Cutting Down 40K’s Rules – Vedros Leads the Way

 

Bolter_Phobos_NL

Battle for Vedros shows just how simplified Warhammer 40,000 can be – Here’s where we should start cutting rules for the new edition:

All I want is to play a 40K game from start to finish in under 2 hours.  I can get in 2 X-Wing games in that time!

Now I’m not saying that Warhammer 40,000 should ever get shrunk down to Battle for Vedros’ 2-pages of rules.

vedros-starter-08

And you thought Age of Sigmar was simplified…

 

Mainline 40K will never get cut down this much, we like our stats and special ruels far too much. That said, 40K has a bunch of clunky mechanics we have to endure to get in a evening of gaming. Here are just a handful of overly complicated rules sections that need to get the axe in the next edition:

Warlord Traits – This was such a great concept that turned into charts of useless nonsense that rarely affects anything.

maths_2752693b

Mastering wound allocation should grant college math credit

Wound Allocation – Having to calculate angles and trajectories to pull casualties correctly is just a pain.  It slows down the game and really what is the point.  There are so many simpler ways of dealing with this.

Mysterious Objective – Charts within Charts to figure out exactly what that thing you thought was important really is (or maybe it will just blow up and kill you – or give you skyfire).

DA_Librarian-203x300

My canisters are full of dice and cards to roll my powers before battle.

The Psychic Phase is Ridiculous – Pre-game setup leaves a lot to be desired.  All the charts, sub-charts, and rolling, rolling, rolling just to find what you get to use could be a lot faster.  The fact that there is an entire strategy to buying various upgrades to hope to get that one power you need is a bad sign.

Allies – Let’s be honest, last edition Allies weren’t that bad. But now building an army is as straightforward as a pretzel.  Do all the multi-codex, dataslate, & formation shenanegins make the game any more fun that previous editions – or does it just add extra time, expense and a ton of math to the process?

superfriends

Guilty as charged

Mixed Faction Units – This is just one of the red-headed stepchild of the Allies fiasco.  Once you start adding multiple faction units to those oh-so popular deathstars you end up with a giant rules mess that is hard to make heads or tails of.  So wait, Faction A’s super character just joined FACTION B’s unit – so what special rules apply to me (or can affect me)?  I don’t know either.  The recent DRAFT FAQ points to a limited solution, but it’s still not good enough. this one’s so bad even the design studio knows it’s a problem.

Night Fight Rules – How may times did you forget it turned dark on turn 5 till you were at the bar with your friends?

I bet you have even more.  What 40K rule mechanics would you take the axe to?

 

 

  • Crevab

    Let’s see, no difficult terrain, run is a flat 4″
    A bunch of that simplification is just because there’s no point to a range of S,T, WS, and I with Marines vs. Orks

    • wibbling

      How often do you come across difficult terrain? Why can it not simply be half movement?

      • Crevab

        Difficult Terrain? A foot in every direction.

        Is it a rarity in your games or something?

      • Crevab

        I was listing off what I saw in that picture of Vedros’ rules, not stating what I want

      • Christopher Saldaña

        All terrain is difficult terrain, I haven’t seen any that isn’t.

        • Muninwing

          open terrain is not…

          • Christopher Saldaña

            You know what I meant lol. Open ground is not “terrain” in this context, it’s just open ground and has no effect.

          • Muninwing

            there was an issue in WHF, i think it was 7th ed. one of the spells affected all terrain types.

            in the rulebook, “open terrain” was listed as a terrain type.

            there was a huge argument about whether models were affected on open ground, and it wasn’t even WAAC to assume that they were.

            in 40k, “open ground” is a type of terrain… but it explicitly states (probably because of the WHF issue earlier) that “special rules and abilities that affect terrain do not affect open ground” — meaning that for this conversation it’s only a technicality that it counts.

            remember too that impassable terrain is also not difficult terrain.

    • Difficult terrain should have the same effect as charging into difficult terrain. -2 inches. Simple, easy to remember, and universal.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      Difficult terrain works ok IMHO, but we could lose run moves. Lets just say M is double if you aren’t going to shoot or charge. Moving models twice per turn is dumb, I know it hugely slows horde armies.

      • Stealthbadger

        I agree with this. I used to just say to do the run in the move phase but then I realised how this could at times have a major effect on LOS or intervening units. So now doing the run as a second phase stops this but is clunky. If they just had the rule as you say and made the player choose in the movement phase that would be much neater and quicker.

      • Moik

        ‘M’? He’s a Fantasy player, get ‘im boys!

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Haha! I think if we are on the subject of simplification a M characteristic would be hugely beneficial, replacing those intricate confusing rules for all the different model types and vehicles.

          • ncathers

            An M stat would be good, but I don’t want standard speed to go back down to 4″, so long as the average troop speed is 6″ I’d be happy.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I can’t see it going down, unless they bring back Squats!

          • Damistar

            And the clock is reset again…

  • Graham Roden

    Get rid of roll to wound. I hit your squad, you see if the armour saves it. Simples. It removes a good chunk of the dice rolls and speeds up the game a fair bit.

    • Shiwan8

      Lasguns killing biotitans makes so much sense.

      • Darth Bumbles

        Well, that’s where unit specific rules come into play – I score a lucky shot on your Biotitan (maybe it’s laughing at my poor sod in a t-shirt armed with a flashlight and the shot goes down its throat) we roll to hit, you roll to save, your rules mean I need to roll snake eyes to take off a wound and you need to roll a seven to make the save, and you get to re-roll if you don’t like the result.

        • Stealthbadger

          What?

        • Soundwave

          That doesn’t sound like it would speed things up a whole lot, I’m afraid, dude.

        • Shiwan8

          So a 50 man IG blob would still rapid fire down things like a hierophant or better yet a landraider. Because that makes so much sense. On top of that we have just doubled the length of the game by rolling 2d6 on every shot and save meaning that they have to be all rolled separately.

          Not a good idea.

          • Muninwing

            now if we just segued the game to use d20s…

          • Shiwan8

            And we will not since throwing 50 d20 is pain and doing it twise is double. And this is not Infinity.

      • Moik

        Only to you, Simplifex. Obviously it’d be accounted for in the formula.

        • Shiwan8

          Just like in AoS. Because it’s a system built to be balanced and to make sense.

          • Nameless

            but Age of Sigmar still has to wound rolls – they are just set by the attackers profile rather than comparing each profile.

          • Shiwan8

            That’s just one of the reasons the game is crap compared even to 40k.

          • Moik

            Again, you’re way underthinking this. Like, there’s 4x as much depth to what I said, you’re only responding to a laughably small portion, and even then: inaccurately. Sigmar has armour, and to hit.

          • Shiwan8

            I’m responding to what you are saying. As far as we know no-one reads minds. You can whine all day long how I’m not seeing your grand design but in the end unless you make it clear in detail what that design is you remain as just another whiner.

            So, is there actually some substance to what you are saying or do you just whine?

          • Moik

            Lol. Simmer down dude.

            What I’m saying is: you interpretation was so improbable that you should have known there was NO WAY IT WAS POSSIBLE.

            Either ignore, or ask for clarification, because you should know that no one’s that stupid.

          • Shiwan8

            “Simmering down” at this point would mean sleeping or being dead.

            Judging by the some of the other comments it is not only possible, it’s disturbingly probable.
            So, what, in detail, is your grand design?

          • ncathers

            I though you were the guy who made cheep bait, not the one who responded to it.
            kek.

          • Moik

            Your entire script sounds like someone who’s having a hernia from taking things way too seriously. Relaxed people don’t say… almost anything you do.

            Pro tip: if you’re using sarcasm, or insults, you’re almost definitely not relaxed.

          • Shiwan8

            Ok. So, you got nothing…other than futile attempts to insult me. Would it not be just easier to admit that you have no idea of what you are talking about? 😀

          • Moik

            I’m sorry if you feel insulted, but that’s not what I intended.

          • Shiwan8

            Oh, wow, you do not even have the spine to admit that you tried and failed to insult me. 😀

            Anyway, how does that perfect game system of yours work?

          • Moik

            I said I didn’t mean to, not that I didn’t do it.

          • Shiwan8

            You said that and you did not succeed, but claiming that you did not attempt it knowingly is just a lie. 😀

            Come one, have some guts, own your bad behavior. Not doing it is just…sad..

          • Muninwing

            you’re missing the point.

            he doesn’t understand from what you first wrote, how you think this system modification would work.

            asking you to explain yourself isn’t aggressive.

            but you keep responding about responding, instead of answering the simple question.

            wtf do you mean? explain your idea. if you don’t want to, then just stop trolling.

          • Moik

            I’m not interested in discussing ideas with someone so close minded. I’ve said what I think his attitude, that’s good enough for me, game over.

          • Muninwing

            … and you had a hand in them right at the beginning, when you were oversensitive to his asking you for clarification.

            i can pretty easily just chalk your cascade of posts to trolling. at minimum, you were poking at him and provoking the comments.

          • memitchell

            Let’s see. A combat system with one or two rolls instead of three. Nope, can’t think of anything. Well, I guess if we include GW games, we could include AoS, Space Hulk, Space Crusade, Advanced Space Crusade, Tyranid Attack, Lost Patrol, Assassinorum, Betrayal at Calth, Deathwatch: Overkill, Epic, Imperial Knight Renegade, and Silver Tower. And, there are more (including most every other tactical game in existence, miniatures, boardgame, or conflict simulation). So, nope, maybe a few hundred other examples. So, you are correct, there is no alternative to the current system.

          • Shiwan8

            And out of those how many games have literally hundreds of units ranging from grot to warlord titan? How would we handle grot hitting a warlord titan? How would the perfect system work, exactly?

            I did not ask for examples…unless there is a system that does what the present system does with similar level of detail while being more….lean.

            I get that you feel the need to act out when someone contradicts your opinion, but unless you can give a solid argument that actually suports your opinion your opinion is meaningless.

            The present system is far from perfect. That much is true. What we lack is a replacement.

            What is this superior system that allows all the units of 40k to work together with same or better variety and how does it work, exactly?

          • Stealthbadger

            Removing to wound roll is a terrible idea for guard and orks as basically if they are hit by pretty much any weapon they are dead due to pisspoor armour save or AP. If you remove the to wound roll you remove another way they can at least survive.

            Seriously how can people even think it’s a smart move.

          • Shiwan8

            They play eldar and marines…

          • Stealthbadger

            Well as I’ve said multiple times now. Removing to wound would just make anything with less than a 4+ virtually pointless.

            I really don’t know why people are focusing on the wound roll as a time saver. It’s like trying to stop the titanic sinking by making sure no one has left a tap running.

          • Shiwan8

            I have no idea what the reasoning behing that is either. Not only is it just not worth it to obsess over it, it would also make the game very poor version of what it is now. We would essentially throw 1d6 to hit and 1d6 to save. That would lead massed grots killing titans UNLESs they would make a huge list of what can harm what. It would be worse than the present system. Possibly more balanced, but it would be so heavy to run that the fun would sieze to exist.

          • Stealthbadger

            i generally dislike the idea of trying to turn 40k into another system. Ultimately people are going to have to accept this is not a game you can play in 30 minutes. I like the fact it takes time to play as I can socialise with my opponent, talk about rumours of upcoming stuff or silly rules in the game, etc. The impression I get is that people want to turn it not a game where they can ROFLSTOMP their opponent in 30 mins without saying a word to them and then move to the next table.

            The main exception to the above is I would like to see some change to I go you go as even with tame lists if you roll hot it can be overly brutal. This would mitigate the upset when your opponent has a really good turn one a wipes out half your army. I’ve had it done to me and done it to others (Once my deep strike scions took out his land raider and pask then erased his entire death wing squad other scions then somehow eliminated his tac marines it felt horrible).

            At least if he’d been able to ‘activate’ his terminators after the landraider went boom they could have fought back. Right now it just feels a bit cheap when you sit their getting pounded for 20 mins.

          • Aezeal

            No it would still be way easier than the current system I think.
            Maybe slightly tone down the hit rolls too to avoid too much hits if it seems thing get killed to fast.

          • Shiwan8

            Still, grots killing titans with shooting….. AoSifying 40k would be just as stupid as killing WHF.

          • Brettila

            The trick is that the to hit would change. A standard hit would only be a 5+. Elite troops would hit on a 4. Also, defenses would have to be adjusted a bit. It is not that hard. Look into the game Armies of Arcana (or anything from Thanesgames). The one ‘downside’ is that units become a bit more uniform.

          • Aezeal

            You’d need a slightly more complicated wound roll. ( but comsidering 40k av value which should be rmoved too it would probably still be less complicated than those 2 things combined.)

          • Shiwan8

            So, essentially nothing would change for the better.

          • Brettila

            Why would a grot be able to hurt the titan in the first place? Units would still have strength, etc. to affect how they work.
            And for the record, you do spend an inordinate amount of effort with verbal attacks/arguments/insults. That is why so many people make negative comments about you. You can make your points without resorting to the Trumpish way. Peace.

          • Shiwan8

            It should not. It will though, since the more vocal new wavers want to get rid of wound rolls AND make the game otherwise more streamlined.

            Stop imagining there’s an emotional load in my comments and you will see that they are not attacks or insults. They are arguments because that is how a real discussion between parties having different opinions is had and they are not apologetic because there is no need to be. If that is too much for someone then I suggest that that someone goes to his/her safe space and avoids real world in which adults act like grown ups. Again, not an attack or insult. This is just how it is, like it or not.

          • Muninwing

            i will forever dislike AoS if only for this conversation being opened up.

            “we got the rules to 4 pages, it’s simpler!”

            yeah… by gutting the game, making it a different style of game and of play, by removing all of what got me involved in the game in the first place. that’s not a good thing.

            sure, games are shorter. but at the cost of the entire game being replaced by another one that realistically has nothing to do with the first.

            and some people want to do the same to 40k? lame.

            if rolling dice is too hard for you, buy an uno deck. you’ll save time and money.

          • memitchell

            Vedros does AoS 40K, without changing anything. At it’s core, 40K is a few pages of rules. That’s a good thing.

            But, change is possible. Rogue Trader 40K profiles included 12 stats. Over revisions, Movement, Intelligence, Cool, and Will Power were generalized, consolidated, or dropped. And, yet, there are still tons of different profiles.types. Advanced Space Crusade has 18 different profiles for Space Marines. With 12 entries each, and rolls a single D12 for all combats. It’s not impossible to change.

          • Muninwing

            change is always possible. but change for the better? that’s harder.

          • memitchell

            Sure. I’m not advocating anything. Just pointing out even GW has different ways to skin the cat. I will say, as a veteran since Rogue Trader, who is dabbling with 40K after about 8 years absence, it’s simply overwhelming. And, not in good way.

      • Aezeal

        Id be for combining wound and as rolls. Half of the time the distinction between the 2 isnt really there anyway. Make it so as old fantasy wound charts where some stuff just cannot wound certain tough creatures. A shot would have a certain strength and creatures a certain armor value (like T) at a value of 8 you’d start to be in the lightly armoured tank plating and normal shot just have no effects.

        • Shiwan8

          Which is why we have to wound rolls….

    • wibbling

      And if the armour doesn’t save, do you then test against toughness or do away with that roll?

    • ncathers

      Having both strength and piercing (/T and #+) is kind of necessary for unit variety, so I’ll disagree.

    • Graham Roden

      Last time I checked if someone gets hit by a weapon it’s their armour that decides whether they are wounded or not. Use the weapon strength to determine whether it can hurt the target then roll to see if they hit them. E.g my squad of guardsmen shoot at a land raider, they can do nothing with that so that’s them done. Next turn they shoot at a squad of terminators, some of them hit but fail to take any out of action. Many other games successfully work without roll to wound.

      • John Michael

        Yea, except marines and other superhuman things have natural defenses besides there armor. It makes no sense that a las gun has as much a chance of hurting a wraith knight as battle cannon

        • Stealthbadger

          “Ha puny monkeigh! Your worthless las guns cannot harm this wraithlike form of perfection! Wait what are you doing, hey stop pointing it at my eyes that’s dangerous you could blind someon…OH GOD MY EYESS, SWEET CRACKERS I’M BLIND!”

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Thats why cool wraithknights wear shades.

          • Moik

            Do they have eyes??

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            No-one knows because they always wear shades.

      • Stealthbadger

        You could think of the middle roll as the difference between a flesh wound and a mortal wound maybe?

      • Erasmus Tycho

        In whch edition did you not have to roll to wound?

      • Muninwing

        really? so an animal with armored chitin (such as an ant) is less hard to hurt than a blue whale? we should test that by dropping one-pound bags of sand on each one.

        by your estimation, the ant’s armor should protect it, while the blue whale should be outright killed.

    • Anti-Gravity

      Then Imperial Guard become the top-tier army instantly. No thanks. Waves of cheap death would be game-breaking wtf.

      • DeadlyYellow

        A.K.A. The Winter Assault model.

      • In one shootin phase, I easily have 100-150 hits. Seriously, no joke. People already liken my list to an infantry based leaf lower hybrid. I built it to be fluffy, not OP, but no to wound roll would be just broken if you played me

    • JPMcMillen

      I liked the system they used in Kings of War. You roll to hit, then rolled to wound. The roll required to wound was based on the toughness and armor of the target. Modifiers to make the roll easier or harder represented various things like more powerful weapons or defensive magic.

      In 40k they could make the wound roll greater than 6+ to represent units that would require harder hitting weapons to damage (and 40k has plenty of those).

      • ncathers

        Honestly simple tables with multiple rolls is a lot easier than having to do a 2d6 table that would have to be learned, balenced, and re-written for all weapon types.
        I’d just change the order of save and wound for fluff-crunch reasons.

        • JPMcMillen

          What 2d6 tables are you talking about? Kings of War doesn’t have tables like that for combat. Your stat line shows what you what need to roll to hit for melee combat, ranged combat, and the number your opponent needs to roll to inflict a wound on that unit. There are not tables at all.

          • ncathers

            Sorry, responding to the phrase roll greater than a 6+.
            As for that system, how would you get any unit variety out of that?
            At the moment we have weapons that are good for inflicting many wounds, but don’t do well versus 2+, and so on. Wouldn’t this system just lead to super obvious best in slot units? Good defense would just be good defense, and good damage would just be good damage.
            At this point the only choice would be over mobility and CC or ranged, no balancing a TAC list for GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, and vehicle.
            How could a system like this account for having a gun that say, was specialized for blobs or elites?

          • JPMcMillen

            Having a defense greater than 6+ would mean that the unit would be impervious to any attacks that don’t grant enough of a bonus that a roll of 6 would equal or exceed. So if you attacked something with a defense of 7+ your attacks would need at least a +1 to the wound roll (6+1=7).

            As for unit variety, a well constructed army list would avoid the pitfall of a best choice by balancing all units in the army against their baseline unit (ex.Tactical Squad). To improve a different unit type in one area, you have to diminish something else. This could be anything from stats to abilities to points. Admittedly this system isn’t as minutely detailed as 40k is, but the size of the average battle these days has gotten a bit out of hand and they game needs some streamlining. If they want a truly detailed game, they need to release a real set of skirmish rules for small battles.

            I know the KoW community gets asked all the time ‘I’m playing army x, are their any must have units?”. The answer back is almost always the same “Your must have units are the ones that best fit your play style.”

          • ncathers

            First point: So going from hard to kill to impossible to kill for a lot of units then? In a game with so many varieties of big bads this seams like a bad idea tbh.

            Second point: streamlining would be improving the system without loosing the flavor and core fantasy of units/armies and I do not feel this system could accomplish that.

            Third point: I know that, at least for me and my friends, that 40k was always the big scale game that made each unit feel like it mattered, the old ‘my dudes’ thing. Wouldn’t make for a bad system, but it would seam nothing like 40k to me, as far as I can tell.

          • JPMcMillen

            One, there are already impossible to kill situations for units in 40k. No amount of Las gun fire will ever kill a Wraithknight. Not unless the squad has some sort of upgrade, something that Mantics game systems do allow squads to do. Also, there could be ways for units to earn a bonus to wound by sacrificing hits (lost x% of hits for +y to wound).

            Two, reducing wounding and armor to a single roll doesn’t cause the flavor of the armies to go away. What it does is combine two rolls into one to get things moving faster.

            Three, 40k was originally designed as a skirmish game, with battles being a fraction of the size they are today. Games of that size allow for individuality in the units. Once you get past a certain size, keeping track of all the minute differences between units can be a bookkeeping nightmare, not to mention all the unique special rules that many units seem to enjoy.

            In reality streamlining 40k should be trying to find a happy medium between current 40k and EPIC. Leaning more towards 40k than EPIC, but somewhere that game play is faster but the flavor is still there.

          • ncathers

            Two: removing the difference between a strong hit and a piercing hit, or being large and being armor does lose flavor, and rolling one additional set of dice takes maybe 15 seconds.

            Three: If you have sub-three hours than you can just play a low points game, I don’t know anyone in my group who can’t tell a terminator from a tactical, and they all know who has fleet, SaP, rending, etc.
            My point is, 40k is a game about unique and fun units within an army, and reducing the flavor of those units to allow for larger games is pointless as far as I am concerned. Also having both a T and a #+ really isn’t where book keeping gets hard tbh.

            There is a lot of faf in 40k that could be re-worked without sacrificing major mechanics of the game, and frankly aborting them to use another game’s system just doesn’t seem like a solution.

            tl;dr: It dosen’t take a notable amount of time or effort to roll twice over once, nor to know the wounds and save over just one figure, and dropping half of the offensive and defensive mechanic of the game could not maintain unit diversity as it is now.

          • Aezeal

            More attacks. Or a damage value like in aos.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Yeah, Kings of War does it right (and plays twice as fast). Splitting the defensive attribute into toughness and armor is more detailed than needed for a game of this scale. Most of the time both attributes go hand in hand anyways, meaning that high toughness models also have high armor and high strengh weapons also have high armor penetration. There are exceptions of course (poison) but those can be adressed otherwise.

    • Erasmus Tycho

      “Roll To Wound
      Hitting your target is not always enough to put it out of action. The shot might result in nothing more than a superficial graze or flesh wound.”

    • Farseerer

      That has to be a joke.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      Bad idea.

    • Moke

      This is an idea I’ve been working through as well. I think wounding is a terrible mechanic because it makes the game pretty much impossible to balance. There’s simply too many moving parts to be able to chart the power curve properly. Compare it to something like X-Wing or Hearthstone where you know EXACTLY how much damage something can do and how much it can take. In 40k it’s a crapshoot.

      The way you do it is this:

      Roll to hit
      armour saves
      remove causalities.

      BUT, you say, what about a laspistol killing a landraider?
      So, there are two ways you change the game to compensate for the lack of wounds.

      First, you seperate things into three weapon classes: Anti infantry (that can only hurt vehicles if they roll a 6 to hit – this can’t be modified) and hurts infantry normally.

      Multi role – these weapons can wound anything but only do 1 wound at a time.

      Anti tank – these things do 2 (or maybe 3) wounds against anything that has more than 10 wounds on its standard profile and straight up can’t shoot at anything with less.

      The other thing you do is massively change the way wounds work.

      So a grot would have one wound.
      A space marines would have 2 or 3 (to demonstrate their amazing superhuman toughness)
      A rhino would have 10
      A Land Raider would have 15
      An Imperial Knight would have 30
      A titan would have FIVE MILLION

      This is all stuff I’ve worked out with a friend so isn’t perfect by any means but I think it’s much better than the completely bonkers system we currently have.

      • Stealthbadger

        This is already way more complicated than the current simple comparative table.

        • Moke

          How is: Has the weapon hit? Yes. Take a wound off. more complicated than the current version?

          • Stealthbadger

            Because you’re faffing about with weapon classes etc which is more to remember and would require a massive rules rewrite for every weapon in the game.

            Right now I can point a new player to a simple table and they can work out what roll they need to wound.

            To be honest the to wound roll part is probably one of the most minor things they need to fix in 40k right now. I’m surprised this is being focussed on when there are so many other ways timing and balance could be addressed with greater effect.

            Plus I still think the wound roll is integral.

            Did you hit your target?
            Did you wound them in such a way as to incapacitate them?
            Did their armour save them?

            If you remove the round role it would be similar to a simulation of grazing someone’s shoulder effectively hitting them but not really I capping them but if they fail armour they’re out.

            Plus also consider how imbalanced you would make the game.

            Marines vs guardsman. At least there are two gateways hitting and wounding before you remove from playable due to boltgun AP. Your method removes one of these gateways making it even easier for marines and tau to just erase infantry.

        • Aezeal

          No its not

          • Stealthbadger

            Um, look at the wall of text that he has had to post to explain it, the separating if weapons into classes, and the wholesale revamping of wound numbers. Then think about having to know all these new attributes for every army.

            Compare this to the current universal system of simply cross referencing weapon strength against target toughness on a straightforward table that a new player should easily understand I 15 seconds and likely more or less memorise after a few games. How is his system simpler than that?

            Seriously though how is rolling to wound taking people that long to deal with. It’s a batch roll for crying out loud it should take 15 seconds to pick up the successful to hit dice and roll to wound. Even over the course of game if this is your time sink rather than constantly looking up stupid special rules, unit stats, or other issues then I’d be surprised.

            Then think about how removing to wound shafts anything with a crap armour save.

          • Muninwing

            i’m with you on this one.

            as someone who has taught many newbs how to play, it’s really not that hard to understand.

            really, if you can understand a few basic ideas, you can play. and the more you play, the faster you play.

            1. move, shoot, fight (now add psychics too). can trade shoot for a move. if you’ve not done certain things, you can charge when you get to fight.

            the psychic phase was a good experiment that failed to be ultimately useful. it needs reintegration into the rest of the game instead of its own complicated phase, and it needs a slimmer mechanic. with that, it’s fine.

            2. hit (aim for 7 with your BS+d6 roll, use the silly chart that needs a redo for WS)… then wound (equal is a 4, adjust -/+ 1 for inequalities), then roll save (what’s your # on your sheet?)

            3. AV is a meet-or-top roll, and a roll on a chart.

            looks like if you have two charts on a card in front of you, the basic knowledge above, an understanding (or written list) of your own weapons, and can count… you’re mostly all set to play.

      • ncathers

        I basically disagree with all of this, adding classes to guns only makes the game clunkier, and is already covered well by S. The extra roll really doesn’t bog down the game and allows for unit diversity.
        If I were to promote any change, it would be to a more 40k RPG style where the save is built in to the wounds rolls.

        • Moke

          The extra roll adds an extra third to every combat roll and by removing it you allow the game to be balanced. Isn’t that what everyone’s always saying they want?

          This isn’t supposed to be a measure to make the game go quicker, it’s supposed to improve it generally.

    • Christopher Saldaña

      No, that’s ridiculous. Without rolling to wound you’re saying a lasgun has an equal chance to wound a giant monster vs a puny human if they happen to hit it. It just doesn’t make sense. I’d say the wound/toughness chart is one of the simplest most elegant rules in the game.

      I’d rather get rid of armor value and just make vehicles have toughness and armor saves too for simplicity. Give special rules to differentiate them from infantry like eternal warrior, and let them shoot all their guns.

      • Wojciech Łagosz

        I agree. AV10-14 works just like T6-10 and give them AS from 4+ for light vehicles to 2+ for heavy tanks or maybe 5++ upgrade. For example i would make a Trukk T6 4+Sv so you can still gun it down with heavy bolter just as easy, Land Raider would be T10 2+Sv (AV14 can by glanced by S8 but T10 can be hurt by S7 that’s why the 2+Sv to compensate). Fluff wise – when a hit fails to wound it just glanced off, when it wounds but the wound is saved then it penetrated the armour but not all the way (or in case of Ork vehicles the bit shot was falling away anyway). Facing of vehicle is no problem, either we ignore it or make AS 1 worse for side and 2 worse for rear. Make armourbane “wounds any vechicle on 2+”, haywire “1-3 nothing, 4-5 1 wound, 6 2 wounds”, melta “+2S at half range” and so on. All that with re-introduction of M characteristic makes rules for vehicles a lot simpler.

        Also i think that making running in the movement phase and making difficult terrain just -2″ is a good step to simpler yet interesting rules

        • ncathers

          I’d honestly prefer a return to a fully table based vehicle system, keep a separate HP or a re-themed W and T based one for superheavies, but go back to the old, damage it to uselessness or explode it formula, would need some re-balancing sure, but I feel that vehicles shouldn’t feel like MCs or HQs.

    • Peripheral

      The roll to hit then roll to wound then roll to save exists to spread the probability distribution out.

      Same could done by condensing roll to hit and wound but rolling 2 or more dice or by going d10

    • Stealthbadger

      Hi graham, as I’ve said below. To me the core problem with your idea is armies like guard and orks would probably never get that save due to AP on most weapons beating their save.

      This would mean you only ave to roll one dice (to hit) to remove my model. Quicker for you but sucks to be me as an ork or guard player as my armies just got even weaker.

      • JPMcMillen

        I’m sure that there would be changes to armor saves and AP if the would roll was eliminated. More than likely they might receive a better save, but some weapons would penalize the roll.

        • Stealthbadger

          This would require a wholesale rules rewrite for every army then. Also wouldn’t you just be replacing the very simple to wound table with multiple variable tables depending on weapons and mods to the roll? I can see that eating up more time to look up rules than the current very quick to wound phase.

          • JPMcMillen

            KoW does it with zero charts. It’s real simple: if your defense is 5+ that’s what someone needs to roll to wound you with a regular weapon. If I hit you with a big weapon, it grants +1 to the wound roll. If I used a really big weapon, it’s a +2 to the wound roll. It’s right there in the unit description what the bonus to the wound roll is. No charts required.

            And yes, it would involve rewriting every army to this more streamlined system. It would still be more detailed than Epic ever was.

          • ncathers

            The problem is this game is built with more unit variety than, small dude, big dude, bigger dude/ small gun, big gun, bigger gun.
            I really don’t see this simplifying the system in a way that doesn’t lose the core fantasy of many units and factions.
            But that’s just me.

    • Muninwing

      meh… it’s not that hard.

      then again, i don’t think that “remove the closest models” is hard to figure out, but that made the list too.

  • Shiwan8

    Mixed faction units. That was the thing I agreed with. On top of that multi IC units, rerollable invulns and sD are problems in the core rules. The rest are problems in the codices.

    • Zingbaby

      I’m ok with warlord traits, wound allocation and the psychic phase, but I also wouldn’t mind if they went away or changed. But I generally agree with what you’re saying.

      • Shiwan8

        There’s room for improvement, that is true.

        • Muninwing

          warlord traits are largely silly. for the proliferation of many named characters, they are just a single static special rule instead of this variable one.

          now, if they allowed you to choose one…

          if you treated every Warlord like a mini-SC, where you kitted them out, named them, chose one concrete/defined special rule for them to have, gave them access to “character only” relics, wrote erotic fanfiction about them, maybe could use a stat upgrade template to make them a little more buff in certain areas… they’d make more sense.

          • Shiwan8

            We tried choosing one in a campaign. It worked.

          • Muninwing

            i want to see more campaign support from GW. that’s really the way forward…

            this is one example of many.

            i think i will incorporate this into the campaign i’m designing in my spare time — i’ve got a free online messageboard set up with mission parameters, and i plan on setting it up ready to go for after i’m done with my degree.

            character-building the HQ should definitely be a part of it.

          • Shiwan8

            Some light character developement does add to the campaign, that is true.

          • Muninwing

            i might start it off with a character development event/idea. award points for fleshing out the army and its character(s).

            i’m already going to do a null-opponent structure, where you only earn ranges of points for playing the active side of the missions, and most of the missions will be asymmetrical, so why not go further and really make it fluffy?

          • Shiwan8

            Go all the way. It will be glorious.

          • Muninwing

            when it’s a little further along, i’ll PM you a link to the page.

          • Shiwan8

            Thanks!

    • wibbling

      When users combine multiple special attributes from obscure publications the problem is with the player, not the codex.

      • An_Enemy

        “Obscure publications”

        You mean anything GW prints? And here I thought there was no rules bloat and it was easy for anyone to get their hands on their opponent’s rules…

        • Chris. K Cook

          Don’t play folks that cheat and you don’t need to have read every rule ever.

      • Shiwan8

        I agree. I just think that GW should take some responsibility for making that legal in vanilla hammer. Bad house rules are fine, bad core rules are not.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      Battle Brothers can just go. It is responsible for a lot of the games problems. Lets also add a rule saying no reroll save can be better than 4+. Deathstar problems solved.

      • SYSTem050

        On the one hand GW rights some poor rules. On the other hand people abuse any rule to eek out every advantage.

        Personally I like battle brothers but it would never cross my mind for a dark angel character to lead space wolves or some other super friend monstrosity unless it was for a very specific narrative game.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Well how about a compromise? Make Battle Brothers a special rule that can be given to specific character and allows them to join allied units. It should be heavily restricted to Inquisitors, Priests, Dark Apostles, Chaplains etc.

          • SYSTem050

            My own thoughts are ultimately greatly affected (effected?) by the fact I play the same 4 folk. I like your idea but I would only ever use allies for a narrative reason or if it was to allow us to do a 2v2 game with what folk had to hand.

            GW I think now operates under the principle that we are all grown ups and can decide what we want to do. That though can be an issue for folk who primarily play pick up games something that is an anathema to me

          • Chris. K Cook

            “we are all grown ups and can decide what we want to do. ”

            Heresy! Badwrongfun!

          • euansmith

            No more “Eldar with a lone Inquisitor” 😀

        • Stealthbadger

          You could scrap it or make it VERY limited, e.g by saying guard can ally with one SM chapter (because fluff) and limit it only to what makes sense. E.g. No space wolves allying with pretty much anyone because angry doggies.

          Or you could require allies to be minimum points value making the tax too much. E.g. Allied detachments must be equal pints value.

          • chaotichris

            If you want fluff, wolves have allied with plenty of forces, and actually cared about the safety of their allies.

      • ncathers

        Just fix the ‘Imperium club’ to be a better chart, basically a modern version of the HH chart.

        • ^^ I was just about to say this.

          I’m not familiar with the HH matrix but with all the political intrigue that seems to happen in the Imperium you’d figure there’d be more allies of convince and desperate allies.

          • ncathers

            An updated HH chart for internal Imperium would be top.

          • euansmith

            Dark Angels allied with Space Wolves? Come the apocalypse!

      • Nah, BB is one of the only cool things about 6th/7th, there was only one edition without allies (5th, and even then there were allies till the GK book came out) and it was easily the most bland and least fun edition I’ve played. The more variety the better, I say. I do think the allies table could use another rework (let’s stop with DA/Wolf BB and other such things), and more armies should be like CSM/Daemons where they can cast on each other but not join units.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          I like allies, but joining each others units and sharing transports and special rules is too much IMO.

          • I really like sharing transports, I’ve always thought it was silly that daemons could possess a vehicle, that a swarm of nurglings could literally carry a lord into battle, but daemons couldn’t catch a ride in a land raider. Inquisitors are meant to be able to use any vehicle they commandeer, captain Titus riding in with a guard squad in the opening of Space Marine, etc. I think 7th gets the BB rules almost perfect, I do wish more armies had specific restrictions though (similar to how daemonic instability stops CSM from joining daemons. Also, with the new restriction on starting in an allied transport there should be exceptions to that rule, as an inquisitor should be able to ride in a deathwatch drop pod or IG Valkyrie

        • Chris. K Cook

          3rd and 4th didn’t have Allies either.

          • Lol they absolutely did, GK, Assassins, sisters, kroot mercenaries

          • Chris. K Cook

            Were all in 4th. And weren’t really allies.

            ANd sisters haven’t been an Allied army since 2nd ed.

      • Shiwan8

        It’s better but DS problems would still not be solved.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Rerollable saves should be limited to 4+ and Invisibility should be BS1 not snap shots, thus allowing blasts etc.

          • Shiwan8

            Still, 1/12 wounds getting through is not enough to solve that. Except for tau.

          • ncathers

            Properly costed units and abilities. Almost nothing is OP if it is costed appropriately, tanking 12 wounds before a failed save is fine if it costs a dozen times something alike and armorless, etc.
            Hell, knights vs stompas shows this clearly, it’s not a ton of HP and high AV that’s a problem, It’s the atrocious undercosting, as compared to the overcosted stompa.

          • Alpharius

            Knights are not undercosted, unless you’re talking about the wraith variety.

          • Shiwan8

            That is true. Then again, adjusting the points alone would solve the problems we now have.

      • Alpharius

        Age of Darkness has good ally rules. The detachment army building process is responsible for the current mess.

        • Shiwan8

          Take that away and what changes?

          • Alpharius

            Suddenly everyone is forced to use the same FOC, and only one small ally contingent that has to pay HQ and troop tax. So everyone is much more on an even footing, rather than cherry-picking half a dozen detachments with bonus rules for stuff you wanted to field anyway.

            Although It will do nothing to address the balance between a book like Dark Eldar and a book like Craftworld Eldar.

          • Shiwan8

            That last part was my point.

    • Slite

      Strength D weapons are what upsets me the most. They should be limited to apocalypse only, and even then… only the heaviest of weapons should be able to do them, like orbital fire. Having Tau suits be able to fire D weapons in regular games is seriously annoying.

      • Shiwan8

        And yet as long as we have deathstars those are something the game needs more than it has.

        • Skathrex

          For once I have to agree with Shiwan, I wouldn’t take a D-Thirster if it weren’t for Super Heavys and Invinciable characters (Necs, SM). And D is actually pretty ok, even Stomp is, when you don’t count the 6

          • Shiwan8

            sD without the 6s does nothing to stars.

          • Skathrex

            I know, but in a perfect world (without Stars) D, and Stomp are ok, because the lack the 6.
            So you don’t loose your Super heavy instantly against the D:6, but D shots still hurt.

          • Shiwan8

            Absolutely.

  • Wayne Molina

    Honestly I think the way age of Sigmar did the rules is a good idea and I would not mind seeing that sort of approach in 40K although not to that extreme

    • memitchell

      Vadros simply shows that, at the 40K core is really only a few pages of simple rules, like AoS.

      • Stealthbadger

        Replied in wrong area initially.

        I actually would like to try an 1850 point game using vedros. I think you’d have to squeeze in rules for armour but sticking to that four phase process with no special rules etc could be quite interesting.

    • Admiral Raptor

      I was hugely negative about the AoS rules at launch but I’ve grown to like the simplicity of the system. I’d honestly be fine if they copied it all straight over.

  • Stealthbadger

    Is the wound allocation issue a problem or is this just a ploy to engage in WAAC wound shenanigans. Surely closest model is going to be pretty straightforward most of the time. How does that involve need to make any calculations.

    • Shawn

      That was my thought too.

      • Stealthbadger

        Surely if it gets complicated you can just use a tape measure to draw a straight line base to base for closest model? Genuinely though is there some problem I’ve missed.

        Same with psychic phase in 99% of my games. Literally roll on a table once maybe twice at the start and the the phase in game is roll one d6 then try one maybe two powers and that’s it.

        Maybe if your a daemons player but surely that’s more of an army issue than a psychic phase issue. Again the cynic in me suspects some just want to choose a cheesy power rather than gamble for it a bit.

        • Skathrex

          I think the writer meant to be again, be able to buy your Psichic Powers

          • Stealthbadger

            Yeah, I’m not so sure this is a great idea as it would just further encourage death stars. I mean imagine guaranteeing invisibility or one of the other clearly better powers. I know fluff wise it’s kinda dumb but I much prefer making people gamble a little on powers to try and discourage cheesy builds or at least limit them.

          • Skathrex

            I wholy agree. Buying the Powers we have right know would be catastrophic (If they have fix points, Invis should cost a 100 points).
            But with new, weeker powers, maybe, but honestly I don’t think 40k looks at Major changes right know, because none of the last puplications really change anything

          • Stealthbadger

            Yeah I thought about buying powers for points but it would just lead to the same problems and there are some obvious powers that no one would ever use.

            I also agree it’s unlikely we will see anything that would invalidate new books like death from the skies so I suspect it will be at least edition 9 before we see a major overhaul.

            The problem is right now if they do nothing people complain about rules bloat. If they overhaul and invalidate all previous books they will incur AoS levels of rage due to wasted money on books.

            Both the above are valid complaints (albeit of their own making) so how should they proceed? Personally I fall into both groups, at least in part, and I suspect most others do too so its lose/lose for them and us.

          • Skathrex

            Again completely agree with your statement. GW is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

            This thread clearly shows that everyone has their complaints, and most of them are diffrent. Some want just more balancing, some what to cut this, some that, and others want cut it down to AoS lvls.

            Most “longer” games come from people not knowing the rules, and there are a lot of them. But playing 4 games a Year will never make you proficient with the rules.

            Maybe with the new head of GW, and the new dircetion they are taking we can hope they find a way to please as many as possible. Could a bit here and there to make the game faster but don’t cut to much, so it will keep its strategic value.

          • Chris. K Cook

            “I know fluff wise it’s kinda dumb”

            Not at all, You can ask the Librarium or the Adeptus Astra Telepatica for a psyker that specialises in one discipline but there is no guarantee that they’ll send you one with a useful power….

    • Ronin

      Alternatively, you could just get rid of look out sir. Suddenly the guy doing wound shenanigans has to debate between putting his tanky guy up front at the risk of outright losing him vs having his buddies take the hit but decreasing the squad’s impact. It’d also speed the game up considerably. I definitely don’t want to go back to 5th where you get to choose who gets wounded because it led to scenarios where you always had the special guy survive and the most Shields always taking the hit

      • Stealthbadger

        Sounds good. Can’t think of any obvious downsides and agree the 5th edition method seems awful. I can see why the death star crowd would hate the closest model first rule and arguing getting to choose is much ‘simpler’…

        • Ronin

          I have 0 sympathy for death stars. 😛

      • Djbz

        Wasn’t 5th’s where you would allocate each individual wound to models one at a time until everyone had one then allocate a second, and so on then roll each group’s saves and remove any fails from that group?
        I prefered that to the current method, was a lot faster for units with characters/different saves.
        Plus you didn’t have a 2+ save character somehow making his entire unit not be harmed by a battle cannon….

        • Yup. Much preferred the 5th (or, hell, 3rd/4th) way of doing wound allocation. It’s a trade-off, but while it might take a *little* more time on the whole, it lacks the constant corner-case nonsense of 6th/7th’s deceptively “simpler” mechanic.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            5th was hellish. Very rarely met anyone who understood the wound allocation rules correctly and it was terrible to teach to new players.

          • Stealthbadger

            Agree, I never played it but I’ve read Djbz comment twice and still don’t understand it. Closest model is just simple.

          • Djbz

            I’ll try to explain that better with an example;
            Let’s say a unit with 8 Standard Tactical Marines, a Sergeant and a Captain in Artificer armour is wounded 10 times by shooting;
            In 5th edition, you roll 8 saves for the tactical marines and any that fail you remove from those marines.
            You then make individual saves for the Sergeant and the Captain (or look out sir to reallocate them on the basic marines)
            That is 3 batches of save rolls(and a max of 2 LOS), regardless of positioning

            In the current rules, (Let’s say the Captain is the 3rd closest and the sergeant is at the back)
            So You have to roll saves 2 at a time until one(or both) is failed
            You fail one and you have to roll one at a time until you fail.
            Then you reach the captain (with an average of 4 wounds still there)
            And roll for either Look out sir, which if you fail one or more you still roll their save, and then have to roll saves on the next model along as well. Or you make 3 saving throws, (because of the possibility of total failure) and then still have to make another roll)
            That’s 5 batches of saves (minimum)

            The current rules get complicated really fast when one model has a different save part way into a unit, and it gets exponentially worse when you have more wounds/more different save models, far more than the old rules do (at least in my opinion)

          • euansmith

            I don’t like micro managing the position of individual minis in a massed combat game, so 5th was just about okay for me. I gave up when 6th came out.

            I like things like, rolling against the majority toughness and armour, and the defender removing casualties as they see fit. This gives the kind of fun, cinematic result I like; with the Sarge generally dying last.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        I’d be happy with that.

      • I think the entire concept of Look out Sir and it’s implementation is a complex solution in search of a problem. How about something like any character can allocate a wound to the closest friendly model once per turn. This reflect the random heroics of near troops in the chaos of battle. What we have now is far too gamable and just begging for exploits.

        • ncathers

          If the rolling was kept, but could only be done once by each model within 2″, say by passing a Ld. test (using highest in unit as normal, for both fluff and crunch).
          Limits the number of wounds absorbed, but say, puts more than one guardsmen in the way of IG characters, so elite and blob units wouldn’t be disproportionately effected by the change.
          I wouldn’t want it to be a sure thing, because it makes it too easy to game at that point.

          • Exactly. My big picture view of Look Out Sir is that it should be somewhat random occurrence that serves to extend the survivability of your pricy ICs over the course of a game. Something that creates a handful of “oh that was cool!” moments during a game.

            The problem is when the LoS mechanic becomes so reliable that it is possible to build tactics around it.

            Which is where it is now.

          • ncathers

            I don’t mind it being a tactical decision, so long as it’s use is limited and not a sure fire thing.

    • Drpx

      You can position several models at the same distance, then the rules say you can pick a different one if they’re equidistant. So, a captain with artificier armor can tank the battle cannon hits then the guy next to him can take a lascannon that would have bypassed his save.

      • Stealthbadger

        You move then shoot though so position your firing model closer to the target. Otherwise what you describe is legit in my view. None of this makes wound allocation complex though.

        • SYSTem050

          Yeah I never understand the problems with wound allocation. I assume though that we probably play it wrong as we rarely if ever have any problems with it

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            It is almost the simplest its been. There are lots of areas which would benefit from simplification, but this isn’t one.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I like the current system. It rewards tactics and makes positioning important. What needs to go IMO is 2+ Look out Sir. If it were 4+, or just gone, it would be better.

      • euansmith

        I think that “Look Out, Sir!” was fine when it was limited to one or two special bodyguard characters; but letting everyone do it just makes it look really silly; like a Busby Berkley number but with bullets in place of sequins, with endless ranks of minions throwing themselves in to the paths of bullets.

        • Mr_Pickles

          i’d like to see IC’s give out the bodyguard USR to a Model (or more depending on the character) and have those models be declared/marked. Once per game turn, an IC may move an unsaved(after saving throws have been made) wound to the/a marked model(s).

          Something like that would add in some flavor while still curbing the whole squad taking shots for the guy and with it being once per game turn, the IC’s player has got to choose when to use it. Although once per shooting and once per assault may be a bit more forgiving, but I’d keep most “Bodyguard” giving limits to one model.

          Have the IC declare the model at the beginning of the movement phase and only when he/she/it joins the unit. That would keep it limited more and put more value on the bodyguard model.

          • euansmith

            I think that one of the IG ICs used to have a bodyguard (an orgryn or some big bloke) who gave an early version of Look Out, Sir.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Agree, and ICs are hard enough to kill without it.

  • Shawn

    Not sure if all those rules mentioned in the article need to get axed, but streamlined and redefined? Sure. I think a lot of the ally and super-friends, death star shenanigans mostly stems from tournament play. Warhammer Tournament players see what combinations work best, much like MtG players try out different card combinations, to find the most effective and game winning deck/list. .ITC certainly doesn’t help by allowing multiple detachments from multiple sources.

  • dinodoc

    I could also do with less supplements.

    • euansmith

      Four big books like in AoS could be fun.

      • Admiral Raptor

        This. A million times this!

      • You do realize that these are all just Cmapaign scenarios and back story right? The rules remain the same.

        • euansmith

          The Grand Alliance books? I thought they contained the war scrolls for the forces. Is this not so? That’s a bit crap.

          • My bad. I thought you were referring to the campaign guides. The Grand Alliance books do contain the scrolls, but then again the app has them for free. The Grand Alliance books aren’t needed

          • euansmith

            No worries, dude.

          • euansmith

            Now worries, mate, I could have been clearer in what I was talking about.

            Something like the Grand Alliance, putting all the units for a single meta faction in one volume could be cool and could simplify things a bit. Also, adding AoS style keywords to all units could help.

    • ncathers

      Condensing supplements and making them available online every once and a while would be nice, however the continuous release cycle is not bad for adding some flavor mid-edition.

  • Jennifer Burdoo

    I totally like the simplicity of this. Seriously thinking of picking up the set. How soon is it available?

    • euansmith

      I’m hoping that the rules will be available on line within a few days of the games release.

    • Sometime this month I think

  • benn grimm

    Agreed on pretty much all of those…which is a nice surprise..

    • Shiwan8

      AoS would then be good for you, at least in theory.

      • benn grimm

        Did you even read the article? Where does it say; make the fluff crappy, get rid of comparative stats and points or bring more Flash Gordon into the design of the models? I know logic isn’t your strong point, but really?

        • Shiwan8

          I did. It essentially said “keep the setting but give us AoS(ish) rules”.

  • Tim

    I would agree on ditching random tables/objectives. I think the maelstrom missions should get tuned up to. I heavily disagree with whoever it was wanted to ditch to wound rules. Personally I think save modifiers should come back and the get rid of rending etc. The thing is they got rid of them to speed the game and it just got worse because it proliferated special rules. It’s much cleaner in my opinion to give each weapon a profile that is range/strength/save mod and call it there. Then make armor pen something like strength+pen+d6. Definately agree on some of the wound allocation stuff. It should probably just be if anyone in my squad can see you whole squad can shoot. You lose models from closest to furthest. Get rid of terrain rolls as well just imposexplode movement pebalities. Also agree on tightening up the whole formation thing. I think a few (3-4) unique formations for an army are ok but nine of this 13 unique formation crap. Allies are interesting and good for hobby, limit them to the ally detachment or specific ally formations (for stuff like inquisition). Psychic phase is interesting and should stay, powers and gaining them should be tuned down make it so you get primaris and powers in order equal to your mastery in the discipline.

    • ncathers

      A simplified version of what they do in 40k RPG would be a nice way to handle what you’re going for regarding AP, if you’d want to check that out.
      As for the “if any see, they all see” I think that invites more shenanigans and immersion breaking than it’s worth, honestly.
      “Get rid of terrain rolls as well just imposexplode movement pebalities.” Phone? Anyway, just making a single roll on a table instead of rolling each model in a big unit is about all I’d do for dangerous terrain.
      I’m fine with the amount of formations, but they should be less mandatory (read: OP) for fair play.
      I’m fine with allies as is, (wouldn’t mind downgrading on the allies chart unless in a unique “allied-detachment”) but working a hard cap on faction numbers in-BRB would be appreciated.
      More primarus options, and just a d3 for more relevant powers would be my favored fix.

    • SYSTem050

      I can straight from 2nd to 6th ed and personally I think the full save or none version of ap is miles better than the save adjuster of 2nd. The fact that almost everything had some modifier just meant that even a 3+ save seemed to become more or less useless

      • Tim

        I agree conceptually it seems solid, but look how it propigated. Marines and termies were a big deal to start, the stupid amounts of plasma and other low ap weapons began to dominate. So then cover and cover improving rules come along. And now we have cover modifiers and cover ignoring abilities all over. And then we pick up stacking invulnerable saves. So what did we gain. A vastly more complicated system, and one where lots of subtle differences have disappeared. Even 4+ saves a relatively meaningless.

        • Aezeal

          The new weapons and their powerbloat are a problem. I know gw needs it to push models but it’s a bigger problem than most mentioned.

          I don’t play 40k so I might be wrong but sometimes I have the feeling normal guns aRe hardly used anymore (when reading bols). Rare weapons should be rare that is fluffy.

      • Shiwan8

        Given the present meta, is there an armor save that is not useless?

  • Farseerer

    Nicely written article. I agree with most of this, the exception being I kind of like allies if you take away:

    Being able to join squads from different factions.
    Using allied transports.
    Casting psychic powers on allies.
    Anything other than Battle Brothers.

    Allies where it is literally just two armies fighting beside each other to achieve a common goal is consistent with the fluff and shouldn’t be removed in my opinion.

    • Here is my fundamental beef with allies. (which I will talk about in more detail in a future editorial.)

      Allies are great – and allow fluffy combinations taken from the fluff. They also serve as a great way to increase model sales and allow folks to take baby steps into collecting new factions. All this is great and to be honest I can even forgive GW allowing allies to share some special rules so you get some synergies normally unavailable.

      BUT…

      Why is is that allies which represent forces that DO NOT normally train and fight together come together on the battlefield with strong rules ADVANTAGES over armies that DO train and fight together day in and day out (armies taken form a single codex?

      So for me the question is where is the BENEFIT a player should receive for NOT using allies? Because with the limiting of unit choices within your single codex army by choice, there should be some kind of meaningful tabletop payoff.

    • Shiwan8

      You like deathstars?

  • sjap98

    Remove blasts and templates. That way movement will be quicker, because you won’t lose time spacing your models, just move them up all bunched up.

    • Admiral Raptor

      I like this idea a lot!

    • LordKrungharr

      Instead of the measuring the scatter and crap all the time each blast could do D3 or something hits. Large blasts D6. I like it too and we wouldn’t have to walk all over or lean over the table as much.

      • Best idea I’ve heard in a long time. I play blob guard with 250 models in the table, and unless I don’t mind removing half my models by turn 2 I have to take WAY to much time spacing my units.

        Saves time in movement, and saves arguing / debate in shooting over the ‘exact’ angle of scatter, if something was clipped, etc.

    • Shiwan8

      Yes, lets remove one of the very few actual tactical decisions from the game.

  • Admiral Raptor

    I wouldn’t miss a single thing on this list, into the garbage with all of it. I would go further still with the cuts, scrap vehicle rules and give them toughness values and a save. After that’s finished turn fliers into skimmers and forget death from the skies ever happened. Lastly get rid of detachments and formations.

    • Djbz

      Play unbound?
      I thought everyone on the internet hated that idea……

      • Admiral Raptor

        I do it all the time for thematic lists. It’s honestly less broken than many Formations. a lot of folks think unbound is just Wraithknights and Riptides as far as the eye can see but you can do some very fluffy neat stuff with it. WAAC players are going to WAAC no matter what, but unbound doesn’t give them more tools than certain Formations / Detachments do.

  • Rafał Pytlak

    “Mainline 40K will never get cut down this much, we like our stats and special rules far too much.”

    Dunno. I for one, would give up the stats and special rules in favor of slimming down a game of let’s say 1000 points to 30-40 min. Even at a cost of retardation of the system

    • Admiral Raptor

      I fully agree. That game length sounds ideal.

      • Shiwan8

        AoS?

    • Shiwan8

      There’s a fantasy system for that kind of thing.

      • Rafał Pytlak

        Yeah, the thing is i want more AoS in my 40k, because i like the Grimdark setting more.
        Boom, one dice roll :a marine dies, no re-rolls, no saves. Hit-kill. Unless he has more than 1 wound/life/hp

        Afraid of IG killing titans? Just give them the rules like dred in Vedros – “can only be killed by elites/HQ/Heavies”. Boom, no problem.

        • Shiwan8

          Yes, solve bloated rules with not bloated core rules plus a 100 page section of exceptions to the core rules…because that’s somehow better?

          Come on.

          • Aezeal

            That would be an ability on the warscroll not in the core ule book

          • Shiwan8

            Which is even worse.

        • Aezeal

          BTW what you describe is not how aos works

      • Aezeal

        Not really aos is somewhat simpler but only slightly faster than 8th was. Lots of special rules on units now.

  • I think 40k needs to be limed down…..A LOT! GW needs to understand that much of their customer base has things like a family, job, responsibilities, etc and 2 + hours for a “standard game” (more if you have a new player) isn’t something available. I think that they could easily build on Vedros by adding rules for psychic powers and vehicles and any special rules could be added to the unit’s stats like AoS.

    Also make it more scalable to a skirmish size game. This way, if players have limited time, they can play more games than just the one

    • Stealthbadger

      What you suggest could be a good way to reboot the game without instantly invalidating every book people gave bought in the last two years.

      Effectively 40k is still here unchanged but if you want a quicker simpler bane use the vedros mechanic. 4 phases, whatever models you want to an agreed points value, limited to no special rules to deal with.

      • euansmith

        Hopefully Vedros will move some product and GW will add some more units for other factions; please, in the Emperor’s Name, with balanced points. 🙂

      • I actually considered doing just that. As to rebooting the game, the next edition would require upgrading anyway (now or later doesn’t matter). Right now the game is bloated beyond enjoyment (my personal opinion). Dust Tactics is a good system. Plays fast, minimalistic rules and allows for vehicles and aircraft.

      • Master Avoghai

        Man I’ve NEVER seen a game lasting less than 2hours for 18years I play now…
        I think if you play 40k with the will to play fast game, I think the guy who sold it to you indicated you the wrong game.

        As for the skirmish game : how can a skirmish include tanks like predators or even dreadnoughts?

        The probleme of 40k is not being too long : it has always been so.

        The problem is that GW doesn’t propose game systems to play smaller or bigger games.

        Necromunda has disappeared bu offered a nice entry in the universe as gorka morka or space hulk did. It also was a nice 1:00 battle game.

        Also apocalypse is a problem as it’s just “40k with more models” and leaded to the introduction of super heavies in standard battle as no one wanted to buy models to play 15:00 battles…

        Just make a “inquisitor 25mm” game based on necromunda rules and opposing inquisitorial warbands to deamons or xenos cults.
        Just make an epic 40k like rules for apoc allowing to treat titanic battles in 3:00 and you’ll see that lots of 40k problems will disappear

        • Stealthbadger

          The idea of 40k standard (as is now) and 40k light (vedros or very low unit count) is something I thought would work but there is a counter point to consider.

          Wargaming is a niche hobby, therefore there is a risk that introducing more game types is more likely to divide the player base than grow the hobby. This is not ideal for GW particularly if they want to push sales of larger models as effectively they would lose market share from standard 40k to 40k light.

          People tend to forget that they are a business, their only aim is to make profit. It’s great if they enjoy their product but loving your product does chuff all for the accounts. Selling models makes profit and they way to do this is to encourage your players to buy more models which means bigger games or plugging them into awesome ‘formations’.

          Therefore pushing smaller scale games is probably not going to be that appealing to them. I think people are just going to have to accept this is not a game to played in under 2 hours. It will take longer but that’s not a bad thing. As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t mind the time frame as I like the socialising aspect of it. If you only have 1 hour of gaming time each week you need to either try to get really fast at 500 points games or play a different game (maybe kill team?).

          • Master Avoghai

            I understand your reasonning but I think that it’s not uncompatible with what I’ve said.

            The problem is : as a business, GW need to sell models and more models. It’s actually the same we see now with warma/hordes. In my club they started with 25 pts battle, then it was 35, and now they play 50pts… This is the way to go.

            However there’s a side market for smaller/introduction games. That’s what GW made with the B@C, Silver tower and probably more to come. I think there’s a room for it, and the bigger 40k become, the bigger this room is
            A customer that leaves 40k “because it’s become too big” is a customer lost by GW. A customer that leave the game aside for another gaming experience is someone that may come back.

            On a stock stand point it’s not uncompatible as well : you have the genestealer cult sprues : why not releasing them as a skirmish force? They already have dataslate to be use in bigger games.
            Same thing for inquisitor and retinue boxset : you can perfectly release the boxset to be used in A skirmish game AND use them with the inquisition codex…

            I do think that GW has the solutions to satisfy all kind of players. Wether they want it’s another matter… 😉

  • Orangecoke

    Totally agree with this article. 40K is bloated and convoluted.

    • Shiwan8

      Go play AoS?

  • AwesomePizza

    All well and good. But where can it be bought?

  • “Do all the multi-codex, dataslate, & formation shenanegins make the game any more fun that previous editions”

    Yes, in fact it makes up for all the other stuff you listed, which is what made this eddition less fun

  • Pascalnz

    wow, turn 5 night fight? not in 7th mate?.
    you haven’t memorised the 6 mysterious objectives? I find them to be important in almost every darn game.
    Building an army? there’s no maths or extra time involved. building an army is extremely easy . take detachments and formations till you run out of points, if you want battle forged… also takes no time out of game play.
    wound allocation? that’s actually easy. it takes less time than before, at least there’s usually no decisions to be made vs shooting.

    warlord traits not affecting anything !!! HA, my goodness, do you not roll on strategic or tactical?or use characters specifically for their trait?

    so that leaves… the psychic phase and mixed units. Mixed units require a basic faq.
    so… a stremlined psychic phase, could be nice

    • ncathers

      7th: yeah that was an odd miss by him.

      Mystry obj.: really only skyfire has a super relevant effect, and the others are just more tedium and book-keeping imo.

      Building: there is a lot more customization and optimization available than just taking formations, and if you don’t say
      don’t do the mathhammer of Grav v. plasma (just the most generic choice) you will underpreform.

      Wounds: yeah, don’t know why people hate tape measures, it’s easy AF.

      Traits: The codex specific ones should be relevant, the whole theme of them is weak atm, but suggesting that they don’t effect the game is pure BS.

      Psychic: having a few relevant but weak primarus, and a d3 of options to roll on would be my suggestion for that.

      Mixed units: Just stop the Imperium are all friends BS and it should be fine, that’s the only battle bro shenanigans I seam to encounter at least.

      • Pascalnz

        you haven’t found +1 cover or -2 to assaults have much effect?
        heck a squad of marines or… a fifty blob of guardsmen or a unit of three scatter walkers on a reroll ones to hit is a big bloody deal.

        grav vs plasma… only for imperials:). there’s lots of interesting choices out there and so many more viable units because of formations. heck, devastators and assault marines are actually useful:)

        • ncathers

          +1 cover tends does a bit, but most assaults tend to be almost sure things anyway as people rarely allow for the possibility of being stuck out of combat.
          They do effect the game, but not in an interesting or worthwhile way that justifies their existence imo.
          Formations can make units viable, but they don’t make mathhammer any less relevant, their is in fact more to compare than ever.

  • Gimilstook

    Ok so yes, the game has become a bit convoluted and yes, it needs to be simplified a bit. But some of these suggestions are drastic. “Remove wound rolls” or “remove dangerous terrain.” Logic aside from these no longer being components of the game, does anyone remember that game that GW make? It was called warhammer fantasy battle. Remember when they streamlined it, redid the stats and gameplay mechanics? Remember the hatred of that game? It’s taken age of sigmar almost a year to even start recovering from the rage it caused. I wasn’t a fantasy player, so I can’t comment on how complicated 8tj edition was other than going off what others told me. However, I can say with conviction that the simplification of the game is what everyone hated because they went too far. That’s exactly what’s happening here. Yeah I’d love to fit the game into a smaller amount of time, but at the end of the day I still enjoy playing it. Removing core rules won’t fix it. They need to be changed, not straight up removed because they’re apparently so complex. As for the movement stat coming back, who thought that’s a good idea? “Hmm these games take ages….oh I know, let’s stop there being universal movement lengths and make it different for each unit. Because having to check the number for every single unit on the board won’t add any time at all…” And as for whoever said it was so confusing to have vehicles move at different speeds, I have no words other than the fact that it’s a logical thing for vehicles to go fast or slow and for ones that float and are made by aliens to move faster than ones that use tracks. Obviously this is just my opinion and this is simply my view on the game. Yes, it needs fixed, just not by cutting out things or claiming they’re so complicated when the majority of players manage fine. I don’t mean to insult anyone I just see the way to improving the game differently.

  • ZeeLobby

    Hear that 40K? Your AoSing is coming!

    • Shiwan8

      And some people think that it’s a good thing.

      • ncathers

        Coming from a shop with about 7 hardcore fantasy and another 5 casuals, none approved of AoS and only a few ever tried completing an entire game, they didn’t hate it, but they never played it again.

      • ZeeLobby

        I probably would have hated it 6 months ago, but i don’t really care, as we’ve all pretty much stopped playing. I just don’t trust GW period when it comes to games anymore. I’ll wait until they do things right for at least a year, and then come back.

        • Shiwan8

          Unless something significant changes in a drastic way I’m willing to bet that that lack of trust will only be stronger after the wait.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. And it’s sad to say bye. I really liked 40K, and WFB for that matter. I’ll still follow articles about it, etc. But there’s no real incentive to keep playing the game when the rules are just getting worse… They’d have to do something big.

          • Shiwan8

            True.

    • Admiral Raptor

      There are worse fates. The worst is probably continuing 7th ed.

      • Shiwan8

        Oh, I would hate the balance situation getting worse more than using a ruleset that is biased against 3/4 factions I use (the one that it’s not biased against is 30k).

  • Shiwan8

    And after this discussion we would realize that a game with the present rules would fit in that time.

  • Shiwan8

    All of you who want to dumb down the game, do you realize that reducing the game to what many have suggested here would lead to exactly zero tactical depth? GW could just start printing unipose models from soft plastic and then we would proceed to stone the “models” at the local sad pit.

    Seriously, the game has not been better (looking at just the rules) ever and all the problems in the game come from bad balancing.

  • Stormandreas

    Warlord traits dont affect anything really? The psychic phase ridiculous (so much it needs to go)? Allies need axed?!
    Seriously…. this article is half full of crap tbh. Warlord traits are very powerful if you use them right. Take a character with a fixed one to really boost vertain plays.
    The psychic phase has made psychic powers an integral part of the game. And dramatically increased their popularity.
    Allies… now this is stupid. Sure, single faction armies can be great fun to do battle with, but allies always give you new options and opportunities, as well as making some armies fluffier, and boosting the reason for support factions like inquisition, legion of the damned, genestealer cult, and hell the two seperate admec codexes (on their own) too!!

  • Christopher Saldaña

    What’s wrong with wound allocation? Is it that hard to figure out the closest model in range and line of sight? This might slow me down once or twice during the game and maybe for a few seconds.

    You didn’t even suggest an easier way to do it, I don’t think there is one that people would be happy with. Vedros took the range and line of sight aspect out of wound allocation, I imagine people wouldn’t be happy with that in normal 40k especially if it’s a bigger unit far away and with things in the way.

  • markdawg

    This is not addressing the worst part of the 40k rules I go you Go. Until they change this 40k will always be a very flawed rule set. Letting one army move shoot and assault before the other army gets to move a model is a poor choice. Not to mention old and outdated.

    • Christopher Saldaña

      You’re probably suggesting like an initiative stat for movement and shooting so everyone does these things at different times to make it more “real time” and I’ve thought about that too, I just think that would actually make the game more complex and take longer.

      Games like X-wing are simpler, smaller scale, and aesthetically designed to make this aspect as easy as possible, with a giant orange number on the base. I don’t know if that can be implemented into 40k very easily.

    • ncathers

      If you’re any good at deployment, this is no different than whoever shoots first tbh.
      maybe for smaller scale rules-sets but not standard 40k.

      • markdawg

        You need to expand your horizons my friend

    • Admiral Raptor

      This is legit. I prefer the Bolt Action order dice myself, but there’s many ways to get around I go you go.

  • Charles Roesner

    To simplify rules I think we should get rid of armor values and just replace them with toughness. Add bonuses to models attacking from behind if necessary. In regards to the article I think to wound and to hit are easy enough to remember after playing for a bit. Assault needs to be re-worked to made more viable and less micromanagy. Psychic phase I like but rolling for powers is something that needs to go and is largely pointless for most. I get that fluff wise the warp is tricky to navigate but gamewise it’s just an annoyance.

  • Satyan Patel

    For me it’s Overwatch, Psykers, and roll to wound.

    • dinodoc

      “For me it’s Overwatch,..”

      Bastion is totally OP! Nerf Bastion! Sorry. Had to.

  • Tirelion

    I personally love allies, but I feel the ally chart should be more restricted (similar to 6th ed), and mixed faction units should not be allowed. I feel that would clear up a lot of the mess.

  • JP

    I will agree that the Psychic Phase is OBSCENE. Not that it has it’s own phase. It’s actually better than back in 5th when you had to remember when different kinds of powers activated. What’s obscene is how tedious and lopsided it is. They basically copied Fantasy’s magic phase, but took away any chance a player has to defend against a power by making the cast/deny rolls 4+ and 6+ instead of the same 4+ for both players it was in Fantasy. This so heavily favors the highly psychic armies you might as not bother picking up dice in the psychic phase unless you’re one of them. Then the absurd number of charts and random rolling it just a pain in the side. They really need to find a way to streamline it.

    Here’s an idea –
    1. Each Psyker can attempt to cast as many powers as they have Mastery Levels.
    2. Roll 1 dice for each level of the spell. If at least half the dice, rounding up, roll 4+ the test is passed and the power is cast.
    3. The opponent Denies the Witch on a 5+ and must roll a 5+ for each 4+ the opponent rolled to stop the power.
    4. If the caster rolls snake eyes or box cars it’s Perils of the Warp.
    5. Roll a D6 for Perils. 1,2 – the Psyker dies. 3,4 – Psyker loses a wound, 5,6 Psyker is fine.

    How’s that for stupidly easy, and less slanted to one player’s favor?

    • Shiwan8

      Or just go with the 6th edition system and be done with it.

      • JP

        Actually, you’re right. I’d forgotten how much easier it was in 6th. So here’s what we do.
        Keep the Psychic Phase itself so all powers are cast at the same time. Go back to the Cast/Deny system of 6th, except that Deny the Witch can be taken against any power, rather than just one cast on one of your units. Deny should also have a base success rate of 5+, that way denying with a psyker of equal or lesser level goes to 4+, and denying with a higher level psyker goes to 3+. Because Psykers tend to have high leadership, even denying on a 3+ doesn’t have as high a success rate as passing LD9 or 10 on a test. Denying with one of your Psykers should have a range like unraveling with wizards in fantasy did, say 24″. This would also introduce an element of strategic positioning with psykers, meaning taking a risk to get your psyker closer to your opponent’s may pay off big in limiting their ability to cast powers. (Imagine the benefit Tyranids would receive if their Tyrants go back to making passing psychic tests harder and then being able to deny easier on top of that!)
        How’s that for a better system? It streamlines the process somewhat and gives armies with less psychic ability a chance to fight back more.

        • Shiwan8

          I suggest that we keep the warp charge gain/cost system for added tactical element. This way l3 psykers do not cast 3 summons.

          • JP

            How about this?
            Keep the charges on the powers so that they have a level, and a psyker can never cast a power exceeding their mastery level.
            And, taking what you said, that restricts the number of spells they can cast. So a Lvl3 can cast a WC1 and a WC2 or three WC1 or one WC3 power. That also means a Lvl1 or 2 psyker could never attempt a WC3 power because it’s beyond their mastery level.
            Makes sense right? I always thought it was dopey to have low level psykers casting high level powers.

          • Shiwan8

            Sounds awesome.

  • Admiral Raptor

    While we’re talking game changes let’s fix up cover. I’d like to see cover changed from a saving throw to a hit modifier, much like WHFB used to have. -1 to hit for light cover -2 for heavy cover. It makes no sense that you roll to hit and wound before checking to see if the shot actually hit cover instead. Changing to a hit modifier better represents the effects of being partially obscured.

    • ncathers

      Thematically I’m all about that, but condensing rolls tends to make things further from the statistical average, and things like snap shots would need to be reworked in some way for this.

  • ted1138

    How about only getting those faction special rules if your army is 100% that faction. Last thing I want to hear is how your special blend of super friends give you a bunch of crazy rules, most of which you need a degree from the university of GW to decipher.

    • Shiwan8

      Hey, someone actually had an idea that could work.

    • ncathers

      Honestly just giving the Imperium club their own internal allies matrix, a la HH, would be fine by me.

  • Spacefrisian

    Well bringing back the part where you simply buy psychic powers would get you starting earlier. And a move statt would reduce the time needed for rolling how far you go through terrain if its simply half distance. And run move doubling that distance but you cant shoot or charge afterwards. Thats already minutes you gain where you can actually play.

    Perils could be sped up as well, and its should hurt not reward when you peril, eg 1 to 3, lose a wound, 4 and 5 lose a wound and d3 warp charge, 6 lose a wound, the power you tried to use and d3 warp charge. (you lose a wound, no roll of any kind to prevent this, end of story).

    Mysterious objectives just take a while to memorise, but could be faster if you can simply select what it is, you just have 3 or 4 options that you may take with you but none of them can be taken more than once.
    (you can add more options in the mix, or get even wilder and have a previously sabotaged objectiv be countered by disarm explosiv).

  • Wonderdog

    40k suffers from its adherence to successive rolls of 1d6 as the arbiter of decisions. Mathematically speaking, this means you loose the ability to use modifiers for meaningful granular balance (+1/-1 on a d6 is a massive swing in probability), so game designers are forced to use successive rolls (hit, wound, save) in order to differentiate situations somewhat.

    One of the primary reasons for moving away from modifiers (ala 2nd ed) was that they tended to get pretty extreme (totally negating power armour etc), and with so many rolls happening (same hit, wound, save mechanic as we have now, but with potential modifiers to each roll!) they slowed down the game hugely, limiting the reasonable size of armies (bad for mini sales) as you’d never get a game finished above a few squads a side.

    I’d have gone in the opposite direction- shifting 40k to a more modifiers but less rolls system (e.g. shift to D10 to give some granularity to the impact of modifiers, and a single opposed rolls mechanic for action resolution, to keep both players engaged throughout the turn) would really help here, but lets be honest… its not likely to happen.

    The current turn sequence is also horrible, but moving to an alternating activations system would mean making other sweeping changes to the game as well.

    I guess it comes down to this – the best way (IMO) to fix 40k would be to pretty much throw out the entire legacy rules set, focus on the fluff, and build a new, modern game engine to carry it forward.

    None of this means following AoS’s game design lead either – its an altogether crap system that did exactly the opposite of what I’d propose – keeping all the weak mechanics and not adding anything useful. A missed opportunity.

    • Admiral Raptor

      “I guess it comes down to this – the best way (IMO) to fix 40k would be to pretty much throw out the entire legacy rules set, focus on the fluff, and build a new, modern game engine to carry it forward.”

      This is the perfect encapsulation of what needs to happen going forward.

    • Shiwan8

      One of the best ideas thus far. The problem is that that system has to capture the feel of 40k and frankly none of the other popular rule systems can manage that.

  • Mikey_V

    Streamline wound allocation. Use the AoS version. Owning player allocates wounds and HAS to remove full models first. No crazy 5th ed, one wound here, one there, etc.

    • Wonderdog

      Remember wound allocation shenanigans on mixed loadout Grey Knight Paladin squads in 5th? Hells bells.

  • Chris. K Cook

    This is no more a simplification of 40K than Battlemasters was of WFB in the 90s. The sky isn’t falling. Get over it.

    Additionally if you want to play a dumbed down version of 40K more power to you. Go play Battle for Vedros and let us grown ups stick with the real deal.

    • Admiral Raptor

      Needless complexity does not equate with maturity. All the complexity in 40k showcases is monumentally poor game design. The whole system needs to be scrapped and replaced. Hopefully Vedros is the start.

      • Chris. K Cook

        Yeah lets turn it into chess then.

        40K is a simulation at heart, as such it need a certain level of complexity.

        If you hate the game so much why don’t you go play something else more suited to your tastes?

        • Admiral Raptor

          I think the main difference between Chess and 40k is that Chess is a wonderfully designed game with far more complexity that is played and loved throughout the world. While 40k is a barely functional slog.

          I don’t play many simulations but do they all have a thousand superfluous random tables? Do they take hours to set up and play? How about a design studio changing philosophies every few months? Arbitrary points values based on feel? Utterly worthless factions due to age or poor design?
          If this is what makes a good simulation game then I’d hate to see a bad one.

          I play 40k fully knowing how bad it is. I do it because I enjoy building and painting models and when I get together with friends we can play, drink, and entertain each other. It’s basically a board game night with less thinking involved.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Sounds like you hate 40K, maybe stop playing it and find a game rather than ruining the game for us folks who like it as is?

  • Bonesaw1o1

    I honestly think that warlord traits could be salvaged if they copied across the hero phase from AoS (one of the few good things from AoS) . A more active role for your HQs aside from just ‘he’s a whirlwind of Ap2 attacks with 2++’ would be more engaging to play with

  • Simon Chatterley

    Night fighting rules – how many times did you forget that it going dark on turn 5 was last edition and not 7th….

    • ncathers

      In a bar… a whole edition later.

  • Baldrick

    Just re-hash the 4th ed rules, with wysiwyg terrain. Get rid of allies, challenges, psychic phase. Make formations, warlord traits and all the othe 7th Ed &@$# optional……

  • Bodhizafa

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. We don’t need the rules to be dumbed down to grade school level. What we need is sigmarized data sheets so we can easily apply the rules to our models. Stop making us go to multiple sources to have fun with our models.

    • Shiwan8

      I’m going to one source, my memory. That’s less sources than the 10 warscrolls.