Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Lanrak -- the "everyone starts within shooting range" is absolutely true as a problem, exacerbated by the stuff that has "infinite" range (which usually also has enormous destructive power).

However, one solution that you didn't mention is to go to a larger table. 8x8 is a very nice size, and you can still reach the center of the table. We build such a table simply by combining two 4x4 tables.

Talys wrote:
@Lanrak -- the "everyone starts within shooting range" is absolutely true as a problem, exacerbated by the stuff that has "infinite" range (which usually also has enormous destructive power).

However, one solution that you didn't mention is to go to a larger table. 8x8 is a very nice size, and you can still reach the center of the table. We build such a table simply by combining two 4x4 tables.

I don't think I'll ever be capable of such a feat.

Gut the entire game and model 40K instead as a skirmish game based on the crossfire turn system instead of you-go-I-go. Make MEQ's actually unique in gameplay by severely limiting the amount of models in akin for something like using terminator entirely infantry in a game of Kill Team. Remove flyers completely and shove them into their own game- keep only some FMC's for armies like Nids, otherwise they'll get their own dogfight game or function like airstrikes.

Also like Crossfire, escalation and apocalypse can bugger off to their own game systems while 40k becomes focused on infantry with small deployments of armor.

-

Nuke the tau and every other nobody buys this make it op so it sells. Limits of units that are op.
Saturday lost a game to a ba player with 40 sanguinary guard shudder so many power weapons 2+ armour save, jump packs, feel no pain, oh and dante why?

Talys wrote:
If you want a game in which every one of hundreds of available models have a purpose in a game of "my points versus your points -- FIGHT!", then you should look elsewhere, because Warhammer 40k has never been that game, and will never be. It hasn't even ever claimed or pretended to be such.

And so a thread titled "If you were to redesign 40k..." can't presume to change that?

That's... an interesting stance.

There Isn't actually much that needs to be done, but there are definitely some areas that need fixing.
1. Instant Death from shooting and melee weapons should be D3 wounds Inflicted instead of, well, Instant Death. Force can stay as is though since the Warp is a pretty cool dude.
2. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to charge out of stationary Transports. Open Topped and Assault Vehicles are fine though.
3. An entire gutting of the current CSM codex. Seeing how awesome the loyalist one is and seeing how the Necron rumors are shaping up, it's needed. As it stands, outside of Eldar and badly priced Dark Angels and CSM's, the internal balance of the game is really good at the moment.

Talys wrote:
If you want a game in which every one of hundreds of available models have a purpose in a game of "my points versus your points -- FIGHT!", then you should look elsewhere, because Warhammer 40k has never been that game, and will never be. It hasn't even ever claimed or pretended to be such.

You're right, I never said it has been that game, and I don't expect it to become that game until GW finally goes bankrupt and sells the IP to a company that isn't run by incompetent morons. The issue here is whether 40k is a good game, not whether or not GW will continue to fail to make a good game. Pointing out that 40k has always sucked doesn't do anything to address the fact that the game right now is broken in ways that simply can not be excused.

Warhammer 40k is a game where cool models get produced every week. Rules come out for them, over years, they get written and refined, with some models and combinations floating to the top as being optimal, and others drifting to the bottom. Eventually, during a rewrite, some of the great combinations are nerfed, and some of the weak units are buffed. Once in a great many years, something game-changing will be added (like LoW's or fortifications) that everyone will scramble to figure out how to integrate.

Yes, I know how it works. But it shouldn't work like this. The only people who benefit from this approach are GW's shareholders, who get a slightly larger check every year because GW doesn't have to waste valuable profit on making a better product. Every 40k player, both casual and competitive, loses.

Ten years from now, there will be hundreds more models, and many hundreds of models will have no place in an optimal army.

I really don't see why you think this is anything other than a nightmare scenario. How exactly is it fun to spend a lot of money on a new model and realize that you'll never be able to use it unless you want to lose every game you play? How is this better than the alternative where GW miraculously stops sucking at game design and produces a game where everything is balanced and every model has its place?

For those who don't know what Crossfire and its game mechanics are, here's an informative video.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Ten years from now, there will be hundreds more models, and many hundreds of models will have no place in an optimal army.

I really don't see why you think this is anything other than a nightmare scenario. How exactly is it fun to spend a lot of money on a new model and realize that you'll never be able to use it unless you want to lose every game you play? How is this better than the alternative where GW miraculously stops sucking at game design and produces a game where everything is balanced and every model has its place?

This feels like trolling by Talys.

I have played many kinds of historical battles and every unit would (typically) have a balance of strength and weaknesses: everything has it's proper application. Cavalry against troops (except when boxed), Cannons against troops and buildings (but no melee) etc.

A passing attempt at point value equaling comparative worth of the unit would be a nice start.

I have been playing since second edition and it is funny dusting off models that get rotated back in as a "good" unit they hope no-one has anymore.

The main "change" I would wish to make in the spirit of this thread is "no bad models".

They want to sell them all, so give us a reason rather than a select few or does a markup of the new "hotness" have to be the on-going ploy?

At least Peregrine thinks they are incompetent at what they do.
He has some hope that someone with some brains may go in and "fix" things.

I think everything is done by design to sell stuff and fun game mechanics is really the last thought when creating them (other than to make the latest models cool!).

So this thread of redesign is a pipe-dream until a management "paradigm-shift" happens.

I'm mostly fine with 40K as it stands, the only things I'd really change are bringing some of the rules in line with WFB, since they tend to make sense

Saving Throws: Armour OR cover OR Invun? What, my Space Marine decides his power armour isn't worth it so gets naked instead? Reduce the availability of Invuns, Allow us to take both Armour then Invun like in WFB, and let the cover system modify rolls to hit, again like WFB. (I don't even understand how that works, my guy gets -hit-, but what, the wall rises up to coat his body? WHAT?!).

Race-Specific Objectives: What Tyranid swarm actually forgoes eating things to secure a location? Seriously. Same with Orks and Daemons, why? Make it so each codex has its own deck of objective cards unique to them. My Space Marines will want to secure the high ground or recover relics, I don't see Tyranids doing this since y'know, they are the "Great Devourer".

Pyskers: From what i've heard (Haven't played alot of the current Ed), dispelling Psykers is near impossible. Why not just use the WFB system? You roll to manifest, I attempt to dispell by rolling higher, instead of just, "I hope you have Adamantium Will or a Psyker or else you're gonna have a bad time".

First Blood: Seriously, F this rule. I play SM's, and between my small squad sizes and the insane range of most weapons in 40K, if I don't have first turn, I always end up 1 VP behind.

Sisters of Battle: Plastic Minis and a shiny new codex please.

Sisters of Battle: Seriously! Where is my codex and plastic minis!

Tanks: Can we please get an Armour save on these? You're telling me that my monstrous Land Raider can't have a small AS? All that plating is for giggles I'm guessing.

Flyers: Being practically immune to small arms fire makes sense, but giant death lazors? (Read: Lascannons and Melta-Guns), you could give us a rough stab at hitting them instead of snap shots (Yes, I would have no reason to buy GW anti-flier models, which lets face it, only exist to shift boxes).

That's all I can think of for now. I'm basing my knowledge of Psykers on the immense bitching I hear from people who face GK/Eldar.

Izural wrote:
Saving Throws: Armour OR cover OR Invun? What, my Space Marine decides his power armour isn't worth it so gets naked instead? Reduce the availability of Invuns, Allow us to take both Armour then Invun like in WFB, and let the cover system modify rolls to hit, again like WFB.

The problem with this is that you have to completely rebalance the game to make it work. Otherwise units with multiple saves become way too durable. For example, imagine a terminator in cover: you get a to-hit penalty, a 2+ armor save, and a 3+ invulnerable save. So ~95% of the wounds the terminator takes are negated (unless they're AP 2 or better), on top of whatever to-hit penalty you decide is appropriate. Remember how frustrating re-rollable 2++ saves were? If you make cover a 50% to-hit penalty you've just created a re-rollable 2++.

(I don't even understand how that works, my guy gets -hit-, but what, the wall rises up to coat his body? WHAT?!).

It's an abstraction. A 4+ cover save (when you don't get an armor/invulnerable save) is exactly the same as a 50% to-hit penalty. Just like how it's an abstraction when you roll to wound and to save separately, when in reality there should just be one toughness roll to see if the shot does any damage.

What Tyranid swarm actually forgoes eating things to secure a location?

One that has found a particularly interesting bit of genetic material that it wants to hold until specialist devouring organisms can arrive? One that has identified an important strategic location that needs to be held so that the next wave of devouring organisms can move through the area? It's quite easy to come up with reasons why any army would want to hold a specific objective.

First Blood: Seriously, F this rule. I play SM's, and between my small squad sizes and the insane range of most weapons in 40K, if I don't have first turn, I always end up 1 VP behind.

Now think about how you could make up for this lost VP in future turns.

(Hint: if you have the second turn you always get the last opportunity to claim objectives and the game can end before your opponent can remove your single tactical marine from that nice 3 VP objective.)

Flyers: Being practically immune to small arms fire makes sense, but giant death lazors? (Read: Lascannons and Melta-Guns), you could give us a rough stab at hitting them instead of snap shots (Yes, I would have no reason to buy GW anti-flier models, which lets face it, only exist to shift boxes).

Actually, fluff-wise having 6s to hit a flyer is incredibly generous. If you want to be realistic it should be 6s to hit, and you have to re-roll all successes ten times before it counts. And then the flyer should still have a re-rollable 2+ cover save.

The irony is that Bolt Action is basically a revised 40k 3rd edition, done with time and care and an eye towards balance not selling more figures. I've looked at the beta of Beyond the Gates of Antares and it's roughly the same thing: 40k done right.

 Peregrine wrote:

Izural wrote:
Saving Throws: Armour OR cover OR Invun? What, my Space Marine decides his power armour isn't worth it so gets naked instead? Reduce the availability of Invuns, Allow us to take both Armour then Invun like in WFB, and let the cover system modify rolls to hit, again like WFB.

The problem with this is that you have to completely rebalance the game to make it work. Otherwise units with multiple saves become way too durable. For example, imagine a terminator in cover: you get a to-hit penalty, a 2+ armor save, and a 3+ invulnerable save. So ~95% of the wounds the terminator takes are negated (unless they're AP 2 or better), on top of whatever to-hit penalty you decide is appropriate. Remember how frustrating re-rollable 2++ saves were? If you make cover a 50% to-hit penalty you've just created a re-rollable 2++.

Shouldn't a terminator be nigh-impossible to kill? I mean, fluff wise they are -the- best armoured and armed infantry unit the Imperium can offer, they should inspire fear, not "Sweet, that's 200+ pts of easy kills". There is a huge abundance of AP 2 in 40K these days, and failing that, you have so much fire power they drown in saves. It's the same principle as MoT Chaos Warriors in WFB. 3+/5++ saves, they should be hard to shift. Remove AP from the game and use the S modifier from WFB. Also, eliminate re-rolls. Barring special chars, there's 3 items I can name in WFB that allow re-rolls, (Dawnstone, MoT demons and the one use Dawnstone) and even then, they rarely decide a battle.

The cover system is simple, -1 light cover, -2 hard cover. Done. A MEQ is highly trained enough to pop a few well placed shots into entrenched models. The Average guardsman and Ork just sprays and hopes (as fits the fluff)

As far as Invun goes, yes, Storm Shields are a bit nuts, just make them 4++ instead of 3++, and the base armour 5++ (as it stands) and reduce the amount of available invuns across the board. They should be reserved for TEQ's and your big Lord.

Yes, this would require a massive overhaul of Codices, but WFB has these rules in place, and alot of players would argue it's better balanced for this reason (Unkillable MoT Disc Lord aside ¬¬).

Izural wrote:
Shouldn't a terminator be nigh-impossible to kill?

No, because gameplay is more important than fluff. Shooting your entire army at a single squad and being happy that you were lucky enough to kill one model is incredibly frustrating and makes you wonder why you even bother playing the game.

I mean, fluff wise they are -the- best armoured and armed infantry unit the Imperium can offer, they should inspire fear, not "Sweet, that's 200+ pts of easy kills".

And fluff-wise they're also almost nonexistent. If you want to play a 100% fluff-accurate game then marine players should be forced to bring an IG/ork/etc army and roll a D100 before each game. On a 100 (with no re-rolls or dice modification allowed) they get to play a single squad of terminators against a 2000 point army, on any other result they have to play their "common" army instead of their marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Izural wrote:
Yes, this would require a massive overhaul of Codices

But if you're going to do a massive overhaul of everything then why not redesign the entire game? Changing this one thing might be better than nothing, but you still have the horrible foundation of a 1980s fantasy game. And now you've spent almost as much effort as a full redesign on something that is nowhere near a complete solution to 40k's problems.

I wish 40k would adopt WHFB's compound saves and magic phase.

Compound saves would probably require a substantial rebalancing, but SS termies being hard to shift *should* be the case!

Unfortunately, it looks like WHFB is getting the 40k Psyker treatment, after reading the Khaine rules. Which sucks.

Switching from ignore-armor AP to modifier AP would be a lot of fun, but I think I like weapons having different modifiers (Autocannons hit as hard as Plasma, but don't pierce armor as well). Perhaps something like:
AP5 -1
AP4 -2
AP3 -3
AP2 -4
AP1 -5

Would make ap3 not completely worthless against a 2+.

Bharring wrote:
I wish 40k would adopt WHFB's compound saves and magic phase.

Compound saves would probably require a substantial rebalancing, but SS termies being hard to shift *should* be the case!

Unfortunately, it looks like WHFB is getting the 40k Psyker treatment, after reading the Khaine rules. Which sucks.

Switching from ignore-armor AP to modifier AP would be a lot of fun, but I think I like weapons having different modifiers (Autocannons hit as hard as Plasma, but don't pierce armor as well). Perhaps something like:
AP5 -1
AP4 -2
AP3 -3
AP2 -4
AP1 -5

Would make ap3 not completely worthless against a 2+.

They used to have that in 2nd edition (and Termi armor was IIRC 3+ on 2D6 base). Problem was that pushed things too far in the opposite direction.

Well firstly, this thread is called "If you were to redesign 40K", and these aspects I would re-design.
I agree Terminators are rare, so for certain armies they should be a Unique unit. Some SM chapters do have more access then most (DA for one) but they always form small Elite strike forces.
And fluff accurate? Ultramarines, Black Templars and alot more often engage in full battles across worlds on their strength alone. Certain chapters are massive and have the ability to bring a massive force to bear, your D100 comment is a bit over the top when there's fluff supporting massive SM armies.
And lets be honest, for gaming purposes you should be able to field a massive SM force, otherwise GW loses alot of their fanbase. I'm not asking for 100% fluff adherence (which would be nuts).

UM's by themselves aren't any bigger than 1000 marines, and even the BT's are only 5 or 6 thousand strong, the idea of them actually battling across worlds on their own when they can only ever really hold a battlefront a few kilometers wide is a bit absurd and one of the weak points of 40k fluff, particularly when they're really supposed to be commando strike forces.

I like some of the ideas in here. These are a few which I suggest.

A new/better cover mechanic. Cover being a hit modifier is a great idea.

While this isn't a rule, more terrain in games to counteract the...

Increased range for weapons. With increased terrain/new cover mechanics I don't see why bolters (and comparable weapons) can't have a much, much longer range.

Space Marines (Loyalist and Traitor) should be a little bit harder/deadlier, this would come with an appropriate cost boost.

Monthly/Weekly creature feature- Every so often GW releases a new alien/environment/scenario for games of kill team or a game similar to Necromunda. Cool stuff that would be appropriately themed such as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypTKpvMObqo

Have some new people come in and try to balance the game. I say try because it seems like a monumental task.

Maybe make a template that would represent Rogue Trader armies. I could see this getting out of hand but if done properly it'd be pretty cool. The same could be done for Inquisitorial warbands/Chaos Warbands. I'm sure most of us can houserule/use allies to do this but it'd still be cool.


Also, revive and incorporate BFG.


I honestly don't think the game should be changed that much. It has plenty of issues that I hope are ironed out in time. If Bolt Action, or another game, are clearly superior then maybe GW can learn a couple things. There doesn't need to be more terrain but it looks better in my opinion, and aesthetics are a decent portion of this hobby. The increased terrain could be a counter to increased range for weapons. Bolters/lasguns should be able to touch people pretty far out. The Warband template/Rogue Trader armies could be a better way to represent unbound/allies. These small disparate forces could also be used in games of kill team or a new version of Necromunda. The Creature Feature would just be another way to engage the current and older players. While I want Space Marines to be better and more expensive I can see the inherent risks in doing so. Bringing back BFG, maybe in a limited test run at first, does a lot to enrich our 40K campaigns. How did Waaaggh Gromkrokr get to planet Orebon? Oh his Kroozer was shot down. Also, Traitor Legions.

1. d10 based

2. Units, not models, for most things. A unit can be a single model. however (like a Land Raider).

3. Units have an Initiative stat, the game is played in turns of Initiative. Also, higher I means faster going (it's a count-down), so all I10+ units go before I10 units that go before I9 units, etc. down to I1. Why? Because the math should be counted in one direction. High numbers good, low numbers bad.

4. Most weapon ranges doubled.

5. Ignores Cover no longer exists. LOS-blocking terrain/units/etc become more of a thing. Tactical movement and tactical use of the terrain will be a thing.

6. There are not 50,000 rules to grant the same damned effect. One rule, one effect.

7. Rules should be written with an editor (who doesn't play the game) who looks at it to ask "what the hell does this mean?". The text needs to clearly explain how the rule works in relation to other rules.

8.Lots more weapons have the ability to stand in as an anti-aircraft weapon. Lascannons don't care that you're flying if you have the ability to strafe units on the ground... if you're that close, you can get shot.

9. Extensive playtesting.

10. More playtesting than has happened in step 9. More testing! Test, then publish. Public testing events, including NDAs and watermarked rulesets. Find your watermarked copy on the internet? Welcome to a lawsuit.

Actually, I agree with Psienesis' last points.

Playtesting, alot of it.

So much would be solved if they playtested with players outside the GW staff as it has been pointed out fairly often, the GW staff don't play the same game we do (Just look at old White Dwarf battle reps).

There was an article a while ago that talked about this very thing, I can't remember where I found it but I'm sure google will help ya out

@Talys.
I agree that if you have the space playing 40k on a minimum table size of 8x8 allows an increased level of tactical manouver.(That is 4 4x4 tables by the way. )

However, this may not be practical for several reasons.
So re-writing the game focusing on game play experience, rather than short term minature sales , benefits everyone.

@WayneTheGame
Gates of Antares is developed from the 'proposed 3rd edition 40k' that the game devs were not allowed to publish by GW corporate management.
(Its the game Rick wanted 40k to be.)

But it is a 'large skirmish game' like Bolt Action, and 2nd edition.And this is great for those who want a 40k type game at this scale.

However, current 7th edition 40k has the model count of a battle game.(Very close to Epic SM size armies! )
And so for those players who want a 40k battle game , it may not be suitable.

And as there are loads of great skirmish games out there , we can convert to use 40k with.Skirmish game players are spoiled for choice !

Perhaps we could look at a redesign of the 40k battle game (in 28mm heroic scale)?
Define the scale and scope of the game play , and write rules inclusively for all the current units?
And as it will be complex game , if we want to bring the background to life.I think looking at simple simulation would allow greater complexity in the rules without so much WTF abstraction.

Does everyone think simple simulation ,is better than complicated abstraction ?

I don't think the game realy needs a huge overhaul as long as stuff was done with care and thaght.

Missions would be the starting point for me, writing missions with the idea of using all off the force organizations slots.
People could vary em up as they build, but most games over a certen point should encourage use of them all. (HQ, troops, elites, fast attack and heavy support. Lord of war and super heavys for specal missions and apocalypse)

Redesign all the codexs to go with these missions, all the army's should be designed to play the game to the best of there ability.
This also part of the army fluff, army's shouldn't be stuck into bad design since that's fluffy. It should be fluffy since the race themselves would consider it as a tactic and put into the rules with thaghts.

The only rules that I would simply change would be the AP system, probably going with
-1
-2
-3
And rarely at most a single item per codex/army with a no saves at all.
This would mean a terminator never has a worse save than 5.
But I would also tone down how many weapons have access to it, or put them on similar but more costly items.

Evrything otherwise I think would come from that, balance in the design of each army as well as in its relative power.

I think players should never be wanting to go I want a all terminator army, but should be going how can I support a terminator army.

 Wyzilla wrote:



For those who don't know what Crossfire and its game mechanics are, here's an informative video.

That video doesn't actually tell me much about the game mechanics other than if a unit moves it can be interrupted by an enemy shooting at it, which can and does happen in many igougo systems as well.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The irony is that Bolt Action is basically a revised 40k 3rd edition, done with time and care and an eye towards balance not selling more figures. I've looked at the beta of Beyond the Gates of Antares and it's roughly the same thing: 40k done right.

Just read the rules on this one, looks like a lot of fun.
Another Rick Priestley design... I used to like playing "Black Powder" and forgot he wrote that as well.
I have to say, if anyone liked "classic" 40k, Warlord Games is letting Rick do his thing.
So 40k is being redesigned as we speak, just not within the GW IP.
Thanks Wayne.

* Sensible product release & update cycles
* Coherent game engine, with well defined terminology.
* Active & Engaged community management staff.
* Faction & Unit-Entry Consolidation.
* Unified & Balanced squad-level powers system.
* Alternating unit scheme.
* Majority of actions (90%+) resolved in less than 3 steps.
* Centralized randomization mechanic.

@Chongara.
What do you mean by ''Alternating unit scheme. ''
Do you mean Alternating unit activation game turn, or something else.

All actions should be resolved in 3 steps or less!(other wise you really need to change the resolution methods IMO.)

What do you mean by ''Centralized randomization mechanic''

 Psienesis wrote:
1. d10 based

2. Units, not models, for most things. A unit can be a single model. however (like a Land Raider).

3. Units have an Initiative stat, the game is played in turns of Initiative. Also, higher I means faster going (it's a count-down), so all I10+ units go before I10 units that go before I9 units, etc. down to I1. Why? Because the math should be counted in one direction. High numbers good, low numbers bad.

4. Most weapon ranges doubled.

5. Ignores Cover no longer exists. LOS-blocking terrain/units/etc become more of a thing. Tactical movement and tactical use of the terrain will be a thing.

6. There are not 50,000 rules to grant the same damned effect. One rule, one effect.

7. Rules should be written with an editor (who doesn't play the game) who looks at it to ask "what the hell does this mean?". The text needs to clearly explain how the rule works in relation to other rules.

8.Lots more weapons have the ability to stand in as an anti-aircraft weapon. Lascannons don't care that you're flying if you have the ability to strafe units on the ground... if you're that close, you can get shot.

9. Extensive playtesting.

10. More playtesting than has happened in step 9. More testing! Test, then publish. Public testing events, including NDAs and watermarked rulesets. Find your watermarked copy on the internet? Welcome to a lawsuit.

I'm trying really, really hard to find something to disagree with here, but I'm coming up empty. I think you've hit on some of the biggest issues with 40k with #s 3 - 10. 1 and 2 aren't vitally needed fixes, but I don't see how they would be objectively worse than what we have now.

10 in itself isn't the problem. The problem is when playtesting is just a formality and not a means of error checking. Playtesting needs to be followed up with revisions to fix the problems that emerge. Games workshop could recruit the entire world to playtest, it won't be of any help if they ignore the results.