No1 rule that you think needs changed.

[Marshal Rohr]

Elegance is a relative concept. Vehicles having a health bar mechanic is effective. It is not elegant. A more robust armor value system that stops small arms from damaging vehicles at all would be elegant. Intercessors being allowed to mix and match bolt weapons is elegant. Army Lists are more elegant than datasheets. Requirements to take Lords of War is elegant, allowing them all the time is not. A system of special rules shared across armies is elegant. Command points that make a unit special one game and then not the next is not and only confuses people. Granted someone may disagree, hence why it is not an objective concept. Calling something elegant certainly doesn’t make it so.

[Ishagu]

I think granting vehicles the same health points as other units was one of the best things in this edition, and it finally equalised the disparity between monstrous creatures and tanks that could not be solved in 7 years and 3 edition prior to that.

 

I suppose they could have simply called them Hull Points instead of wounds but beyond the letters on the stat profile it would make no tangible difference.

[PeteySödes]

Not so much a rule, but I’d love to see the stats blown out a bit to take advantage of the “simple” dice system. Failing that, I truly wouldn’t mind rolling all the way back to lasguns can’t touch land raiders.

[chapter master 454]

Not so much a rule, but I’d love to see the stats blown out a bit to take advantage of the “simple” dice system. Failing that, I truly wouldn’t mind rolling all the way back to lasguns can’t touch land raiders.

 

This I agree with. Personally I would like to add 2 more stages on the wound table we have currently, adding one to ether end for "triple". If the strength is triple the targets toughness, automatically wounds, if toughness is triple the strength, automatically fails to wound (unless the weapon has a special ability which allows it to wound that target).

[Interrogator Stobz]

 

 

Unless he joins another unit ... or used his superior saves to protect his bodyguards in the first place as it happened so often in past editions. No, sorry I don't see how this is a particularly big issue or how the old rules are supposed to be better. It's different, but not necessarily better.

The character tanking all of the Lascannons and letting the bolter shots plink off his bodyguards was a problem in previous editions, yes. That trick only worked because of the old casualty removal rules where the closest model took the hit, and the 2+ Look Out, Sir! mechanic for independent characters. Back then, you could put the character out front, use the Look Out, Sir! to make the high-volume, low-quality shots hit the bodyguards, and let the 3++ character that could only suffer a single wound from any weapon tank the low-volume, high-quality shots.

 

That trick doesn’t work now. For one thing, the loss of the Eternal Warrior mechanic means that a single low-volume, high-quality shot might outright kill your character with a single bad save roll, so the risk is greatly increased. Far more importantly though, the current casualty removal mechanic means that once a model takes a wound, it becomes the model that takes every wound after that.

 

Used your 3++/5+++ Captain to tank some plasma and protect the Hellblasters he’s with? Well, he failed one save, so now he gets to enjoy 300 Lasgun shots that must be allocated to him and can’t be handed over to the Hellblasters until he’s dead. As soon as that character fails a single save, every shot targeting that unit now gets to shoot the character directly. Maybe using your character as a tank isn’t such a hot idea anymore!

 

I can’t really see a disadvantage with going back to the previous edition’s character mechanics. All of the old problems with characters and death stars seem to have been removed because they depended on mechanics that no longer exist.

 

 

This could easily be circumvented by using an actual bodyguard unit that can tank shots for the character even if he's wounded or even after he failed his save so he doesn't lose wounds in the first place. Yay, finally a use for Company Veterans, am I right?

 

That would literally be what they were for, epic.

 

It would stop one 6-7 point meatsack hiding in a building doing the same job for a fraction of the points

 

Not so much a rule, but I’d love to see the stats blown out a bit to take advantage of the “simple” dice system. Failing that, I truly wouldn’t mind rolling all the way back to lasguns can’t touch land raiders.

 

This I agree with. Personally I would like to add 2 more stages on the wound table we have currently, adding one to ether end for "triple". If the strength is triple the targets toughness, automatically wounds, if toughness is triple the strength, automatically fails to wound (unless the weapon has a special ability which allows it to wound that target).

 

Love it!

[Guest Triszin]

The unit joining thing caused so many problems.

 

If they bring it back I would immediately attach cheap captain HQs with Stormshields and relics to reduce damage to large shooting units and use them to make those units far more durable. Suddenly the hero becomes the bodyguard.

 

This is just an example. I'm not even accounting for rule stacking and the problems that causes. The Deathwatch army shows that units comprises of different types of models do get rule stacking benefits.

Suddenly all the infantry units would have a flying hero attached.

I propose a " drone " bubble rule for certain characters.

 

"Troop" choices with 3" can instead take the damage as mortal wounds on a roll of a 4+.

 

Or something similar

 

Lock it to mono armies, and troops only

[kombatwombat]

@Ishagu I’m gonna ask you this again, what disadvantages are there for going back to the 7th Ed character mechanics where they join units? All the old problems with characters in that edition were due to other rules that don’t exist anymore (2++/4+++ granting powers, rerollable Saves, invisibility, casualty removal and Look Out, Sir!). You seem to be saying why change from the current character mechanics back to the old ones. The answer is that the current system has problems, some counter-intuitive mechanics and requires layers of awkward workarounds and clarifications, whereas characters joining units in the current ruleset has very few, if any notable disadvantages. You seem to be advocating for elegance, and yet arguing against what appears to be the more elegant solution.

 

This could easily be circumvented by using an actual bodyguard unit that can tank shots for the character even if he's wounded or even after he failed his save so he doesn't lose wounds in the first place. Yay, finally a use for Company Veterans, am I right? :D

So a small number of niche bodyguard units become effective bodyguards? Mate I’d call that a win! ;)

 

 

On the vehicle Wounds vs Hull Points, I agree the new system has solved the old disparity between Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures. That said, it brings up another rule change I’d like to see:

 

Go back to the old to-wound chart!

 

It had the possibility for impossible to Wound situations, it made heavy bolters better at hunting light infantry than bolt rifles, and it meant that a Lascannon was better at wounding a Custodes biker than an autocannon. I know the 1-10 chart obviously wouldn’t work now that Str values go above 10, but it isn’t hard to just use the pattern:

 

Str 2 or more than T: 2+

Str 1 higher than T: 3+

Str same as T: 4+

Str 1 lower than T: 5+

Str 2 or 3 lower than T: 6+

Str 4 or more lower than T: 7+

 

Let’s be honest, when we played 7th Ed/30k, none of us memorised the chart, we all memorised the pattern instead.

[Lexington]

I kinda forgot about flyers, but man those could use a fix. Like, I know some extremely clever soul is going to say “it’s 40K, there’s space wizards,” but there’s space wizards and then there are supersonic jets bopping around a battlefield at twenty miles an hour.

[chapter master 454]

 

Go back to the old to-wound chart!

 

It had the possibility for impossible to Wound situations, it made heavy bolters better at hunting light infantry than bolt rifles, and it meant that a Lascannon was better at wounding a Custodes biker than an autocannon. I know the 1-10 chart obviously wouldn’t work now that Str values go above 10, but it isn’t hard to just use the pattern:

 

Str 2 or more than T: 2+

Str 1 higher than T: 3+

Str same as T: 4+

Str 1 lower than T: 5+

Str 2 or 3 lower than T: 6+

Str 4 or more lower than T: 7+

 

Let’s be honest, when we played 7th Ed/30k, none of us memorised the chart, we all memorised the pattern instead.

 

 

The problem that poses is that wounding becomes really easy very fast. By all accounts there are stand out cases with the current system but it goes both ways however I would argue that the current system works better than the old. Really, it made units feel paper thin and easy to hurt but yet somehow that scaling was the same across the board which is a bit odd. To clarify, under your system effectively a lascannon hitting a dreadnought is equal to a boltgun hitting a grot. We clearly know that isn't how it works and means the old system was a relic of a 10 stat world (which GW need to still take advantage of granted but that isn't an excuse to say it can come back). Not to mention the lopsided nature of the table you present and since you are saying patterns matter, wheres the auto wound? Symmetry is important as helps learn rules faster as you can learn half of a system but know all of it, very handy. By your system anything with S>T by 3 would auto wound. Not going to advocate that as it would occur far too much and make the game really quickly a point and roll adventure. (and do you really want to make eldar D-Scythes basically a "I pick a unit and you remove it ok?")

 

As I proposed, the system given is simple, still patterned (working on simple Greater than or less than, then working with factors when hitting easy to remember break points) and gives gravity to certain weapons. Now if that Imperial Guard commander gets hit by a lascannon or a demolisher cannon, he ain't getting lucky unless his 5++ works! Certainly it would require GW to start flexing the new boundaries of toughness above 8 for common units like monsters and tanks, would add a whole new level of design to some units to make their Toughness their primary armour (maybe even being another factor for how grav weapons work, the tougher you are the heavier you must be so more affected). I mean, we talk about in lore that Carnifexes just barrel through lasgun fire without concern, so why not make them T9 under my system with a poor armour save? This way their primary defence is their toughness however if you are able to get past it in anyway you will start causing wounds fairly quickly. Immunity to units could be an interesting design space if done right. Same Vice-Versa, a weapon that has insane strength but lacks damage and/or AP which allows it to wound regularly (or automatically) but isn't really meant for heavy duty lifter of tough targets. Would help create another way of having "poison" weapons but not needing to special rule it.

 

There are various issues that would need addressed (how does stalwart interact with it for example? Does it just get ignored? Maybe...I mean...anything strength 12 ain't going to cause "just a flesh wound" XD).

[Bryan Blaire]

I kinda forgot about flyers, but man those could use a fix. ... and then there are supersonic jets bopping around a battlefield at twenty miles an hour.

So that actually made me laugh out loud enough people looked at me strangely in the room.

 

You aren't kidding - honestly I like my jet vehicles, but they really are an odd addition the way they work at the scale 40K is played at. Considering the size of the battlefield (maybe a time and a quarter the size of a FIFA regulation football/soccer field), there isn't even a need for the high speed movement, all the jets would have to operate in hover mode all the time to even need a model to represent them on said field.

 

And if there were ever a bigger clue that the game is just a vague abstraction, it's the fact that a bolter only shoots effectively just short of 50m on the table top scale.

[kombatwombat]

That’s a fair point actually CM454. I guess the change I want isn’t a simple swap one thing for another, but rather a much more significant change. I want to go (back) to 7+ to-Wound scores and Heavy Bolters Wounding Marines on 3s and Guard on 2s. Your proposed method alone isn’t enough though - how often is Toughness going to be triple the strength? Guardsmen shooting Fellblades I guess?

 

What it really needs is an expansion of toughness and maybe Strength values. Make Rhinos T9, and Land Raiders T12, for example. Or go further and make Marines T5, heavy bolters Str6. When GW opened up the Str/T ranges they really missed out on the chance to expand the range of Str and T values.

 

You could end up where Bolters can scratch Rhinos but Lasguns can’t, Heavy Bolters can hurt Land Raiders but Bolters can’t, Lascannons are wounding Land Raiders on 5s again, Heavy Bolters are wounding Marines on 3s and Guard on 2s. Such a huge missed opportunity!

[Panzer]

Something I haven't seen addressed, or even mentioned at all, yet is the lethality of 40k and the logistics.

 

Like, when was the last time an infantry unit of yours actually survived when your opponent wanted to see it dead? Attaching a character to it just paints a huge target above a units head and it'll die instantly if the opponent wants to, just to get to the attached characters. It'd be the equivalent of putting only one infantry unit infront of your character and the whole army behind it in the current system.

 

And to expand on that, the logistics part, if you put multiple characters into the same unit it'll be a disaster. Using a bodyguard unit for your characters is fine, however not ever Marine character is walking around with his personal bodyguard nor can we take more than three units of those in competetive matches. If we could, we would probably quickly see nothing else since they are so variable loadout-wise and the only proper way to protect our characters in such a system.

 

 

I guess I simply like how much freedom the current character rules give. Your whole army protects them without overcomplicating things, simply by positioning your units properly, and if you want to protect them from snipers or in melee there's still the actual bodyguard unit.

[Perry]

Bring back fire arcs on vehicles

 

Yea my Baneblade's rear fuel barrel can see a smidgen of this model, OPEN FIRE

[kombatwombat]

Good point sfPanzer. We’re trying to solve a relatively minor problem, but in doing so we’re encountering much bigger structural issues with 8th Edition.

 

How did these characters survive being parts of units previously? Aside from the obnoxious niche invisible death stars.

 

Lower overall lethality - it used to be tough to shift a squad of Terminators in a turn. Now it can be readily achieved by 1-2 units.

 

Transports - time was you could protect the unit and character with a tough/fast transport. Now with disembarkation happening before movement (so they’re just begging to be wrapped and destroyed along with the unit inside) and auto-killing 1/6th of the models inside, transports have become death traps.

 

Harder to draw line of sight and vehicle/weapon facings - so it was easier to hide your character and unit partially or completely, and your opponent might not want to turn their Shadowsword to line up the Volcano Cannon on a nearby unit if doing so opened up its side/rear armour to your big guns. Now any unit can see anything and there’s no disadvantage for manoeuvring to take out a particular unit, plus if you can see one model you can kill the entire unit, character included.

 

Locking themselves in combat - it was possible for a unit to dive into a melee for a little bit of safety. Now with falling back freely charging with a character ultimately just puts them out in the open.

 

Unfortunately I think by scratching at the surface with the character rules we’ve uncovered a whole host of problems.

[BitsHammer]

Bring back fire arcs on vehicles

 

Yea my Baneblade's rear fuel barrel can see a smidgen of this model, OPEN FIRE

No thanks. That lead to some very silly situations and I'd rather assume my tank does donuts than try to deal with a Repulsor's twenty seven different firing arcs every shooting phase.

[kombatwombat]

The rules should not be made worse to accommodate one wonky model having eleventy billion guns.

 

Worst comes to worst, give it a special rule:

 

Designers Dun Goofed: For the sake of expediency, all weapons on this model are considered to have a 360 degree firing arc.

[BitsHammer]

The rules should not be made worse to accommodate one wonky model having eleventy billion guns.

 

Worst comes to worst, give it a special rule:

 

Designers Dun Goofed: For the sake of expediency, all weapons on this model are considered to have a 360 degree firing arc.

Considering the number of LOS arguements I've seen, no thanks.

[Closet Skeleton]

Lower overall lethality - it used to be tough to shift a squad of Terminators in a turn.

 

Good joke.

[kombatwombat]

Considering the number of LOS arguements I've seen, no thanks.

Interesting. In five editions of playing I’ve never seen one argument about it, or even a debate that went beyond either ‘let’s just roll for it’ or, at an event, asking for a player from the next table to make the call.

[MARK0SIAN]

Bring back fire arcs on vehicles

 

Yea my Baneblade's rear fuel barrel can see a smidgen of this model, OPEN FIRE

Don’t forget the Baneblade’s sponsons which can shoot THROUGH the Baneblade and hit targets on the other side :)

 

On a separate note, those people who mentioned advanced, optional rules for LoS/cover might be onto something. Even GW’s own tournaments are using the house ruled version that ground floors block LoS unless it is a clear opening, no more drawing LoS through a window or bullet hole.

 

That shows they’re aware that the rules are a bit lacking in that regard and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they address that with an optional update in the future.

[Special Officer Doofy]

The rules are not perfect but they are better then previous editions I feel. Stream lining 8th edition with the simplification of vehicles and line of sight was one of the things that brought me back. I found too much time was wasted on line of sight and template arguments for my liking and quit for awhile. Vehicle rules are not perfect right now, but they are simple, and simple draws in new players.

[Trevak Dal]

All dread/helbrute weapons should get double their current shots (not already twinlinked stuff though). I like the moving and shooting heavy penalty.

 

I wish there was more variation in movement, like Guardsman should move 5" Guardsman in carapace 4" (an option available per model "conditioned" which grants them +1" move and +1" to advance and charge rolls) similarly, firewarriors would be 4", with Pathfinders being what they are.

 

Space marines/chaos Marines are fine because they are super soldiers. Cultists should move 5".

[Volt]

 

Auras and bodyguard units already encourage grouping this is a compromise for letting characters sit in units and the current abusable rules.

Yes but in a far less precise or arranged way.

 

The game is pretty fast and slick now. I think the only things causing slowness of play are armies with huge body counts.

 

Don't get me wrong, some of the suggestions do have a thematic flair to them but functionally very little changes, more grouping is required and more time will be spent on additional wound allocation and dice rolling.

 

Also they end up benefiting armies like Guard again, as they can crowd huge infantry blobs around their heroes.

 

The game isn't fast and slick now, it's more than bloated than ever before because of how much time is spent rolling dice. One of the other changes that 40k really needs is getting rid of volume of fire. Lasguns shouldn't have rapid fire at all, no re-rolls should exist at all, and multi-shot abilities or explosive dice should be limited heavily to keep the number of dice low for faster and more efficient rolling with less time spent messing with statistics to try to remove all chance of failing a roll. Rolls should be flat, with no opportunity to modify them barring rare psychic powers. That way the game can actually be fast, instead of rolling buckets of dice for mere infantry units before even moving on to the plethora of shots that vehicles pump out now.

 

 

I kinda forgot about flyers, but man those could use a fix. Like, I know some extremely clever soul is going to say “it’s 40K, there’s space wizards,” but there’s space wizards and then there are supersonic jets bopping around a battlefield at twenty miles an hour.

Honestly I have no clue how flyers could be rationally implemented in the game without it becoming incredibly stupid. Maybe just a pretty model that does a "fly over" during a player's turn with one player declaring overwatch or calling in an interceptor? Anything more interactive than the current system.

[Panzer]

Unfortunately I think by scratching at the surface with the character rules we’ve uncovered a whole host of problems.

 

I wouldn't say those things are problems per se.

Only if you forcefully try to bring back some of the old rules. It's a different edition with rules written so they work in that edition and not in another edition. That's like saying all the traffic regulations today are bad because you forcefully try to make people ride around on horses again instead of using cars (and now imagine horses with tons of light signals attached everywhere and neatly waiting in front of traffic lights even though they could have passed the crossroads without a problem :D ).

[Closet Skeleton]

 

On a separate note, those people who mentioned advanced, optional rules for LoS/cover might be onto something. Even GW’s own tournaments are using the house ruled version that ground floors block LoS unless it is a clear opening, no more drawing LoS through a window or bullet hole.

 

That shows they’re aware that the rules are a bit lacking in that regard and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they address that with an optional update in the future.

 

 

That's ITC rule about getting round non-existent terrain modeling standards not due to the LoS rules.