Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

1) Apply the Kill Team charge rules. If I fail, I can at least get close and if I barely connect you might be able to get away.

2) Alternating Activations. I've tried it and it works, giving the game a much more dyanmic feel without lengthening the turns. Nothing sucks worse then sitting there for 15 minutes, able to do nothing but roll armor saves.

3) Apply the Max Model stat from Kill Team. That way GW can specify exactly what should only show up 2 or 3 times in a list and what is ok to take with impunity.

I forgot to add, change the way the game turns are set up to be like Kill Team.

Pinning rules, or failing that, alternate activations.

vehicle facings...

the irony is the issue that removed them was the first issue that could actually do them properly..

on each data card add two silhouettes, one for damage arcs - this shows the toughness and save for each arc - on a model by model basis, using points on specific models to make it easier - arcs no longer need to be equal, models can have different numbers of arcs and variosu special rules can key on the arcs

second silhouette is for the vehicle firing arcs for the different weapons. again special rules can key on them. e.g. -1 to hit when firing some weapons to the rear or within say 6" or whatever.

done, works for monsters, heck even stuff like bikes getting a fixed forwards firing arc, fliers also firing fixed weapons forwards in a 90 or 45 degree arc. could even produce some little arc templates to go with it

point being, since everything now has its own data card this sort of stuff becomes seriously easy to add to the game - and can be added as a rolling change - existing vehicles are just noted to have a single 360 degree arc for damage and weapons fire

Current 40k is a hot mess. 8th edition came very close to being a good edition, but sadly GW messed it up.

Command points, strategems, igoyougo, character targeting rules, lack of psychology, no arcs, easily exploted FoCs with allies, lazy terrain rules, no pinning mechanics, flamers auto hitting super sonic jets, super sonic jets being on the battlefield turning and what not, etc etc..

I think the system needs an overhaul. A complete from the bottom up rework. Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

I like the models and the setting, but the rules are just so bad. The only people who can honestly defend a rules system where a flamer can auto hit a super sonic jet are GW diehard fans, people who think that the HH book series is great sci-fi.

Current 40k is pretty great, honestly.

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

Current 40k is great and continues to get better.

Sure if you are looking for illogical shallow unbalanced junk where game changes are not made for sake of balance but to change buying patterns

leopard wrote:
vehicle facings...

the irony is the issue that removed them was the first issue that could actually do them properly..

on each data card add two silhouettes, one for damage arcs - this shows the toughness and save for each arc - on a model by model basis, using points on specific models to make it easier - arcs no longer need to be equal, models can have different numbers of arcs and variosu special rules can key on the arcs

second silhouette is for the vehicle firing arcs for the different weapons. again special rules can key on them. e.g. -1 to hit when firing some weapons to the rear or within say 6" or whatever.

done, works for monsters, heck even stuff like bikes getting a fixed forwards firing arc, fliers also firing fixed weapons forwards in a 90 or 45 degree arc. could even produce some little arc templates to go with it

point being, since everything now has its own data card this sort of stuff becomes seriously easy to add to the game - and can be added as a rolling change - existing vehicles are just noted to have a single 360 degree arc for damage and weapons fire

streamlining aside I never liked the facing. Take my battlewagons, they are long models so while front armor was 14 previously it almsot always got hit on side armor 12... and for some reason GW decided rear armor should be 10 so the ork "land raider equivilant" was consistantly beaten by drop podding sternguard. I think overall toughness is faster to play and fairer overall as it gives GW modelers more artistic freedom.

am not oppossed to firing arcs though. left sponson shooting a target on the far right side of a tank is kinda dumb.

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

If by boring you mean no faction special rule, no sub-faction, no warlord trait, no relics, no strategems, and no models/units with more special rules than is necessary... See, these are the things that break the game. When the game boils down to who had the better selection of special rules to out special rule their opponent it stops being a game about tactics.

Maybe it is because I have been playing these sort of games since the late 80's, I no longer find the appeal of the type of game GW are offering. When I was in my teens and mid 20's, sure. As a mature gamer, nope I want to play a game were choices I make on the table are the focus, and not what list I have brought.

As a mature gamer, I want my evil space marine hero that is entombed in a walking sarcophagus to go on rampage after an elf space clown poked it with a needle and smash him to pulp with a dual-barreled laser-cannon.

It worked, just yesterday. I like 8th edition

 stonehorse wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

If by boring you mean no faction special rule, no sub-faction, no warlord trait, no relics, no strategems, and no models/units with more special rules than is necessary... See, these are the things that break the game. When the game boils down to who had the better selection of special rules to out special rule their opponent it stops being a game about tactics.

Maybe it is because I have been playing these sort of games since the late 80's, I no longer find the appeal of the type of game GW are offering. When I was in my teens and mid 20's, sure. As a mature gamer, nope I want to play a game were choices I make on the table are the focus, and not what list I have brought.

Good for you, glad you have a simpler game you can play then.

Now, if we can get back to talking about Warhammer 40k in the Warhammer 40k thread in the Warhammer 40k section of the website, that would be just swell.

Timing on an 8.5 edition should probably be a decent amount after the last main codex releases. Gives more time to let Kill Team be the test bed for future 40k changes, as it clearly seems to be doing wonders in that role if this thread is any indication. Folks seem to really like the turn system there.

Without going into rules I would tweak, I would bring back tank shock. Charging infantry with a tank should have some extra oomph, the current rules just don't do it for me.

I'd like that. Obvious a tank wouldn't be great in protracted close contact with infantry, ( a threat that even modern tanks still deal with), but yea if a tank drives straight at you best get out the way or crunch.

Total overhaul of stats. Right now there's one cost-effective infantry profile (Guardsmen), the statistical advantages of other units don't matter enough in the face of their costs. Spammable volume of D2+ makes "target priority" a joke (volume of battle cannons/plasma/that kind of profile is the most efficient weapon against anything that isn't a Guardsman), grandfather-claused 4e-vintage stat/unit composition assumptions ("a Space Marine has one Attack, a Terminator has two!")...On top of that the sheer unrestricted nature of army composition screws over certain units; because Imperial Knights exist as a faction an "all-comers" army needs to be able to fight them, which means things like the Rhino chassis feel really squishy because every army they face has to be able to easily engage a bunch of things twice their size with Invulnerable saves.

More wounds on vehicles, more damage on dedicated anti-tank weapons, non-uniform blasts (use the conversion beamer's "if this weapon kills a model do 2d6 S(x)/AP-/D1 hits to the rest of the unit" rule instead of writing things that fire d6+ S8/AP-2/D2 shots), re-statting/re-pricing everything in context of other army books, and going back to one detachment to actually curtail spam might make some difference.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Without going into rules I would tweak, I would bring back tank shock. Charging infantry with a tank should have some extra oomph, the current rules just don't do it for me.

I feel like tanks should do mortal wounds when they slam into a unit. Then again I feel like Dozer blades should come back as a way to give vehicles like Rhinos extra attacks on the turn they charge.

I don't think I would really add one just one thing to the rules; IMO the game could use a comprehensive rewrite. I don't think one change is enough.

That being said, alternating activation is the first thing that comes to mind. I think it would open up so much more space for positioning to matter and tactics in general, even if the rest of the game stayed as is.

Other changes I would also like to see:

A meaningful suppression/ morale system.

Firing arcs especially if they were applied to all units.

Replacement of fixed rolls with comparing an attacker value to a defender value.

More abstracted LOS.

Double moves instead of d6" run/charge.

Special rules that allow you the "do something" as opposed to some sort of numerical increase to defense or offense.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Total overhaul of stats. Right now there's one cost-effective infantry profile (Guardsmen), the statistical advantages of other units don't matter enough in the face of their costs. Spammable volume of D2+ makes "target priority" a joke (volume of battle cannons/plasma/that kind of profile is the most efficient weapon against anything that isn't a Guardsman), grandfather-claused 4e-vintage stat/unit composition assumptions ("a Space Marine has one Attack, a Terminator has two!")...On top of that the sheer unrestricted nature of army composition screws over certain units; because Imperial Knights exist as a faction an "all-comers" army needs to be able to fight them, which means things like the Rhino chassis feel really squishy because every army they face has to be able to easily engage a bunch of things twice their size with Invulnerable saves.

More wounds on vehicles, more damage on dedicated anti-tank weapons, non-uniform blasts (use the conversion beamer's "if this weapon kills a model do 2d6 S(x)/AP-/D1 hits to the rest of the unit" rule instead of writing things that fire d6+ S8/AP-2/D2 shots), re-statting/re-pricing everything in context of other army books, and going back to one detachment to actually curtail spam might make some difference.

I think there's definitely a lot of good points here, some of which can conceivably occur in CA too.

Generate Command Points per turn like Kill Team instead of all at once. Burning as many command points as early as possible being the optimal thing to do only emphasizes going first and ruins the long game/armies without enough offensive stratagems.

No Titanic in regular 40k. They've become too good again.

No allies.

 Jidmah wrote:
As a mature gamer, I want my evil space marine hero that is entombed in a walking sarcophagus to go on rampage after an elf space clown poked it with a needle and smash him to pulp with a dual-barreled laser-cannon.

It worked, just yesterday. I like 8th edition

This is a great post.

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Alternatively just go play OnePageRules Grimfuture, while not perfect is a damn sight better then 8th edition.

What are you smoking? Grimdark Future is horrendous. Talk about boring.

If by boring you mean no faction special rule, no sub-faction, no warlord trait, no relics, no strategems, and no models/units with more special rules than is necessary... See, these are the things that break the game. When the game boils down to who had the better selection of special rules to out special rule their opponent it stops being a game about tactics.

Maybe it is because I have been playing these sort of games since the late 80's, I no longer find the appeal of the type of game GW are offering. When I was in my teens and mid 20's, sure. As a mature gamer, nope I want to play a game were choices I make on the table are the focus, and not what list I have brought.

Good for you, glad you have a simpler game you can play then.

Now, if we can get back to talking about Warhammer 40k in the Warhammer 40k thread in the Warhammer 40k section of the website, that would be just swell.

Timing on an 8.5 edition should probably be a decent amount after the last main codex releases. Gives more time to let Kill Team be the test bed for future 40k changes, as it clearly seems to be doing wonders in that role if this thread is any indication. Folks seem to really like the turn system there.

Ok.

Here are things that I personally would do to make the current 40k a better experience.

Alternative activation, this would also incorporate the removal of the phases of the game as it is. Now when units are activated they can choose to do one of several actions. Run (double movement), move and shoot, hold ground, and assault (run followed by a melee attack if within 2" of an enemy unit).

No more random number of attacks or wounds, set a fixed value.

Pinning, if a unit sustains hits equal to their leadership value in one turn, the unit is pinned and must skip it's next activation.

Active armour, opponents attack must equal or beat a models armour value to inflict damage. This would mean models would need their toughness and armour rolled into one new stat, similar to GW's LotR games.

Introduce Universal Special Rules, stick to these, no more no less.

Every model has a 180 arc to their front. Turret mounted weapons have a 360 arc.

A 1 is an auto miss and a 6 is an auto hit.

Removal of TloS.

No more just d3 and d6, add d4, d8, and d10 for rolls depending on skill and such.

Commanders have a command value, this gives them access to a number of abilities they can throughout a game use equal to this valie. So Orks would have a low value, and Marines would have a high value. Abilities would be universal, things such as allow a nearby unit to stop being pinned, or for another unit to activate out of sequence. This would replace Command Points and strategems.

Why would orks have a low value? The lore is full of Space Marines or Astra Militarum Generals getting outsmarted by orks.

Any rule that randomly shafts some faction(s) out of part of the games is a bad rule.
That said, give Necrons and Tau some psykers. Just have them do technology magic or inspiring speeches instead of warp-fueled sorcery.

KT rules -> 40k rules.

That's it. Done.

You really don't want have 2000 points of orks rolling whether a bolter actually kills them.

Interesting, a lot of the suggested changes are quite familiar to me as a 2e player just starting to get interested in 40k again.

What surprised me was I recall when 3e appeared the selling point was that it sped up the game, made it less important to cower in cover if you've got 'tough' troops (i.e.l space marines), and was overall more suitable as a 'battle' game than a 'skirmish' game (i.e Necromunda).

Having played a few small scales games this does not seem to be the case - if you march space marines across open ground they die and die, and with big units you have to roll A LOT of dice. It is not a fast game to play.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why would orks have a low value? The lore is full of Space Marines or Astra Militarum Generals getting outsmarted by orks.

Any rule that randomly shafts some faction(s) out of part of the games is a bad rule.
That said, give Necrons and Tau some psykers. Just have them do technology magic or inspiring speeches instead of warp-fueled sorcery.

While it is true that the occasional Ork commander can be cunning enough to outsmart Imperial and even Eldar it is just that, an occasional occurance.

Not sure if you played 2nd edition, but in that system each force had a strategy rating, Orks were low in that department, due to not how they operate. They aren't a drill army that practices routines and such, but rather a large mob that is lead by the biggest and hardest Ork looking to bash some heads in. That is the difference, and something like that can help reflect it. What the Ork commander loses out in tactical leadership ability they certainly make up for in sheer brute strength and endurance.

I would add an extra -1 to hit if you can't see the target, for all those weapons that don't require a line-of-sight. Getting my balls shot off by a parking lot still sucks.

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.

I agree with him on TLOS as well, that's never been a good rule.

I don't know that I'd go so far as eliminating soup, but I do prefer the "fixed CP total based on game size, with 1 CP penalties for each force type after the first and each detachment that isn't at least a battalion" model. You're already rewarded with more tactical flexibility when you soup, that needs to be balanced somehow and CP penalties for mixed command structures seems like a good way to do that.

I think I'd add a -1 to-hit penalty for indirect fire, with a further -1 if no friendly unit has LOS to the target either.

Limit CP generation and strats to the units that come from the warlord's codex (So if you have an IK warlord then only IK detachments generate CPs and you only can use IK strats). This would allow for soup but, I think, take a lot of the advantages out of play.

Have rerolls occur after modifiers. This is much more intuitive, at least to me.

I would add classifications for armor types.

For instance, Unbreakable Armor, Heavy Armor, Medium Armor, Light Armor, and Flimsy Armor.

Some weapons would gain increased effectiveness based on certain types of armor.

For instance, Boltguns gain AP-2 against Light Armor & Flimsy Armor. So weapons can be more effective against certain armor types.