Rules Changes I Would Like to See

[Vermintide]

The games I've played this edition felt like they were more or less over by the end of the second turn; it's not necessarily unbalanced but you tear such huge chunks out of each other so quickly that there's not much left after that. I would't want to dramatically slow down the game, but I'd like to see a more deliberate kind of decision making, and room for some back and forth. I also think the relative fundamental simplicity of the current rule set has been one of the major selling points that has attracted a lot of players back into the fold, so there's a couple relatively simple things I think would make a huge difference:

 

Firstly- Bring back the old rules for Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons. That is, only one shot at half range when moving for RF, and no moving and shooting for heavy. I feel like this would go a long way to reducing the lethality we see currently, and reduce the need for more complex LOS rules or otherwise more bloating of terrain types etc.

 

Secondly, bring back the old combat resolution rules, or at least, something similar. There needs to be an outcome or reward for successfully charging an enemy besides the binary of either wiping them out completely, or leaving those units stuck in a stalemate for the rest of the game. And don't get me started on the cheesy RAW stuff like tri-pointing.

 

Finally, morale. Don't make it too much more complex, but losing models doesn't feel right. Just a simple unit pinned, shell shocked, falls back or whatever kinda thing.

 

Also, not relevant to the rules as such, but it can't be just me who thinks the whole keyword system thing is kind of a mess? Especially now we have stuff like supplements and PA on top of everything... I've written out my own lists and condensing all that information to make an easily referenced few pages can be a real PITA. I can see what they tried to do, but in order to make things simpler for reference I've ended up more or less adapting things back into the old USR system anyway. Otherwise you end up having each datasheet take up an entire page with tons of redundant information. So it was kind of self defeating I think :D

[kombatwombat]

I don’t think you can really lay the blame at the feet of the players for it. You said yourself, the designers presented the player with one option which was really underwhelming and another option that (partly because of its shot volume) was really great. You don’t have to be that guy to choose the latter in that case.

 

In a more general sense, of course players lists have emphasised shot volume because the game rules have created a scenario where shot volume performs really well compared to other weapons because: it has easy access to rerolls, it can wound anything and is good against a variety of targets, it’s more consistent with regards to shot numbers and damage and finally it’s often cheaper. None of that is really the fault of the players for using it.

 

Shot volume on everything, including twin Lascannons, all feeds into the overall lethality I mentioned earlier and is deadly when all those elements combine.

 

If there was a single phrase that summed up 8th edition rules for me it would be “Quantity over Quality” and until they address the things that make quantity so good it will continue to be a problem.

The quantity over quality and shot volume issues are symptomatic of the ‘everything can hurt everything’ philosophy.

 

In days gone by, plasma, Autocannons and other multi-shot Str6-7 weaponry were still the best choice overall... until they came up against Av14, at which point they were literally useless. Having things not being able to be damaged by some units made elite, hard-to-damage units far more worthwhile. I think the game is sorely missing the rock-paper-scissors element of having to pack the right weapon for the job.

 

If we kept the current Toughness system rather than the old Av, then I think the game would greatly benefit from going back to the old To-Wound mechanic that included impossible to wound scenarios.

 

I’d actually go even further, and get rid of the ‘roll of a 1 always fails’ for saves. Let some few elite models have a 1+ save that makes them impervious to harm from small arms. Force the taking of weapons dedicated to killing elite units rather than just throwing high-volume, low-Ap at everything.

[kombatwombat]

In terms of changes I’d like to see, I’d be keen on some pretty drastic changes. I think these would lead to a much better overall experience, though it may have to be in an Advanced Ruleset.

 

A. Keep the turn structure/phases, but go to alternating activation unit by unit.

 

B. Move to D12s for Hit/Wound/Save.

 

C. Make the To-Wound score on a D12 Toughness plus 7 minus Strength (so same Str/T means 7+ to wound and go from there).

 

D. Allow auto-wound and impossible-to-wound scenarios if you reach 1+ or 13+ To-Wound.

 

E. Open up the Toughness values - say 3/5/7/14 for Guardsman/Astartes/Custodes/Predator.

 

F. Similarly open up the Strength values, but less than the T values to reduce overall lethality.

 

G. Return the use of Templates, without scatter if the player base really can’t handle it.

 

H. Utilise facings for anything over 9 wounds, with simple arcs and three Toughness values for front/side/rear (or, even simpler, +1 T for front, -1 T for rear, no change for side).

 

I. True LoS measuring from hull/body to hull/body only. To-hit penalties for obscured models.

 

J. Return to Characters joining units.

 

K. Remove stratagems as a mechanic and return unit special abilities to their special rules rather than only being able to do their schtick for as long as they have CP.

 

L. Utilise both keywords and Universal Special Rules to cut down on rules bloat.

 

Start with that and then adapt the rest of the 8th Ed mechanics to it. It’s far from perfect, but it combines a lot of the advantages of both 8th and prior editions.

 

Edit:

 

M through Z. Remove Mortal Wounds as a mechanic.

Edited April 15, 2020 by kombatwombat

[MegaVolt87]

Thinking about it more for returning templete weapons-

 

1- Old way of past editions, no changes.

2- simplified scatter- a hit, you place the templete on the target unit. A scatter, the opponent places the templete on the target unit, otherwise its the same as past editions.

3- re-vamp the system completely- a hit + scatter tables you roll dice on, with various results such as who places the tempkete on target, hits, dmg, Ld and AP modifiers (deducted or increased from the base weapon based on sucess). This eliminates having to move the templete past the target unit, measuring the scatter and settling on the new position of the templete. The templete would only be set once by either player based on the result in comparison.

 

I think option 2 would be best, however I would welcome a more ambitious templete weapon re-work as option 3's example. Though it seems GW is reluctant to move outside of a D6 based system, such tables could work with a D66 via two regular D6 dice rolled together for the results.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

I don’t think you can really lay the blame at the feet of the players for it. You said yourself, the designers presented the player with one option which was really underwhelming and another option that (partly because of its shot volume) was really great. You don’t have to be that guy to choose the latter in that case.

 

In a more general sense, of course players lists have emphasised shot volume because the game rules have created a scenario where shot volume performs really well compared to other weapons because: it has easy access to rerolls, it can wound anything and is good against a variety of targets, it’s more consistent with regards to shot numbers and damage and finally it’s often cheaper. None of that is really the fault of the players for using it.

 

Shot volume on everything, including twin Lascannons, all feeds into the overall lethality I mentioned earlier and is deadly when all those elements combine.

 

If there was a single phrase that summed up 8th edition rules for me it would be “Quantity over Quality” and until they address the things that make quantity so good it will continue to be a problem.

 

 

Its entirely up to the players to only play agreed ahead of time balanced scenarios rather than tournament practice pick up games on boards with insufficient terrain.

Shot volumn on twin lascannons doesn't increase lethality, because 8th ed vehicles are way more durable than previous ones due to the wounds/saving throw mechanic. The old Twin-linked rules just made autocannons objectively better than lascannons 90% of the time which is the same issue 8th has with players only taking high shot weapons.

 

Every edition is quantity over quality, other editions could be even worse since you had more upgrade options that costed points so could easily make a hyper elite army that was incapable of winning games. The only alternative was 7th ed's rediculous deathstars.

 

Sadly Knights being a faction means 'wound anything' is here to stay. The first edition to have 'wound anything mechanics' was third edition with its armoured company optional rules for IG, if heavy vehicles are going to be immune to most weapons in the game you need to ban fielding an entire force of them.

 

Wound anything is only an issue on S5 D2 weapons like disintegrators and riptide burst cannons. Lascannons aren't great but are still way better against vehicles than bolt guns. Killing vehicles purely through chip damage isn't a real 8th ed scenario. Statisticaly dark lances are actually better against vehicles than disintegrators, its just the disintegrator being general purpose (and for most of the edition cheaper) that makes that irrelevant.

 

To be honest disintegrators and avenger gatling guns are actually massive outlyers that break 8th ed. Many factions just don't have an equivilant gun. Reducing the shot count on the avenger gatling and making disintegrators damage 1 would make 8th ed work a lot better, especially now that the Imperial Fist's brief reign of damage 2 ap-2 heavy bolters for the whole game is over.

 

8th ed's rules are pretty good based around an assumption that weapons have trade offs therefore the 'optimal gun' didn't exist, then the massive amount of factions (and then forge world on top of that) meant that the optimal guns did exist and could be spammed and given full rerolls to make them optimal in even more situations. The core Imperial weapons are actually pretty balanced with each other and the ruleset, with the only 'optimal gun' being over-charged plasma. Part of the problem is that there are guns that are even better than overcharged plasma but have no draw back rule at all.

 

In days gone by, plasma, Autocannons and other multi-shot Str6-7 weaponry were still the best choice overall... until they came up against Av14, at which point they were literally useless. Having things not being able to be damaged by some units made elite, hard-to-damage units far more worthwhile. I think the game is sorely missing the rock-paper-scissors element of having to pack the right weapon for the job.

 

Except not really since facing meant there were almost no true AV14 units and land raiders and monoliths were just too expensive to be considered really competative.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Closet Skeleton

[Halandaar]

There's so much you could do with the game if it let go of the IGOUGO turn system.

 

We used to use Initiative to determine what order units fought in melee; why not bring it back but then apply that same logic to the whole turn? If units could act in initiative order, your faster units (i.e. Hormagaunts) go before your slower ones (i.e. Carnifexes), but your opponents faster units (i.e. Howling Banshees) go before your slower ones too. Alpha strikes which effectively decide the game on turn one become a thing of the past because only the very fastest units can act before your opponent has any chance to respond, and extremely powerful long-range weapons on cumbersome platforms are forced to wait longer before they can fire.

 

Assuming you keep the phases intact (not convinced I would to be honest), you can give your units a boost to their initiative in the shooting phase by "readying" them (i.e. not moving, similar to how it works in Kill Team), or give something like Marines a flat +1 initiative in the shooting phase when firing Bolters. Berzerkers and their ilk could get a +1 initiative in the fight phase, and you could have psychic powers, abilities or stratagems that manipulate the initiative order to varying degrees. Webbers and Grav Guns that reduce the initiative of units that they hit, psychic powers that let you swap the initiative value of two units for a turn, and so on.

 

(Personally i'd probably do away with the Move > Shoot > Fight phase progression altogether and have something like Action Points, allowing units to make their actions in the order that suits them best)

[Dark Shepherd]

Improving saves especially on vehicles would be great, even if it was just more 2+ saves on heavy tanks/transports

 

Maybe a rule of cant wound if toughness is more than double strength

[Tyriks]

There's so much you could do with the game if it let go of the IGOUGO turn system.

 

We used to use Initiative to determine what order units fought in melee; why not bring it back but then apply that same logic to the whole turn? If units could act in initiative order, your faster units (i.e. Hormagaunts) go before your slower ones (i.e. Carnifexes), but your opponents faster units (i.e. Howling Banshees) go before your slower ones too. Alpha strikes which effectively decide the game on turn one become a thing of the past because only the very fastest units can act before your opponent has any chance to respond, and extremely powerful long-range weapons on cumbersome platforms are forced to wait longer before they can fire.

In theory this sounds nice, but I honestly think it would be awful in practice.  Imagine a match-up like Eldar versus Imperial Guard.  The entire Eldar army will go first every time, making it even worse for some factions than it is now, since they at least have a chance of taking first turn now.  I'd much rather just have alternating activations.  

[Sloeberjong]

I would like to see different activations, more in line with Kill Team, Necromunda or Apocalypse. It eliminates alpha strikes and gives your units a fighting chance. 

 

Besides that I'd like to see more differentiation of stats, like Toughness 16 for vehicles and stuff and more wounds maybe. No more mortal wounds or invulnerable saves (simply more wounds/toughness). I'd like to see less attacks and also less randomness. No more d6 damage after 2 d6 rolls. Get rid of wound rolls anyway. When there's more different strength, toughness and wound stats then there's no need to keep it that random. I like the apocalypse aproach of AT/AP stats per weapon and maybe that would be nice to differentiate between living and "metal" targets. 

 

I'd like attacks to be for a unit instead of per model so you can limit the amount of attacks. 

 

Ok, this is a bit random. I like kill team and especially apocalypse and Necromunda. I play 40k because most people play it but I've always found the system to be terrible. It's probably not going to be what I like ever, so it's all just dreams. I wish people would play apoc more (but smaller battles so it's basically 40k). Best I stop now, because I'd change the entire game if I could.

[DanPesci]

Id love to see an overhaul into alternative activiation, but itd need a proper think over due to massive army variance (something less of a problem in kill team size stuff)

 

E.g. knight army vs nids, the knight army is at a huge advantage just doing straight alternating goes as theyre going to finish their turn before a third/quarter of the tyranid army has done anything - which is a problem if you can pack an armies worth of firepower onto 4-5 units.

 

You could maybe do something like this:

Infantry - normal

Tank - Costs 2 action (effectively skip next go)

Super Heavy - costs 3 action (skip next 2 goes)

 

 

Old things id love to be brought back

 

- Template weapons. Flamers and demolishers used to be a legitimate tactic to dealing with castles. Something needs to come back to punish castling up around bubble characters.

The current issue with templates would be you could easily start sniping characters...so....

 

- Characters - Remove 6" bubble, go back to them being attached to a unit/affecting that unit only. Its its a chapter master level equivalent character, just let their ability affect your whole army (just dont make its something stupid like reroll everything map wide!) - HOWEVER also limit it to 1 character jonining a unit, in order to avoid silly deathstar stuff of past editions.

 

This removes dull castle bubble play, and also stops the daft situations where a unit charges but the hero leading them stays behind.

 

 

 

 

 

Things Id like to see changed just now for 8th (ie things not requiring a massive overhaul)

 

- Any weapon with rules that lets it fire at non-LOS models can do so, but is at -1 to hit if it cant see the unit.

- All weapons that are d6 shot or d6 wounds changed to 2d3 or flat 3.

- Anything that is d3 (damages, shots, even rolling for maelstrom points off objectives etc) - change to a flat 2.

Edited April 16, 2020 by DanPesci

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I doubt they will let characters attach to squads again since a lot of players complained about death stars back in 7th edition.

[Dosjetka]

I doubt they will let characters attach to squads again since a lot of players complained about death stars back in 7th edition.

The proposed limit of 1 character per unit would alleviate this issue greatly.

[DanPesci]

 

I doubt they will let characters attach to squads again since a lot of players complained about death stars back in 7th edition.

The proposed limit of 1 character per unit would alleviate this issue greatly.

 

 

Aye, it was being able to attach multiple characters (and characters from different armies) that made deathstars get out of hand.

 

Also wounds also used to go on the nearest model to the shooting unit, so you could do things like tank with a character, then move them back behind a couple of models and theyd be safe again - as far as i can remember - its been a while since i played an older edition :)

 

 

If you are only getting one extra ability, its only given to one squad, and wounds work the same (ie whoever you start on has to take all the wounds - so you risk your character if tanking for the unit)..its way easier to prevent abuse than multiple characters joining a unit (or the currently bubble system)

Edited April 16, 2020 by DanPesci

[Tyriks]

Part of the problem was also USRs being incredibly vague in how they interacted, and then GW making sweeping decisions based on one single interaction. That wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue if they keep the current datasheet rules.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’d definitely like the option for a character to join a unit. It’s such a pain trying to coordinate characters and the units they’re meant to be buffing to both get into melee within range of each other.

 

I’d love it if something like a captain could join a unit so they roll the same charge and either succeed together or fail together. I’d make it optional and the drawback for joining a squad would be that their buff switches from being an aura to only affecting the squad.

[Tyriks]

I'd actually like to see high level commanders giving army wide buffs, but a limit of one per game. Units like Chapter Master, Necron Overlords, Primarchs. They are supposed to be among the most capable and competent military leaders of all time, so it should really make a difference when one is on the table.

[Dark Shepherd]

Changes to castles and conga lines of units would be good, attaching one character per unit or character can only buff one unit oer turn would help that.

 

I like the army wide buff idea for certain characters/warlords as it feeds into a wishlist item (anti soup too) limited of certain categories of characters per detachment

 

D6 shots works for autohit weapons, but should be scrapped for anything else ranged (not grenades). Make things like frag launcher autohit

Edited April 16, 2020 by Dark Shepherd

[Bryan Blaire]

I'd like specific changes to the Marine psychic tables to not be Chapter specific except a power or two, and let psykers possibly know more powers and from a more universally open table of more than 6 at a time. If we're gonna have space wizards (I believe that has recently been stated by Jes Goodwin), then let's really have some space wizards!

 

I'd also like to see revision to the IGOYGO system.

 

I feel like the game is better when it is an abstraction instead of simulationist, so I would like to see doing away with TLoS and no use of facings, but adjustments to how vehicle damage works (weapon penetration of armor on vehicles).

[Noserenda]

Eh i prefer auras to characters joining units, its a lot more intuitive and does not need a page of rules and exceptions to make it work. 

A better fix for castles would be giving artillery and snipers some teeth, just letting things like artillery hit units within a certain range on a 4+ or giving more armies access to sniper weapons that actually threaten characters with 5+ wounds and suddenly bunching up or relying on characters is a lot riskier which is all it needs.

(And i can say that having literally just finished a game between SoB and Nurgle Daemons that had a whole gamut of support heroes on both sides) 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’d rather see all characters be able to look out sir to close by units regardless of faction.

[kombatwombat]

The deathstar problem that plagued 7th Ed was more complex than just having multiple characters in one unit. Most of the problems stemmed from a few factors, some of which 8th has coincidentally solved. The problems were overwhelmingly to do with defence rather than offence.

 

1. Character abilities transferring to units outside of their faction with unintended consequences - think Azrael giving his 4++ to Space Wolves. This has been solved by keywords.

 

2. Psychic powers and other abilities conferring increases or rerolls to saves, particularly invulnerable - this is where you got the 2++ rerollable. This has largely been solved by GW being much stingier with giving out bonuses to saves and almost zero rerolls to saves.

 

3. Invisibility. Nothing more really needs be said on that one.

 

4. The Look Out, Sir! mechanic - a huge part of the issue. It was the source of save allocation shenanigans, where you could put the character out front, use him to tank the Lascannons, then use the rest of the unit to eat the Bolter shots. Unfortunately this mechanic still somewhat exists (drones, Deathshroud etc), but removing it and taking hits on the closest model would mean that if you put the character out front to tank the Lascannon, he will be swamped with Bolter fire.

 

5. GW being careless with which Character rules carried over to the unit. Things like Hit and Run that a lightfooted character could somehow impart on a unit of Cataphractii. GW has shown with their new FAQ/Errata model that they’re much more willing to pay attention to these interactions now.

 

Enforcing a ‘one character per unit’ rule is a solution to a lot of these problems, but it’s a real baby-with-the-bathwater solution. These issues are not unsolvable, and GW has already solved a lot of them.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Maybe just some sort of "if a Character is within 3 inches of a friendly unit that Charges, the Character can choose to count their Charge roll as the same amount the friendly unit got, but must charge immediately after that unit", or something?

[The Unseen]

I never want to see characters joining units again. It caused so many of the problems with older editions, and took like 3 pages once you factored in the rules themselves and the ridiculous amount of FaQ and Errata they inevitability had to *fix* them.

 

I do think a rework of the cover system and how characters are targeted by shooting is needed. While currently some situations can become un-intuitive with character targeting, at least the rule works without 3 pages of rules text and constant arguing.

[Noserenda]

Aww yeah the cover system badly needs sorting out, i mean just use the one from second ed with -1 or -2 to hit and move modifiers.

[Panzer]

Aww yeah the cover system badly needs sorting out, i mean just use the one from second ed with -1 or -2 to hit and move modifiers.

 

There are more complains about stacking negative to-hit modifier than about the cover system, so hell no. Marine players might not realise how good they have it with their BS3+ on every single unit while also not being a pushover in melee, however if you play a shooty army that only hits on 4+ without help a -1 hurts a lot and everything beyond that makes it almost impossible for you to play the game.