One Edition to Rule(set) Them All: Neither 7th nor 8th, Both

[kombatwombat]

So all the back and forth of ‘my edition is better than your edition’ and the impending arrival of the Horus Heresy 7th Ed Rulebook has led me to ask: is the best 40k/30k ruleset ever within our grasp?

 

A lot of people like the added complexity of 7th and sneer at 8th as ‘babyhammer’, while refusing to accept that some things in 7th are horribly complex without benefiting the game (I defy you to look me in the eye and say the 7th Psychic Phase is in a good place). Conversely, those who champion the improved mechanics of 8th often fail to see the thematic strengths of 7th (does a blast weapon honestly feel like an explosion in 8th?).

 

As ever, the best course is usually to cut down the middle between two extremes, so that’s what I’ve decided to try to do today.

 

Mission Statement: To take the skeleton of 7th Ed and furnish it with the best mechanics of 8th, to use the modern rules to fix the problems with the older system.

 

The aim is to never cut out simulation in the name of streamlining. The target audience - 30k players - are as a demographic generally older, more experienced and more committed to the hobby, and so are theoretically more inclined to greater depth rather than faster games.

 

Obviously this would require a ground-up rebuild of points and changes to a lot of weapon and unit profiles. I’m not looking to go into that level of detail just yet, more of a look at the mechanics.

 

Ultimately I’m toying with the idea of writing a homebrew ruleset. If I can find some kind of consensus on what should and shouldn’t change, I may take the plunge and commit these ideas to paper more formally.

 

Remember, this is all 7th rules except where I’ve made changes.

 

——————

 

1.0 General Principles

 

1.1 Templates: They stay. As do scatter and Deep Strike. One of the most maligned things of 8th is that these are missing.

 

1.2 Line of Sight: No changes from 7th. It’s simply better than 8th’s ‘firing 4 Lascannons from a tailpipe’.

 

1.3 Army Selection: 7th Ed 30k rules. They work, so much better than 7th Ed 40k or 8th Ed Formations/Detachments. That said, the separation of models and wargear points in 8th has merit.

 

1.4 Keywords: There’s no real downside I can see to having Keywords being introduced. They help prevent unintended cross-effects, and make it easier to apply special rules and effects.

 

1.5 Warlord Traits: Get did of random traits and let players pick their own. This might take a slight change of some traits to balance them all, but 8th seems to manage it. For abilities that allow a re-roll of Warlord trait, replace that with an ability to take two traits from different tables (so one Strategic and one personal trait, for example).

 

2.0 Profile

 

2.1 Remove the limit of 10 for stats; allow certain units to have Strength values of 12, for example.

 

2.2 Movement: Bring this straight over from 8th. It’s a more elegant way to distinguish between unit speeds than reams of special rules.

 

2.3 Weapon Skill: Use the 7th version, but replace the WS/WS chart with the S/T chart from 8th. So 4+ for equal WS, 5+/3+ for higher/lower, 6+/2+ for double/half. It should be harder for a basic infantryman to tag Fulgrim than tagging an Astartes!

 

2.4 Ballistic Skill, Strength and Toughness: Use the 7th version. It allows some for impossible to wound situations, which is helpful for protecting tanks from small arms.

 

2.5 Wounds, Initiative and Leadership: Unchanged from 7th.

 

2.6 Saves: Armour and Invulnerable saves are largely the same in 7th and 8th, and we’re not introducing Mortal Wounds. Feel No Pain changes “cannot be taken if the attack causes Instant Death” to “cannot be taken if the attack’s Strength is at least double the model’s toughness”.

 

2.6.1 The big change here is a welcome one: a complete, total and utter moratorium on anything that in any capacity whatsoever allows any kind of re-roll on Armour, Invulnerable or Feel No Pain saves. Further, no Invulnerable Saves better than 3++. No exceptions. The God-Emperor of Mankind himself alone may have a 2++, and only if he casts a psychic power to do it. Stamp this in huge red letters on the cover of the rulebook. Change the tagline to ‘In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only 3++ or worse.’ Re-rolling saves leads to hate, hate leads to cheese, cheese leads to invisible deathstars.

 

2.6.2 As an example of a mechanic to replace rerolls, Void Hardened Armour would add 1 to the Armour Save against templates.

 

3.0 Movement Phase

 

3.1 Difficult terrain needs to be changed to compensate the introduction of the M stat. I’m thinking of having it reduce a unit’s M stat by D3 if the unit moves over it (to a minimum of 1), and if a unit moves more than 6” over terrain you make a Dangerous Terrain test. Vehicles (and monstrous creatures - anything with more than say 5 wounds) failing that test would no longer be immobilised by a shrub, but would take D3 wounds if they fail their armour save.

 

4.0 Psychic Phase

 

4.1 Honestly, I’m open to suggestions here. My best idea would be to use the 8th casting/denial mechanics, but with 7th powers (including Mind Howl instead of Invisibility). Choosing powers is better than rolling for them, so you’d just have to adjust the casting values and tweak the powers slightly so there aren’t some auto-includes and some never-includes.

 

5.0 Shooting Phase

 

5.1 Weapons Profiles: The same as 7th Ed, but replace Snap Firing with -2 BS, to a minimum of BS 1. Better marksmen should be more accurate, even when they’re moving or shooting at planes. Flyers in 30k are moving low and slow enough to interact with what’s happening on the ground - they’re not screaming past at Mach 1 30,000 feet up.

 

5.2 Multi-Damage Weapons: Ported over directly from 8th. These give a genuine ability to counter larger models. It also gets rid of the Instant Death mechanic, replacing an all-or-nothing mechanic with a granular one.

 

5.3 AP System: Also ported over from 8th as it is more granular and less all-or-nothing than the 7th one. In 7th a Power Sword is no more dangerous to a Terminator than a Cultist’s pointy stick, and any combat monster without AP2 is a laughing stock.

 

5.3.1 Power Swords/Axes/Mauls would use their 8th profiles, while Power Fists would retain the Unwieldy rule instead of -1 to hit, as we are keeping Initiative.

 

5.3.2 This does give horde armies more durability, so it may be necessary to tone down the Armour Saves of Solar Auxilia and other light infantry by a point to compensate.

 

5.4 Twin-Linking: Taken from 8th - simply doubles the number of shots. Two parallel barrels shouldn’t make you more accurate and no more powerful if you do connect with the target.

 

5.5 Indirect fire uses 3D6 for scatter if the firer moved.

 

5.6 Add a scaling of templates mechanic - any model with a starting value of 10+ wounds hit by a Template/Blast weapon takes 1+D3 hits instead of 1. Models with 20+ wounds take 1+2D3. This is intended as halfway between 8th ‘Blast weapons wreck single models’ and 7th ‘being bathed by a flamer is no worse than being clipped by one’.

 

5.7 Gets Hot: Make the damage for getting hurt by Gets Hot D3 to make it relevant to vehicles and monsters, which will have an increased wound tally. There’s potential here to up the ante: allow these weapons to overcharge and double their Damage, but if they choose to do this and Get Hot then they can’t make an armour save against the overheating.

 

5.8 Bring in split fire from 8th. No more having 19 guys twiddling their thumbs while the sergeant chucks a krak grenade at a nearby Dreadnought. Similarly, no more having the left sponson on a Predator idling while the turret and right sponson target something else.

 

5.9 Vehicle (and monstrous creature) shooting: Let them move up to half of the M stat and fire Heavy/Ordnance weapons normally, or at -1 BS if they move more than that. Superheavies and gargantuans only get the penalty on Ordnance.

 

5.10 Cover: The 7th version (post ‘toe-in-cover’ FAQ) of who gets cover is just better. However, the idea of a Cover Save would be replaced with 8th’s +1 to Armour Save (or +2 for things like Aegis lines, or +3 for Bunkers). This is good because it gets rid of the curious idea in 7th that a branch would protect a Space Marine from a Volcano Cannon but not from a Lasgun! Essentially it’s the conditions for getting cover from 7th, but the cover bonus from 8th.

 

6.0 Assault

 

6.1 Distances: Replace ‘base-to-base’ with ‘within 1”’. It helps mitigate ‘you’re 6.0001” away so technically that’s a 7” charge’ by giving a little bit of flex in the distance requirement. It also throws assault units a bone by shortening their charge by an inch.

 

6.2 Transports: Units that disembarked from a stationary transport can charge that turn. This hasn’t led to the feared ‘Rhino rush’ in 8th, but it does give transports some utility for assault units.

 

6.3 As Snap Firing is no longer a thing, Overwatch for non-Template/Blast weapons require a flat 6 to hit.

 

6.4 Allow Blast weaponry (other than Primary and Ordnance) to Overwatch, but without subtracting their BS from the scatter - a potentially very dangerous proposition.

 

6.5 Overwatch requires line of sight (no indirect fire Overwatch).

 

6.6 Sweeping Advance: If a unit is caught, they lose as many models as they failed their Ld test by rather than the whole unit. It helps take the sting out of a bad roll killing 19 models after one died in combat, and rewards doing more damage than the minimum required to make them fail the test.

 

6.7 Consolidation: This one is contentious: allow units to Consolidate into combat with other units. Close combat isn’t exactly dominant in 7th, so the leg up is probably welcome for assault specialists. It also punishes castling up and encourages more dynamic, mobile gameplay.

 

7.0 Vehicles

 

7.1 Remove Armour Values and give every unit a Toughness and Armour Save per 8th. Before you go grabbing the pitchforks, this does not mean removing facings; instead of having front, rear and side AV, all large models would have front, rear and side T values on their profile. It would naturally follow that vehicles replace Hull Points with large numbers of wounds, and monstrous creatures increase their wounds to match. This is to end the odd discrepancy in 7th where vehicles die to one lucky shot, but shifting a monstrous creature requires enormous volumes of high-strength firepower.

 

7.1.1 This will mean that vehicles suddenly become more susceptible to small arms fire. Given the variable T values, this could be mitigated by giving most vehicles - say a Rhino chassis or tougher - a front Toughness of 8, making them immune to frontal Bolter fire. General wisdom in 8th shows that small arms fire are not a significant threat to vehicles, even if they can harm them.

 

7.1.2 Given that there’s no longer a difference between Glancing and Penetrating, Toughness 6-10 is identical to AV 10-14, save for two things. First, it removes the possibility of a 1+ success (like Str 9/10 vs AV 10) since you need st least a 2+. Second, it allows for weapons to roll a 7 to penetrate/wound, since the 7th Strength/Toughness chart doesnt end at 6+, it ends at 7+ (which requires a 6 to roll). The upshot is that weapons will be able to hurt the equivalent of one AV value higher than they currently can. So, for example, Rotor Cannons could now hurt the equivalent of AV10, but not AV11.

 

7.2 With the profile moving closer to that of 8th for vehicles, they could be given a largely academic Leadership value (as vehicles are Fearless), an Initiative of 1, and a Weapon Skill of 0, meaning they could never actually attack in close combat.

 

7.3 Non-Walker vehicles still would not be able to charge or be locked in combat. They would still Tank Shock/Ram - though they now have a Strength to do so with, and could inflict a number of hits equal to their Attacks characteristic on the unit being Shocked/Rammed.

 

7.4 Furthermore, the Vehicle Damage Chart would be replaced by the degrading profiles seen in 8th - and that goes for monstrous creatures, too. In general, the rules for Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles would be the same, except for keywords which would activate things like the Melta and Poisoned rules.

 

7.4.1 Incidentally, the Melta rule would change from 2D6 Armour Penetration to a +D6 Strength bonus. It requires the same number of rolls and has the same net effect but fits with the changes made to the system.

 

8.0 Lords of War

 

8.1 Superheavies: With the changes to Vehicles so far, the list of special rules for Superheavies becomes a lot smaller. The only point of difference for these would be a keyword and Thunderblitz/Stomp.

 

8.2 Ram/Tank Shock attacks are as the rules above, but with AP-3 and D3 Damage.

 

8.3 Stomps become a Blast D3, S User, AP-3, D3 Damage weapon that must centre over a model in combat with the user, and scatter using WS rather than BS. It would have no effect on Superheavies. This is meant to remove ‘stomp sniping’.

 

8.4 Destroyer Weapons: Allowing Strength profiles to go above 10 and multi-damage weaponry allows the removal of the problematic D-chart. 8th has shown that weapons like Volcano Cannons can be still devastating without the Destroyer rule.

 

8.4.1 To replace the Invulnerable-ignoring effect, a new special rule for certain weapons - Unstoppable: Rolls of a 6 to wound with this weapon ignore all Armour and Invulnerable Saves. This rule would be applied to Destroyer Weapons, Stomps and Superheavy Ram/Tank Shocks.

 

9.0 Characters

 

9.1 Broadly unchanged from 7th, but with the removal of Look out, Sir! to mitigate tanky character shenanigans. You can still put the model with the Storm Shield at the front of the unit to tank those pesky Plasma shots, but they’re also going to have to wear every Bolter shell, too.

 

——————

 

So what do you think? Would you call this an improvement over 7th? Is it better than 7th or 8th and would be something you would prefer to play? Is it a good start that could use some work, or is it just bad and I should feel bad?

[Slips]

Now this is something I'd love to see happen. Good luck dude!

[Lephisto]

Although I think 8th ed is better to play than 7th ed, I do miss some of the complexity that comes with it. I agree, lets take the skeleton of 7th ed and add the best mechanics from 8th ed. If we combine the best and remove the worst, surely we have the best edition to ever own.

[Marshal Rohr]

There are points costs for most Heresy era choices out now, with the exception of volkites and era specific equipment like rad grenades on destroyers. Edited December 18, 2017 by Marshal Rohr

[Charlo]

Not diss-similar to what I have thought would be a good move.

 

I love 7th and think for the Heresy it's better than just flat 8th (8th is better for 40k though) but it obivously has it's problems (special rules stacking/ vehicles being invincible or made of paper etc).

[Zeratil]

I like this, but I definitely percieve it as a mix of 7th and 8th, not one or the other with changes. I can take or leave templates because I don't think the 7th edition rules make them feel like explosions either (models in a circle with nothing in the centre should not be the best way to space-efficiently avoid blast weapons, nor should an artillery piece be the best sniper weapon). I also like that 8th ed's blasts are quicker to resolve and don't suffer from things like parallaxing or other time consuming issues. On the other hand I do feel that 8th ed blasts are rather lacklustre.

 

I also think that 8th handles vehicles and health much better, multi damage weapons are good, vehicle HP and armour is better than the current system which favours MCs. Rather than changing the toughness of the vehicle though I would change the armour value. You could have front/rear or front/side rear but a basic principle that the rear has worse armour by 0-2 (depending on vehicle). Definitely with you that Heresy should have weapon line of sight for vehicles combined with multi-target firing.

 Other considerations:

• Can a unit charge something it can't see? Can it still charge if all the models that can see die to overwatch? It'll be board dependent but being able to charge anything within range with the potential for zero overwatch fire is very strong with these changes.
• I'd also say with multi-damage weapons you'll need the 8th scale of wounds for things like characters. 
• If there's no look out sir then barrage sniping will be even worse with 7th ed blast rules. Normal sniping also needs to be considered - there's a fine balance to be had between making sniping effective and no-one ever taking any sarge equipment ever again.
• How would wound allocation work in general? Closest model? One player picks? With look out sir removed should a deep striking terminator unit be allowed to drop down and unload 10 combi-plas into your HQ/Primarch? I agree with you on look-out sir not being amazing, but it does address some genuine issues, especially with the abundance of zero scatter deep strike in heresy.

Excellent post and good luck.

Also FW if you're watching then something like this is needed, I'd have started from 8th and worked backward to make an 'expert' 8th ed ruleset for Heresy but the principles and criticisms are broadly the same.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Zeratil

[kombatwombat]

Some fantastic feedback there. I’ll give it some thought overnight and get back to you tomorrow!

[Baluc]

1.

 

.1: Templates have been one of the worst mechanics in 40k since 3rd edition. 8th edition doesn't quite get it right either but its a damn sight better than it was. 

 

I think a good mix is something like this. Roll to hit normally, a miss is half strength, if you don't have line of sight you always count as a miss. Size of the template is just differentiated by the number of hits. 

 

Order of operations 1 shot per gun, that does (d3/d6/2d6) hits depending on the gun.

 

Deep Strike is pretty limited in HH, keeping it on the unit that have it is fine. 8th edition does struggle with the limited deployment options

 

.2: Probably fine as 7th edition, I can see why they decided to go the way they did but it does change the power of sum tanks.

 

.3: I actually think using power is a very attractive alternative for HH, as it gives things support squads a little bit of flexability, but also because it opens up side decking, but 7th edition detachments are probably fine since HH has a few options to choose from, and Rites of War

 

.4 Keywords are on the best design tools in AoS and 40k, as are rules on profile

.5 I think AoS has the best blend, command abilities and traits. If you don't play AoS you should check this out.

 

2.

 

.1: 8th edition profiles, give a much better range to the ability of weapons to do dmg and models at taking dmg

 

.2: Movement values are a must

 

.3: Flat weapon skill is sufficient. If you look at Ws/S/T/As as one equation with multiple variables as the a whole rather than a Auxilla hits a Primarch x likely you have a much better design philosophy and ability to map abilities appropriately. Contested Ws creates situations that are unreasonable in other ways rather than on the extremes. For example going from ws3 to ws4 in the context of HH is for the most part lost points on an Assault unit. Going from 4 to 5 is a big deal. Primarchs are tougher, and have more wounds so even if that Auxilla trooper hits on a flat 5, he is still less likley to do any dmg to a Primarch than he is to hurt a regular marine. 

.4 Again 8th edition is fine here. In the cases of "impossible to wound" they are just as unlikely to do any dmg anyway. The 8th edition method also leaves options for special rules, such as giving land raiders +1 save against weapons under x strength. You don't want impossible situations, in a game as they can quite frequently run away from you.

.5: I've already mentioned wounds, and why you need a larger sliding scale, Initiative is probably a fine value, chargers going first except in situations like counter-attack is also fine, as it provides a large enough incentive to be the charger, and to reward the general risks of combat. I'm not sure on Ld though, I've become so used to battle shock in 8th and in AoS that it seems a sufficient method of moral. Again the general idea is there shouldn't be "soft kills" players should be able to use their models every turn, because its a model game and the reward is using your models in the game. I would like to see pinning back(half move rounding up, or full move no shooting), and going to ground. 

.6: I think mortals are fine, if you leave it as a limited form. It should generally be as a side effect of a powerful weapon, and still a low volume, and as magic or Daemons. I think the game is generally better off having some form of "mystical" damage form that bypasses technology. Khorne Daemons doing mortals on a 6 to wound is fine. Spamming smite 10 times a turn? Not so much. 

 

.7: I generally think re-rolls should be pretty rare in general in all cases, maybe once you get up to Praetor/Primus level you might see a master crafted weapon or something but I think re-rolls are one the most anti-climatic rules in war gaming in general. I also dislike fnp for the same reasons, a 6+ is probably the best I would give, same with re-roll '1' like abilities. 

 

3.

 

.1: Difficult and dangerous terrain simply preventing from running is probably enough. Dangerous terrain causing a mortal wound on a 6+ is fine, then you can give people a re-roll or something based on the model

 

4.

 

.1: I would take heavily from what AoS magic has become. Relatively low-medium range, most effect and limit dmg or just medium dmg, and can only attempt a power once per phase. AoE deny built in to pyskers, and people who currently re-roll deny the witch tests. SoS can just give an AoE negative based on the power/size/distance of the SoS.

5.

 

.1: I've said before that 8th edition profiles gives the designers more ability to design units and weapons, and customise weapons to role. So I strongly favour that system. Snap fire being a flat negative probably works fine. I think we should rally be more specific about how we stage each game. At 2.5 and up the level of flyers should probably change, and under that the role would be different more attack crafts fewer proper flyers. I would make flyers operate on 2 levels. The first being ground attack where their speed is much lower, are more influenced by terrain, and the enemy snap fires, and the 2nd being interdiction where they can only attack other flyers but can only be hit on a 6. 

.2: agreed

 

.3: agreed

 

.3.1: If we keep I, then powerfist just need to give a penalty to I to stay balanced. I still think chargers need to swing first though.

 

.3.2 I think we need to keep a careful eye on unit sizes rather than changing saves. Since that comes into effect in multiple phases. 

.4: dbl shots is great, I understand the previous method but with increased wounds and toughness ability it scales fine

 

.5: I addressed this when I spoke about templates in general, scatter is terrible.

 

.6: See templates at start

 

.7: Seems unnecessary, in fact except for the most powerful and poorly designed weapons/vehicles, I don't think vehicle mounted weapons should gets hot at all this is the HH not 40k we know how there things work.

.8: 8th edition has it correct here, True line of sight from the weapon also makes this an ability worth having.

 

.9: I would keep the limitation as is in 8th edition. Movement is powerful.  I can give examples of why there needs to be a negative to moving the heaviest weapon types.

 

.10: I think the requirement of being "in" cover is important, since it comes with a weakness, usually difficult terrain or a fixed location or sometimes both. I don't think certain things should be cover though, like units in the way, or such in a game of this abstraction level it creates too many mental black holes. 

 

6. 

 

.1 8th edition assault works well. Charge to within an inch (which includes being 1 inch away), and then a pile-in phase, I think pile in should be half move, and unrestricted just so long as you don't end up further away from the unit than you started. 

 

.2: This has been largely a non-issue because transports are so expensive, not because the rule itself is not restrictive. That being said with the changes to snap fire, I would open up the restrictions on Assaulting, and deploying much the way 8th edition has. deploying 9" away from an enemy and trying for an 8 inch charge is reasonable from outflank/infiltrate. Deploying from a transport at the start of the movement phase also keeps assaults from being too easy. The limited variety of gun-tank/transports in HH also makes this a much more reasonable general rule.

 

.3: Over watch as snap fire (with the proposed flat to hit penalty) is the simplest solution especially if you open up the restrictions on how units charge and retain striking first. I like how it interacts with units, for example I would remove the restriction on Imperial fists bolter drill and allow it to work on over watch since it is very thematic, but retain it on SoH for example. 

 

7

 

.1: I think the way 8th edition has handle vehicles is fine. But if you want to retain the idea of facings, I would give heavy weapons a +1 to the roll to wound, or +1 dmg if they are shooting a vehicle in the rear or side. This way its a simple and easy enough rule to remember, and it is specific enough to only work in the situations it would actually work in. Multiple T values is just a bad road to start down. 

 

.2: I'm not certain vehicles need to be so heavgh stily differentiated, especially once armour values are removed. Giving tanks "close combat" attacks works fine mechanically, but I can see why people are agitated by it. I would just give tank type vehicles a base to base attack, with no pile-in move, of high strength attacks, and give them a restriction on their charges. "They can only charge if they also Ran that turn" It needs to be a tactical option, but of such poor quality that shooting is the better option unless you are out of options.

 

.4: Degrading profiles must be in. The only difficulty would be with units of MC, but I think the only thing that should degrade in the case of small MC should be the number of attacks they roll to keep it easiest.

 

9.

 

I think Characters should work similar to AoS, where characters are separate from the unit, but target-able. They also are not cheap, I think the narrative of HH works best with a few toughish characters that have positive affects on units around them. Without instant death, and AP ignoring saves, characters will be actually pretty tough to remove, I would also allow transports to always carry 1 character regardless of Transport space (using normal transport restrictions ie; no terminators or Primarchs in rhinos) Rather than the 8th edition and 7th edition systems. the IC rules, create too many rule interactions, which just increases the chances of creating unforeseen combinations once out of the box. I would retain Look out Sir! In this system, and decrease the roll to a 3+ or 4+ once you are over a certain wound threshold or bulky or what not.

[kombatwombat]

Zeratil, on the topic of Blasts, if nothing else I don’t think you would be successful in pitching a version of HH to its player base that didn’t include templates. I think they do add something tangible thematically to the game. They certainly do slow the game down, but I feel that they are the most effective way to represent the large scale weapons prevalent in HH games. For example, the ability to hit multiple units with one weapon is a good feature. 8th Ed has tried to emulate this effect with things like Orbital Bombardment and Linebreaker Bombardment Stratagems, and they have been an unmitigated failure in that department.

 

I don’t see what is to be gained by Armour Value over toughness. Mathematically they are identical with two small caveats I’ve mentioned, and having no Armour Save on vehicles has been a complaint for some time. A tank’s armour should be able to simply ignore small arms fire, but still be able to provide some resistance against higher strength weaponry. I believe a high Toughness stat achieves that, and varying Toughness by facing keeps the status quo of 7th where outflanking or otherwise outmanoeuvring a vehicle gives an advantage to cracking their armour.

 

I think charging without line of sight would be allowable. It rewards careful positioning - if you really can manage to get to a position where you can charge from out of line of sight, I think the reward of not getting Overwatched is justified. I don’t think there’s enough changes here overall to make Assault more powerful than shooting, so I think there’s a little bit of leeway here to close the gap between the two styles of play by giving Assault a few more tools than it has right now. It’s a valid concern to watch for these changes overdoing the buffs to Assault, though.

 

Wound allocation is a great question. I like how 7th takes casualties from the front - it seems thematic and it really rewards clever positioning. I’m all about clever positioning - I really think that the movement phase is where you actually show your skill as a player and outfox your opponent. Direct fire blasts do this I believe in 7th - regardless of where the template lands, you take casualties from the front of the unit. Barrage weapons are the exception and have the ‘sniping’ problem you’ve outlined. I think we could introduce a slight abstraction here and have Barrage weapons take casualties from the front like direct fire blasts. Sure, it’s slightly less thematic than taking casualties from the centre of the blast, but allowing your mortar to snipe out the guy with a particular weapon isn’t exactly thematic either.

 

I’m in two minds about your point on Look out, Sir. On the one hand, if through a combination of outmanoeuvring your opponent and selected concentrated fire you’ve exposed a Primarch, maybe you’ve earned the chance to pump him full of plasma. On the other, scatter free Deep Strike could leave this open for abuse. On the third hand though, Lo,S! is very abuseable. I have three potential solutions:

 

1) (hardcore mode) Lo,S! is removed as a general mechanic. Select bodyguard/honour guard style units (like Command Squads or Deathshroud, for example) could still do Lo,S! on a 4+ for certain VIP characters tied to specific keywords - so Command Squads would be restricted to Praetors, Deathshroud to Mortarion, etc. A small handful of the very best bodyguards - think Hetaeron Guard with the Emperor, or maybe Perturabo’s Iron Circle - could pull it off on a 3+ or even 2+.

2) (medium mode) Lo,S! remains but becomes a 5+, a 4+ for Independent Characters, bodyguard style units get a +1 for their VIP and the best bodyguard units get a +2.

3) (easy mode) Lo,S! remains but becomes a 5+, 4+ for Independent Characters, bodyguard units get it on a 2+ for their VIP, the best bodyguards succeed automatically.

 

(Baluc, I’ll reply when I can).

[Withershadow]

True line of sight is literally the absolute worst thing about both editions.

[Brother Heinrich]

If we get something close to this I'd definitely be pleased, I don't even mind true line of sight (its a minor annoyance but whatever). I really like your ideas for both retaining armor facing, but still switching to the universal wound mechanic. I also really like the idea of porting over the 8th ed. WS mechanic, the Weapon Damage/AP Mechanic, and removing the 10 cap on characteristics. On the subject of "Gets Hot!" I've alway felt like except in unique cases, vehicle mounted weapons systems don't get hot because they have the room for advanced coolant systems. I'd retain this facet personally seeing as 30k is an age where stuff was still being properly engineered and worked right.

 

Good stuff, and fingers crossed we get something like this!

[kombatwombat]

Baluc, thanks for the huge reply. I’ll tackle it bit by bit as best I can.

 

For templates, please see the first paragraph of my reply to Zeratil above as I’d be saying much the same to you.

 

Power Levels can be good, but they’re such a polarising love/hate thing for so many people that they’re something I would add at a later date as an optional extra rule.

 

On Weapon Skill, I feel the rock-paper-scissors element of having to pick your targets carefully is enhanced by having competing WS values. If you keep going down the road of fixed hit values you start getting into Age of Sigmar territory of fixed to wound values as well. One of the biggest criticisms leveled at AoS is that static hit/wound values means the game simplifies to a spreadsheet of whatever the maximum combination of hit/wound/rend is for a given role.

 

I’ll give an example - say you could choose between a low skill, high volume of attacks berserker style unit, or a low volume of attacks, high skill swordsman style unit, both for the same cost. If you have fixed hit/wound values, it simply boils down to number of attacks x probability to hit x probability to wound. Whichever unit, berserker or swordsman, has the higher final number, is objectively better. If, however, your hit and wound values depend on the target, it forces you to make decisions about what units to use where and when. So while the berserker may blenderise chaff infantry, if it runs into a Primarch it’s in trouble. Conversely, the swordsman can lay hurt on the Primarch, but simply can’t kill the chaff fast enough. As opposed to fixed hit/wound stats, where you just take the unit with the highest ‘average attack output’ and use it for every situation. (I know you’re only talking about fixed to hit values not fixed to wound values, but the principle is the same just to a lessened degree).

 

In 8th, where everything can wound everything, statistics would suggest that lasguns are not a serious danger to a Land Raider. Indeed, you’d need over a thousand Lasgun shots to kill one. But statistical averages simply don’t work in a satisfying manner for the low-quantity units that would have high enough Toughness to be impossible to wound by some things. Say you had a squad of 10 Guardsmen in rapid fire range with FRFSRF, that just decided to shoot a Land Raider because nothing else was in range so why not. Statistically 18 shots will hit, 3 will wound, 0.5 will get through the Land Raider’s armour. Near enough to be negligible. Except if the Land Raider rolls 3 1’s to save, and suddenly you’ve put some serious hurt on it. And there’s the issue - with tough models like tanks there simply aren’t enough dice for the statistical average to have any relevance; you’re completely at the mercy of statistical outliers. Neither player is going to feel good about Lasguns doing that much damage to a Land Raider because the poor player had a bad roll. Overall I don’t think impossible to wound situations have ever caused problems, where as the ‘everything wounds everything’ has proven to be immersion-breaking in 8th.

 

I think Wound tallies can go up for Characters and maybe some other units (Terminators, some Mechanicum units, maybe bikes) to account for multi-damage weapons. Leadership I feel was limp in 40k 7th because pretty much everything could ignore it. In 30k, not many things can ignore it so you see a lot more of the varied effects like pinning and falling back from combat. It seems to be much more of a simulation that 8th’s streamlining of just removing models as an extra attritional factor.

 

Initiative feels like another simulation factor. I’d ask you this: should a Grave Warden attack before a Phoenix Guard because he charged? I think that attacking first because you charged is an over-simplification that goes against the stated aim of not removing simulation in favour of streamlining.

 

Straight up, I would not let Mortal Wounds within shouting distance of any game I had designed or modified. It is simply literally impossible to balance a mechanic that is equally likely to wound a Solar Auxiliary as a Firedrake. I personally have never seen and do not believe there can be a founded argument in favour of Mortal Wounds as a mechanic common enough to have their own name. If they effectively exist as a single, uncommon psychic power or two then fine, but trying to balance a game where they are readily available is beyond what I am capable.

 

 

I think plasma getting hot is such an ingrained part of the 40k/30k psyche that you’d struggle to remove it. I think so long as it’s balanced to be a genuine risk without being suicide it can remain.

 

 

The problem with the requirement of being ‘in cover’ is that you can have a situation where a model is literally 99% obscured, and it gets no more benefit than a model that is 0% obscured. From what I have seen, this is one of the leading complaints about 8th - that a model heavily obscured by terrain has no benefit when compared to a model completely in the open.

 

I think that making the change to the 9” charge from deployment as per 8th is going a little too far down the road toward 8th Ed for what I’m trying to do here. Remember; I’m trying to fix 7th with additions from 8th, not vice versa. That said, I think you may be on to something with adding the 8th mechanic of Pile In, Fight, Consolidate.

 

On your last few points, I would again say that’s leaning a little too far down 8th Ed. Ultimately I’m aiming for the feel of 7th Ed - the feel that has been consistent since 3rd Ed - with some of the cleverer mechanics of 8th to tidy up the worst of problems in 7th: The idea of templates, vehicle facings, characters joining units and so on are part of the landscape that has existed for two decades or more. I think what I’m ultimately aiming for here is a perfection of what has gone before, not a mending of what is currently here.

 

I’m concerned I’ve come across as a bit negative - overall I’m thankful for your feedback and think you have some fantastic insights. Ultimately I think our vision of where this should go differs - which is ultimately something very hard to resolve!

[Gorgoff]

I won't go Balducs way either because I want to play a tabletop game which feels narritive RPG like and not just like some boardgame without the board.

True line of sight is a very good example.

Although it is difficult to pull of I hated it when GW removed it from the game. It feels utterly wrong when a unit can't shoot something because some "area terrain" blocks it although the mimiatures could clearly see through it.

 

Another thing is characters who join units or fight in challanges. You could change how it is done but not if it is possible whatsoever.

 

Psychic Phase: I'd change it like that.

"For every 6+ you throw at a Deny the Witch test you cancel out one success from the caster."

Having a psyker in your army (and on the board) gives +1 just like having Adamantium Will.

I'd give another +1 for having a psyker in the target unit to a maximum of 4+.

Easy and effective.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

This might sound good in theory but IRL is not practical.

[Gorgoff]

This might sound good in theory but IRL is not practical.

Why?

Adamantium Will already gives that bonus, so does a higher level psyker. The only change would be that you negate his successes.

I don't see how that won't work.

It's neither complicated nor time consuming and only changes the problem that you can't do anything against lots of psykers.

 

Look out sir:

I'd change it as well. Just give any charakter a straight 2+ throw and if he succeeds he/she won't get hit untill anyone else is dead in that unit.

Fixes multi charakter units, fixes sniping with barrage and speed things up in general.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If they would go to this much trouble might as well just bring the game in line with 8th Edition and be done with it.

[Gorgoff]

If they would go to this much trouble might as well just bring the game in line with 8th Edition and be done with it.

Having to convert 18 legions, all of their special units, special characters and 18 Primarchs, 60+ different units from the core list, SA, Mechanicum and IM sound way easier then just change two or three things which needs to be changed, jeah. -_-

And for what?

Having the same powercreep and horrible balancing we have in 40k already after just a couple of month?

Oh yeah that sounds great. ;)

 

Fliers:

I'd change the fact that they have to be in reserve and that they have to come in zooming. They should come from turn one as well.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think 40k is well balanced now and will be even more so as all the codices drop.

[Gorgoff]

I think 40k is well balanced now and will be even more so as all the codices drop.

One liners are your thing, eh? Edited December 20, 2017 by Gorgoff

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Lol you too huh ?