start, but I think that doesn’t work out as well for strangers or acquaintances at the FLGS or on Facebook/Meetup/whatever. I think giving people a shared vocabulary and set of norms to start with rather than relying on them to develop them entirely on their own can be a real boon to getting the ball rolling.

I think your probably right about simplifying the larger games. My understanding is that Epic was very simplified and abstracted. I think that Apocalypse exists partly because over then decades we’ve built up the supply of 40k models to the point where a lot of people can field Epic-scale armies in the 28mm scale. It could be interesting if the abstracted the shooting attacks of most infantry units and normal vehicles to a single 2d6 or 3d6 roll. That way a lot of things like unit weapons, range, enemy armor save and cover could be included in the single roll as modifiers. Maybe superheavies could get a separate attack for each ridiculously overpowered weapon they have. My brother and I have pretty big armies and a space to leave them setup if we can’t finish a game, so it might be worth playing around with different ideas when it comes to shooting and terrain.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
2. I disagree, they're entirely separate weapons. I do however wish stormbolters didn't suck.
I think they should function like 2 bolters fired as a single weapon. That way they actually feel like a better version of the combi-bolter which they're supposed to be.

On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?