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.

-Addition of Vindicare assassins type snipers (pick out a model in a squad. That model has it's head blown off) to every army
-Removal of Overwatch.
-Charging to be changed to 6+D6 inches and running to 6 inches for normal infantry. feth that random bs killing my Just as Planned boner.
-Addition of a rule not dissimilar to the Beasts of Nurgle's attention seeker rule to every dedicated cc unit.
-With BS:10 I shouldn't even roll to hit. Space marines are insane sharpshooters and they're BS:4!
-If a model (or unit) assaulting another model or unit has twice the WS of the other unit they do not roll to hit, and instead hit instantly.
-Rule necessitating that 25-50% of the board must be covered with buildings or foliage 10 inches tall or more. This is a big one when it comes to everything. Ambushes can be set up with startling ease, LOS becomes HUGE, and positioning your units with precision becomes paramount.
-Average board changed from a 4X4 to a 6X6.
-Rules for higher ground. With a ruined city now being the default board. Occupying buildings becomes huge for normal infantry. A unit holding higher ground shooting at a unit on lower ground may rapid fire their weapons from max range against that unit, and possess a 3+ cover save against that unit.
-Skyfire rule to be more common. That bloodthirster with corpulence and Daemonic resilience is unkillable otherwise.

Terrain terrain terrain yes. You could even make it so default flat-table terrain wasn't open ground but gave a modest cover save (without blocking LOS) to represent units taking cover behind trees, behind low rises, etc that are too small to model.

We find in our local group, players make the game Tactical. We don't play to Table Each other we try to play the missions and with the loss of "Game Ends by Turn #5" stuff so we take our time trying to outmaneuver each other.

Couple quick ideas:

- minus 1 BS when shooting at targets over 36" away
- objectives may never be deployed in either deployment zone
- score 1/2 victory points for each turn that you hold an objective
- players may choose their warlord trait from their codex

It's 40k. It's a game where the closest thing to a normal human is a fanatical zealot who may be a clone (guardsman).
I always play until someone is tabled.
Do you think at the end of the game the Chaos Marines with less than half thier guys gone are gonna look at the near totally devastated guard army, and say "hey they had more points than us".

That's not what that represents at all.

Points are the closest approximation to giving balance to the nebulous concept of military objectives. When the battle ends in game, the battle in universe is not necessarily over. In your example, the Guard having more points and winning despite being slaughtered could very well represent a force tasked to hold a vital chokepoint until reinforcements arrive. The game ending is simply the in universe approximation that reinforcements have indeed arrived.

If anything, what would make 40k more tactical is improving its mission system, both standard and the super ridiculous Maelstrom. Making the game revolve around the mission inherently makes it more tactical and less of a point and click, remove models affair.

FYI, there was a huge fething thread full of good ideas (very few of them mine) a while ago, called "Let 100 Heresies Bloom." It's well worth checking out.

Yeah, I mean really, if you're going to start improved 40k, you might as well just start all over.

Or grab a different ruleset and port 40k units into it.

 SisterSydney wrote:
Terrain terrain terrain yes. You could even make it so default flat-table terrain wasn't open ground but gave a modest cover save (without blocking LOS) to represent units taking cover behind trees, behind low rises, etc that are too small to model.

That doesn't make 40k more tactical, it makes it LESS tactical. If everything, including open terrain, is cover then you don't have to carefully decide where to move to gain a cover save, whether it's worth taking cover at the expense of moving as fast as you want, etc. You just automatically have a cover save no matter what you do.

 Blacksails wrote:
Yeah, I mean really, if you're going to start improved 40k, you might as well just start all over.

Or grab a different ruleset and port 40k units into it.

I don't feel another system has ever had as much difference in model power and that's a huge win all it's own. Nothing has ever been as big of a stomp as An'ggrath facing down a fire warrior squad in cc.
40k isn't broken like some people seem to think, and if we could mesh older rulings from games like Epic, and BFG we could have the best game possible.

Add a movement characteristic. Fantasy is much more tactically minded then 40k, that's not up to be disputed, and this is why. Games are won and lost almost solely in the shooting phase in 40k while in Fantasy games are won and lost by someones ability in the movement phase to counteract what the opponent has moved. It makes the game much more tactical.

Your terrain rules plus add in some Movement rules and Values to bring it more into line with Fantasy would go a long way to get the 40k you described.

its is not just the movement values in WHFB that make if more tactically challenging than 40k.

But as all the movement can be done in the movement phase. players have to choose between;-

a)Stay still and fire to full effect in the shooting phase.
b) Move up to M value and shoot move and fire weapons in the shooting phase.
c)Move up to double movement value and not shoot in the shooting phase.
d) Move up to double movement value in to assault that is resolved in the assault phase.

Also the inclusion of a few simple modifiers , removes the need for so many pointless special rules.

But as many have said the game of 40k has changed beyond all recognition from a game play stand point since RT.
It really does need a complete re-write.

I agree with a lot of the constructive ideas in this thread:

- more directed missions with interesting mechanics, and no more random mysterious objectives or tactical objectives rolling nonsense. E.g. you are trying to seize a bridge, it is worth x victory points, the river is dangerous terrain. You are launching an amphibious assault. You are trying to blow up a series of missile silos, you gain victory points for each one destroyed. Etc.

- to Lanrak's point about player choice, that's key, in 40k you don't choose to forgo shooting for a meaningful march/run you forgo shooting for a d6" run, so you might forgo all shooting just to run 1". You might forgo shooting all rapid fire weapons just to fail a charge. You aren't gaining things from those choices you're gaining the chance of a decent run/charge. Some armies don't make any tactical choices or sacrifices like Tau jump-infantry or Eldar battle focus, you can move and shoot and run without penalty. If you choose to forgo shooting you should get a guaranteed 3" or 6" run, if you opt to charge (i.e. don't shoot heavy/rapid fire/salvo) you should get 3" tacked on to your move. Ideally move+run+charge would all be consolidated into the movement phase, instead of moving the same model three times in one turn.

- for terrain, a -1 BS to hit would create far more tactical situations since every model on the table could benefit from cover, not just low armor units. A marine in a trench should be much better protected against small arms fire than a marine in the open, vehicles too.

 Blacksails wrote:
Yeah, I mean really, if you're going to start improved 40k, you might as well just start all over.

Or grab a different ruleset and port 40k units into it.

We get it, everyone gets it, the rules ain't great, but we don't need these comments in every single thread of the Proposed Rules forum.

 TheSilo wrote:

We get it, everyone gets it, the rules ain't great, but we don't need these comments in every single thread of the Proposed Rules forum.

Well then allow me to expand on why I think that, and why its particularly constructive and relevant.

Let's say we change how WS and BS are calculated/affect outcomes. Now we have to go through the entire unit roster and consider the ramifications for the change from a balance perspective. Will some units become too good? Will some units become even worse?

By changing a single aspect in how the core rules functions, you have to consider the ramifications for every single unit.

Another one; changing board size. Now you have to consider the effect this will have on weapon ranges, movement characteristics of units, and special deployment rules like outflank and deepstrike. Every unit that has a weapon profile, special movement characteristic, or special deployment rule will now have to be analyzed to determine if this change makes the unit far too good, or relegated into nothingness.

That's two changes to the core rules. Now imagine a dozen such changes.

Which is why I'm saying you'd be better off doing one of two things; a total re-write or a port into another system.

You can dislike what I'm saying all you like, but ultimately, changing the core rules without considering how it will affect the current balance (or lack thereof) is a futile effort. If you do consider all the changes, you'll be doing more work than had you started from the ground up or used a better ruleset to port.

Admittedly, some core rules have greater or smaller impacts on the game, but changing things like how WS, BS, shooting modifiers, armour modifiers, or board size will dramatically affect gameplay, in potentially unforeseen ways.

@Blacksails.
I do not think anyone who has spent 5 years + working on trying to fix 40k rules ,disagrees that it is less effort to convert other rules sets or do a complete re write.

However, some people may be more comfortable with a 're-wind' to a previous edition, and re develop the game from there.
As it takes a comparatively huge a mount of time and effort to learn the complicated and holistic rules of 40k.

Some players do not want to feel like they are totally giving up on what they have invested so much in.
(Others fail to see how simpler rules can deliver much more game play depth.)

And if you remember 40k target audience is '...teenagers who soak up data like a sponge, but can not deal with over arching tactical decisions...'
So replacing huge a mounts of pointless special rules and random charts and data to remember, for tactical depth.Could be seen as moving in the wrong direction by some.


However, if we are discussing improving game play with minor changes.it is important to remember lots of the 'quick fixes/patches' that have been piled onto 40k since 3rd ed , may have to be ignored -removed.

So adding a more structured, interactive game turn, movement values, and limited simple modifiers , could make significant game play improvements , which may be enough for some , but not for everyone.

Is everyone in agreement that if 3rd edition was 'developed properly',then the 40k game would have been able to evolve its game play better?
(EG Keep movement rates, simplify modifiers,remove multiple dice size, and use a more interactive game turn.)

 TheSilo wrote:
Couple quick ideas:

- minus 1 BS when shooting at targets over 36" away
- objectives may never be deployed in either deployment zone
- score 1/2 victory points for each turn that you hold an objective
- players may choose their warlord trait from their codex

I dont get the idea minus 1 BS at over 36 inches. You need to be good to hits targets further away. So instead your BS determins how far you can shoot normally the anything after gets resolved as a snap shot. This gives Higher BS units (who are ment to better at shooting the advantage) But for this to be balaced all would have to hit on the same roll?

 Godeth wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Couple quick ideas:

- minus 1 BS when shooting at targets over 36" away
- objectives may never be deployed in either deployment zone
- score 1/2 victory points for each turn that you hold an objective
- players may choose their warlord trait from their codex

I dont get the idea minus 1 BS at over 36 inches. You need to be good to hits targets further away. So instead your BS determins how far you can shoot normally the anything after gets resolved as a snap shot. This gives Higher BS units (who are ment to better at shooting the advantage) But for this to be balaced all would have to hit on the same roll?

The game doesn't need more snap shots, they're a waste of time and don't contribute meaningful strategy or choice to the game.

The minus BS would only apply to weapons with range over 36" and the idea is to reduce the effectiveness of weapons that just park in one place, never move, and cover the whole battlefield. This would primarily affect things like heavy weapons and vehicles, basically it would increase the importance of positioning.

Other games use a '-1 to hit over X inches ' for long range, to good effect.

The inclusion of a few simple modifiers , in the right places , allows players to make meaningful tactical decisions .
Which mean players do not need lots of random stuff to replace engaging tactical game play.

Lanrak wrote:
Other games use a '-1 to hit over X inches ' for long range, to good effect.

The inclusion of a few simple modifiers , in the right places , allows players to make meaningful tactical decisions .
Which mean players do not need lots of random stuff to replace engaging tactical game play.

Agreed, I think cover, difficult terrain tests, and running could be easily replaced with simple modifiers (-1BS, -3", +3" IMO). Could probably also integrate the vehicle damage chart directly with the roll to penetrate (E.g. if you beat the armor by 2 it's +2 on the damage chart, rather than "my melta bombs rolled 8+2d6 and got 16, but I rolled a 1 on the damage table...")

I would love to see non-overwatch snap shots replaced with a less frivolous system (e.g. Weapons count as half range) so when my conscripts go to ground they aren't rolling 30 lasgun shots at BS 1, but instead can only target units in their immediate area.

@ The Silo.
A more interactive game turn could remove the need for 'over watch.'

Talking of effective weapon ranges..
I could be wrong, but didn't 2nd edition let rapid fire weapons;-
Move and fire one shot up to 12" away.
Or remain stationary and fire two shots up to 12" away, or one shot up to 24" away.

This would add back another tactical consideration.

This might cover snap firing in a different way.
A rule idea...
A unit passing a LD check, can snap fire one shot per model , up to a maximum range of 12" , during the enemy movement phase.
The unit that snap fired may not move or shoot for the rest of the game turn.

There are lots of simple ways to define a more tactical version of the 40k game play.
(The problem is working out how far you go with the changes. )

Yea in 3rd edition rapid fire could only fire 1 shot at 12" if they moved, but could freely assault. The game had no snap shots in that edition.

I may be stuck in that 3rd edition mindset but snap shots have to go. They're such an awful waste of time.

Overwatch should be limited to template and assault weapons (I once proposed only template and pistols at full BS but everyone freaked out at that). As long as we're not wasting all this time rolling for weak rapid fire snap shots.

Just something to make a unit's facing more important like fantasy.
I know that these small units will (should) have eyes watching in all directions since it is a more dynamic battle than the rank and file of fantasy.

But it just annoys me when units have full firing efficiency when a unit has just surprise landed right behind them

Triple_double_U wrote:
Just something to make a unit's facing more important like fantasy.
I know that these small units will (should) have eyes watching in all directions since it is a more dynamic battle than the rank and file of fantasy.

But it just annoys me when units have full firing efficiency when a unit has just surprise landed right behind them

Difficult to do with a dozen skirmishers, but I guess you could base the facing on the squad leader (not sure how it'd work with units like gaunts or kroot). It could work if you just have a front and rear facing:
- Shots drawn to the rear facing reduce cover/armor saves by 1.
- Assaults to the rear racing, the defending unit can't overwatch. The defending unit fights at -1 WS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some changes I posted previously, I think they'd help make things more tactical.

Pre-game:
- warlord traits, players may freely select their warlord trait if using their codex's unique warlord traits. Codices without unique traits may freely select from the BRB warlord tactical or personal traits (not command nor strategic traits!).

Movement:
- all model movement is now performed in the movement phase, including run (+3") and charge moves (+3"+d6"). If the charge fails, treat it as a run move directly towards the target unit. If the charge is successful, move all models the appropriate distance, into b2b contact if possible. In the shooting phase, the charging unit may fire assault and pistol weapons as normal (combat doesn't start until the assault phase), when using template and blast weapons ignore friendly models from the same unit caught under the template. In the shooting phase a charged unit may only be targeted by the unit(s) that charged it.
- any move entering, exiting, or crossing difficult terrain subtracts 3” from the model’s base movement, including bikes, cavalry, and vehicles. This affects run and charge moves. Units with the move through cover, beasts, and skimmer rules ignore this modifier.
- models may charge after disembarking from a non-assault vehicle (unless the vehicle began the turn in reserves), suffering -3" to their charge range. This is cumulative with any other penalties, e.g. charging through cover.
- any rules improving or re-rolling run moves (e.g. fleet, crusader, Move Move Move command) allow the model to run +6” instead of +3” (this doesn't apply to charges).

Shooting:
- eliminate the look out sir rule.
- +1 BS at targets within 12", -1 BS at targets beyond 36" (minimum BS 1 when shooting)
- all cover is treated the same, shots at models in cover or with cover modifiers (camo, stealth, jink, etc.) are fired at -1 BS (no more cover saves). Shots at models with both cover and a cover modifier are at -2 BS. Modifiers cannot reduce BS below 1. “Snap shots” always miss targets in cover. "Ignore cover" confers +1 BS when shooting at targets with cover. A unit is considered in cover if at least 50% of its models are out of sight or obscured from the closest shooting model with LOS.
- combat speed now counts as stationary for the purpose of firing. Cruising speed counts as combat speed for firing.
- remove all incidents of "randomly select a model" for wounds, instead the controlling player may choose who takes wounds in these instances.

Assault:
- (see above: Movement).
- in overwatch, template weapons and grenades (1 grenade per unit) inflict d3 automatic hits. Tau supporting fire is unaffected, the charged unit may not fire. Nothing else may fire overwatch.

I have always thought that you could model suppression, by restricting the arc of LOS for suppressed units.

EG an artillery barrage suppressed a unit, so the suppressed unit can only claim LOS for the space between them and their nearest enemy unit.(Front arc.)
This would let a unit attacking from the 'side' or 'rear' to get an assault bonus.

This would be quite easy to implement and would also add some more tactical options.IMO.

I like some of these rules, but I would get rid of the first few about WS: that kind of rules make DPs insanely powerful.

Stop letting Mat Ward write the rules.

This game is far from tactical. Just because they slap the word tactical on marine squad does not make them an more tactical than orks.

@TheSilo.

Just some quick comments , alternative ideas, on your proposed changes.(Assuming we are re-winding back to 2nd - 3rd edition, to de clutter the rules as much as possible..)

Warlord traits.
Free choice of traits if they are costed more accurately /appropriately.

Movement.
I would prefer to introduce movement values , and simply allow the choice of ;-
Remain stationary and make ranged attacks to full effect, in the shooting phase.
Move up to movement rate and make limited ranged attacks.(as per 2nd ed.)
Move up to double movement rate , and not make any ranged attacks or into assault.

Random movement is not needed in a tactical game IMO.

Difficult terrain halves movement.(Unit may double move/assault through difficult terrain at half speed.)

Very difficult terrain can only be crossed at half movement rate, Units may not double move/assault through very difficult terrain.

Models with move through cover , beasts and skimmer count terrain as one better.
Very Difficult= Difficult and Difficult = open ground.

Models may charge after disembarking a non assault vehicle , but only up to their movement rate.(They can not double move into assault.)

Rules for allowing re rolling random movement are not needed anymore.

Shooting.
Remove the look out sir rule.
(I would not give +1 to hit under 12" As it would be over powered!)
Targets over 30" away -1 to hit.
Light cover -1 to hit.
Heavy cover -2 to hit.
(1 always misses, 6 always hits, despite any modifiers ).

No more combat /cruising speed.Vehicles simply have different movement rates.(6",8",12 ")
Weapons are classed as 'move and fire' weapons than can fire if the vehicle moves up to M value.
Or the vehicle has to be stationary. to fire heavier weapons.

Would you be happy looking at more interactive game turns to remove the need for over watch?

Lanrak wrote:
@TheSilo.

Just some quick comments , alternative ideas, on your proposed changes.(Assuming we are re-winding back to 2nd - 3rd edition, to de clutter the rules as much as possible..)

Warlord traits.
Free choice of traits if they are costed more accurately /appropriately.

Movement.
I would prefer to introduce movement values , and simply allow the choice of ;-
Remain stationary and make ranged attacks to full effect, in the shooting phase.
Move up to movement rate and make limited ranged attacks.(as per 2nd ed.)
Move up to double movement rate , and not make any ranged attacks or into assault.

Random movement is not needed in a tactical game IMO.

Difficult terrain halves movement.(Unit may double move/assault through difficult terrain at half speed.)

Very difficult terrain can only be crossed at half movement rate, Units may not double move/assault through difficult terrain.

Models with move through cover , beasts and skimmer count terrain as one better.
Very Difficult= Difficult and Difficult = open ground.

Models may charge after disembarking a non assault vehicle , but only up to their movement rate.(They can not double move into assault.)

Rules for allowing re rolling random movement are not needed anymore.

Shooting.
Remove the look out sir rule.
(I would not give +1 to hit under 12" As it would be over powered!)
Targets over 30" away -1 to hit.
Light cover -1 to hit.
Heavy cover -2 to hit.
(1 always misses, 6 always hits, despite any modifiers ).

No more combat /cruising speed.Vehicles simply have different movement rates.(6",8",12 ")
Weapons are classed as 'move and fire' weapons than can fire if the vehicle moves up to M value.
Or the vehicle has to be stationary. to fire heavier weapons.

Would you be happy looking at more interactive game turns to remove the need for over watch?

I really like your changes. I agree that within 12" is probably OP, but it's a little ridiculous when your meltagunner misses that tank sitting 6" away. Even for a game that's an abstraction.

Just for clarity I'd probably call them natural cover (light) and heavy cover. Where any trees, rivers, rocks, etc. are light cover and any ruins or fortifications are heavy cover. I much prefer these broad categories rather than the crazy specific categories twisted copse, ruins, fortification, manufactorum, etc. that GW uses.

Specific vehicle movement speeds would make the most sense. And just have them move x" and fire or 2x" and don't fire. I think the easiest fix is to make Salvo/Heavy/Ordnance weapons fire at half range when moving. So my chimera can actually engage nearby units with its multilaser and heavy bolter. This could really give that infantry support feel with vehicles getting close in to unleash their firepower. Assault and rapid fire are unaffected. This way we don't have confusing rules about what is cruising speed for a tank versus combat speed for a skimmer, etc.

Race-based movement values would be tricky, it'd be a huge nerf or buff depending on the race.

I'm very skeptical about interactive player turns.

Besides from what others have posted (especially cover mods)

Id like to see Strategy ratings (the smarter warlord has better chance to go first) like in epic

More attack or defend missions
Remove FB
Add end of game calculations for units destroyed (because killing a massivly stupid OP expensive Deathstar should have its own reward)
No tableing (so you can start your army in reserves) (should be intresting with strategy ratings)

 Desubot wrote:

Id like to see Strategy ratings (the smarter warlord has better chance to go first) like in epic

Who's a smarter warlord, a farseer or Ghazzy?