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.

Alternate activation.

Get rid of all cards and strategems.

Cities of Death terrain rules.

How do you think this would affect the game?

I think that the desire to "fix" 40k in as few words as possible is why 8e requires so many FAQs. The four-page version of the game is nonsense. Any one-sentence fix is nonsense. If you explain what you mean by "alternating activation" I might have something more useful to say.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I think that the desire to "fix" 40k in as few words as possible is why 8e requires so many FAQs. The four-page version of the game is nonsense. Any one-sentence fix is nonsense. If you explain what you mean by "alternating activation" I might have something more useful to say.

By alternate activation I mean activating one unit at a time or having a random activation mechanic like bolt action. But to be honest, keeping the IGOUGO structure would be fine if the following was removed;

Removing all the bloated command points and strategems and making cities of death terrain rules core rules I think it would turn it into a much more interesting game of manouvere and positioning, which is what I thibk a wargame should be about (yes, even a game set in an absurdly unrealistic sci-f universe)

At present I feel like I'm playing a third rate game of magik cards (which I dislike alot) with some awesome looking minis.

Agreed on strategems and cp, but removing them would require a rework of armies that rely on them to function, ie csm.

Rocinante wrote:
Alternate activation.

There are definitely ways to make AA work, and it could be a huge improvement for the game. There are also many, many wrong ways to implement AA. Comes down to specifics. Swing a plush cat; you'll hit half a dozen AA proposals on the first page of Proposed Rules.

Get rid of all cards and strategems.

Agree with Gadzilla on strats. 40k has been sans stratagems in the past, and we could go back to that. However, that change can't happen in a vacuum. Some armies and units depend on stratagems to functions, and many flavorful options are currently locked behind strats. Strats are kind of the lifeblood of 40k right now. You can remove them, but you need a transfusion of something to replace them.

As for removing "cards," that's pretty vague. There are cards for everything from missions to psychic powers to warlord traits at the moment. Mind clarifying?

Cities of Death terrain rules.

Totally. I don't think the Cities of Death terrain rules are perfect, but they're decent and an improvement over what we have.

Instead of alternative activation if everyone is so fixed on UGOIGO

then implement how apocalypse does damage, which is at the end of the battle round. This way you could still have the effectiveness of units, but movement and positioning would be absolutely vital in such a system because not all the damage would stick, or planning accordingly if a unit is gonna be a dead squad or it gonna be combat ineffective after the round

Wyldhunt wrote:

Rocinante wrote:
Alternate activation.

There are definitely ways to make AA work, and it could be a huge improvement for the game. There are also many, many wrong ways to implement AA. Comes down to specifics. Swing a plush cat; you'll hit half a dozen AA proposals on the first page of Proposed Rules.

How would you propose AA?

As for removing "cards," that's pretty vague. There are cards for everything from missions to psychic powers to warlord traits at the moment. Mind clarifying?

I just HATE cards. I'd remove any and all cards. Id rather all the info I need to be on one unit data card and that's it. I also hate CP and re-roll everything all the time rules.

Totally. I don't think the Cities of Death terrain rules are perfect, but they're decent and an improvement over what we have.

Definitely. What would you do to improve it?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

mchammadad wrote:
Instead of alternative activation if everyone is so fixed on UGOIGO

then implement how apocalypse does damage, which is at the end of the battle round. This way you could still have the effectiveness of units, but movement and positioning would be absolutely vital in such a system because not all the damage would stick, or planning accordingly if a unit is gonna be a dead squad or it gonna be combat ineffective after the round

I love the idea, but how would you implement it for normal 40k though? Apocalypse has a much more streamlined structure where 40 has so many different weapons etc it would require lots of book keeping to remember how many and what type of save etc.

If I could change one thing it would be better terrain and cover rules, mainly because I think with the current turn structure cover or terrain is more for show and things just get deleted before you even get to use them. Good cover rules would solve this for me.

That brings me on to another thing regarding positioning ... Flanking rules would be great, but then Deepstrike (which is another thing i dislike would become OP)

if people want to keep Alternating Player turns, instead of classic IGoUGo (aka Alternating Unit activation)

a Action/Reaction System would be a solution
better said using the old idea of an Action/Reaction System of 40k and implement it properly

eg: everytime a unit is doing something all enemy units within a specific range can react after the action is done (no interruption like Overwatch is doing now)
which reactions are allowed would be faction specific (shooting, charging, retreat etc.)

with reaction only being on a shorter range it won't interrupt the early game and slow it down while bring in depth later on


other possibility for a more Streamlined 40k, is to use you models and play a different game

other possibility for a more Streamlined 40k, is to use you models and play a different game

I play alot of Grimdark future which I enjoy quite alot. But I really like the mechanic of strength, toughness, save etc.

I may just port that over and use the cities of death cover and terrain rules for a bare bones infantry v infantry small scale battles using the Grimdark future solo rules.

Rocinante wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Rocinante wrote:
Alternate activation.

There are definitely ways to make AA work, and it could be a huge improvement for the game. There are also many, many wrong ways to implement AA. Comes down to specifics. Swing a plush cat; you'll hit half a dozen AA proposals on the first page of Proposed Rules.

How would you propose AA?

My latest pitch is this:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/787058.page
Basically, put your army into groups of units before the game and take turns activating those groups. It has the advantage of breaking up army activation like many AA proposals, but it (theoretically) avoids the problems that come with activating especially powerful units first or of having an MSU army that lets you activate unimportant units to gain information on your opponent's actions before committing. It also cuts down on the amount of "time overhead" spent by switching between which player is taking actions.

As for removing "cards," that's pretty vague. There are cards for everything from missions to psychic powers to warlord traits at the moment. Mind clarifying?

I just HATE cards. I'd remove any and all cards. Id rather all the info I need to be on one unit data card and that's it.

Well, cards are basically optional unless you're playing Maelstrom or Open War missions, right? I don't have decks for most of the factions I play. If you specifically want to see what psychic powers, etc. a given unit has, you might be more interested in some sort of printout than in a rules change, right?

I also hate CP and re-roll everything all the time rules.

Sure. 8th has gotten a little silly with the rerolls. I think I'd like to see a lot of the generic reroll abilities go away and get replaced with "orders" that take the place of many stratagems. So instead of granting a reroll 1's aura, my autarch might be able to give an eldar unit an order to fall back and shoot/charge normally or an order to move 7" after shooting.

Totally. I don't think the Cities of Death terrain rules are perfect, but they're decent and an improvement over what we have.

Definitely. What would you do to improve it?

I'm not entirely sure. It's been a minute since I looked at the rules, but I seem to recall wishing that there was a greater distinction between blocking and obscuring cover. Barricades and ruins adding to your armor save is fine, but I'd kind of like bushes, fog banks, and other terrain that makes you hard to shoot at impose some sort of to-hit penalty. Of course, that would probably call for a big reduction in the number to-hit penalties in the game. Otherwise it could get out of hand quickly.

That brings me on to another thing regarding positioning ... Flanking rules would be great, but then Deepstrike (which is another thing i dislike would become OP)

Flanking gets tricky in a game like 40k. If I"m allowed to scrunch up and spread out my squad into all sorts of weird shapes and have every model in the unit facing a different direction, determining where the "flank" is can be confusing and time consuming.

Out of curiosity, what would you like to see done with Deepstrike? I'm a big fan of reserve armies and sneaky/flying/teleporting units in general, so I'd hate to see it nerfed into the ground.

There's a fairly simple way to run with flanking rules.

You use the squad leader (or a designated model) as the facing. Which ever way it's forward facing is pointing, thats the direction the unit is facing (or at least the direction the unit's orders are going).

Once you do this, you open up a lot more options for manoeuvre and crossfire (epic Armageddon had good rules for this).

You can also put simple facings on vehicles as well. Draw a line across the front of the vehicle. Any attack coming from the front side of the line is a frontal attack, and anything coming from behind is a rear attack.

This means it doesn't matter what the shape of the vehicle is, as it's just two 180 degree arcs at the front of the vehicle. It also tells you what direction the vehicle is facing for shooting...

I've found these two rules make games far more interesting with regards to manoeuvre and flanking

Hellebore wrote:
There's a fairly simple way to run with flanking rules.

You use the squad leader (or a designated model) as the facing. Which ever way it's forward facing is pointing, thats the direction the unit is facing (or at least the direction the unit's orders are going).

Once you do this, you open up a lot more options for manoeuvre and crossfire (epic Armageddon had good rules for this).

You can also put simple facings on vehicles as well. Draw a line across the front of the vehicle. Any attack coming from the front side of the line is a frontal attack, and anything coming from behind is a rear attack.

This means it doesn't matter what the shape of the vehicle is, as it's just two 180 degree arcs at the front of the vehicle. It also tells you what direction the vehicle is facing for shooting...

I've found these two rules make games far more interesting with regards to manoeuvre and flanking

That's a good way to handle it. It's still a bit weird that my circle-formation infantry with each model facing a different direction only counts as facing one direction, but that's not a huge deal (and could probably be handled with a stratagem or something). I'd probably draw the line for vehicle facing across the rear of the vehicle instead. If not being in front of the vehicle is what qualifies you for some sort of offensive bonus, then it seems odd that a formerly AV 12/12/10 wave serpent is suddenly vulernable on the sides. Plus,there are vehicles that shoot off of their sides (ghost arcks). There's still a little weirdness with those rare rear-facing guns, but those have always been odd ducks.

What exactly would you like the bonuses for flanking to actually be?

If you want to use a models arc of sight, then they should all be subject to it.

Ie of only 3 models are looking at the target then only they can shoot.

Imo if you're going to have facings on units, then you either do it abstractly or not and deal with the consequences.

The only reason to add it imo is to create tactical depth, by making movement matter beyond how far away you are from your target.

I'm not fussed on where you put the forward and backward arcs of a vehicle, I only put it at the front because most vehicles had lower side and rear, so that would translate to more vulnerable from side and rear.


Bonuses for this sort of thing imo should be around penetration and suppression.

Being caught in a crossfire or from behind should increase the chance that a unit will be driven to cover, disrupted in their actions etc.

Flanking is a bit larger thing than 40k's platoon+ sized small skirmishes are built for (at least if we keep the player information complete without diving deep into simulationism), whereas having maneuver be important via crossfire wouldn't be hard to implement. Epic Armageddon did this well: if you could draw a line through your target to another friendly detachment that was near enough, your attack gor more effective as the opposition was caught between two enemies (made saving harder and hurt morale more if any casualties were caused).

Vehicles really need back front side armour profiles. Also directional fire. Makes no sense for a basilisk to fire it's heavy bolter at a target 180' to a target it fired it's cannon at.

For vehicles that are hard to distinguish front/rear from sides, well it'd depend on the vehicle and it's role, but the value should be equal to front and rear.
I know this is not a streamline, but it makes sense and would vary the game-play and tactical decisions.

For infantry flanking, if cover is directional, and your unit has a clear shot at the enemy and there is nothing resembling cover between your unit to the enemy, and they haven't declared something like 'go to ground'. Well technically that unit is standing in the open. They should take casualties, be counted as suppressed and have to go to ground, and miss their next turn(unless leadership roll is good, then discount from be suppressed and GTG and miss turn). equipment and factional traits could make up for this in various armies etc. It would add another level of factional difference and differences between armies.

Personally I think for most armies you should have to use tactics to close with the enemy in melee, but then it should be brutally effective. Even with units of like strength, because melee combat isn't that sword whacking that goes on for ages you see on movies, in real life it is fast and brutal. Against units of weaker strength, well that's butcher's work. Saying that assault units could be given heavy/special melee weapon upgrades, which would make them much more effective. While on the other hand units of like strength may sit there taking pot shots at eachother all day. Within grenade range is sort of a different story, every soldier should be hurling them.

 OldMate wrote:
Vehicles really need back front side armour profiles. Also directional fire. Makes no sense for a basilisk to fire it's heavy bolter at a target 180' to a target it fired it's cannon at.

100% agree on the vehicles firing arc point. IT is just silly right now, wvery vehicle basically roflcopters to shoot in all directions. A simple "coaxial" rule would be a good step - tanks with 2 uns on a turret must fire them both at the same target.
Less sold on the front/side/rear thing nowadays.

For vehicles that are hard to distinguish front/rear from sides, well it'd depend on the vehicle and it's role, but the value should be equal to front and rear.
I know this is not a streamline, but it makes sense and would vary the game-play and tactical decisions.

doesn't this just give it a universal facing, IE no change to present?
The best & simplest solution I've seen is to have 2 facings, 180 degree arcs, with a line drawn across the rear of the vehicle. front & rear facing, and that's it. simpler than the old F/S/R facings, more in-depth than the current toughness.

For infantry flanking, if cover is directional, and your unit has a clear shot at the enemy and there is nothing resembling cover between your unit to the enemy, and they haven't declared something like 'go to ground'. Well technically that unit is standing in the open. They should take casualties, be counted as suppressed and have to go to ground, and miss their next turn(unless leadership roll is good, then discount from be suppressed and GTG and miss turn). equipment and factional traits could make up for this in various armies etc. It would add another level of factional difference and differences between armies.

This would basically lead to no units ever leaving cover unless they could make it back into cover. Admittedly, it could add some good reasons to have transport vehicles, but 40k has always featured hordes of monsters pouring across the battlefield, and this would end them. Won't somebody please think of the tyranids?

Personally I think for most armies you should have to use tactics to close with the enemy in melee, but then it should be brutally effective. Even with units of like strength, because melee combat isn't that sword whacking that goes on for ages you see on movies, in real life it is fast and brutal. Against units of weaker strength, well that's butcher's work. Saying that assault units could be given heavy/special melee weapon upgrades, which would make them much more effective. While on the other hand units of like strength may sit there taking pot shots at eachother all day. Within grenade range is sort of a different story, every soldier should be hurling them.

Unfortunately the current 4-7 turns of movement profile of 40k doesn't lend itself to needing tactics for making it to combat - you need speed.
What would be a good system to incorporate is some way of suppressing a unit so that your howling mob can break cover and charge. Currently, the morale rules are woefully simplified - a few guys run, or commit hari-kari, or lie down and whimper for mother, and the rest of the unit continues to function at full efficiency. not my idea of a good system.
Having tiers of "Broken" may be a good system, for example:
Tier 1: may not split fire
Tier 2: may not fire overwatch
Tier 3: squad can only fight in CC- cannot move or shoot

Couple this with "suppressive" weapons which count as causing wounds even if they don't for the purposes of morale, and you have given heavy bolters, big shootas and a whole range of sub-par weapons a good niche, and also made filing morale more common, yet less of an issue when it does.

So if a unit fails a morale check, it gains a tier of "Broken" - give it a marker or something. This is done every phase - so units can be suppressed 2-3 tiers in a single turn.
At the start of the turn a unit can attempt to lose a tier of "broken", on a morale check. on a heroic success (1,1) they lose all tiers of broken and have rallied. On a catastrophic failure (6,6) they gain a tier of broken.

commissars would execute someone if the squad fails to lose a tier of broken at the start of their turn - taking cover is fine, not getting back up isn't - and they would lose a tier of broken.
There would be warlord traits, stratagems and abilities to help units rally when their leaders are around.

Suppression to let units make it to combat is a better way to go, IMHO, than trying to change the movement rules. most hordes already die horribly in the open, it's a part of the game as is.

Now add in CP generation per turn and alteranting unit activations and you have a copy of Mantics Warpath

@ vehicle facings: I'd imagine something that has a hard to distinguish side profile would have similar armour to the front or rear(depending on the shape and purpose of the vehicle of course(such as the ravager, it'd make sense to have the same armour value on the sides as the front). That is why they should share armour value, it would not be a universal value. I think side, back and front profiles (and top values(because flyers and terrain) would be more realistic.

@ Tyrannids you'd have exemptions for different races. If a synapse creature is in range Tyrannids would not be able to be suppressed. Could have a similar effect for other races banner bearers, or Ork Nobs with poles(although these would be obviously rarer than synapse creatures). And hence sniper units could help stall a charge


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For fast reference you could mark on the rim of the model's base (if the model has one) it's front/side/rear arcs. Something like a monolith obviously has same armour all round, with possibly lighter top armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If melee combat was brutally efficient than the consiquences of not stopping a nid charge would be quite dire. Also charging infantry would be given an advantage (such as the enemy not hitting back) on a suppressed infantry unit.

 OldMate wrote:
@ vehicle facings: I'd imagine something that has a hard to distinguish side profile would have similar armour to the front or rear(depending on the shape and purpose of the vehicle of course(such as the ravager, it'd make sense to have the same armour value on the sides as the front). That is why they should share armour value, it would not be a universal value. I think side, back and front profiles (and top values(because flyers and terrain) would be more realistic.

The thing is, not every vehicle is a rectangle. Especially once you start looking at xenos vehicles. Also, back when we had armor facings, most vehicles had the same front and side armor. The main exceptions being guard, especially heavy tanks (vindicators like vindicators and hammer heads), and imperial knights. So against most vehicles in the game, you only rear cared about rear-versus-non-rear armor. Doing a line across the rear gives you that and cuts out all the confusion around where the boundary between a side and rear arc is on a converted battle wagon.

Throwing top into the mix would add... quite a bit more confusion. Is every turret mounted a millimeter higher than your hull shooting at your "top" armor?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 OldMate wrote:
@ vehicle facings: I'd imagine something that has a hard to distinguish side profile would have similar armour to the front or rear(depending on the shape and purpose of the vehicle of course(such as the ravager, it'd make sense to have the same armour value on the sides as the front). That is why they should share armour value, it would not be a universal value. I think side, back and front profiles (and top values(because flyers and terrain) would be more realistic.

The thing is, not every vehicle is a rectangle. Especially once you start looking at xenos vehicles. Also, back when we had armor facings, most vehicles had the same front and side armor. The main exceptions being guard, especially heavy tanks (vindicators like vindicators and hammer heads), and imperial knights. So against most vehicles in the game, you only rear cared about rear-versus-non-rear armor. Doing a line across the rear gives you that and cuts out all the confusion around where the boundary between a side and rear arc is on a converted battle wagon.

Throwing top into the mix would add... quite a bit more confusion. Is every turret mounted a millimeter higher than your hull shooting at your "top" armor?

Units with the FLY keyword may choose to roll attacks against a vehicle's top armor profile in addition any other armor profile they are eligable to make attacks against.

That should fix that nicely.

Streamlined 40k (whilst still maintaining tactical decisions) means IMO you need at most a front and a rear arc.

A flying unit can count as striking the rear arc from any direction (this was the rule for flyers in 3rd ed).


I think strategems should be like litanies of hate or psychic powers. Abilities you take on commanders that you can deploy during the game.

But not something you can optimise on the fly. The biggest issue with them at the moment IMO is that you can change what you want to use when it suits you.

Which is like swapping a heavy bolter for lascannon when your unit is shooting a vehicle instead of infantry.


IMO they should also split the profile up a bit like AOS, but add a Defence stat that's not armour.

I think that in previous editions when you compared WS added additional tactical decision making around how you used units.

So I think there should be a Def value that WS AND BS are compared to, so that BS is also a comparative value.

I don't think anyone believes that Guilliman, generic captain, Maugan Ra and a tau commander are all equally skilled with ranged weapons...

A unit would look like this:

Mv 6" WS 4 BS 4 Def 4 Wo 1 Ld 7 Ar 3+

Bolters 24" S4 A1 Rapid fire
Combat knives S4 A1 melee


there's no reason to keep melee attacks in the unit's profile when they're tied to their melee weapons anyway.

Apocalypse should have done this as well.

Hellebore wrote:

I think strategems should be like litanies of hate or psychic powers. Abilities you take on commanders that you can deploy during the game.

But not something you can optimise on the fly. The biggest issue with them at the moment IMO is that you can change what you want to use when it suits you.

I still like the idea of turning stratagems into orders for characters. So instead of your ability to use a stalker boltrifle to snipe characters being dependent on how many batallions you field, you make it a special rule on a lieutenant that replaces the reroll aura (or turn the rerolls into their own order that he has to choose between each turn.)

IMO they should also split the profile up a bit like AOS, but add a Defence stat that's not armour.

I think that in previous editions when you compared WS added additional tactical decision making around how you used units.

So I think there should be a Def value that WS AND BS are compared to, so that BS is also a comparative value.

I don't think anyone believes that Guilliman, generic captain, Maugan Ra and a tau commander are all equally skilled with ranged weapons...

A unit would look like this:

Mv 6" WS 4 BS 4 Def 4 Wo 1 Ld 7 Ar 3+

Bolters 24" S4 A1 Rapid fire
Combat knives S4 A1 melee

there's no reason to keep melee attacks in the unit's profile when they're tied to their melee weapons anyway.

I feel like a generic "Defense" stat might be too vague. My company champion might be an expert duelist that's hard to hit in a swordfight, but he's probably not especially difficult to shoot at.

Instead, how about making to-hit rolls in melee a WS comparison? In the same way you compare Strength and Toughness to-wound, compare your WS and their WS to see if you hit them. Then, add an "Evasion" stat that gets compared to BS to determine the to-hit number for shooting attacks. Eldar having relatively high Evasion and WS and being more survivable as a result feels pretty fluffy to me.

Not sure about moving Attacks to the weapon's profile instead of the models. Your Chapter Master and Scout Sergeant would have the same maximum damage output even if the CM hits a little more reliably. Plus, Attacks is a pretty major slider for unit design. There's a big difference between a lictor using scything talons and a hormagaunts using scything talons.

Wyldhunt wrote:

I feel like a generic "Defense" stat might be too vague. My company champion might be an expert duelist that's hard to hit in a swordfight, but he's probably not especially difficult to shoot at.

Instead, how about making to-hit rolls in melee a WS comparison? In the same way you compare Strength and Toughness to-wound, compare your WS and their WS to see if you hit them. Then, add an "Evasion" stat that gets compared to BS to determine the to-hit number for shooting attacks. Eldar having relatively high Evasion and WS and being more survivable as a result feels pretty fluffy to me.

Yeah I don't see a problem with that as it's still adding the same number of extra stats. Before 8th I used to say that Initiative should have been the opposed BS roll for the same reasons you outline above.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Not sure about moving Attacks to the weapon's profile instead of the models. Your Chapter Master and Scout Sergeant would have the same maximum damage output even if the CM hits a little more reliably. Plus, Attacks is a pretty major slider for unit design. There's a big difference between a lictor using scything talons and a hormagaunts using scything talons.

I actually see it the other way around, because the weapons are listed in the datasheet for the unit you can cumstomise attack number freely.

ie special sergeant character McGeneric

Bolter 24" S4 A2 Rapid fire

hormaguant
scything talons S3 A2

Lictor
Scything talons S6 A4


They've already done this on the modern data sheet to ensure every unit has access to the stats of its weapons, but they keep a generic profile so it can be on a summary sheet, which IMO isn't really worth it.

Hellebore wrote:

I actually see it the other way around, because the weapons are listed in the datasheet for the unit you can cumstomise attack number freely.

ie special sergeant character McGeneric

Bolter 24" S4 A2 Rapid fire

hormaguant
scything talons S3 A2

Lictor
Scything talons S6 A4


They've already done this on the modern data sheet to ensure every unit has access to the stats of its weapons, but they keep a generic profile so it can be on a summary sheet, which IMO isn't really worth it.

I might be missing something. Datasheets tend to have some weapons (especially those unique to that unit) on a given unit's datasheet, but they don't list the stats for all weapon options on all datasheets. Under your proposal, they would have to do so. For something like a power sword, they'd have to have a different version of the power sword listed for various sergeants, vanguard vets, and various characters. Basically, they'd be using up a lot more paper and ink to land in the same place they are now, no?

I guess at that point you could give vanguard vet sergeants (or whomever) more or fewer attacks with specific weapons, but you could probably achieve similar results by just changing the Attacks characteristic on their datasheet. Is there a specific scenario where you want someone to get more bonus attacks with a power sword than another guy?

Your proposal would also allow you to price weapons based on the unit they're being given to, which would be nice, but you could probably achieve this in a similar fashion to how special weapons are priced differently for Guard units based on their ballistic skill. I.e. a thunderhammer could be priced at 20 points for models with less than 3 attacks and at 40 points for models with 3 or more attacks.

You're not streamlining the game by adding vehicle facings, that's literally the opposite. There's room for discussion of a streamlined 40k, but then you have to let go of the the details like vehicle facings and access doors. There's also room for a more simulationist 40k that has vehicle facings, but I don't see how they belong in the same thread.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Hellebore wrote:

I actually see it the other way around, because the weapons are listed in the datasheet for the unit you can cumstomise attack number freely.

ie special sergeant character McGeneric

Bolter 24" S4 A2 Rapid fire

hormaguant
scything talons S3 A2

Lictor
Scything talons S6 A4


They've already done this on the modern data sheet to ensure every unit has access to the stats of its weapons, but they keep a generic profile so it can be on a summary sheet, which IMO isn't really worth it.

I might be missing something. Datasheets tend to have some weapons (especially those unique to that unit) on a given unit's datasheet, but they don't list the stats for all weapon options on all datasheets. Under your proposal, they would have to do so. For something like a power sword, they'd have to have a different version of the power sword listed for various sergeants, vanguard vets, and various characters. Basically, they'd be using up a lot more paper and ink to land in the same place they are now, no?

I guess at that point you could give vanguard vet sergeants (or whomever) more or fewer attacks with specific weapons, but you could probably achieve similar results by just changing the Attacks characteristic on their datasheet. Is there a specific scenario where you want someone to get more bonus attacks with a power sword than another guy?

Your proposal would also allow you to price weapons based on the unit they're being given to, which would be nice, but you could probably achieve this in a similar fashion to how special weapons are priced differently for Guard units based on their ballistic skill. I.e. a thunderhammer could be priced at 20 points for models with less than 3 attacks and at 40 points for models with 3 or more attacks.

I've not done an exhaustive audit of all the codicies, but it seems that in most cases it's either a squad like a tacitical squad with lots of heavy weapon options, or it's a character like a captain with lots of melee options, but then it's not consistent as the marine captain lists a relic blade's stats, despite not starting with one.

There are some random weapon lists available for units it seems, sometimes they list some weapons, other times they list all of them.

For the majority of units this shouldn't be a big deal, it's pretty much just marines that have so much bloated wargear. They kind of did this with sternguard and their special issue boltguns. In fact a lot of the bloated amount of new weapons in the game are just renames of other ones to allow them to have a different profile (the predator autocannon, onslaught cannons, plasma incinerators) they could have all kept their names and just had different stats because the model's rules are what's important, not the name.

Part of the reason I'd do this is also to redesign the weapon types as well. Just giving weapons attack scores and only applying a special rule like heavy in the special section.

For practical purposes, this is most likely to affect characters as it allows you to make shooty characters rather than almost all exclusively melee ones. It also gives you far more nuance in balancing weapons. A thunder hammer might have fewer attacks and be harder to hit with. A power fist might be harder to hit with but not have fewer attacks. A power sword might have more attacks and so on.

I actually think this would be better for the game as currently you have to balance weapons based on fixed attack scores, making balancing weapon options on a model almost entirely points based as they all have the same number of attacks.

you could still run with heavy weapon lists as marines and eldar do, but they'd be mostly for infantry units who are unlikely to need unique attack scores.

vict0988 wrote:You're not streamlining the game by adding vehicle facings, that's literally the opposite. There's room for discussion of a streamlined 40k, but then you have to let go of the the details like vehicle facings and access doors. There's also room for a more simulationist 40k that has vehicle facings, but I don't see how they belong in the same thread.

There is an assumption in this conversation that streamlining 40k doesn't mean making it a bad game. You can technically streamline it to on a 4+ I win, and that fullfills the 'streamlined' criteria perfectly. But it doesn't make it a good game.

So the conversation has to take into account what decisions you apply make it a 'good' game as well as a streamlined one, or it's a pointless conversation, in practice.


The rules for EPIC armageddon are very streamlined, but they still have facings (for all units) because it's an important part of making the game engaging and balances game play between the three phases more than it currently does. A game where the distance between your models and the enemy is all that matters is not particularly fullfilling.

Hellebore wrote:

vict0988 wrote:You're not streamlining the game by adding vehicle facings, that's literally the opposite. There's room for discussion of a streamlined 40k, but then you have to let go of the the details like vehicle facings and access doors. There's also room for a more simulationist 40k that has vehicle facings, but I don't see how they belong in the same thread.

There is an assumption in this conversation that streamlining 40k doesn't mean making it a bad game. You can technically streamline it to on a 4+ I win, and that fullfills the 'streamlined' criteria perfectly. But it doesn't make it a good game.

So the conversation has to take into account what decisions you apply make it a 'good' game as well as a streamlined one, or it's a pointless conversation, in practice.


The rules for EPIC armageddon are very streamlined, but they still have facings (for all units) because it's an important part of making the game engaging and balances game play between the three phases more than it currently does. A game where the distance between your models and the enemy is all that matters is not particularly fullfilling.

If you think streamlining the game by removing details that old rulesets used to account for and the most modern one doesn't makes the game boring, then you don't want to streamline the game. You want to disorganize or complexify it. I don't see how epic is streamlined? It's more complex at the very least, the rules are longer so you're going to have to explain how it is streamlined to someone who hasn't played it. What do you think could be streamlined about 8th edition if you want to re-introduce complexity by adding back facings to units? Is the only idea for actually streamlining the game to remove Stratagems? Is it because your flanking rules would cover all units and not be a special rule, because it'd be more core rulebook rules, fewer individual faction or unit abilities?

I'd like to add that chainswords need their own profile and are not just generic 'melee weapon'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not a streamline, but it needs to happen.

This has fast devolved from "streamlining" to "changing" - not a bad thing, but certainly out of context with the thread title.

Ican't see how 40k can be more streamlined, unless you drop the hit-wound-save approach and adopt a hit-save approach, which would be so much worse (D6 barely gives enough granularity for a 3-step approach, let alone a 2-step approach).

Were you to do it, you'd need to incorporate Strength, Toughness and WS/BS into one roll. It's doable - make WS/BS a modifier and then roll to wound as if you hit - and whilst it would speed it up, it would detract from the game.

There is a balance to be found between detail and bloat, and currently the system is so un-detailed, that they compensate with massive bloat in the stratagems department.

Slim it down, add tactical, fluff, strategical and just sensible depth. Was my idea.
But yeah, to slim it down I'd go for:
A I pick a unit, you pick a unit turn for turn. And when every unit has done it's thing cycle back to the start. I guess this would then be a 'round?' At the start of each round you can pick whatever unit you want to lead with.
I'd add a cover mechanic like cities of death.
I'd remove stratagems.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
These units would be based on units on your list. Combat squadding would be doable.