40K: Fun Things I’d Like In Chapter Approved

What CRAZY rules would you like added in a Chapter Approved Book?

The other day I talked about changes to the game I would like to see come out of Chapter Approved. Now at the time as I mentioned I was focusing on changes to competitive play. Because of that the rules changes were I mentioned I’m hoping for were pretty minor and could be added to Matched Play rules without changing the fundamentals of the game. A lot of people it seemed however were hoping for some additional, expanded you might say, rules. While these types of rules might not work well in matched play (VDR) they are great addtions to narrative and non-competitive play. Lets take a look at some fun additions I’d like to see in a Chapter Approved at some point.

More Cover/Terrain Rules

The terrain rules in the core rules are, frankly pretty sparse. In fact its not until almost the end of the main rule book that terrain gets fleshed out at all. Even with these expanded rules, there isn’t a huge amount of variety, with most terrain having very similar effects. Though there are rules for a few cool types of terrain almost every table I’ve seen has hills, forests and ruins… and that’s about it. I would love to see some more terrain rules added in. Some of the crazier features of the 40K world could be brought into the game . Rivers of lava, Chaos Shrines, ‘Nid Spawing pits, Eldar Webgates, etc could all get cool abilities to liven up the table top.

To go along with this more variances in cover could be added. Maybe some very heavy cover could give you a +2 to a save. Maybe a heavy forest could give a -1 to hit units behind it? Anything that can help bring the battlefield to life would be cool additions to the game.

Battlezones Galore

Going hand in hand with the above, Battlezones are one of the cooler ideas in the main rule book. Where as terrain rules add a twist to a localized part of the broad, battlezones effect the whole table. The main rule book only comes with three battlezones, Night Fight, Fire and Fury, and Psychic Maelstrom. Each of these battlezones simulates an environment a battle might be fought in. They add both new rules and new stratagems to the fight. In addition to these three I can see so many more battlezones that should be in the game. I want my Zero-G/Vacuum Battlezone, an Ice/Lava World Battlezone. Or how about Battlezone Death World?  These could add some really amazing flavor to games.

Expanded Vehicle Rules

Look, to be honest I find the vehicle rules in 8th to be a little bland. In addition I know I am not the only person who feels this way. However despite how I feel I can also recognize that we are not going to get any major changes to the core rules of how vehicles work until 9th edition. That doesn’t mean we can’t get some optional rules. The main rule book in 7th introduced the Death From Skies expansion.  This optional play mode introduced extra rules for flyers, including facing and dogfighting rules.

I would love to see a similar expansion for ground Vehicle rules. There is no reason we can’t get a tank focused expansion of optional rules, adding in things like facings and partial damage (immobilized?). Base the expansion around all tank games, but allow players to adapt the rules as they like to the rest of the game. I think this could be a really fun option and add some cool rules.

Character Design Rules

If we can get VDR rules, why not CDR ones? But seriously, how cool would it be to have a set of rules for building you own custom character to lead you army?  I know plenty of people come up for background for their warlord, and many others have really cool ideas for characters that simply aren’t supported in the rules. A pretty simple set of CDR rules could allow anyone to build a custom hero, that they could then convert and play with. It wouldn’t even be all that hard to do. Since weapons are already priced in each codex you just need to do a few simple things:

  • Base costs for a hero of each race, maybe have two stat lines, a major and minor hero, or a single universal stat line they you pay to modify.
  • Pick your Keywords- maybe the first 3/4 are free, and additional cost points?
  • A list of like 20-30 generic abilities (“Friendly units with keyword X within 6 inches re-roll ones to hit”) with points.
  • pick x- weapons from your codex- pay the points.
  • Some generic options for mounts, bikes, wings, jump-packs, etc.

With just a few additional tweaks you could have something really cool there.

A World Of Options

Maybe not that world though, it looks a little used.

These are just a few of the fun and wacky things I’d love to see added in a Chapter Approved book at some point. Chapter Approved has always been a vehicle for not just fixing rules but adding fun optional additions to the game. With so many great ideas out there I hope some of them make it in at some point.

That’s it for today folks! Let us know what fun and wacky rules you’d like to see in a Chapter Approved, down in the comments! 


  • …How about Kroots as their own force like in the previous Chapter Approved books?

    • BrianDavion

      I doubt we’ll see anything like that, chapter approved is more akin to the AOS general’s handbook.

    • Considering all the Kroot models are temporarily sold out or OOP I doubt it.

      At this point I’d rather they hold off till we get a full up Codex release and new models.

  • Sniddy

    From what I can tell while a lot of these would be cool and the tank one could help with the whole ‘xenos tanks have one gun imperial/chaos have 4’ issue if they have arcs

    HOWEVER – the design philosophy seems to be simplicity – so cover is simple there are no arcs…so it’s not going to happen

    • Muninwing

      i don’t know… it’s not like they’ve actually made most things simpler. datasheets actually make things more complex by giving each unit its own unique special rules instead of USRs.

      the tank rules were not overly complicated in earlier editions, but they got changed to unify certain things. and they lost flavor. enough people have complained about the losses that they might reconsider. might. probably not.

      i could see them at minimum reinstating arcs though…

      • Ronin

        Am I the only one who doesn’t miss vehicle arcs? Maybe it’s because I’ve had too many experiences where we had to check by the millimeter whether a model was in side or front. If it’s brought back, I demand monstrous creatures and big models be given a similar treatment.

        • MelonNeko

          No.I have hated vehicle facing, vehicle armor, etc, since 2nd edition

  • ieyke

    I think 3rd Edition’s Chapter Approved wackiness is one of the biggest best things that has been missing from 40k for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
    We have a lot more stuff nowadays, but 3rd edition, in a lot of ways, was still the best version of 40k.

    Lots of Chapter Approved rules and armies, and extra wargear, and terrain rules, and variants, and cityfighting, and whole new thematic Chapter specific units like the Tyranid Hunters (pre-Tyrannic War Veterans), and Iron Fathers, etc etc etc.

    They could extend the Chapter specific rules and themes to go beyond the stuff in the Codex, and make the Ultramarines even MORE flexible, and the Imperial Fists even BETTER with sieges, and Salamanders could get all their stat quirks, Master-Crafted weapons, Salamander Mantles, etc etc.

    Bring back the Relictors, the Savlar Chem-Dogs, the Elysians, the Praetorians, Necron Pariahs, Feral Orks, more psychic powers, all the Cursed Founding Chapters, Craftworlds variants to represent more Craftworlds, Exodites, Corsairs, Kroot Mercenaries, weird battlefield conditions and weather, unearthly terrain, etc etc etc etc….

    All the stuff that had people excited to convert weird crazy semi-official units and armies, and make a more flavorful and thematic gaming ecosystem.

  • Byor

    So, we asked for simpler rules, and now we are asking for more complex rules.

    It is impossible to please everyone…

    • euansmith

      Tired of disappointment? Accept Nagash as your Supreme Lord and savior and never know the sting of disappointment again.

    • vlad78

      Previous edition had rules for everything, every codex had special rules bypassing the BRB. But now they stripped the core rules instead of just simplifying each army. You can’t remove cover rules and difficult ground rules without the game stopping being a wargame.

      More complex cover rules (at least bring back heavy cover) and ESPECIALLY difficult ground rules (slowing down units) is not just something fun to add to the game, it’s COMPULSORY.

      • Ronin

        To heck with that. I’m happy my land raider doesn’t stall to a halt over a twig.

        • vlad78

          And why shouldn’t a land raider be susceptible to a break down when driving through some ruins or a forest of giant trees or marshes? Why should a bike be safe when driving through rubbles at high speed? Why shouldn’t infantry be bogged down or at least slowed down when crossing those same rubbles? Nobody forced you to go there with your units, you made a choice.

          Difficult ground is the basis of all tactics.
          If you prefer to play without, it’s perfectly fine but it’s not a wargame imho.

          It’s a level of abstraction which removes any realism or if you prefer any suspension of disbelief and also a lot of depth.

          • Ronin

            The whole concept of 40k as a whole is about suspension of disbelief. If things were based on realism, none of the bipedal mechs would not be able to walk gracefully at all and imperial guardsmen would die just by breathing in the very air of an alien world or crushed by its gravity. And no, a land raider shouldn’t be immobilized because, based on lore, it’s one of the greatest engineering feats that the space marines have produced. The thing is designed to deflect lascannons and should have no problem crushing ruins or trees underneath its mass. If I want to throw a fluffy spin on why vehicles are no longer slowed, I’d say it’s because they’ve learned how to build things much more solidly to be impervious to the environment.

          • vlad78

            Sure, things much more solid which happen to be inspired by WW1 tanks. ;p

            LR cannot go in a straight line into a city and no vehicule can physically go through any sort of obstacle at high speed. Even modern tank cannot ignore the surrounding landscape.

            Not only it doesn’t make sense (imho) but by removing difficult ground you just remove a huge part of the tactical depth which was hitherto inherently part of every 40k edition.

            And even it we could remotly fathom the idea LRs can just ignore trees, marshes, walls and are immune to mecanical failures when their tracks are used continuously under very difficult conditions, this does not apply to any other land vehicles other than skimmers.

            But if you prefer to play on a billiard table..

          • Ronin

            Except the land raider is nothing like a modern tank and the material it’s made of is science fantasy. Did you ever did read the fluff about how it can drive on the seabed underwater? From a game play perspective removing rolls for difficult terrain was a step in the right direction because it saved time for a massive game of this scale. It’s not an roleplaying game or a skirmish game that can afford those details when the target time of play is supposed to be 2.5 hours for a standard 2k game. Even a lot of real time strategy video games where they’re simulating over a hundred infantry and could easily implement a movement speed debuff on terrain don’t really bother with the mechanic. Only thing I can think of is when Total War only does when the units scale the walls. Regardless, it’s not like any of these games without the mechanic really lose out on tactical or strategic depth.

          • vlad78

            That’s exactly what I said, you prefer to play on a billard table and I might add probably because it’s easier.

            And no you can’t compare a skirmish game with total war, the scale is just not the same and wfh did use facing. BTW there was only a few of terrain in WFB which is what total war tries to simulate, total war was never meant to simulate a firefight in the jungle. You’re comparing appel and oranges.

            And if you can’t understand tactics are amongst other things the ability to master the landscape and elaborate ways to make the best use of them, you just don’t understand what a proper wargame is for the sake of an hollow argument like the Land Raider is so awesome that is should ignore any difficult ground and never suffer from a mechanical failure and get bogged down.

            Besides you don’t even answer to why should all the other vehicles ignore terrains, are they also too awesome too?

          • vlad78

            Ok I read again my aswer and it is too arsh, I apologize, I understand your point of view, the LR is a very expansive vehicles and it should not have 1 chance over 6 to be immobilized over a shrubbery but that’s rather a problem of the ruleset not allowing players to use dozer blades.

            A chance to get immobilized by double ace never bothered me.

            Same with the lack of rules reflecting difficult grounds, I agree you can have a good game without those but why should we if we can both have the cake and eat it at the same time, in this case, it is not antithetical and as I said most historical tactics came from dealing with the landscapes as much as with the enemy.

          • Ronin

            It’s no problem and I appreciate it. I can see that we’re both very passionate about the direction of game and it makes sense considering we’ve both invested a lot of time and money into the hobby and I’m making my opinion heard because I have a feeling the GW folks actually do read the comments for feedback. I think it boils down to the differences in the level of detail we would like the game to be injected with to balance immersion and streamlining. I play Roleplaying games too so I get both ends of the spectrum in games with games and actions that are really really detailed, but for me it’s a matter of time management than anything. I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m one of the folks who can’t really devote more than 3-4 hours a week to any game and I’m sure there’s others out there on the same boat with work, kids, school, etc. If we had all the time in the world, I would be more than happy to include as many details as we would like and I tend to be more open with these ideas in narrative games. But say for quick pick up games or tournaments, for me the question is how do we balance out details and keep the match under 3 hours for a game where there’s an average of a hundred models on the table, especially with this edition that favors hordes? I agree terrain is a huge factor in the game, but I think there’s better ways to implement difficulty in crossing than just dice rolling which can slow the game down drastically given enough units. A half movement speed mechanic or a -2 move speed would probably work better.

    • Dalinair

      I think it’s mostly fine as it is, maybe add some more balance, fix the godly first turns etc

    • Muninwing

      no… people asked for less cluttered rules and that was interpreted as simpler.

      then people realized how much was cut for no other reason than simplicity, and why complexity has a place in a game like this, and asked for the changes to e a bit rolled back closer to what they had imagined earlier.

    • Marco Marantz

      I read that GW designed 8th ed to be understandable to an 8 year old. I know they need to grow the game but i think they dropped the bar a bit low.

  • Devil_Eyez

    Leave the vehicle rules alone, yeah removing the facing and giving them a single toughness simplified them (maybe a little to much) but 8th edition at long last balanced out vehicle and super heavy’s of all types with there counterparts monstrous creatures and gargantuan creatures. If there are new rules they need to be made to effect both those groups.

    • Snord

      I agree that there was a fundamental imbalance between monstrous creatures and vehicles, mostly at the expense of vehicles. But vehicles should operate differently to non-vehicles – things like armour thickness, facing and fire arcs are intrinsic aspects of armoured combat, and removing them has sucked a lot of flavour out of the game. I also miss templates, however, so maybe I’m just out of step.

      • Devil_Eyez

        Yeah the did go to far by making vehicles more like monstrous creatures. But if you bring back things like Armour thickness, facing and fire arcs for vehicles monstrous creatures must also need them. Take a caranfex why wouldn’t it have weaker Armour on the rear as its designed to charge straight forward, why could it shoot straight behind it with its gun when that should require it to rotate fully, why didn’t they loss effectiveness as the take damage, why did it get a toughness and a saving throw? I agree with vechiles operating differently to non-vechicles BUT monstrous creatures must also act differently from normal creatures .

        • vlad78

          and why not? Once they all have a unified profile, you can give arc facing to MC. But you could also give a less efficient side and rear armour (toughness) to vehicules and remove that rule from MC but give them a lower T overall. The possibilities are endless once they finally agreed to give toughness to all of them.

          • Devil_Eyez

            You would need to make sure it’s clear though What is a MC as I would say tau were the main breaking point for MC and vehicles as or there MC should have been walkers. Problay best if vehicles just included just tanks and things like dreadnoughts and imperial knight become MC along with ripetides and wraithnights and yhen use a key word like machine or organic to say if there effected by poison or are effected by haywire

          • vlad78


    • Dalinair

      Agree completely, leave that alone.

    • vlad78

      Facing had nothing to do with such imbalance. It’s the different game mechanic which made monstrous creatures much more efficient. The unification of their profiles should have been enough. You could always state that vehicules suffer fro a -1 toughness when hit from the side/rear.

      Removing facing just simplified the game to please a wider and dumber audience.

      • ZeeLobby

        Amen. There are plenty of ways facing could still be relevant, but they basically reduced positioning’s importance in a tabletop wargame where positioning should be important.

    • Andrew B


      Yes, I am super fun at parties. Why do you ask?

  • disqus_yyglaTdo9o

    Death from the Skies was a badly written joke of a ruleset. Never, ever, ever Again.

  • Dylan McManus

    I’ve wanted character design rules in 40k since 2nd Edition.

    That one will never happen…

    • Blinghop

      What’s funny is that in 5th, there was an “official” GW character creation/progression system that was made for store campaigns. It was pretty great as it had special upgrades and ability types as well as multiple types of heroes to create for each of the existing factions . I think I still have it kicking around somewhere as I had adapted it to 6th ed for my group.

      • dynath

        Yeah it was a great set of rules though easy to exploit if your store manager wasn’t paying attention.

  • MarcoT

    I don’t miss arcs, dumbest source of discussions imo, but otherwise nice ideas.

    • vlad78

      Play with nice players and even templates aren’t something to argue about.

    • ZeeLobby

      Which is just crazy, cause arcs we’re pretty easy to determine by anyone who wasn’t WAAC.

      • MarcoT

        Really? I though they were hard. Only the square vehicles were obvious.

        • ZeeLobby

          Maybe we were just spoiled cause we always had whippy sticks (the old red plastic measuring sticks)so forming an X over a vehicle that could be agreed upon wasn’t usually that hard. The weirdest non-square vehicles were probably the dark eldar ones, and as a DE player I never really had it come up. Now, firing from the “hull” on those vehicles is another story…

          • Matthew Pomeroy

            We call them whippy sticks too 😛

  • Dalinair

    For me it’s a big fat no on the vehicle facing rules, I prefer how it works now, but the rest is fair enough.

    • Marc Berry

      Big fat yes to the vehicle rules (id like some tactics and depth) and a yes to everything else

  • Rainthezangoose

    No to the vehicle rules but a big fat yes to the custom character stuff. Never gonna happen but it be so good if it did.

  • xN0mEx

    Make Orks great again… asking too much.
    Just make them playable against shooty armies.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Great! Now all I can imagine is an hoard of Ork’s all with sporting blonde hair Squigs!

  • ZeeLobby

    All of these would be awesome to see. Would def get me more excited about playing 8th. That said some things would be too far (Death from the Skies, ugh, just let it die). Basically GW did a whole de-flavoring, and it’d be nice to get some flavor back.

  • These are all great, but I seriously doubt we’ll get much or any of that, based on the GHB for AOS not adding ANY rules in either book. GW doesn’t want to do rules modifications in their expansions.

    The biggest turn offs for me regarding 40k and AOS is that terrain is hardly a factor. The terrain should be part of the game and should hinder your forces. Thats part of a WARGAME, managing the terrain.

    • vlad78

      Quoted for truth.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    WAIT! When did wholesale changes to core terrain/cover and vehicles rules become classed as – “fun things”? Not my definition of fun…..

    Seriously though. Why, honestly, keep bang on the door for Core Rule changes via the Chapter Approved format? GW have said on numerous occasions that like, <AoS Generals Handbook, that is not the purpose or intention for this book format. Wholesale or tweaks to the Core Rule will only happen when they decide to publish an updated rules set.

  • ellobouk

    Cover rules that make sense, that’s all I ask.

    Terminators standing on the edge of a forest? that’s a 1+ save. Guardsmen standing behind a ruined building? nahhhhhh they’re in the open. It’s like everything in 40k is a barrage weapon now.

  • Davis Centis

    They could bring back facing for vehicles, but in that case it should only be “front” and “back” facings. Trying to figure out side arcs was the majority of the problem. However, I’m totally fine with them leaving Vehicles as being more like Monsters that are randomly nearly immune (or extra vulnerable) to certain weapons. The current rules for vehicles are way more streamlined and it’s been overall a good thing.

    • Marc Berry

      Completely disagree they’ve sacrificed flavour, depth and tactics for simplicity.

      • Davis Centis

        Yes, yes they have. I wouldn’t even try to argue that. However, the question is whether or not that flavour, depth, and tactics were necessary. If you really wanted to, you could add a hit-chart location to all infantry, showing how you can injure but not incapacitate an opponent, and we can have different units and different weapons do these things. That would also add to the flavour, depth, and tactics of the game, but likely not in a meaningful way. The simplicity of the game allows the remaining flavour, depth, and tactics to take the fore-front. You don’t need to know precisely what arc you’re in, but being able to surround a vehicle and prevent it from driving away to leave close combat, or just surrounding it on one side when it’s otherwise surrounded by ruins that it can’t move through, is really cool.

        • Mira Bella

          “The simplicity of the game allows the remaining flavour, depth, and tactics to take the fore-front.”
          I’m sorry mate but I strongly disagree.
          Would you please explain to me how the lack of facings, and therefore the lack of need to maneuver/outflank makes the game more tactual and gives it more depth?

          • Davis Centis

            I’m not saying it gives it *more* depth, but that it allows you to focus on the depth that’s already there. It gets rid of the clutter.

            For example, if you had a nice dining room set, but you piled boxes and boxes of junk around it, it still wouldn’t be a nice dining room. If I got rid of all those boxes of junk, you could definitely say “well, there’s less stuff in the room now”, which is totally true, but the room would still be nicer.

            The vehicle rules in 40k had a lot of junk to them. Sure they were there, and there was more tactics or depth because of that, but taking them out allows the game as a whole to look and feel nicer.

          • vlad78

            I don’t see how the infantry hit-chart you talked about could be relevant in any way if it does not reward manoeuvering. More detaisl and randomness does equal tactial depth.
            The 40k V1 rules prevented a miniature to shoot or attack out of its firing arc (180° for infantry if I remember well) did a lot to promote flanking tactics at a squad level even if it was a clunky past a 30+ miniatures game.

            The facing of vehicles did promote and reward the player managing to outflank its opponent.
            The firing arcs forced players to make choices and to think ahead.

            Now what do we have, move, fire charge and repeat without much tactics involved others than the stratagems (magic powers) and concentration of strength.

            If this is how you envision a game looking and feeling nicer, we can’t agree.

  • Marc Berry

    Glad im not the only one who feels the core rules especially vehicles need more depth and flavour.

  • Muninwing

    – datasheets for terrain, just like fortifications
    – added optional rules for tank/flyer combat

    i like the character creation rules… but someone will say “that’s what the HQ datasheet is” and miss the point.

    really, i think they missed the ball in this edition not expanding the importance and role of the chosen HQ units that each army has. that alone could have been the organizer and definer that precluded so many problems…

  • ILikeToColourRed

    soooo 7th ed?
    vehicle facings, damage results, and generic hqs with access to most of the wargear from the codex + non fixed warlord trait?

  • Ronin

    Considering there’s complaints the game still takes too long to play I can’t believe people are asking for more complexity. Considering 40k is a massive war game where actions are counted model by model and not by whole units like Epic or Kings of War, you have to sacrifice detailed rules of realism to accommodate for the scale. If 40k was a skirmish game or a roleplay game, then you can put in as much as you want down to details about what firing position stance they’re taking. I definitely don’t miss the mess that was 7th edition.

    • Marco Marantz

      i think the time taken to play is because the meta is horde focused. GW wants to sell stuff. The game is just a means to do this. Back in 3rd ed the prices of units was basically halved to double the scale of the game, requiring you to buy more models. GW may have made time savings in some areas of the game to allow for even larger model counts.

      • Ronin

        All the aura rerolls don’t help either. I’m definitely guilty of slowing the game down because I put auras everywhere in my lists. 😛

        • Marco Marantz

          Dont feel guilty….most people are doing it 😛

  • Marco Marantz

    I also hear a lot of complaints about the lack of terrain/cover rules. Given how important terrain is in every game, the current rules are totally inadequate.
    Vehicle rules: Given how easy it is to cause wounds we wont see ‘critical’ effects after a single shot. It just gives whoever goes first even more of an advantage if they can suppress enemy vehicles like the old shaken/stun results. I do think facings should be a thing, with perhaps rear armor saves being 1 less. Very few vehicles are armored all the way around.
    Infantry design: Id love it but we wont see it because players would then understand how janky GWs design actually is. If they were following a proper formula like in Rogue Trader then there shouldnt be the point changes from the index to the codex and now chapter approved that have been thrown around. Frankly, I dont know what GW are doing.

  • Danny Janevski

    Cooolll ideas !!!

  • Marcus Clark

    You Joking, This article belongs with the garbage. The new rules = bland. Come on, finally we can play multiple games of 40k on the time it took to play one. thats the biggest issue. Any game stops being fun when a turn can take upwards of an hour each.
    There’s just no pleasing some people, if you want 7th expanded then why not make you own variation like the 9th age of warhammer fantasy.