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.

Hi guys,

As the title says- If GW were to make a sweeping update to the 8th core rules in order to give the rules a little added depth/refine existing rules what would you like to see?

An obvious one is the return of some form of intervening cover- nothing egregious, just if you're within an inch of something that obscures theres probably a logical argument for a cover save.

Another would be adding a little bit of complexity to vehicles and how they both fire and receive fire- I was never a fan of firing arcs but when paired with different armour values it did add a little more strategy to using a vehicle- personally id like to see a return of some kind of targeting rule paired with a vehicle facing buff like +1 to wound if targeting the rear of a vehicle. Again this is nothing huge but it definitely removes the cheese of targeting a unit using lets say the long prow of a ravager sticking out from behind a building and gives a massive benefit to trying to maneuver around a vehicle to hit the rear armour.

So what would you do?

Process wrote:
Hi guys,

As the title says- If GW were to make a sweeping update to the 8th core rules in order to give the rules a little added depth/refine existing rules what would you like to see?

An obvious one is the return of some form of intervening cover- nothing egregious, just if you're within an inch of something that obscures theres probably a logical argument for a cover save.

Another would be adding a little bit of complexity to vehicles and how they both fire and receive fire- I was never a fan of firing arcs but when paired with different armour values it did add a little more strategy to using a vehicle- personally id like to see a return of some kind of targeting rule paired with a vehicle facing buff like +1 to wound if targeting the rear of a vehicle. Again this is nothing huge but it definitely removes the cheese of targeting a unit using lets say the long prow of a ravager sticking out from behind a building and gives a massive benefit to trying to maneuver around a vehicle to hit the rear armour.

So what would you do?

I was literally going to say +1 AP to side, +2 to rear

The most needed change is one i hope they don't do. Rescaling strenght and thoughness to make full use of the over 10 values. Lascannons should end somewehere within the 15-16 Str value, marine and bolters base strenght at 5.

This would be good for the game, but would scrap all the balancing made up until now and start from scratch.

So, more realistically, for 8.5 a rule for cover like kill team would be nice (with bonus save though, not with modifiers). Also a bit more lenient true LOS, nothing much, just specifying that antennas, wings and such don't count for LOS.

Way better LOS/terrain rules.

Also general toning down of offensive abilities. Things are way too lethal when even biggest most expensive models short of titans are routinely 1 shotted and looking at army lists first questions are "can you 1 shot knight? Whatabout Magnus? Mortarion? If not army sucks".

Not much inspiring to buy 100e model and spend time assembling and painting it if it's basically just temporal marker! (oh and don't forget carrying...Stompa isn't easy model to carry and then if I don't get 1st turn it will be one shotted just like that. Makes one go instead "screw that. I take infantry". Has more impact on game and easier to haul to the gaming area)

Alas I think that's more for 9th ed or even more realistically 10th or 11th or 12th as it will basically require redoing codexes and if you start toning down gradually new armies will suck big time until all codexes are redone. Or alternatively you up the defensive to ridiculous level creating huge spiral of power creep.

But when you can lose like half the army in T1 it's not particularly good. I much more prefer the approach adeptus titanicus has where even ONE unit is hard to remove at once and generally most likely candinate for that is very hard and risky to pull off(knights charging up will make short work in mass but getting there intact is very hard)

No further layer of sophistification.
But I'd fix
- cover for vehicles (obscured 50% OR in fully in cover, not AND) and
- farming of CP (such that CP are only available for the detachment which generated them).

I'd reintroduce vehicle facing. The current rule does not require maneuvering and makes 40k more a board game.

* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

Vehicle facing and more complex terrain rules.

IMO the problem with vehicle facings is that it's a good idea in principle but a terrible one in execution. Even setting aside the vehicle vs. MC balance issues of previous editions it just doesn't work well for many units. Yeah, you can draw the facing lines on a Rhino easily, but where is the line on a Hammerhead or Valkyrie? Is the arc on that sponson gun 170* or 160*? Etc. You can't give clear answers to those questions that every player will agree on, so you have endless arguments over whether a unit is 0.1" in a given arc or not. To do this effectively you'd have to put all vehicles on square bases (or at least round bases with arc/facing lines on them) and replace the weapon arcs with one or more of the four facings.

I don't really need more sophistication, but a couple of things that irk me the most:

Remove Fall Back or at least make it more detrimental if not lethal to the unit falling back. Say a full round of attacks from the unit that they fall back from sounds about right.

Tone down the special snowflake rules that FLYing units get. Make FLY useful without making it the best keyword in the game in the process.

Generally just make melee more feasible compared to shooting. "But Smash Captains..." well I said _generally_. Nerf the OP outliers if you must.

Oh and revamp the turn sequence to curb the 1st turn advantage. I.e. alternate activations.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problem with vehicle facings is that it's a good idea in principle but a terrible one in execution. Even setting aside the vehicle vs. MC balance issues of previous editions it just doesn't work well for many units. Yeah, you can draw the facing lines on a Rhino easily, but where is the line on a Hammerhead or Valkyrie? Is the arc on that sponson gun 170* or 160*? Etc. You can't give clear answers to those questions that every player will agree on, so you have endless arguments over whether a unit is 0.1" in a given arc or not. To do this effectively you'd have to put all vehicles on square bases (or at least round bases with arc/facing lines on them) and replace the weapon arcs with one or more of the four facings.

So what's the problem? Marked bases as you suggest or use standardised facings possibly also marked on bases. It's used in many other games. I also find your suggestion of standardised fire arcs more than palatable. We are not talking realism here. As to your argument over a model that's very close to a given arc. Use the same procedure as you do for anything else (is a model 50% obscured for cover?) and roll for it.

Aren't the new buggies coming on bases....

 KRakarth wrote:
So what's the problem? Marked bases as you suggest or use standardised facings possibly also marked on bases. It's used in many other games. I also find your suggestion of standardised fire arcs more than palatable. We are not talking realism here. As to your argument over a model that's very close to a given arc. Use the same procedure as you do for anything else (is a model 50% obscured for cover?) and roll for it.

Aren't the new buggies coming on bases....

Not all vehicles comes on vehicles and some vehicles would end up with silly shaped ones. GW would have to make lots of custom bases or you could end up in situations where vehicles can't enter gaps that are wide enough for vehicle with room to spare.

But then again never had problems with front/side/rear arcs before 8th ed. Don't see why it would suddenly become problem either.

Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

with respect Peregrine, I'm not sure you appreciate how long this would take to play out a turn,

Los and cover rules. Bring back 4th Edition's rules, please.

Introduce free strikes vs opponents who fall back.

1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.
2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.
3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.
4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

As for facings - I'm happy that they are gone, but I would love for all those people who miss them that there were rules for them in the main rulebook that can be used optionally. +1 to wound from the rear sounds like a great idea, too, assuming there is a clear definition of what "rear" is. The square base Idea is pretty great actually, I remember some game I saw having clear bases for their units that had the arcs engraved on them.

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

Alternating activations from kill team would indeed be interesting. I disagree with the rest.

 Weazel wrote:
Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

Or you could have 2 units that work differently(as they should) but both viable.

I'd abandon the antiquated igougo system in favour of alternate activation.

Getting first turn is too big of an advantage in 8th.

I'd also improve the pathetic cover system and reinstate you can only kill what you see.

- The simple rule of "draw LoS from the weapon to the target's body/hull, don't count banners, antennas or anything like that". If the tip of my Battle Cannon can see a guy's foot, it can shoot everything and wipe out the whole unit. Makes LoSBlock cover useless pretty much.

- I wouldn't want to ban soup entirely, as this would screw over armies who choose soup for non-competitive reasons, such as a Marine force with a couple squads of Deathwatch. A better option would be to limit the particularly-nuscience units.

- Falling back should have a degree of risk to it, even something like "Roll D6 for each model falling back, unit takes a Mortal for every 6, representing them being cut down or caught in crossfire".


-

tneva82 wrote:

 Weazel wrote:
Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

Or you could have 2 units that work differently(as they should) but both viable.

Well maybe. I have always felt at a disadvantage in previous editions against Eldar since my Dreadnoughts being vehicles could be oneshotted whereas Wraithlords being monsters could not be oneshotted and their profile never degraded (no immobilizes, no weapon destroyed, shaken etc).

Actually you could say that at this point most of my irritation towards the game comes from Craftworld Eldar. My mate plays them (skillfully I must admit) and it's always an uphill battle against them. Just nerf them sufficiently and I wouldn't really have that many complaints.

 Jidmah wrote:
1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.

That 1.5" is not that good in terms that what covers one model isn't enough to cover really others. Either have X% of model covered or have it based on abstract size rating of model. Adeptus Titanicus has this stat called "scale" which is used for various parts in rules. Could be used for 40k terrain rules as well.

What is enough to give cover benefit for grot isn't much of help for Mortarion!

2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.

How would they shoot twice? Surely they couldn't shoot both in shooting and close combat. And with IGOUGO gone and alternative there wouldn't really be "my turn, your turn" either now would there? If game goes 6 turns it would be 6 times movement phase of altering moving, 6 times shooting with alternating shootins and 6 times h2h alternating it.

3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.

Something needs to be done to ensure rhino doesn't move full speed, unit disembark, shoot, possibly move and then charge as well. That sort of super ninja thing doesn't make sense either. Getting out of transport organized isn't fast either. At least that half speed forward before disembark.

Generally things should be toned down in lethality. Both shooting AND T1 assaults. Less T1 decides the game TYVM. Things move too fast, manouvering matters less.

4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

Also please no "I charge this unit, don't charge that unit but pile in/consolidiate so that one model is surrounded by 3 models so can't fall back so I'm safe from shooting" crap. ATM it's essential to prevent shooting from dominating and I don't grudge anybody using it but I hate such a micromanaging gaming the system. It breaks suspension of disbelief in several places. If that's there deliberately to limit shooting power do it in more sensible way! Less artificial gaming, more on how things would be reasonably expected to work. You can't get that to perfection but I'm doubtful present is best anybody can come up with.

Spoletta wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
* Alternating activation. IGOUGO is a garbage mechanic and needs to die. This is the #1 most important change, the others are just nice bonuses.

* Remove soup. You get one FOC (the standard one from 5th edition and earlier) from one codex, period. No more mixed-codex armies outside of special narrative scenarios where both players agree that a mixed-codex force fits the story.

* Remove stratagems/CP. It's a pointless mechanic that will not be missed.

* Fix LOS. Terrain now blocks LOS through it, models must be at least 50% visible to have LOS, and models out of LOS can not be removed as casualties. Alternatively, remove TLOS entirely and draw LOS/cover from base to base.

* Scale back the speed of fast units. Turn 1 charges should be virtually impossible unless the enemy unit moves forward to meet it, deep strike should no longer be 100% accurate plasma delivery, etc. Make positioning matter a lot more and require planning in advance.

Alternating activations from kill team would indeed be interesting. I disagree with the rest.

problem with alternating activation is how long it would take, I've played games with 12 units a side with AA, each turn took a long time.

Fallback should give the unit left behind a "overwatch" phase. Same deal, hit only on 6s.
Bigger vehicles (tanks) should be left on the board after they are destroyed.
No command-reroll on exploding units, This should be outside of the players control.
Each side can only stack a -1 minus to hit modifier to a unit. (So -1 to hit max from all your actions and abilities, then I make it worse by moving with heavy weapons or similar actions.)
Hit rolls of 6 always hit.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.

That 1.5" is not that good in terms that what covers one model isn't enough to cover really others. Either have X% of model covered or have it based on abstract size rating of model. Adeptus Titanicus has this stat called "scale" which is used for various parts in rules. Could be used for 40k terrain rules as well.

What is enough to give cover benefit for grot isn't much of help for Mortarion!

2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.

How would they shoot twice? Surely they couldn't shoot both in shooting and close combat. And with IGOUGO gone and alternative there wouldn't really be "my turn, your turn" either now would there? If game goes 6 turns it would be 6 times movement phase of altering moving, 6 times shooting with alternating shootins and 6 times h2h alternating it.

3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.

Something needs to be done to ensure rhino doesn't move full speed, unit disembark, shoot, possibly move and then charge as well. That sort of super ninja thing doesn't make sense either. Getting out of transport organized isn't fast either. At least that half speed forward before disembark.

Generally things should be toned down in lethality. Both shooting AND T1 assaults. Less T1 decides the game TYVM. Things move too fast, manouvering matters less.

4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

Also please no "I charge this unit, don't charge that unit but pile in/consolidiate so that one model is surrounded by 3 models so can't fall back so I'm safe from shooting" crap. ATM it's essential to prevent shooting from dominating and I don't grudge anybody using it but I hate such a micromanaging gaming the system. It breaks suspension of disbelief in several places. If that's there deliberately to limit shooting power do it in more sensible way! Less artificial gaming, more on how things would be reasonably expected to work. You can't get that to perfection but I'm doubtful present is best anybody can come up with.

Some good points there. Would be nice if some vehicles designed for assaulting positions could disembark after moving, such as Land Raiders.

Also the whole idea of "my Nurglings can trap your Land Raider in combat since it can't physically move between them". Vehicles should be better in CC in general; it's a bloody 80-ton tank grinding over anything in its path, yet it gets 3 attacks which hit on 6+ with no Ap at all?

Oh yeah some dedicated transports could be more relaxed on the restrictions. When you are paying to teeth to get that land raider it's less of issue than some cheap transport you could spam giving huge movement boost and logical enough if vehicle is BUILT for quick disembarkation in coherent formation it makes more sense than any old transport(rhino's btw weren't originally even designed as fighting vehicle but the STC was repurposed for that...)

And good point on the nurgling thing. How the nurglings physically stop land raider anyway? Driving safety rules super strictly followed in 42M?-)

Problem of having bases indicate all arcs and facing like X-wing brings several problems. First it means that you have to keep the bases clear or at least introduce similar bases to Warmahordes that have lines on them to indicate firing arcs(ugly as sin if you ask me). Second it means that flying stuff now needs to have extremely large and unwieldy bases. I am trying to imagine the base that would fit this requirement and be easy to use on a Serpent chassis. Third it means that we would have to start reducing a lot of board clutter and it would mean fancy boards are a big no no as the big bases would have issues on boards that have debris, especially bad for skimmers that are hovering to begin with and have a different center of gravity.

Removing facings and different armor values was the most fun change in 8th. Made the game less irritating as someone couldn't argue that their meltagunner saw the rear thanks to a 2 mm gap they claimed to see which usually meant one had to take it on good faith and allow them to one shot a vehicle despite all your maneuvering.

Regarding changes in 8.5 I would want to see cover being a bit more useful than the current rules.

I would also like to see faction wide -1 to hit rules disappear.

Ally limitation similar to the one in AoS.

 Weazel wrote:
Removing vehicle facings and firing arcs is possibly the best change that came with 8th edition. I was always bothered that monsters were so much better than vehicles. Now they are more or less equal and this is a good thing.

Monsters also needed facings though. A creature that size should not be able to rotate on the spot on the spot instantly like infantry. They should have had a 180 degree arc of vision, and there should have been a hit bonus against its rear or something.

Remove all rules providing rerolls in any form. I believe mosts effects of rerolls could be replaced with faster mechanics. (rerollable 3+ becomes 2+ etc)

The game design to me would be alot more elegant that way

Gitdakka wrote:
Remove all rules providing rerolls in any form. I believe mosts effects of rerolls could be replaced with faster mechanics. (rerollable 3+ becomes 2+ etc)

The game design to me would be alot more elegant that way

Problem with that is then you hit into limits of d6 system. Rerolls give way different probability curve. When you have only 6 possible results.

However there's waaaaaaay too many rerolls as it is especially with the huge amount of dices involved.

Oh and FEEL NO PAIN! Change that. Current one is horribly slow especially as multi damage weapons are far and wide. Have fun with 6+++ on ork boyz who then has to take dozen+ FNP from hits that cause 2-3 wounds. That's 1/36 or 1/216 odds by rolling 2-3 dice individually once at a time per model so lots of time, little gain. My slowest games incidentally are always against dark eldars...Hmmm...Wonder why? Maybe because they have tons of rerolls AND FNP. Super annoying combo.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
1) I like the terrain rules from KT, I'd just use those with +1 to armor instead of -1 to hit. Just draw a straight line from the base/hull touching the ground shooting model to the target unit/model. If any part of the line goes through terrain that's higher than 1.5", +1 to armor. If any part of the line goes through a unit, +1 to cover. No true line of sight or area terrain nonsense anymore.

That 1.5" is not that good in terms that what covers one model isn't enough to cover really others. Either have X% of model covered or have it based on abstract size rating of model. Adeptus Titanicus has this stat called "scale" which is used for various parts in rules. Could be used for 40k terrain rules as well.

What is enough to give cover benefit for grot isn't much of help for Mortarion!

Who cares? 1.5" just serves to exclude scatter terrain and terrain bases. Anything lower than an ADL simply doesn't provide cover. Any percentage rule is a reason for arguments, so feth those. If a model is too large to receive cover normally, I'd just say so in the bespoke rules.
Mortarion is an interesting example, by the way. If he were less intent on looking bad-ass all the time he would land, fold his wings, put his scythe down and be smaller than most tyranid monsters. He should have not trouble taking cover behind a rhino

2) I also like how they resolve shooting just like the fight phase in KT. Models that have not moved can shoot first, then everyone else, with alternating activation. Obviously, this needs some major reduction in firepower, as everyone gets to shoot twice per game turn now - close combat would be left in the dust.

How would they shoot twice? Surely they couldn't shoot both in shooting and close combat. And with IGOUGO gone and alternative there wouldn't really be "my turn, your turn" either now would there? If game goes 6 turns it would be 6 times movement phase of altering moving, 6 times shooting with alternating shootins and 6 times h2h alternating it.

Eh, I kind of explained that badly:

In a full turn 40k you currently have

In my suggestion you have


Which really doesn't make sense when you think about it, so you could just do movement like in KT as well. But you still end up with half the amount of fighting. In KT this is balanced by combat being more deadly and shooting being less likely to hit anything (-1 to hit is the default, you rarely have clear line of sight). 40k has no such balancers (yet).

3) Rework transports to disembark after movement again. The current solutions feels very un-intuitive and clunky, with everyone sitting in their metal bawkses and hoping for them to survive the turn exposed instead of jumping out and opening fire/charging the front lines. Maybe allow disembarking if the transport has moved less than half its movement speed, and the unit inside can be set up within X inch, where X is its movement speed.

Something needs to be done to ensure rhino doesn't move full speed, unit disembark, shoot, possibly move and then charge as well. That sort of super ninja thing doesn't make sense either. Getting out of transport organized isn't fast either. At least that half speed forward before disembark.

Exactly. After disembarking within [Movement Speed] you should not be able to move any further during the movement phase. A unit of marines jumping out of a rhino would move a total of 12" that turn, a unit of possessed would be slightly faster, a unit of tartaros terminators jumping out of a land raider a bit slower. And, of course, no embarking and disembarking on the same turn.

Generally things should be toned down in lethality. Both shooting AND T1 assaults. Less T1 decides the game TYVM. Things move too fast, manouvering matters less.

I fully agree, but I would wait first to see how my 2) plays out. T1 assaults without your opponents cooperation are usually due to psychic powers or stratagems. They should just crack down on those to make them more limited.

4) Do something about combat movement. When fights are resolved, most of the phase is consolidating and piling in, not fighting. While they're are at it, fix the consolidate drift - apparently running circles around the Swarmlord is fine as long as you end up a micro-inch closer to it than before. I have no great idea for this, the best one is to just ditch consolidate/pile-in altogether and no longer decide how can fight who on a model basis. If two units are within 1" of each other at the beginning of combat, everyone in both units can fight.

Also please no "I charge this unit, don't charge that unit but pile in/consolidiate so that one model is surrounded by 3 models so can't fall back so I'm safe from shooting" crap. ATM it's essential to prevent shooting from dominating and I don't grudge anybody using it but I hate such a micromanaging gaming the system. It breaks suspension of disbelief in several places. If that's there deliberately to limit shooting power do it in more sensible way! Less artificial gaming, more on how things would be reasonably expected to work. You can't get that to perfection but I'm doubtful present is best anybody can come up with.