Rewrite

[Turner]

Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders really upset us!

Here's the game folks: You name a rule and rewrite it so it is more clear! It could be a poorly written rule, a confusing rule, a well crafted yet slightly long winded rule, a plain and simple rule or one that doesn't quiet fit into any of the previously mentioned categories but you feel the need to comment on it!

So put on those thinking caps, dig through that codex (or rulebook) and remember what our 9th grade english teacher, Mrs. Terwilliger, taught us... K.I.S.S. Keep, It, Simple... Silly!

[Necron2.0]

OK, I'll bite:

On Page 48 of the Core Rules for Independent Characters ...

What it currently says:

Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit that they cannot leave during the game (which is normally called a 'retinue', 'bodyguard' or similar). Where this is the case, the character counts as an upgrade character until all of the other members of this unit are killed, at which point it starts counting as an independent character and it will do so for the rest of the game.

What it would say if adequate play testing and a better editor were involved:

Option A:

Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit (which is normally called a 'retinue', 'bodyguard' or similar). These special units are all those that can only be fielded as an addition to an independent character, unless expressly amended by a given army's Codex. Where this is the case, the character counts as an upgrade character for that unit. He may not leave it until all of the other members of the unit have been removed as casualties, at which point he counts as an independent character again.

Option B:

Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit (which is normally called a 'retinue', 'bodyguard' or similar). In a given army's Codex, these special units are identified in their description as having the 'Retinue' special rule. Where this is the case, the character counts as an upgrade character for that unit. He may not leave it until all of the other members of the unit have been removed as casualties, at which point he counts as an independent character again.

The current rule is ambiguous and a bit open to interpretation.

[DarkLink]

Good Lord, I don't think you can fit enough characters in a post to cover all the rewrites I would do. I don't think I could stop once I started.

[doom-kitten]

I agree with Link in my codex alone it's hard to choose, I kind of have to ask is wish listing allowed, for example can you rewrite a rule even if there's no real reason too? If so I'd change the Rage special rule, I'd keep the forced movement but grant the unit furious charge as well.

[Nosmo75]

I agree with Link in my codex alone it's hard to choose, I kind of have to ask is wish listing allowed, for example can you rewrite a rule even if there's no real reason too? If so I'd change the Rage special rule, I'd keep the forced movement but grant the unit furious charge as well.

Would the Furious Charge gained from Rage stack with an existing Furious Charge the unit may have?

[Nosmo75]

1) The 'Fieldcraft' special rule for Kroot be changed to either 'Stealth', or upgraded to apply to anything that isn't clearly a man-made structure, such as a building. Woods and forests are just too scarce in 40K for this rule to really be all that useful/relevant. :(

2) Pathfinders no longer require a Devilfish to be bought for them to be fielded.

3) The option to take Markerlight Drones in units in the same manner as Gun Drones.

4) Pathfinders with markerlights are automatically equipped with target locks.

5) Sky Rays can eject their missile rack once they have expended all of their missiles and function as Devilfish for the rest of the game. :)

[wittdooley]

OK, I'll bite:

On Page 48 of the Core Rules for Independent Characters ...

What it currently says:


What it would say if adequate play testing and a better editor were involved:

Option A:


Option B:


The current rule is ambiguous and a bit open to interpretation.



Your rewrite wouldn't work though, as someone could misconstrue "removed as casualties." Gotta take into account removed from play models, etc.

[LordGrise]

With the Tau, a markerlight (a laser designator in the real world) is a heavy weapon whose many gifts cannot be used by others in the same squad as the model with the markerlight.

This rule ought to be called the "Y'all don't look, boys, this here might burn yore eyeballs out!" rule It's that stupid. That's the first rule I'd change. I'd also make it an assault weapon so the poor unit with one can actually move and still use it. (That would be pathfinders, in case anyone is wondering.)

Drones. Where do I start? Current rules says that gun drones are fast attack jet packers that can operate as an independent unit if they start out in squads of five or more. Crisis suits can buy a mix n' match pair of gun drones, shield drones (4+ invul sv) or marker drones, and they can keep up with the suit, so they have to be fast attack jet packers as well. But you can't mix n' match in an independent unit of drones; they can be gun drones only... with the BS of an ork. You can put a targeting array (+1 BS) in a drone (witness the sniper drone) but they don't put them in gun drones.

In an associated gripe, the sniper drone operates in groups of three, along with a drone controller guy (or DCG) who has nothing but a 'networked markerlight' (the sniper drones can use it) and a pulse pistol (5/5 A1 R12' - maybe the DCG uses it to destroy the 'networked markerlight' in the instant before he dies, that's about all it's good for, because anything in range of that pistol is assaulting, and one shot isn't doing anything to stop 'em) Oh yeah, and if the DCG dies, all the sniper drones die! Oh, and just to put the frosting on this, because the DCG is not in a suit, the drones have to conform to his speed - and his markerlight is a heavy weapon.

Rule change: Drones can operate independently in any size unit - they're AIs, after all - and can be mixed. Now I don't need that wretched useless DCG anchor keeping my sniper drones from moving around. Oh, and if I detach the two gun drones from a vehicle, I'll have an answer for my opponent if he asks where the other three are.

I could go on, but there's my nickel's worth.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Reserves.

let's change that goofy luck-based rule to something that makes more sense in the real world.


First, pick which units you want to group together, and use that group as one of your reserves. on a 3+, it comes in. but if you roll a 2+, it comes in on the next turn.

[Gir]

Reserves.

let's change that goofy luck-based rule to something that makes more sense in the real world.


First, pick which units you want to group together, and use that group as one of your reserves. on a 3+, it comes in. but if you roll a 2+, it comes in on the next turn.

Just go with leaked "6th ed" version. It was pretty much perfect.

[doom-kitten]

Would the Furious Charge gained from Rage stack with an existing Furious Charge the unit may have?

No it would merely replace it, this way a unit such as Death Company would only have the Rage rule alongside any other rules such as Relentless, free up some of that unit description space :p.

[Nosmo75]

No it would merely replace it, this way a unit such as Death Company would only have the Rage rule alongside any other rules such as Relentless, free up some of that unit description space :p.

Cool beans. Death Company don't need moar stuff, they already have a bit too much, imo.

Also, on Gun Drones, what the *hell* was the thinking behind their Ballistic Skill?! The Tau invented them to fire guns for them... but then... they got jealous of their accuracy... so they scaled it back... so Fire Warriors would look better by comparison...? :confused:

And I know that their twin-linked weapons help to mitigate this, but at best they're as good as Fire Warriors at shooting, and I'd expect a race that goes to the trouble of inventing/utilising AI for ranged combat would try and make them *better* than their existing ranged combatants. >xS

[Hellstorm]

And I know that their twin-linked weapons help to mitigate this, but at best they're as good as Fire Warriors at shooting, and I'd expect a race that goes to the trouble of inventing/utilising AI for ranged combat would try and make them *better* than their existing ranged combatants. >xS

I have to agree. The drones BS is so bad, it makes them barely worth 5pts as is.

I was about to post one of the Grey knight rules but i think the book just need a whole re-write. There are way to many loop-holes and such in that book.

[wittdooley]

So... What you're all saying is that Tau needs a codex rewrite :D

Hopefully soon, ya'll. Hopefully soon.

[Deadestdai]

I'd get rid of wound allocation - most rubbish rule in the game.

[Necron2.0]

Your rewrite wouldn't work though, as someone could misconstrue "removed as casualties." Gotta take into account removed from play models, etc.

I recognized from the start that "removed as casualties" has its own problems, but it beats "killed," which is what the rule currently says. "Killed" isn't an officially defined state for a model.

[LordGrise]

Concerning gun drones? I wish they were five points. They cost twelve points each if you buy them as a fast attack, (minimum unit size is four, and yes, that goes against their own fluff); ten points each if you're strapping them to a crisis suit. In the case of a crisis suit, you can buy one or two drones, any combo of gun drone at ten points, shield drone at fifteen points (4+ invul save, not useful in blast situations), or marker drone for thirty points. The marker drone is networked so the crisis suit can use it; it is a dang expensive way to get a regular crisis suit to a BS 5, but the real thing there is he can call in a seeker missile (8/3 no blast) if you have any on the board.

In honesty, pretty much the only reason a crisis suit would take gun drones is to soak a couple wounds. No upgrades available for any kind of drone.

[Father]

I don't know how I would rewrite it, but Rage could definetily do with some clearer wording.

[Nosmo75]

Oh yeah, I have three more things I'd change if I could:

1) The Night Shields upgrade grants Night Fighting to the vehicle that buys it.

2) Embarked models can fire if their vehicle has moved 12 inches, but they count as moving (for Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons etc). It is *ridiculous* that I can move a Raider carrying 10 Warriors 12 inches, and only be able to fire if they also disembark!

3) Rapid Fire to be changed to be more like how it was in 2nd Ed. In other words, if a unit carrying Rapid Fire weapons moves in the Movement Phase, those Rapid Fire weapons can fire 1 shot each, and if that same unit did *not* move in the Movement Phase, they can fire 2 shots each. Maybe temper this by allowing units carrying Rapid Fire weapons to assault in the Assault Phase if they moved in the Movement Phase.

EDIT: I just realised that, in actuality, allowing a Raider carrying 10 Warriors to move 12 inches and Rapid Fire a further 12 inches (effectively giving them the advantage of Rapid Fire, without the disadvantage) would probably be more ridiculous, especially if they had Splinter Racks giving them re-rolls to Hit as well. Although it would be mitigated significantly if my change to the Rapid Fire rule was implemented as well.

Another thing that might help would be if passenger weapons were included under the 'defensive weapons' rule.

[Colonel Bindoff]

Possibly not going to be a favourite choice, but I'd love to see universal application of split fire. Why exactly is it that a tactical marine squad with, say, a lascannon would not be hosing down the nearest enemies with their bolters whilst the heavy weapons guy is targeting a tank? I don't think it'd slow the game that much to do it this way. The current way just feels wrong to me.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Deepstriking.

okay, I understand what it's supposed to portray and for troops, I'm all the way behind it. Yep, there's the risk of breaking yourself in half or materializing with half your body in a rock, dying a most horrific death.

but for vehicles? SERIOUSLY? I mean, you either have to be a REALLY incompetent pilot or too much stuff has to go sideways before you end up lawndarting into the ground.

So I propose this. You don't use the mishap table but instead if you roll a 1 aside the regular 2d6, you have a catastrophic systems malfunction, engine flameout or end up blacking out causing you to crash. But if you don't and if you come too close to another model, that model is moved out of the way. Y'know.. to represent the ear-shattering sonic boom or the massive impact that happens when you come screaming down from the skies.

After your "malfunction", you roll on the vehicle damage table.

[DarkLink]

While I'd rewrite half the rulebooks if I could, here's one big one:

Assault Moves: [currently big, long and complex, with separate sections for single and multiple assaults]

I'd change it to:

Assault Moves:
-Declare assaults and targets
-For each assaulting unit:
-Move single model to each target unit and check for terrain
-Move as many models into base contact as possible while maintaining coherency
-Repeat for all assaulting units
-Enemy units pile in


At the beginning of the assault phase, you may attempt to move one or more of your units into assault. Declare which of your units will be attempting to assault. If the assaulting unit shot at an enemy unit, they must declare that unit as a target unit.

Once you have declared an assault move, the assaulting unit may make an additional 6" move, following the normal movement rules, and attempt to reach base contact with as many enemy models as possible. If the assaulting unit must move through terrain, take the appropriate tests. As with the movement phase, you must declare that you will be attempting to enter difficult terrain before moving any models in the assaulting unit if the unit must do so in order to reach base contact.

If at least one model in the unit can reach base contact with at least one of the target units, then continue to move models from the assaulting unit into base contact with as many enemy models as possible while still engaging all target units in range. Remember that you must maintain unit coherency, and that you may not enter difficult terrain unless you rolled for it at the beginning of the assault move. The assaulting unit and the target unit are now locked in combat.

If the assaulting unit cannot reach base contact with any target units, the assault fails and the assaulting unit does not move at all. If the unit fails to reach base contact with the unit they shot at, then they may not assault any other units and the rest of their assault move automatically fails.

Once all models from the assaulting unit have been moved, go on and move all the other assaulting units in the same fashion. Once all assaulting units have been moved, each target unit that was successfully assaulted makes a Pile In consolidation move.


So basically that all boils down to "move 6" to reach as many enemy units as possible. Declare if you will be entering terrain before you move anybody".

Some of the details are a big change from the current assault system, but the rules are much simpler and more clear and it's easier to keep everything straight.

[Nosmo75]

Oh yeah, here's another one that drives me crazy, the fact that after the anti-tank weaponry in a unit has fired and busted open a transport, the guys with anti-infantry weaponry will derp and not immediately fire at the disembarked unit.

WHY?! Are they *so* dense that they decide to add their firepower to the anti-tank firepower EVEN WHEN THEIR GUNS CAN'T HURT THE VEHICLE (las weapons, splinter weapons, I'm looking at you)?! >x(

So yeah, that should be changed. I'm not saying that units should be able to split their anti-tank and anti-infantry fire, but that on the turn that a unit disembarks from a destroyed transport, it counts as being the same unit that the anti-tank weaponry fired at. =)

[LordGrise]

I'm with Nosmo75 on this one, but I'll go one further: if the vehicle is simply wrecked, then everyone takes the hit, saves applicable, and on with the show. If the vehicle explodes then everything in it takes a wound, no save. It is ridiculous that I finally pop the damn transport, blow it to bits, leaving a crater for CENSORED sake, kill the crew deader than Elvis, and yet the passengers blithely walk away, with maybe a couple stubbed toes.

[Nosmo75]

I think not allowing armour saves from a vehicle explosion is a bit much. Maybe Rending instead?

[Nosmo75]

I've got another couple changes I'd like to see:

1) Incubi come with Tormentors, and the Tormentors count as assault grenades for the purpose of assaulting through cover (but they can't throw grenades, because that would somewhat tarnish their 'we're warriors, not soldiers' vibe they've got going). This has the twin benefits of allowing Incubi to strike in Initiative order when assaulting through cover, and of representing Tormentors on the only unit that can take them.

My reasoning being that the following passage from page 31 of Codex: Dark Eldar justifies Incubi having this ability:

"Despite their prowess as duellists, even Incubi scorn a fair fight. When they close upon their foe, they send waves of neural energy coursing outward from the tormentors mounted upon their chests, leaving their foes wracked with agony before the killing begins in earnest."

Sure sounds like they'd have no trouble striking in Initiative order after unleashing *that*... >_>

2) Twin-linking doubles the shots of a weapon, rather than providing re-rolls to hit. Because that's exactly what twin-linking a weapon would do in real life, plus it means that units that have twin-linked weapons can also benefit from other abilities that grant re-rolls to hit, like Ammunition Stores in Cities of Death. =)

[Turner]

I've got another couple changes I'd like to see:
2) Twin-linking doubles the shots of a weapon, rather than providing re-rolls to hit. Because that's exactly what twin-linking a weapon would do in real life, plus it means that units that have twin-linked weapons can also benefit from other abilities that grant re-rolls to hit, like Ammunition Stores in Cities of Death. =)




Oh Emprah, ohhhhh Emprah in all of Terra... I have categorically stated this ever since I laid eyes on twin-linking and have only slightly changed my position on it since the release of the 5th ed. Imperial Guard codex, what with orders and call twin-linking weapons. Sure that could simply be changed to allows rerolls of any misses and then changed twinlinking to... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrahhhhhhhhhhh. No, no I promised I wouldn't go off, my doctor told me that my blood pressure was to high and, I need to go do some zen or something.

[Nosmo75]

<8O

*throws you prescription pills from your doctor*

Feel better? :)

[DrLove42]

I've always stood that twinlinked needs tweaking. But some guns are twinlinked, not cos they have 2 barrels, but because of targetting systems and the like.

I think it should be re-roll failed to hit OR failed to wound/penetrate, but you have to declare which one before the dice is rolled


Also my biggest rules-bug bear.

Flat out in a vehicle. 4+ cover save AND need 6's to hit in combat
Flat out on a bike. Smaller Target. 3+ cover save (smaller target!) but then....normal to hits in combat. So that reaver jetbike, flying past at mach 2, is moving so fast you can't shoot him properly...but stops on the spot so you can fight normally if you assault.

assaulting flat out units should require an Init test, or a penalty to hit (for both sides) maybe. Or hits on the fly, and the units arne't locked in combat

[Nosmo75]

I've always stood that twinlinked needs tweaking. But some guns are twinlinked, not cos they have 2 barrels, but because of targetting systems and the like.

I can't think of any twin-linked weapons in 40K that don't have two or more barrels. =S

And even if there are some that aren't, bonuses from targeting systems should either provide re-rolls to hit, or act the same way as Targetting Arrays that give +1 Ballistic Skill. More guns should equal more shots, in my view.

[Kawauso]

More guns = more shots would make (current) twin-linked Assault Cannons oh-so lovely...

[helvexis]

well you add a 2nd splinter cannon to a venom and it doesnt become twin linked :|

and i think its been mentioned but having fast transports be able to have the occupants fire at cruising speed makes sense.
but that may make things like ba rhinos brutal and even venom spam would become even more powerful

[Maelstorm]

I'm with Nosmo75 on this one, but I'll go one further: if the vehicle is simply wrecked, then everyone takes the hit, saves applicable, and on with the show. If the vehicle explodes then everything in it takes a wound, no save. It is ridiculous that I finally pop the damn transport, blow it to bits, leaving a crater for CENSORED sake, kill the crew deader than Elvis, and yet the passengers blithely walk away, with maybe a couple stubbed toes.

I agree.

As an extreme example: Explode a Rhino with 10 passengers using a D-weapon in an APOC game. Everything inside should be vaporized. But with the current rules and basic Space Marine armor 90% of the passengers walk away unscathed? WTF?

[Maelstorm]

Make Psy-grenades only effect a random model in B2B with the lead model - similar to Necron Mindshackle Scarabs (15 point option)

For ranged Psy-weapons, make them AP - against vehicles, similar to the Necron Tesla Weapons.

Suddenly Grey Knights become less broken and more manageable...

[bforber]

2) Twin-linking doubles the shots of a weapon, rather than providing re-rolls to hit. Because that's exactly what twin-linking a weapon would do in real life, plus it means that units that have twin-linked weapons can also benefit from other abilities that grant re-rolls to hit, like Ammunition Stores in Cities of Death. =)

So many examples of how this would just be awful.

Venerable Dreadnoughts with autocannons- GK ones especially
Salamanders codex chapter lists 2 melta shots or doubling the number of hits on a flamer? no thank you.
TL tesla destructors ... ow.
Hydras
Hurricane bolters (24 shots in rapid fire range, again, ouch.)

etc.

[LordGrise]

On the subject of twin-linking? My humble opinion?

Get rid of it.

It guarantees that half the shots you should be getting miss, and is aesthetically (word of the day) displeasing to look at. Particularly if you spend a lot of time looking at twinlinked heavy ordnance (Broadsides) and wishing you had a second shot, since the first one hit but didn't kill.

[Cheexsta]

Ok, so I set out to write down a few of the things I'd change. Then I just kept adding to it. And adding to it. Would anyone mind if I posted the whole list (it's quite long), or should I just post a few select ones?

[alshrive]

that twin linking solution unfortunately wouldnt work as it would make the Necron Targetting Array Rule on the Triarch Stalker ridiculous! potentially doubling the entire fire power of an army against a single target!!! while nasty- not exactly fair!

ALShrive

[Bean]

I would re-write the rule which prevents units from firing at engaged units so that it exists. As opposed to not.

I don't have the rulebook in front of me at the moment, but the wording in the rulebook is something like,

"Though some unscrupulous commanders may wish to fire indiscriminately into a combat, this is not allowed."

Of course, firing indiscriminately is not something the game allows for anyway, so this rule has no actual effect as written.

It could be fixed simply by writing, "engaged units may not be targeted by shooting attacks."

[Nosmo75]

well you add a 2nd splinter cannon to a venom and it doesnt become twin linked :|

Umm... no-one said that they would become twin-linked... =S

[Nosmo75]

I agree.

As an extreme example: Explode a Rhino with 10 passengers using a D-weapon in an APOC game. Everything inside should be vaporized. But with the current rules and basic Space Marine armor 90% of the passengers walk away unscathed? WTF?

The only time I would ever agree that passengers should not get saves from their vehicle exploding is from Destroyer weapons, because that makes sense.

[Kaiserdean]

I would rewrite the vehicle squadron rules to make it more friendly for those who field squads of tanks. Instead of a vehicle becoming destroyed when it's immobilized, the immobilized tank would be removed from the unit and is still immobilized, but free to shoot and be repaired in remaining turns.

I don't know if that would make squadrons OP though...

[Nosmo75]

So many examples of how this would just be awful.

Venerable Dreadnoughts with autocannons- GK ones especially
Salamanders codex chapter lists 2 melta shots or doubling the number of hits on a flamer? no thank you.
TL tesla destructors ... ow.
Hydras
Hurricane bolters (24 shots in rapid fire range, again, ouch.)

etc.

I was unaware that my change would have these effects, so thank you for bringing them to my attention. Hmm... perhaps D3 extra shots instead of doubling the number of shots (twin-linked flamers still grant re-rolls to wound and are not otherwise effected)?

[Nosmo75]

that twin linking solution unfortunately wouldnt work as it would make the Necron Targetting Array Rule on the Triarch Stalker ridiculous! potentially doubling the entire fire power of an army against a single target!!! while nasty- not exactly fair!

ALShrive

The Triarch Stalkers' Targeting Array would work the same way as the Tau Empire Targeting Array, granting a +1 Ballistic Skill bonus to the Necron army. =)