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.

Probably change the Fly keyword/rule to "models can move over other models/terrain in the movement phase only" (incl. obviously, effects allowing you to move as if in the movement phase), but not during charge/pile-ins, etc., removing vertical 10" charges succeeding on snake-eyes, teleport-consolidates and other silly things.

Again, some exceptions for individual models might be needed.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Probably change the Fly keyword/rule to "models can move over other models/terrain in the movement phase only" (incl. obviously, effects allowing you to move as if in the movement phase), but not during charge/pile-ins, etc., removing vertical 10" charges succeeding on snake-eyes, teleport-consolidates and other silly things.

Again, some exceptions for individual models might be needed.

The 10" charge on snake-eyes: Howabout simply counting the vertical distance through air? Why would guy with jump pack suddenly walk the charge when he could use jump pack?

Sure it doesn't really matter when you are charging straight up/down but when you are charging partway straight ahead and then toward up if you measure distance by direct route(rather than just horizontal) jump packs etc would still help you charge guys above(logical enough) but not give you snake eye charges from 10" distance.

(and it shouldn't be too hard to make rule that gives fly unit charge distance distance of straight line from base to base)

Copy a lot of AOS.

-Reduce the overall movement rate of the fastest stuff, but give greater options for infantry movement (this could come in a variety of ways and be army dependent).

-falling back is too easy a choice, perhaps give a free attack or a deadly terrain test on units who withdraw? some kind of penalty at least

-generate command points on a turn by turn basis (scaled to game size?), with 1 additional generated at the start of the game for each full battalion/brigade

-get rid of the command reroll. it is so undramatic and dull. Instead, provide a generic stratagem for rerolling charges and morale

-terrain is the biggest area requiring change. Not sure on the exact solution, but minuses to hit for obscured targets sounds good?

tneva82 wrote:

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.

You make it harder than it have to be. You only need to roll them individually when its multi-wounds models.
Otherwise, say 20 wounds on your boys. Roll 20dice, then re-roll all successes.

 Wibe wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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.

You make it harder than it have to be. You only need to roll them individually when its multi-wounds models.
Otherwise, say 20 wounds on your boys. Roll 20dice, then re-roll all successes.

Holy smoke TYVM. Why didn't I think up on that before.

So vs D3 roll dices, reroll any 6's, if somehow still I have somebody that might survive(hah) roll 6's once more and see if I have 6's left.

Thanks. Got to try painboys again.

Still annoying but bit more bearable.

CassianSol wrote:
Copy a lot of AOS.

-Reduce the overall movement rate of the fastest stuff, but give greater options for infantry movement (this could come in a variety of ways and be army dependent).

-falling back is too easy a choice, perhaps give a free attack or a deadly terrain test on units who withdraw? some kind of penalty at least

-generate command points on a turn by turn basis (scaled to game size?), with 1 additional generated at the start of the game for each full battalion/brigade

-get rid of the command reroll. it is so undramatic and dull. Instead, provide a generic stratagem for rerolling charges and morale

-terrain is the biggest area requiring change. Not sure on the exact solution, but minuses to hit for obscured targets sounds good?

I think AoS has quite a few ideas that 40k could benefit from.

I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

The Kill Team activation system, it would fix quite a few problems with the 40k. It's so much more fun than 40k's, and so much more complexed. Winning first turn doesn't mean shooting out half of the opponent's force, it isn't always favorable even.

The other thing that should get ported from KT/AoS are fixed and limited CPs. Stratagems are way too important now.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

Isn't there a rumor on the Ork codex they always hit on 6? Otherwise I think that with all these -1 to hit modifiers in the game there should be an always hit on 6 core rule. Just like 1 is always a fail. In a game with stacking -1 to hit it is stupid to have it so that you can never hit. I mean, an Ork bolter won't hit by chance, but Ork flamer will hit it.

 Eldarsif wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

Isn't there a rumor on the Ork codex they always hit on 6? Otherwise I think that with all these -1 to hit modifiers in the game there should be an always hit on 6 core rule. Just like 1 is always a fail. In a game with stacking -1 to hit it is stupid to have it so that you can never hit. I mean, an Ork bolter won't hit by chance, but Ork flamer will hit it.

I think that's confirmed. 6's are now an automatic hit and explode into more shots.

 Eldarsif wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think a -1 to hit due to cover might be an interesting change. Overall it would result in fewer dice rolls as fewer successes would result in hits and therefore wounds/saves.

Would also screw ork shooting against pretty much any army rather than just few if that -1 to hit from terrain comes any frequently.

Isn't there a rumor on the Ork codex they always hit on 6? Otherwise I think that with all these -1 to hit modifiers in the game there should be an always hit on 6 core rule. Just like 1 is always a fail. In a game with stacking -1 to hit it is stupid to have it so that you can never hit. I mean, an Ork bolter won't hit by chance, but Ork flamer will hit it.

You don't need to go to 7+ to screw ork shooting. -1(hits on 6+) is already 4++++(it's even better than having 4++ or 4+++ because you can also have 4++ and 4+++ as well as this 4++++) against entire ork army for any unit that has -1 to hit on it.

Try playing game where your BS is halved. So your marine/eldar/whatever with BS3+ hit on 5+ rather than 3+. That's how it feels like for orks against alaitoc etc. Actually even worse than that but at least basic situation is like that. At least new rule will remove thatn "even worse" but it's still basically 4++++ for the enemy.

(and yes always hit on 6 would be core rule on any professionally made rules)

I'd stop worrying about exactly where the heavy weapon, special weapon, sergeant, etc are in a squad; treat the "squad" as the entity and be done with it. That basically means that individual powerful units such as vehicles and monsters have a degrading statline, whereas units of troops have a degrading footprint as they take damage.

If you're going for alternate activation, I'd add something like Necromunda or Middle Earth has, to allow heroes to activate multiple additional units.

I'd consolidate a lot of the weapons down; how many different lascannons are there now? Separate the number of shots from the main weapon stat line and you can get rid of a few duplicates, and something where certain terms always mean the same thing so you can make it easy to remember ("extended-barrel" means +x" range, "enhanced" means +x S, etc). In addition, I preferred it in 1st and 2nd editions where "meltagun" was a generic name for the same weapon used by Imperials, Orks, Eldar and whoever else. If one faction's weapon is pretty much the same as anothers, make it the same.

You could differentiate cover (bonus to saves) and concealment (penalties to hit). For hit rolls modified to 7+ or worse, something like "make hit rolls, then any 6s are re-rolled, needing the shooters' standard BS score". Or something like halving the number of shots, rounding down if the hit roll goes worse than 6+.

Things I’d want changed.

Weapons scaling to unit size. Particularly Flamer weapons. Flamers should get a D6 per 5 models in the target. Or even something like a second D6 for 10+ models.

Power levels redone, and made the normal play in the game. Power levels should have always been put at the highest level, and then let people downgrade from there, and it would solve all the bitching. If you put a Tac squad was 10 points, and came with a Lascannon, and Plasmagun and 10 guys, but you can certainly run with less guys, or remove the special and heavy weapon, or reduce the Lascannon, to a ML, HB, PC, all at no cost, same with the Plasmagun and its options, I think people would be okay with it much more than they are.

Same with A Devastator squad. Comes with 10 guys, 4 lascannon, and a Cherub. But swap it to any other option at no cost. See?

Organize play rules. This is where you get match play. No Allies, rigorously fair missions, and less detachment options.

HTH rethink. Falling back should be something that is an option even when surrounded, and I think something like when a unit if fleeing combat, some sort of you get 1 attack, hits on a 6, causes a mortal wounds or something like that to balance it a bit.

Change the system to d8/d4 system to add more granularity.

 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

Came to post this^^

Agreed, IGOUGO is the most game breaking feature of all 40K editions.

GW its time to move away from this antiquated system.

 skchsan wrote:
Change the system to d8/d4 system to add more granularity.

I'd love to see D8 saves in particular. Termis save on a 2+ on a D8. And Mortal would save on 5+ on a D6 from the Crux Terminus.

My wishlist to solve most of current problems:

1. Add <keywords> to unit skills and weapons. So then there could be rules/changes/spells/skill etc. relating for example to all <flamers> (for example flyers shoudln't be valid target for them) or we could have <deep strike> to any skill like teleport strike that can be addresed in FAQ not going through all possible name variant. THey can still have name, fluff and different versions but they could have tag to be addresed by rules/other skill interactions

2. Make GW learn statistics. Single-dice weapons damage should increase greatly over d6 to be comparable with multi-dice weapons like cawl plasma vs harpoon. Make "blast" weapons scale with target unit size...

3. ... size could have two component - number of units and model size. Unify and define model bases according to "size". Make big targets easier to hit and single model small size almost impossible to hit - here we can deal with characters targeting without complicated rules

4. make points online / list builder and keep updating it often to address broken stuff

5. Overhaul CP system into something else like make HQ units generate them and make them expensive. Grand master should generate a lot of them for his price. Grand strategist of IG could also do that but should be expensive or named character like Creed.

6. Overhaul LD system that is useless now. Kill team have good ideas regarding this, maybe something similar? Give -to hit for failed LD etc.

7. Remake charge phase to something like run move. Just merge advance with charge and make charging just runing into enemy

8. Make going first part of strategy that have price not random dice - give some units like scouts some bonus to initiative and who got more of them (or with some roll-off + bonuses) start.

9. Remove invul saves from game and redesign weapons that have too high AP. Make termies viable. Remove mortal wounds aswel, just give spells weapon profiles.

10. Give proper 3d ruling. How we can place bases in angles or not, proper 3D measurment etc. No more pseudo-2D-into-3D stuff please.

11. Remove ynnari from the game or give them total redesign.

Also fold Ld into MF (Mental Fortitude) - use it for abilities (i.e. orders) or other core mechanics (Fall Back, as it's supposed to be a tactical retreat, not a scramble), morale etc.

Essentially combination of initiative (I) and (Ld)

Forfiter wrote:
11. Remove ynnari from the game or give them total redesign.

They should just release an Ynnari codex with all units from the Eldar codices inside that they are allowed to take. That wouldn't be any different from a Legion or Chapter-Specific codex.

1. Take the LotR SBG rule book, remove the LotR references, replace with 40k references

2. adapt the codexes accordingly

3. play a much better game

Terrain, terrain, terrain changes.

And some sort of buff for close combat. Seems to be slipping away more and more these days.

 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.

While soup is a problem, with out allowing allies you just killed at least half a dozen factions from being usable. Can't really field an entire army of Assassins or Rogue Trader Star Striders.

I'm really, really hoping that Kill Team is beta testing for potential 40K rules. The alternate turn order, hit modifiers for range and cover, and generally better cover system are all great mechanics that I'd like to see ported over to 40K.

How does the alternate turn order work in kill team? Is it something like infinity ?

Karol wrote:
How does the alternate turn order work in kill team? Is it something like infinity ?

It basically goes like this:
At the beginning of a round, you roll off an "initiative" order with d6/2d6. The highest roll goes first, then second, then third, then fourth. For simplicity, let's assume two players.

1) Movement
Player with highest initiative moves his models, declares charges or declares the unit to be aiming (no movement if aiming)
Then the other player does the same.

2) Shooting
Player with highest initiative picks a unit that was aiming during movement and shoots with it. Then the other player picks a unit that was aiming and shoots with it. Take turns until no one is left aiming.
Afterwards the two players take turns shooting all the units which were not aiming.
This usually leads to models with good weapons standing still and aiming for most of the game, since you want to get your shots before you someone might shoot you.

3) Combat
Just like 40k. Take turns, charged units first


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Probably change the Fly keyword/rule to "models can move over other models/terrain in the movement phase only" (incl. obviously, effects allowing you to move as if in the movement phase), but not during charge/pile-ins, etc., removing vertical 10" charges succeeding on snake-eyes, teleport-consolidates and other silly things.

Again, some exceptions for individual models might be needed.

By any chance, can your provide me with some random numbers to put on my lottery slip?

As many have said before me.

Decent terrain rules. Also vehicle facings. Templates too!

Re-introduce USR's

Make Flyers a USR

Bring back Vehicle Facings

Redo the Psychic phase into a dice management system

Being back the old Leadership system, I honestly don't know who the feth thought of the trash we have now. Bring back things like fear and pinning and actually make them important, psychology should be a huge part of this game and it isn't.

Bring back the old way of rolling dice. None of this modify the number bs. What you roll is what you roll. If its -1 to hit then if you normally hit on 3's, now you need 4's. Not you actually rolled a 3, but it's reduced by 1 down to 4 so you only get a re-roll if it's a sunday and the all the planets are aligned, but it stacks with these other 5 special rules in my unit card that require you to re-roll 6's if it's unmodified, but 5's if it is modified but not after the hit roll is made...etc. Why is this so fething unnecessarily complicated?

1's always fail, 6's always pass.

Fix the cover system. I shouldn't have to make house rules with every opponent I meet to agree that standing behind a giant tank would give a unit a cover save if they were obscured.

Fix the terrain system. I don't need every blade of grass to have it's own special rules. Just give me generic ones in the main rulebook.

Bring back Deep Striking on first turn. It already had a hard counter with scouting units. It actually made units like terminators good again for a couple months, why are we punishing these units again?

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While soup is a problem, with out allowing allies you just killed at least half a dozen factions from being usable. Can't really field an entire army of Assassins or Rogue Trader Star Striders.

Those "factions" can go back to being narrative-only options to be used where they fit the story. Or, for something like an assassin that is clearly a single supplemental unit and not a full faction, it could get a special rule that you can take it in addition to your codex units. It would just require GW to be careful to ensure that all factions have options like this, and Imperial armies don't get way more options than everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion 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.

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

It wouldn't take any longer than it already takes. Except now instead of having IGOUGO where you can go take a lunch break while your opponent does their turn both players are involved at all times.

 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....

The problem is that GW doesn't currently do it. It's certainly possible to use marked bases and standardized arcs, but it requires way more than a simple rule change. You have to manufacture new bases and then get everyone to put their existing vehicles on the new bases.

And no, "4+ it" is not a substitute for a rule that actually works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Bring back Deep Striking on first turn. It already had a hard counter with scouting units. It actually made units like terminators good again for a couple months, why are we punishing these units again?

no. Turn 1 deep striking removes the whole point of fast units and proper deployment and was a big part of 8th edition's alpha strike problems. Units with close-range weapons (melee or shooting) should not be using them on turn 1, you should have to spend time and effort getting them into position to take advantage of their superior firepower. Deploying directly into attack range removes the intended drawback of these units.

I'd add a required monthly desalination treatment for all players.

Create rules to destroy terrain. At the moment non-flying, non-infantry assault units have no way whatsoever to interact with infantry hiding in ruins bar the Imperial Knight stratagem that allows a Questoris or Dominus class to fight through the walls and that bugs me to no end as a fervent Thunderwolf Cavalry and Space Wolf Swoard&Board dread fan. Besides, it doesn't make sense. A Dreadnought hammering a building in CC or a Predator Annihilator shooting all it's Lascannons at a rock formation serving as cover for a bunch of Orks should have consequences.

Basic idea is to give buildings and other terrain a wounds, T and armor save statistic depending on their size and type, and add special effects upon the building being destroyed (ie infantry-sized models in a ruin that is destroyed suffering a mortal wound on a 1 due to it collapsing on top of them, triggering a landslide when a rock formation is destroyed, etc.). After it's destroyed the piece of terrain would be removed from play and the terrain is treated as rubble, inflicting movement, advance and charge distance penalties on everything that doesn't have the Fly or Titanic keywords.