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.

Really only three things for me...

1. Failed charges. You should still have to move the unit the distance rolled.

2. Units without a shooting attack (genestealers, warp talons, flayed ones, ect.) should be allowed to assault the same turn they deep strike, infitrate or come in from reserves. Overwatch on these units should hit on 5+ the turn they enter the game.

3. Re-rolled invulnerable saves should be on your armour save.

Eliminate rolling for movement. Units have base movement values. During the movement phase you can either elect to advance and fire or run. A run move doubles your base movement but you cannot make this move if the unit will be moving through difficult terrain. Charge moves are base+init. Fleet can either add +2 to your movement or charge.

To compensate for this premeasuring is no longer allowed.

On overwatch you can elect to drop your initiative to one to fire at a -1 to your BS instead of snap shots.

Assuming we're talking about modifications to the 7E ruleset and not a new ruleset entirely...


First and foremost I'd want GW to make up their mind on vehicles, either give them a T stat and an armor/invul save like MC's, or go back to the 5E vehicle kill mechanic, not the awkward hybrid we have now.

I'd do something about rerollable invul saves. Rerolling a 5+ is one thing. Rerolling a 3+ or 2+ invul save is another, and is neither fun nor really require any tactical ability to use.

Make impossible to achieve mission objectives automatically swappable (e.g. if you draw a card to kill an enemy flyer...and your enemy has no flyers, draw a different card)

Allow snapshots to fire blast weapons but reroll hits, and not have Ordnance for other weapons to snapshot

Immoblized units should not be able to Jink.



Really though, 40k really needs to be rebuilt, it's trying to be too many things at too many different scales and it's very sloppy. The game is trying to return to a "2E" feel with armies 3x the size and far more extravagant units and it's just not working.

Without delving too much into specific rules, I would probably make a separate fluff and rules section.
I would not allow fluff to make rules unclear and I would make sure that I don't use words that are open to interpretation. That can be achieved by letting people playtest the new rules.

Sure, people will leak it.
But this only adds to the hype and actually increases your sales!

I think that the rules are alright and enjoyable to play with, it's just that some armies can take advantage of the rules better than others and that's what makes the game feel unbalanced.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assault part with people.

Any kind of one-turn-arrive-charge/bomb is in my opinion a terrible idea because the other player has literally no influence on it, other than potential overwatch.

Not to mention that drop podding Ironclad Dreadnoughts would effectively charge -any- vehicle they want and they -will- pop them. No, bad, bad idea. If you disagree, think through all the possible scenarios.

 Elemental wrote:

TechMarine1 wrote:
Armor save modifiers

Really, do saves need to be separate at all? It's a weird situation right now where you might take a wound but hold on! Turns out the attack didn't get through your armour, or actually missed you entirely (after "hitting" and "wounding" you), and hit the wall you were hiding behind? It's a strange timing issue, seemingly designed to cause "Did this effect trigger when you were wounded?" arguments. Cover should modify the attack roll, and armour should modify toughness.

So you're suggesting something akin to Bolt Action's system?

 Klerych wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree with the assault part with people.

Any kind of one-turn-arrive-charge/bomb is in my opinion a terrible idea because the other player has literally no influence on it, other than potential overwatch.

Not to mention that drop podding Ironclad Dreadnoughts would effectively charge -any- vehicle they want and they -will- pop them. No, bad, bad idea. If you disagree, think through all the possible scenarios.

Yup. Drop pods, Blood Angels, and all manner of scatter reducing deep strike abilities (and the increased potential charge range) would make charging from deep strike insanely powerful. Besides, anyone who has seen people actually parachuting, fast-roping, or otherwise deep striking irl, can see that it's not a clean or particularly fast action. It's hard enough to regroup and find your unit, let alone immediately charging headlong at an enemy unit.

I'm a bit more amenable to charging from reserve/outflanking, after all those units are charging headlong onto the battlefield. And it's easier for the other player to plan against that.

Fix the assault phase. Stop penalizing melee armies.
Axe the whole of 7th edition psychic section and return to 6th (including the powers they made in 7th. Summoning is ridiculous)
Adjust units cost to come in line with their power (Specifically Riptide and wraithknight)
Increase the minimum requirements to be filled at the FOC level causing games to become larger and last longer. No more elitist armies! More like 4 troops, 1 HQ, 1 elite, 1 fast attack and 1 heavy support required to fulfill FOC befor ebeing able to allow more of the same units. (Disallows alot of triptide and such at lower point games and pretty much eliminates deathstars altogether)

I think it is important to separate the symptoms (specific areas of game function balance and even specific rules issues.)

From the root cause of ALL 40k game play balance issues.

40k has NEVER had a rule set specifically written for 40k game play.

Current 40k is a battle game using 'functionally modern units'.But uses 'Napoleonic Skirmish' (WHFB) rules for its core rules .(Which only cover standard infantry in the open.)
This means to cover the game play GW HAS to add in multiple systems and resolution methods, adding needless complication.

So a re -write would be the ONLY way to achieve a well defined intuitive easy to learn game with a decent depth of player choice in game.

A team of professional game developers at GW towers have tried to make WHFB in space work for 16 years.And all they manage to do is make a huge holistic mess no-one really understands.
If you lose control of the game development like they have with 40k, the ONLY sensible option is a complete re-write from the ground up.

Lanrak wrote:

40k has NEVER had a rule set specifically written for 40k game play.

Current 40k is a battle game using 'functionally modern units'.But uses 'Napoleonic Skirmish' (WHFB) rules for its core rules .(Which only cover standard infantry in the open.)
This means to cover the game play GW HAS to add in multiple systems and resolution methods, adding needless complication.

So a re -write would be the ONLY way to achieve a well defined intuitive easy to learn game with a decent depth of player choice in game.

As far as I remember every POPULAR modern game that is not a historical(haven't played any of these so I can't tell) works that way. In every game you have rules for cover, but in every game models are considered standing in the open when they're.. standing in the open. It's exactly the same in Warmachine. The same in Infinity. FoW.. not sure, haven't played but I think it's not much different if at all. Dystopian Legions? Just like WarmaHordes/40k. While I see that your vision of what 40k is supposed to be to fit your idea of it, the current gameplay is how it was supposed to be and it works.

Lanrak wrote:
A team of professional game developers at GW towers have tried to make WHFB in space work for 16 years.And all they manage to do is make a huge holistic mess no-one really understands.

Now I feel insulted. I understand almost everything(aside from a few odd badly worded or missing rules). Remember that 40k has lots of players, including new ones, that are having a blast playing it, myself included. Unless you're TFG always rules lawyering you can have lots of fun. Despite people crying that the rules are overly sophisticated the gameplay is, largely, very smooth - where I play people finish games fairly fast(if it's not newbies) - units die pretty quickly in 6th/7th and only a few badly thought out things slow the process down(multiple barrages, twin-linked and shredding like with the Wyvern, but it's a case of bad-ish unit design, not rules). The game is quick, aggressive and -very- simple while retaining the classic 40k feel. Stop expecting it to play like some other game you know if it works fine as it is - it's a separate title with it's own flavour(in case of 40k it's vanilla) and with it being so old it can be considered it's own niche.

Non variable charge distance = 24" charge distance for beast/cavalry which is the insanity i faced in 5th ed. I do not ever want to see that again. Melee weapons ignore cove which is the biggest bonus already given.

Vehicles being glanced 20 times n no damage is something i never want to see again. Hull points makes sense to me.

Lord of war should be removed from battle forge n cad bonus. That titan is too powerful. Taking a lord of war should barr you from making your troops objective secured. Can anyone explain why taking a lord of war should confer additional bonus on top of str d weapons?

Flyers need to be shot down easier. Do a smash like rule where you half the number of shots to shoot at bs2 or 3. Or just reduce the cost of flakk or give skyfire upgrades to lascannonns too but cheap.

@Klerych
Why should the players feel insulted if the game developers do not understand the game they have rushed /hashed together?
If the rules are clearly defined why do players have so many problems determining what 40k is supposed to be?

All I can say is Epic Armageddon does large battle games set in the same universe as 40k with 1/10th the pages of rules and twice as much game play.
So how can you say 'WHFB in space with gunz' is what 40k GAME PLAY is supposed to be, when it has been proven modern game mechanics and resolution methods work so much better.

All the other rule set I play are fully understood by the game developers, so they can write clear concise well defined rules that deliver intuitive and enjoyable games from the RULES AS WRITTEN. When new players understand EVERYTHING after the first read/play through.Then the rules are good.

When you have to dedicate a entire section of a game forums to try to work out what the rules actually mean ,(YMDC) there is serious problems, IMO.

Yes players can agree to interpret the rules, or fix the rules in the same way to reach an enjoyable game.And they may enjoy their version of the rules.

But that does NOT mean the rules as published by GW plc are good .
All the other game systems I have enjoyed have a professional level of proof reading and editing that is sorely lacking from GW plc publications.

Please explain to me why you think the core rules for WHFB are the best choice for 40k.?

I am happy with the 'WHFB in space as a setting'. Just not the mechanics and resolution methods for the game play.

Things I would like to see:

- assault range changed to 6+d6.
- vehicles getting a base save determined by type.
- reduce the amount of ranged AP2 or better by half.
- tanks being able to fire all weapons while moving combat speed.
- allow assaulting from reserve, deep strike, and disembarking from a non-assault vehicle, but make it like snapshots in OW, only hit on a 6 (and disorganized charge).

Things that have been suggested that I don't want to see:

- save modifiers. They sucked in 2nd edition.
- skirmish focus. I like 40k as it is as far as battle size. Skirmish tends to be a tad boring after a few games for me.
- throwing out the core mechanics. Then its not 40k, so why not play a different game to begin with? Besides,the core mechanics work for the most part.

Klerych wrote:I wholeheartedly disagree with the assault part with people.

Any kind of one-turn-arrive-charge/bomb is in my opinion a terrible idea because the other player has literally no influence on it, other than potential overwatch.

Not to mention that drop podding Ironclad Dreadnoughts would effectively charge -any- vehicle they want and they -will- pop them. No, bad, bad idea. If you disagree, think through all the possible scenarios.

Yet, a drop pod with metla gunners (or just combi melta...) will pop the same vehicule, or shoot a squad, and don't even eat overwatch... Yes you can shoot them with interceptor weapons, but the same is true for the CC squad... So why a shooty squad in a drop pod is a good tactical option, but a CC squad an aberation?

I really think that it it tied to the terrible "I want to win CC, but only during my opponent turn!" system. The charging player hoping the opposing squad survive the assault (with ideally only one member), but still make their command check, while the other player just want to die, or fail his moral check (and maybe die...) rather than hold the ground... It's quite counter-intuitive!

Klerych wrote:
As far as I remember every POPULAR modern game that is not a historical(haven't played any of these so I can't tell) works that way. In every game you have rules for cover, but in every game models are considered standing in the open when they're.. standing in the open. It's exactly the same in Warmachine. The same in Infinity. FoW.. not sure, haven't played but I think it's not much different if at all. Dystopian Legions? Just like WarmaHordes/40k. While I see that your vision of what 40k is supposed to be to fit your idea of it, the current gameplay is how it was supposed to be and it works.

Well you will think that I hate you (2nd quote where I'm disagreeing with you!), but I think you miss the point on this one.

Cover is a good thing, and should be in the rules. but most games make cover something... intuitive. Nearly every rules I know makes you harder to hit when in cover, and not harder to damage, but only if you have crap armor, or the weapon is so powerful that it will ignore your terminator armor, yet will be stopped by barbed wire...



I won't make a full list of changes, because I really think that the system should be remade from scratch... but here a few things I'd like to see :

Return of modifiers (hit or armor) : the whole "binary" design is something I dislike a lot... And most of all, I hate the whole "your stats are useless" design ; overwatch BS1, charging through cover I1, etc... Modifiers would be really better for this.

Return of a movement stat : would streamline a lot of special rules that are just here to make a unit slightly faster or slower...

Removal of charts... the "to hit" and "to wound" charts are quite horrible, and most other rules don't need them right now, for a good reason!

Streamline the statline : 4 stats are only for CC (WS, S, I, A), and IMHO, T ans Save have the exact same role... it give you some resilience again damage... why not merge them?

Fix the whole S/AP of weapons : a S10 AP - will kill a land raider, but will bounce helplessly on terminator armor, and a S3 AP2 will do abolutely nothing to vehicules, while kiling most heavy infantry proving it have a high enough ROF...

Fix the CC phase, because you should not go faster when moving, shooting, charge, kill dudes in CC, rather than just running...

Dark Phoenix wrote:

Klerych wrote:I wholeheartedly disagree with the assault part with people.

Any kind of one-turn-arrive-charge/bomb is in my opinion a terrible idea because the other player has literally no influence on it, other than potential overwatch.

Not to mention that drop podding Ironclad Dreadnoughts would effectively charge -any- vehicle they want and they -will- pop them. No, bad, bad idea. If you disagree, think through all the possible scenarios.

Yet, a drop pod with metla gunners (or just combi melta...) will pop the same vehicule, or shoot a squad, and don't even eat overwatch... Yes you can shoot them with interceptor weapons, but the same is true for the CC squad... So why a shooty squad in a drop pod is a good tactical option, but a CC squad an aberation?

I really think that it it tied to the terrible "I want to win CC, but only during my opponent turn!" system. The charging player hoping the opposing squad survive the assault (with ideally only one member), but still make their command check, while the other player just want to die, or fail his moral check (and maybe die...) rather than hold the ground... It's quite counter-intuitive!

When it's shooting, if your unit survives the attack it can retaliate for one turn before the enemy charges. If they'd get charged, guess what they can do on their turn. Yepp, you guessed right - die some more in combat because they're unable to face dedicated melee unit.

No. Any kind of turn one assault is stupid because the opponent has no say in it. Now add the consolidation move from combat to combat that some people here wish for.. and think about a Tau fire warrior gunline. You are looking at literally invalidating a popular list type with turn one assaults because Tau stand no chance in combat. Just, please, think through all the possibilities before you say it's good for the game!

Also it's easier to raise your gun and shoot than run towards the enemy quick enough for him to not notice(and shoot) you after taking your sweet time to assess the tactical situation around you, even as a Spess Mahreen.

Dark Phoenix wrote:

Well you will think that I hate you (2nd quote where I'm disagreeing with you!), but I think you miss the point on this one.

Cover is a good thing, and should be in the rules. but most games make cover something... intuitive. Nearly every rules I know makes you harder to hit when in cover, and not harder to damage, but only if you have crap armor, or the weapon is so powerful that it will ignore your terminator armor, yet will be stopped by barbed wire...

But it's not about the barbed wire stopping the shot. Cover save is explicitly said to be caused by the fact that the model tries to avoid hitting it as it stands in the way to the target, so he can miss it trying to avoid hitting the cover. While I understand that it'd be better if cover save was rolled -before- the "To Wound" rolls, it'd invalidate some of the in-game mechanics like markerlights or necron Triarch Stalker's effects happening on "hit" rather than wound, so they can still kick in, even if they don't wound/get cover saved.

Now I get that the To Hit modifiers could be a bit more intuitive, but then cover would be much less viable with all those twin-links and other stuff, so I think it's fine as it is and all the issues people have come from just the order in which the rolls are made, but they seem to be there for a reason from gameplay perspective. Also people already whine about the game not being streamlined enough for their taste, and yet some advocate towards more modifiers/counting on model basis instead of flat, rulebook-defined roll for particular pieces of terrain.

So, yeah, I like it as it is as it serves it's purpose, even though some people are too stubborn to try understanding it. Could be better, of course, but it works fine so far.

Dark Phoenix wrote:

Removal of charts... the "to hit" and "to wound" charts are quite horrible, and most other rules don't need them right now, for a good reason!

They're some of the most iconic stuff in 40k and they work fine! Not to mention being very intuitive and you can remember/make the calculations on the fly.

Dark Phoenix wrote:

Streamline the statline : 4 stats are only for CC (WS, S, I, A), and IMHO, T ans Save have the exact same role... it give you some resilience again damage... why not merge them?

Again - iconic stuff. 40k was always like that. Why do you even bother playing 40k at this point if you don't like even the most basic stuff?

But seriously, I hope YOU don't hate ME now! I just think that you're trying to change every known aspect of 40k which is so iconic to it's genuine gameplay. If you want to change almost every basic rule of the game, then you don't want to play 40k. You seem to want to turn it into a whole different game, just with the same models. ^^"

Lanrak wrote:
@Klerych
Why should the players feel insulted if the game developers do not understand the game they have rushed /hashed together?
If the rules are clearly defined why do players have so many problems determining what 40k is supposed to be?

I didn't say the rules are perfect, but saying that noone can understand them is a horrifying stretch and I felt insulted, because 99% of the rules are clear and simple, with only a few being badly worded.

Lanrak wrote:
All I can say is Epic Armageddon does large battle games set in the same universe as 40k with 1/10th the pages of rules and twice as much game play.

I don't like the scale of Epic. Not even nearly as thrilling as 28mm scale in my opinion. :-)

Lanrak wrote:
So how can you say 'WHFB in space with gunz' is what 40k GAME PLAY is supposed to be, when it has been proven modern game mechanics and resolution methods work so much better.

It's how 40k played since the dawn of time and it worked for over ten thousand yea- I mean 27 years. Just because other systems are experimenting with various rules doesn't mean that 40k has to copycat them and lose it's genuine feel. And I even call bs on some of the arguments because lots of those 'bad things' about 40k also happen in other systems, yet noone whines there. While GW has it's own flaws and does some seriously bad/stupid crap, I think the 40k community, when on the internet, is a sorry bunch of raging whiners. And it's been like that for many, many years while some people tend to act like it's a new thing and a sign that the game is dying. I find it really stupid.

Lanrak wrote:
All the other rule set I play are fully understood by the game developers, so they can write clear concise well defined rules that deliver intuitive and enjoyable games from the RULES AS WRITTEN. When new players understand EVERYTHING after the first read/play through.Then the rules are good.

Hey, even Warmachine has some YMDC moments on their forums over stuff that isn't clear enough without reading some rules three times over to make sure you got them right! You wouldn't believe how often people say that Cygnar Charger can shoot twice base with it's gun because that's it's ROF(while in fact you have to buy another shot with Focus)!

Lanrak wrote:
But that does NOT mean the rules as published by GW plc are good .

They're not as bad as people pretend them to be either, though.

Lanrak wrote:
All the other game systems I have enjoyed have a professional level of proof reading and editing that is sorely lacking from GW plc publications.

Can't deny that, you're right.

Lanrak wrote:
Please explain to me why you think the core rules for WHFB are the best choice for 40k.?

Not best. Traditional, yes. Worked fine for 25+ years and now suddenly after the influx of new titles on the market EVERYONE wants 40k to change into one of them because they just like the rules better. No. Leave my game as it is, go play yours. Again - if you don't like basic aspects of the game and want to change almost everything, then why even bother? It is, too, trying to turn it into another game just with the same models.

Now don't get me wrong - the rules could've been written much better, GW made some really stupid decissions and they sometimes don't even seem to cooperate as a studio, I'm not denying that. But I want the game to be better as a 40k, not reworked with some other games' mechanics. I want my 40k to stay 40k - I enjoy the game a lot and I don't want it to change because someone has a crush on some freshly-popped skirmish system.

P.s. - long post is long. Here, have a potato for the effort of reading it. :-)

@Classic Carraway.
We can use more modern resolution methods , the ones other games have been using since 1980s.
You are not stuck using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods.

Seeing as I have used several rule sets to play games of 40k, you CAN change the game mechanics and resolution methods , and the game is still 40k!
(But plays faster and has fewer WTF moments!)

I agree that new rules should focus on detailed unit interaction, as 40k is a battle game now, not a skirmish game.
(And the same rules can be used for a separate skirmish game simply by changing the focus from detailed unit interaction to detailed model interaction.)

The core resolution methods and SOME game mechanics do not work for the current 40k game play, that is why the rules are so over complicated and diffuse.You HAVE to add lots of extra systems and sub systems to get it to sort of work sort of ok ish.

Eg the 'army level alternating game turn' mechanic NEEDS additional reaction mechanics to put the interaction back in.
Where as a more interactive game turn achieves the same end with much less complication.

So rules written for the current game play in an inclusive way arrives at more diverse game play with far fewer pages of rules.

@Dark Pheonix.
I totally agree with your ideas on how the rules should be changed.

If you use appropriate stats on the stat line directly, you do not need to use any charts or tables.And a FEW simple modifiers can add enough proportional and scalable diversity , without having to resort to umpteen extra USR /special/unit type specific rules.

EG if you use a Stealth stat to show how hard the unit is to spot on the battle field.(This takes unit size shape and agility and equipment into consideration.)
Then add 1 to the Stealth value if the unit can claim cover, and add 1 to the Stealth value if the target unit is over 30" away.(Long range.)

This makes rolling to hit as simple as , whats your units stealth value?
Are they in cover? are they at long range?

The units shooting skill can be shown as a modifier to their to hit dice roll.OR directly in their effective range if we give each units it own weapon stat line.(better shots hit targets further away.)

This new system takes the skill and disposition of the attacker and defender into account, to give the roll to hit.
7th ed just gives a fixed value based on the attackers skill.And an additional save system for cover.

However 7th ed gives you a fixed, easy to remember value, rather than one you have to calculate each time. As a contrary position to modifiers being used, which is more intuitive?
Theyve long said that cover in 40k is used as a save as generallly it keeps the action = reaction theme correct - you roll to hit, see if you could damage, then i roll to see if that damage has any effect. Same no matter whether what stops that being cover, or armour, or a forcefield.

Lanrak wrote:
Eg the 'army level alternating game turn' mechanic NEEDS additional reaction mechanics to put the interaction back in.
Where as a more interactive game turn achieves the same end with much less complication.

But why? Why change something that worked for over two decades? It's a very simple turn-based system in which your army can synergize with itself. You're only seeking to add another crapload of unnecessary combinations to a game that is cried to not be streamlined all over the interwebz. Your way one player's turn will be even longer. It should be done the other way - simplify the rules, make the active player's turn go faster - streamline stuff so the other player gets his turn sooner, not spends more time in opponent's turn.

Your idea of reaction mechanics is perfect for tactical skirmish games, but terrible, terrible for medium/big size battle games such as 40k.

@nosferatu1001.
Well what do you prefer ,an over simplified core rule set, that needs to have 7 times as many pages of additional rules to cover the rest of the game play.
Or a few simple easy to remember modifiers applied to a slightly expanded core rule set?

Have you played any other rules sets that cover larger battle games?(Epic Armageddon, Net EPIC, Dirt side, Drop zone Commander , etc.)
Compared to these games 40k has very needlessly over complicated rules.

@Klerych.
Have they done away with the awful reaction mechanic of overwatch in 7th ed.(Along with the clunky counter intuitive USRs.)?
Reaction mechanics ARE a terrible Idea in larger battle games like 40k.

That is why they should be avoided by using a more interactive game turn.(As used in other games.)

I probably did not make that clear with my previous post.

It would be easy to write a rule set with far less complication , that delivers far more complex game play options.
However, you would have to decide what 40k is supposed to be first.

I would like a* fast paced modern battle level war game with an even balance of mobility, fire power, and assault.(To allow effect use of all unit types.)
Sort of Epic Armageddon scaled up with more detail to suit the larger scale models of 40k.Start with a good battle game rule set and add more detail.
(Rather than start with a skirmish game and hack lumps out to speed up game play.And then apply random patches in a hap hazzard way.)


Does every one agree with this basic *concept?Or does 40k mean something else to you?

I find it confusing when you say MORE complex options but LESS complexity. They seem contradictory.

I would rewrite the game from the ground up and base it and its mechanics on the d10.

pm713 wrote:
I find it confusing when you say MORE complex options but LESS complexity. They seem contradictory.

They seem that way but I think a better way of saying it is adding more depth while also making it simpler. As an example changing the BS skill to be the number you need to hit on. No more looking at a table, your hit number is right there on your statline. See, simpler, faster and generally better, and in the same vein you could have stat cards or something for each unit, listing all their special rules and what they do so you don't need to flip between the codex and main rule book. Nice and simple. You could then go in and give the units more upgrade options on top of that so people have to think more about what to take in list building, but the game on the table plays much smoother.

Klerych wrote:
But why? Why change something that worked for over two decades?

My very last game of 40k was around a 750 or 800 point game. I had tyranids. And about 75 models in my army. I moved them. And then they fleeted. And then some assaulted. All while my opponent stood there and waited. I understand people have developed house rules to combine all these movements, but it was in a league for prizes and we couldn't do that. I think i had 150-200 model movements to do while my opponent waited. I resolved then to never do that to my opponent again and I haven't played using the 40k rules since.

It worked when the model count for 40k was 30 or so models a side. Like how segregated turns works alright in Warmachine/Hordes (which has a lower model count). Since 3rd edition GW has been cranking up the model count and the complexity of the game so the opponent has to wait longer and longer and longer.

It's a stupid turn structure.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Klerych wrote:
But why? Why change something that worked for over two decades?

My very last game of 40k was around a 750 or 800 point game. I had tyranids. And about 75 models in my army. I moved them. And then they fleeted. And then some assaulted. All while my opponent stood there and waited. I understand people have developed house rules to combine all these movements, but it was in a league for prizes and we couldn't do that. I think i had 150-200 model movements to do while my opponent waited. I resolved then to never do that to my opponent again and I haven't played using the 40k rules since.

It worked when the model count for 40k was 30 or so models a side. Like how segregated turns works alright in Warmachine/Hordes (which has a lower model count). Since 3rd edition GW has been cranking up the model count and the complexity of the game so the opponent has to wait longer and longer and longer.

It's a stupid turn structure.

At least your opponent waited. I had someone ignore me and just talk on the cell phone, or talk to other people. So much for the social aspect of the game there.

That is why I play 40K more like the Lords of the Rings now. More interaction and not as much waiting now. Even thinking of everyone moves at the same time in order of initiative. Have a tie, roll off with LD test to see who goes first, or passes.

@pm713.
I actually said i wanted less complicated rules and more complex game play.

Complication is the amount of action/instructions to cover a single function.
So for example 40k has very complicated weapon and armour interaction ,because it uses multiple rules and systems to cover this single game function.

Complexity is the amount of variable options/interactions in the instruction set.
X-wings game turn is very simple, but allows a huge amount of tactical depth.

@Psenesis.
Game developers have been developing different types of resolution methods over the last 30 years since WHFB was written.
If you use these newer methods D6s can still be very effective.
Nothing is a s good as the old D6 for rolling lots of dice at once.(Roll to hit, roll to beat armour , roll to damage.)

However, single dice rolls like morale or leadership could be better served with a larger sided dice perhaps?

It is only when you use a dice in a fixed deterministic way, does the dice size become an issue.

If you use ranges of numerical values that are compared directly to give the dices score required.

Eg
Armour values extended down to 1 to give a range of values from 1 to 15 to show how thick the models armour is.
And all weapons get a value of 5 to 20 to show how good they are at beating the armour.

So when a model is hit by a weapon it rolls a D6 and adds its armour value .If this value is higher than the weapon hits AP value it makes its save roll.

This simple resolution method covers ALL units , and gives the proportional results without using a list of separate modifiers.

I could illustrate this with some examples if needed?

Davor wrote:
At least your opponent waited. I had someone ignore me and just talk on the cell phone, or talk to other people. So much for the social aspect of the game there.

It was brutal. And it wasn't even a full size game. I kind of wished he had pulled out a book or something and started reading. I tried to make what conversation I could, but it sucked.

I can totally see people just zoning out while they wait for their opponent to actually do something they need to care about.

That is why I play 40K more like the Lords of the Rings now. More interaction and not as much waiting now. Even thinking of everyone moves at the same time in order of initiative. Have a tie, roll off with LD test to see who goes first, or passes.

LOTR was a solid system and the alternating going on the turn structure is way, way better than 40k and WFB's wait-fest. Bringing in classic ideas like an intiative order with a roll off is a great simple fix.

Just wish they were more streamlined!

I think the one other rule that grinds me the wrong way is how charging works. The random distance alone is a pain in any Ork's backside. But I feel we should still MOVE even if we fail to actually get stuck in. If I roll for a 8 inch charge, but I roll a 7...feth, let me MOVE that 7! My opponent just killed X of my Orks, at least give me SOMETHING in return for the risk.

@Melevolence.
I totally agree with you , the current charge rules are possibly the worst combination of random and auto fail.
If you applied the same methods to shooting ,no one would play the game!

I you want to include pre measuring , with fixed movement and weapon range values.But off set it with some chance of not completing the attack.

Use a simple 'motivation 'check, before the attack takes place.(You can have racial modifiers, like Orks get +2 to motivation check dice roll for charging.)
This also makes LD important in the game.

So there is a chance that the unit MAY NOT attack the target as intended.
Eg If an ork mob fails the motivation check for charging, the may decide to move to cover, withdraw or stay put and shoot instead.

I may not have explained that too well..