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.

What kind of general rules would you propose that you think would make 9th edition better compared to current 8th Ed ?

My wishlist:

1) Reintroduce tank shock and superheavy tank blitz: my super heavy should NOT be blockable by a crummy lone infantry standing in front of me. I should be able to tank shock through it, and it either gets out of my way or gets grind into paste beneath my wheels.

2) Terrain: As long as there is intervening terrain that causes some of the model to be blocked, counts as in cover (+1 to save). If a unit is wholly in cover (not just intervening terrain), then it gets a +2 to save. Yes, this makes shooting less powerful, but there is nothing wrong with that. Shooting is too powerful in 8th ed as it is.

3) Against units in terrain: Give normal boltguns a -1 AP. I think its time to make some distinction between a flashlight lasgun vs a boltgun. A boltgun is supposed to be able to shoot out a very large bullet. It should be able to shoot through the walls of a ruin pretty easily.

4) Terminator armor: Make terminators relevant again. Give Termi armor a 1+ save by default. So yes, Terminators will be immune to AP 0. weapons There is nothing wrong with that. The whole idea is that you hit Termi armor with high penetration weapons. Every army has high penetration weapons. If you didn't bring any at all, its your fault, not the rules.

5) Make close combat hurt more. All "combat type units" should have at least -1 AP, if not better. Close combat should hurt more. Crossing the battlefield to get into combat is already a challenge, and then melee has to deal with screens as well. Considering all this, a melee unit needs to be able to inflict at least 3 times the damage of a shooting unit because it needs to cross the battlefield, get into combat, and take all the casulties and then fight at a reduced strength when it finally reaches the shooting unit.

6) Vehicles should be able to tank shock through terrain. Why should that flimsy ruin of a wall stop a big hulking defiler, or a lord of skulls.

7) Reduce all the rerolling. Change all the rerolling auras. It makes the game so much slower. Give them +1 to hit roll instead but stop with the rerolling auras. That goes for rerolling to wound as well. a 1 to hit should be a miss. end of story, a 1 to wound should be a fail, end of story.

8) Artillery (ability to fire out of line of sight) should get a point increase across the board. If you are going to make terrain more relevant, then Artillery that can hit targets hidden out of sight needs to have their points reflected correctly. That is an extremely powerful ability.

9) Reroll strategem: get rid of this.

10) Stacking of buffs. Be it invul saves, to hit, to wound, anything. Buffs should NOT be stackable. Even as a CSM player whose competitive build is the unhittable alpha legion posssessed bomb, I would say to implement this. Because it is the easiest thing that can break the game.

11) Invul saves: Should be capped at 3+ regardless of buffs. Nothing should ever get a 2+ invul save or better., In fact, most invul saves should start out at 4++ pr 5++ by default. Having something start with a 3++ save that can then be buffed to a 2++ save is bad design. Any vehicle should have its invul save capped at 4++.

12) d6 damage weapons need to be changed to a flat 4 damage weapon. d3 weapons should just be all flat 2 damage. Reduces all the time wasted rolling.

13 Flamers needs to properly scare hordes. If you are going to change d6 hits to a max 6 hits on hordes, then flamers should get the same treatment. And have both both auto hit 6 hits on hordes. Artillery and flamers should scare hordes properly. Create a horde USR and give it to units that would be properly used as hordes, like cultists, guardsmen. Space marines are not hordes.

14) Characters must always be attached to units. They cannot move more than 3 inches away from their attached unit. If they lose the units they are "attached to", they lose their immunity to shooting. No character should be allowed to come in from reserve alone. I had enough of playing herohammer, I want to play warhammer. If you want to deepstrike in a jump pack storm hammer lord, it must be attached to jump pack unit and both deep strike in. And each unit can only get one character attached to it. So, you want to play hero hammer, better be prepared to have tons of units to attach all those characters to. For charging, the unit charge, and the character follows automatically. No separate charge needed. The character is free to fight whoever the unit charges.

15) I am actually ok with Soup. But you have to nominate a dominant detachment. And you can only use strategems from that dominant detachment.

16) Get rid of the rivalry type of bonuses. Or only allow those for narrative games. Why should daemons arm auto lose to grey knights, etc etc. These type of rules should be part of the narrative campaign or mission. They should never be part of the trait for an army or its units. Come up with a better rule that something like "death to the false emperor". But at the same time, get rid of all those stuff that gives bonuses against a specific faction.

17) let vehicles have 2+ armor save by default. After all, if boltguns get a -1 AP, then vehicles need their armour upped as well. This will make melta guns more relevant too. (And I think melta guns should be -5 AP)

Thanks for reading if you have got so far. Feel free to add your own wishlist of what you hope 9th Ed rules should be like. : )

Switch to D10/12 and use apocalypse loss removal system, at the end of the round.

Do Marines really need to be better?

I actually approve of like 90% of all these ideas! The only ones I'm on the fence about are reducing invuln saves. I want elite armies to stay elite!

Still: I hope to see these changes.

"Give all the things -1 AP!" makes me kind of twitchy. The game is already too lethal, Space Marine armies running around with global -2 AP or better (-1 on boltguns/bolt rifles plus doctrine buff) is just going to make it harder to play Space Marines (4+ armour in cover! Yay!).

Not to mention you're making basic Marine riflemen stronger than Deathwatch Marines (who have to choose between SIA and full-range rapid fire, and don't get Doctrines).

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Give all the things -1 AP!" makes me kind of twitchy. The game is already too lethal, Space Marine armies running around with global -2 AP or better (-1 on boltguns/bolt rifles plus doctrine buff) is just going to make it harder to play Space Marines (4+ armour in cover! Yay!).

Not to mention you're making basic Marine riflemen stronger than Deathwatch Marines (who have to choose between SIA and full-range rapid fire, and don't get Doctrines).

Conversely, it's easy to get +2 to cover saves. And the OP apparently also wants to make 1+ saves unfailable, meaning Marines in cover are immune to AP0 weapons, and Terminators in cover are immune to AP-2 weapons.

Edit: Also, I play Nurgle Daemons, OP. Where are my weapons with good AP?

I've got Daemon Princes and Heralds that are GOOD units that have AP, but they can't really be spammed.
I've got GUO and Soul Grinders for crappy units that have AP, and they ALSO cannot be spammed.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Give all the things -1 AP!" makes me kind of twitchy. The game is already too lethal, Space Marine armies running around with global -2 AP or better (-1 on boltguns/bolt rifles plus doctrine buff) is just going to make it harder to play Space Marines (4+ armour in cover! Yay!).

Not to mention you're making basic Marine riflemen stronger than Deathwatch Marines (who have to choose between SIA and full-range rapid fire, and don't get Doctrines).

Conversely, it's easy to get +2 to cover saves. And the OP apparently also wants to make 1+ saves unfailable, meaning Marines in cover are immune to AP0 weapons, and Terminators in cover are immune to AP-2 weapons.

Edit: Also, I play Nurgle Daemons, OP. Where are my weapons with good AP?

I've got Daemon Princes and Heralds that are GOOD units that have AP, but they can't really be spammed.
I've got GUO and Soul Grinders for crappy units that have AP, and they ALSO cannot be spammed.

The +2 to cover saves/auto-pass 1+ also makes me kind of twitchy given my experimentation with various rewrites of the rules. Guardsmen have the four-shots-per-model order because it's way too easy for lasguns to do squat without it; trying to make things more immune to lasguns because you don't like the four-shots-per-model order is just pure power creep. If you want a large percentage of the game to be completely immune to lasguns why are they in the game? Would you be happier if Guardsmen squads were unarmed except for their heavy weapons? Or is it okay for them to be able to kill Tyranids but not okay for them to do anything to your precious Marines? What are Guard players supposed to do if this change goes through except agitate for -1 AP to lasguns so they can participate in the game?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Give all the things -1 AP!" makes me kind of twitchy. The game is already too lethal, Space Marine armies running around with global -2 AP or better (-1 on boltguns/bolt rifles plus doctrine buff) is just going to make it harder to play Space Marines (4+ armour in cover! Yay!).

Not to mention you're making basic Marine riflemen stronger than Deathwatch Marines (who have to choose between SIA and full-range rapid fire, and don't get Doctrines).

Conversely, it's easy to get +2 to cover saves. And the OP apparently also wants to make 1+ saves unfailable, meaning Marines in cover are immune to AP0 weapons, and Terminators in cover are immune to AP-2 weapons.

Edit: Also, I play Nurgle Daemons, OP. Where are my weapons with good AP?

I've got Daemon Princes and Heralds that are GOOD units that have AP, but they can't really be spammed.
I've got GUO and Soul Grinders for crappy units that have AP, and they ALSO cannot be spammed.

I said all melee type units should have at least -1 AP for their weapons or better. That would apply to nurgle daemons because they are definitely melee. The +2 cover save isn't going to help marines who get caught in melee. So, once you get into melee, even against marines, you now have at least a -1 AP attack while their power armor is still 3+. In fact, I mentioned in my point that melee type units should deal at least 3 times as much damage as a shooty unit in melee to factor in them having to take all the casualties just getting across the battlefield into combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Give all the things -1 AP!" makes me kind of twitchy. The game is already too lethal, Space Marine armies running around with global -2 AP or better (-1 on boltguns/bolt rifles plus doctrine buff) is just going to make it harder to play Space Marines (4+ armour in cover! Yay!).

Not to mention you're making basic Marine riflemen stronger than Deathwatch Marines (who have to choose between SIA and full-range rapid fire, and don't get Doctrines).

Conversely, it's easy to get +2 to cover saves. And the OP apparently also wants to make 1+ saves unfailable, meaning Marines in cover are immune to AP0 weapons, and Terminators in cover are immune to AP-2 weapons.

Edit: Also, I play Nurgle Daemons, OP. Where are my weapons with good AP?

I've got Daemon Princes and Heralds that are GOOD units that have AP, but they can't really be spammed.
I've got GUO and Soul Grinders for crappy units that have AP, and they ALSO cannot be spammed.

The +2 to cover saves/auto-pass 1+ also makes me kind of twitchy given my experimentation with various rewrites of the rules. Guardsmen have the four-shots-per-model order because it's way too easy for lasguns to do squat without it; trying to make things more immune to lasguns because you don't like the four-shots-per-model order is just pure power creep. If you want a large percentage of the game to be completely immune to lasguns why are they in the game? Would you be happier if Guardsmen squads were unarmed except for their heavy weapons? Or is it okay for them to be able to kill Tyranids but not okay for them to do anything to your precious Marines? What are Guard players supposed to do if this change goes through except agitate for -1 AP to lasguns so they can participate in the game?

Every guard army has more than just guardsmen in it. You have tanks, flyers, artillery that can all do lethal damage and have good penetrating power. Don't forget, I suggested being in cover gives +2 to armor save. So your 5+ armor guardsmen in cover now has a 3+ save (power armor levels). Now, if you hope to only rely on massed lasguns to win you the game... well, they shouldn't. Just look at how many times they had to nerf Cultists all because of how deadly that humble str 3 lasgun equivalent, when massed together in a 40 strong unit and given strategems to shoot twice could do...

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Give all the things -1 AP!" makes me kind of twitchy. The game is already too lethal, Space Marine armies running around with global -2 AP or better (-1 on boltguns/bolt rifles plus doctrine buff) is just going to make it harder to play Space Marines (4+ armour in cover! Yay!).

Not to mention you're making basic Marine riflemen stronger than Deathwatch Marines (who have to choose between SIA and full-range rapid fire, and don't get Doctrines).

Conversely, it's easy to get +2 to cover saves. And the OP apparently also wants to make 1+ saves unfailable, meaning Marines in cover are immune to AP0 weapons, and Terminators in cover are immune to AP-2 weapons.

Edit: Also, I play Nurgle Daemons, OP. Where are my weapons with good AP?

I've got Daemon Princes and Heralds that are GOOD units that have AP, but they can't really be spammed.
I've got GUO and Soul Grinders for crappy units that have AP, and they ALSO cannot be spammed.

I said all melee type units should have at least -1 AP for their weapons or better. That would apply to nurgle daemons because they are definitely melee. The +2 cover save isn't going to help marines who get caught in melee. So, once you get into melee, even against marines, you now have at least a -1 AP attack while their power armor is still 3+. In fact, I mentioned in my point that melee type units should deal at least 3 times as much damage as a shooty unit in melee to factor in them having to take all the casualties just getting across the battlefield into combat.

What do you do with Tau? Or do you just accept that you're making core rules changes that just bork one Codex?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
"Give all the things -1 AP!" makes me kind of twitchy. The game is already too lethal, Space Marine armies running around with global -2 AP or better (-1 on boltguns/bolt rifles plus doctrine buff) is just going to make it harder to play Space Marines (4+ armour in cover! Yay!).

Not to mention you're making basic Marine riflemen stronger than Deathwatch Marines (who have to choose between SIA and full-range rapid fire, and don't get Doctrines).

Conversely, it's easy to get +2 to cover saves. And the OP apparently also wants to make 1+ saves unfailable, meaning Marines in cover are immune to AP0 weapons, and Terminators in cover are immune to AP-2 weapons.

Edit: Also, I play Nurgle Daemons, OP. Where are my weapons with good AP?

I've got Daemon Princes and Heralds that are GOOD units that have AP, but they can't really be spammed.
I've got GUO and Soul Grinders for crappy units that have AP, and they ALSO cannot be spammed.

The +2 to cover saves/auto-pass 1+ also makes me kind of twitchy given my experimentation with various rewrites of the rules. Guardsmen have the four-shots-per-model order because it's way too easy for lasguns to do squat without it; trying to make things more immune to lasguns because you don't like the four-shots-per-model order is just pure power creep. If you want a large percentage of the game to be completely immune to lasguns why are they in the game? Would you be happier if Guardsmen squads were unarmed except for their heavy weapons? Or is it okay for them to be able to kill Tyranids but not okay for them to do anything to your precious Marines? What are Guard players supposed to do if this change goes through except agitate for -1 AP to lasguns so they can participate in the game?

Every guard army has more than just guardsmen in it. You have tanks, flyers, artillery that can all do lethal damage and have good penetrating power. Don't forget, I suggested being in cover gives +2 to armor save. So your 5+ armor guardsmen in cover now has a 3+ save (power armor levels). Now, if you hope to only rely on massed lasguns to win you the game... well, they shouldn't. Just look at how many times they had to nerf Cultists all because of how deadly that humble str 3 lasgun equivalent, when massed together in a 40 strong unit and given strategems to shoot twice could do...

I'm not asking for massed lasguns to win games. I'm asking whether lasguns should be able to do any damage to anything. If you want to make a large percentage of the armies in the game 100% immune to lasgun fire a large percentage of the time why do lasguns exist? Did you find playing against Imperial Knights in 7e fun with all your boltguns unable to do any damage? I'm also asking why you want to make things more immune to lasguns instead of, I don't know, cutting FRF/SRF or making Guardsmen more expensive?

Cultists have never had to be nerfed because of their lasgun powers, they've been nerfed because of the tarpit powers of morale-immune 40-strong units. The 3+ armour save for Guardsmen in cover isn't going to help given that you're also suggesting a whole bunch of small arms an extra -1 AP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum: How about other armies who rely on AP0 ranged weapons for infantry clearing? Tau? Eldar/Dark Eldar? AdMech? Are massed splinter rifles such a problem for the game that Space Marines need to be made immune to them?

Cultists got nerfed because of their "killing power", not because of their tarpit powers

Cultists have a 6+ armor save... The tarpit powers of a bunch of 40 cultists is laughable... Morale or not.

And they have such incredible killing power that you'd skip using the shoot-twice stratagem on your Obliterators or Havocs to get more autogun shots? Such incredible killing power that bumping them from 4ppm to 5ppm killed them as a unit?

If you want a game where only heavy weapons can kill Space Marines in cover how do you expect that to lead to a game where anyone takes non-heavy weapons?

Yes, GW obviously thought so, because they nerfed cultists not just once.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
What kind of general rules would you propose that you think would make 9th edition better compared to current 8th Ed ?

My wishlist:

1) Reintroduce tank shock and superheavy tank blitz: my super heavy should NOT be blockable by a crummy lone infantry standing in front of me. I should be able to tank shock through it, and it either gets out of my way or gets grind into paste beneath my wheels.

2) Terrain: As long as there is intervening terrain that causes some of the model to be blocked, counts as in cover (+1 to save). If a unit is wholly in cover (not just intervening terrain), then it gets a +2 to save. Yes, this makes shooting less powerful, but there is nothing wrong with that. Shooting is too powerful in 8th ed as it is.

3) Against units in terrain: Give normal boltguns a -1 AP. I think its time to make some distinction between a flashlight lasgun vs a boltgun. A boltgun is supposed to be able to shoot out a very large bullet. It should be able to shoot through the walls of a ruin pretty easily.

4) Terminator armor: Make terminators relevant again. Give Termi armor a 1+ save by default. So yes, Terminators will be immune to AP 0. weapons There is nothing wrong with that. The whole idea is that you hit Termi armor with high penetration weapons. Every army has high penetration weapons. If you didn't bring any at all, its your fault, not the rules.

5) Make close combat hurt more. All "combat type units" should have at least -1 AP, if not better. Close combat should hurt more. Crossing the battlefield to get into combat is already a challenge, and then melee has to deal with screens as well. Considering all this, a melee unit needs to be able to inflict at least 3 times the damage of a shooting unit because it needs to cross the battlefield, get into combat, and take all the casulties and then fight at a reduced strength when it finally reaches the shooting unit.

6) Vehicles should be able to tank shock through terrain. Why should that flimsy ruin of a wall stop a big hulking defiler, or a lord of skulls.

7) Reduce all the rerolling. Change all the rerolling auras. It makes the game so much slower. Give them +1 to hit roll instead but stop with the rerolling auras. That goes for rerolling to wound as well. a 1 to hit should be a miss. end of story, a 1 to wound should be a fail, end of story.

8) Artillery (ability to fire out of line of sight) should get a point increase across the board. If you are going to make terrain more relevant, then Artillery that can hit targets hidden out of sight needs to have their points reflected correctly. That is an extremely powerful ability.

9) Reroll strategem: get rid of this.

10) Stacking of buffs. Be it invul saves, to hit, to wound, anything. Buffs should NOT be stackable. Even as a CSM player whose competitive build is the unhittable alpha legion posssessed bomb, I would say to implement this. Because it is the easiest thing that can break the game.

11) Invul saves: Should be capped at 3+ regardless of buffs. Nothing should ever get a 2+ invul save or better., In fact, most invul saves should start out at 4++ pr 5++ by default. Having something start with a 3++ save that can then be buffed to a 2++ save is bad design. Any vehicle should have its invul save capped at 4++.

12) d6 damage weapons need to be changed to a flat 4 damage weapon. d3 weapons should just be all flat 2 damage. Reduces all the time wasted rolling.

13 Flamers needs to properly scare hordes. If you are going to change d6 hits to a max 6 hits on hordes, then flamers should get the same treatment. And have both both auto hit 6 hits on hordes. Artillery and flamers should scare hordes properly. Create a horde USR and give it to units that would be properly used as hordes, like cultists, guardsmen. Space marines are not hordes.

14) Characters must always be attached to units. They cannot move more than 3 inches away from their attached unit. If they lose the units they are "attached to", they lose their immunity to shooting. No character should be allowed to come in from reserve alone. I had enough of playing herohammer, I want to play warhammer. If you want to deepstrike in a jump pack storm hammer lord, it must be attached to jump pack unit and both deep strike in. And each unit can only get one character attached to it. So, you want to play hero hammer, better be prepared to have tons of units to attach all those characters to. For charging, the unit charge, and the character follows automatically. No separate charge needed. The character is free to fight whoever the unit charges.

15) I am actually ok with Soup. But you have to nominate a dominant detachment. And you can only use strategems from that dominant detachment.

16) Get rid of the rivalry type of bonuses. Or only allow those for narrative games. Why should daemons arm auto lose to grey knights, etc etc. These type of rules should be part of the narrative campaign or mission. They should never be part of the trait for an army or its units. Come up with a better rule that something like "death to the false emperor". But at the same time, get rid of all those stuff that gives bonuses against a specific faction.

17) let vehicles have 2+ armor save by default. After all, if boltguns get a -1 AP, then vehicles need their armour upped as well. This will make melta guns more relevant too. (And I think melta guns should be -5 AP)

Thanks for reading if you have got so far. Feel free to add your own wishlist of what you hope 9th Ed rules should be like. : )

1. Superheavies can move out of combat anyway but I also fell certain heavies should have special rules that mean a hit scores x amounts of nits instead, to reflect the large footprint of these models. So for example a baneblade might have 4 attacks but each attack that hits inflicts 2 additional hits.

2. Terrain is changing anyway but this seems OK. I also think that only models within sight should be able to be killed again. but we'll see. No more sniping entire squads because you can see one guy.

3. Disagree. Every army has a basic weapon, so too should marines. It's like saying that guard should have stacking bonuses for lasguns determined by how many hits you score because its weight of fire that takes things down. Primaris already upset the balance and we don't need that pushing further.

4. Not a bad idea in the scope of -AP system and should be rolled out a bit further to other units, but a natural 1 on armour save should always fail.

5. I'm not sure I agree with this, I alternatively think that any unit that is a combat type unit (IE They are intended to get into close combat over shooting) Should have a higher base attack number. Raptors and warp talons only having 1 attack basic whilst an ork stormboy that is technically the same unit has 2 attacks base before the choppa bonus just irks me...

6. I disagree, I feel this should be a special rule attached to some units. A Land raider would have no problem shunting through a ruined wall. A rhino, maybe not so much...

7. I don't mind r-roll auras, but they should be more uniform across the board rather than weird edge case scenarios. (Looking at you Bellisarius Cawl)

8. Kinda agree, but I also feel that there needs to me more chance of missing too. I always felt that blast should be one roll to hit then determine number of hits rather than the other way around, but that's just me.

9. Reroll stratagem is fine IMO, basic and to the point.

10. I think this is going down the pan anyway. The only advantage to stacking buffs in next edition seems to be counteracting negative buffs.

11. Kinda agree. 2+ Should be very edge case or very limited in availability and duration. 3+ should be almost non existent.

12. Kinda disagree. Random damage is a good mechanic and introduces a bit more tactical thinking, but I feel some weapons should be changed to flat out damage over randomised damage.

13. most flame weapons from start of edition need a buff anyway. Horde USR makes them more viable but I also always felt that unit size should play a factor as well. 40 Boys charging a flamer should receive a lot more hits compared to trying to flame a unit of 10 marines.

14. Disagree, I just feel that heroes should be multipliers to your force, not soloing every guy around them (Except in certain characters cases, such as Ghaz, Abbadon and Gulliman to name a few.) People like commander dante should allow you to take more jump pack units in an army instead (Assault marines can be taken as Fast attack and/or Elites). that kind of thing. Just as an example.

15. I don't mind soup but make it so that in soup armies each army can only use the command points they generate. (An IG battalion uses the CP it generates and cannot be used for the allied Adeptus Custodes, who get either 1 Because of detachment or 4 for Detachment and battleforged bonuses.

16. I like these rules but I would also like fluffy rules too. so this is a toughie. maybe make it so that its on a 7+ on all armies, but a 6+ on the rivalled army. That way it can have an effect in other games under advantageous circumstances but plays out more in intended games.

17. Similar to point 4, Armour 2+ and 1+ should be available to tanks but I also feel that non anti-tank weapons should have a penalty against actual tanks, like -1 to wound. basic guns should not be a reasonable option against tanks.

This isn't a jab, but I find it interesting that I see where you're coming from on most of these points but also disagree with you on almost all of them. Neat how people can come to different conclusions about things.

Eldenfirefly wrote:

1) Reintroduce tank shock and superheavy tank blitz: my super heavy should NOT be blockable by a crummy lone infantry standing in front of me. I should be able to tank shock through it, and it either gets out of my way or gets grind into paste beneath my wheels.

Sounds like 9th edition will have rules for letting shooty vehicles shoot even while being stabbed by enemy units. I would be all for letting vehicles and MCs move through non-vehicle and non-MC models when falling back. I'm not so big a fan of letting vehicles grind models into paste as they move though; if a leman russ can suddenly squish space marines reliably, how big of a price hike does that warrant? And how big a kick in the crotch is it to melee armies if the gunline armies are now in their weight class in melee too?