Switch Theme:

If you were to redesign 40k...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





Watford, England

I keep thinking about 40k and getting mixed opinions on the game.
On the one hand I kinda like the whole premise, on the other hand I really dislike a lot of things about it.

For example I like the imperium of man but just hate the over saturation of it... Do we really need this many marines?
I like the game, but hate the increasing scale (I prefer smaller numbers of models a bit like kill team).

So my question is if you were to rebuild the 40k game or fluff what would you change and what would you keep?
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





I'd get flak for it, but I'd role all the Space Marine factions into one and call it "Space Marines." I'd also add in some Eldar factions (exodites) and Legions to Chaos for some anti-imperial variety.
I'd change the way turns are done. With such large armies they either need to speed turns up or find a way so one opponent isn't just sitting around checking facebook while the horde player moves his army.
I'd make rules so fliers and LOW either aren't hard counters or make separate versions of the game to scale.
Oh, and I'd make every unit viable and not have clear auto-takes and auto-leaves.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in gb
Thermo-Optical Hac Tao





Gosport, UK

I think really they need to pick a scale, so that's where I'd start. Is it a Skirmish game, or a mass battle game? At the moment it has the rules of a skirmish game but the model count of a much bigger game, which means there's tonnes of rules bloat and turns take ages.

I don't know which I'd pick, but I think making a decision would be a good place to start.
   
Made in us
Hacking Shang Jí





Fayetteville

I'd put the apocalypse stuff back in Apocalypse where it belongs.

The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good. 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin






I am with Arschbombe on this one. Unbound, come the apoc, and lords of war need to be in a different game type. Include them in the rules, but make it so you decide on what game you play before hand.


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

I'd severely reduce 40k's scale to around 20-40 infantry a side. Lets leave the huge ass battles to 15mil where we arent fighting over a Wal-Mart parking lot.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight





Raleigh, NC

As a bunch of other posts already stated, I'd like to see the game stick to a set size concept, or at least offer different rule sets for different scales of game. I'm guessing most people are into the skirmish-battle size that was prevalent up through 5th, so I'd like to see that return. Fliers, fortifications, and super heavies can all go back into Apocalypse.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 Accolade wrote:
As a bunch of other posts already stated, I'd like to see the game stick to a set size concept, or at least offer different rule sets for different scales of game. I'm guessing most people are into the skirmish-battle size that was prevalent up through 5th, so I'd like to see that return. Fliers, fortifications, and super heavies can all go back into Apocalypse.



Id actually have no issue with fliers forts of super heavies

They should be part of the game in mega apocs OR specific mission games

would rather see ACTUAL Narrative mission type games.

(more attack or defend. and missions that actually involve more than king of the hill or deathmatch.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Well, super heavies belong to apoc and not to normal games.
I'd write a rule set for tournaments just like steam roller.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Too much to really go into, but I'd basically have a solid and flexible set of core rules and then split them three ways:

* A more detailed set for skirmish type games where individual models matter

* A company-level game (the default) where things have enough stats to be meaningful, but not swamp you in details

* A large-scale game with abstracted rules e.g. you might not care if a squad has a missile launcher and a flamer, just that it's a Tactical Squad w/heavy weapon. Ideally this wouldn't be even using the same scale, but realistically it would.

I'd also focus on having well-written rules that outline exactly what happens so no more of this RAI vs. RAW stuff, and the rules would allow for flexibility for narrative and campaign games where you want something balanced but different e.g. there would be an internal framework of sorts for special rules, so if you want to make your own you can easily see what they should be like.

Things like flyers, superheaves, etc. would be optional and balanced. Flyers in particular would have basic and advanced rules, with basic being something like they act as bombardments and advanced being closer to how they are now. I would also have a set of guidelines (no more than a page, say) for tournament/competitive play that limits the optional rules, but also clearly states they are guidelines and a tournament might modify them.

In short: A game that is balanced for tournament and casual play, without drawing a line in the sand between the two and that properly scales from skirmish level to battalion-level

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/08 19:05:12


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Hyperspace

Keep the game the size it is

Lower prices by 40%

Radically change the force org. 1 HQ and 2 troops are mandatory. For each 2 troops choices in the army you may take 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, and 1 Elites choice.

Lords Of War would require 3 units of troops to take, and would fill both a force org slot and Lord of War slot.
Unbound would be completely removed.

Make the rulebook free online, with an expanded edition with fluff and gallery available for $50. Make codexes free online, and have an expanded edition with fluff and gallery available for $30.

Sell T-Shirts.

Hire the top tournament players to write rules for the rulebook, with casual players to proofread.

Bring the old website back.

Ditch Wolf: Wolf Wolves and Blood: Blood Bloods



Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon






Reduce new player cost. $130 of books and $300 of models is just too much no matter how you slice it, and that's for the basic experience. And really get in with the community, fixing rules issues and hearing what units need updating edition to edition. No excuse for Wraithlords and Terminators to be stuck in 3rd while a jet plane costs less.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






@Verviedi - I can't imagine models being 40% less. This would be wonderful, but almost nobody MSRPs new scifi models at 40% less than GW models :( On the other hand, rule books are WAY WAY too expensive. Softcover smaller version for 50% or 60% less, IMO.

I think there should be a set of skirmish rules, that excludes all the big stuff, and a separate set of rules for big battles.

Remember when TSR released Basic D&D, with the Expert expansion? That wasn't a bad thing, because full rules were just too complicated for people getting into roleplaying, and the core aspect of roleplaying is not just mechanics. But, as you get used to the rules, perhaps you wish to migrate to a more complex system. Plus, Basic (as compared to AD&D) limited the ability to get crazy high levels and essentially break the game, slaying gods and dragons at a whim. Still I was an AD&D kinda guy

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/08 19:12:47


 
   
Made in us
Gargantuan Grotesque With Gnarskin




As said before, put the marines in one book and give non-imperium armies some more factions to play with.

I love fluff and/or common sense so screw any rules that simply don't make sense. Infantry walking through walls, soldiers choosing plasma guns with a nearly 1/6 chance of killing most wielders, etc. Obviously, this requires some rebalancing.

I also dislike super heavies and the like being legal choices in everyday battles. Do what someone said above and keep them where they belong (in apocalypse).

Balance out the heavier cheese builds and reduce the extent to which power gaming out competes everything. The game just isn't fun for me when I have to constantly see cookie cutter power lists with no care for fluff or fun. Most of my enjoyment of this game comes from laughing at my crappy rolls and making up stories for the funnier things that happen.

Oh, and axe seizing initiative. I don't find seized initiatives fun or strategically satisfying. Clearing up rules vagaries would be nice as well.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/08 19:35:37


 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

Officially support "formats" of play, similar to Magic the Gathering.

So instead of having to tell an opponent, "sure I'll play, no unbound, no 400+ point lords of war, only one ally, no invis, max one flyer, and max of 1 riptide, knight, or wave serpent sound good?..." you could instead just say "Hey, 2k standard game?"

You could have formats like:

Codex: Your codex and relevant errata only. No super heavies.

Standard: No super-heavies over 20% of the point value, codex and one additional source (ally, formation, or whatever) only.

Approaching apocalypse: Do what you want, but obey the force org chart.

And apocalypse as is, of course.

That and keeping some quality playtesters to make slight errata alterations for rules and sometimes fix problems with units, like tactical termies on the low end, and riptides and invisibility on the high, and post said errata on the site.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/08 19:40:15


20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Welp I am surprised no one has mentioned this.

I would really love for 40k to try once the alternating squad sequencing that most games now have. The "I go - you go" is very very fething boring. Infinity remedies this a little by doing ARO's (actually it remedies this a lot) - but ARO's in 40k would be a complete mess.

Instead it should be a squad by squad activation - that would really put the thinking back into the game I think (do I assault this unit with my activated squad, or do I wait to activate them, take more shots to the face, but shoot the squad and soften them more)
   
Made in fr
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Calixis sector / Screaming Vortex

I like the size of 40k now, but I think that turns should be done unit per unit, say, with cards:
each unit has a card, and you shuffle them each turn. The order of the cards determines what unit goes when, and maybe some spells or abilities (like Ig orders, or deep strike relays or something) would allow you to slightly modify the order of the firsts or last few cards, or look at the deck and determine its order to aid in tactical planning.
Actually, maybe the order of the first 5 cards should be visible (so some tactics are allowed).
A card system would encourage highlander games, and possibly limit the number of identical units you could have in each army (because of the limit of different cards you could have)

Furthermore, I'd like to see a system like tactical objectives, but that you'd generate at the start of each mission and that would rarely (if ever) change.

CSM
Militarum Tempestus
Dark Angels (Deathwing)
Inquisition 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

RE: Price I don't think a 40% reduction would be good, although we'd all love it. What they should do is increase the value and make value better overall. One of the big reasons why WMH is considered cheaper than 40k is that you get more bang for your buck with units due to little or no duplication (barring some skew lists).

Back in 2nd edition a 1,500 point army was a tactical squad, a terminator squad, a bike squad and a couple of characters. You could increase value by adding more figures (e.g. undo the nonsense of 5 guys in a box when you generally want 10), giving more options (e.g. a box contains all the possible options instead of superfluous bits that go right in the bitz box), and maybe even increasing points values of models slightly so you feel like you're getting a better deal. Not up to 2nd edition levels which IMHO was too small, but not what we have now either.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






fidel wrote:
Welp I am surprised no one has mentioned this.

I would really love for 40k to try once the alternating squad sequencing that most games now have. The "I go - you go" is very very fething boring. Infinity remedies this a little by doing ARO's (actually it remedies this a lot) - but ARO's in 40k would be a complete mess.

Instead it should be a squad by squad activation - that would really put the thinking back into the game I think (do I assault this unit with my activated squad, or do I wait to activate them, take more shots to the face, but shoot the squad and soften them more)


They could do this as a separate rule set, but changing core rules this way would piss off as many people as it would make happy. There are some fundamental issues as squads can be 1 model... Or 30 models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: Price I don't think a 40% reduction would be good, although we'd all love it. What they should do is increase the value and make value better overall. One of the big reasons why WMH is considered cheaper than 40k is that you get more bang for your buck with units due to little or no duplication (barring some skew lists).

Back in 2nd edition a 1,500 point army was a tactical squad, a terminator squad, a bike squad and a couple of characters. You could increase value by adding more figures (e.g. undo the nonsense of 5 guys in a box when you generally want 10), giving more options (e.g. a box contains all the possible options instead of superfluous bits that go right in the bitz box), and maybe even increasing points values of models slightly so you feel like you're getting a better deal. Not up to 2nd edition levels which IMHO was too small, but not what we have now either.


I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure point inflation solves anything. Games would just go from 1850 to 3700 if everything doubled in cost :X

There isn't any way around the design paradigm of 40k giving players a choice of having high or low model counts. You can spend a thousand points on 100 models, or you can blow it all on one revenabt titan. I'm not advocating this as an ideal situation (and I think it causes many problems) but this is the universe and model collection we play with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/08 20:19:15


 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





Replace how "cover" works. It should be a To Hit modifier, not a save.

------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob




Cary, NC

I would like to see a clear, codified way of specifying a type of game which would spell out the points size, terrain, and scenario.

I don't have this worked out, but there should be some 'offical' way of saying:

This game is played on a 4x4 board, assuming dense, multiple level terrain. This scenario doesn't call for huge superheavies or fliers, and there will also be nowhere to put them on this type of board. You will be assumed to be bringing an infantry heavy army (or perhaps, beasts, or gargoyles, etc.).

vs.

This game is going to be played on a 4x6 or 4x8 board with relatively sparse terrain, and very little dense, multiple level terrain. You will have the space to deploy large vehicles and move large models like Fliers and FMC. Mobility and range will be much more important. Bringing an infantry horde will make this type of game grind to a halt.


I don't think that the game requires a LOT of rules changes to accommodate the types of games most people play (500pts-2000pts, and even higher). However, I do think that those different points levels require and encourage different types of board set ups, terrain set ups, and missions, and a better rule book would actually work towards spelling that out rather than just "talk with your opponent".

Past that, I would really like to see the rules structure reworked (probably from the ground up, sadly) to reflect the fluff. If Space Marines are totally awesome, then the weapons that mow them down like wheat should be suitably rare and hard to find. If Terminators are elite and deadly, then they shouldn't die in droves to commonly available weapons.

Most of this should be considered entirely divorced from points costs. Make sure every element of the game works the way it is supposed to in the fluff, and THEN, work out points for it. If, for example, plasma pistols are really deadly, then, fine, make them deadly. Once you have done that, then work out a points cost. If one marine should be able to beat up a squad of 10 guardsmen at little to no risk to himself, then write the rules up that way.

Don't use points costs to enforce rarity. If something is really rare, then write the rules so that it is rare (in any way that works: hard limits, one per HQ, whatever). Then, if something is really effective, no matter how common it is supposed to be, make it expensive. Sometimes, stuff is cheap because it's common, and sometimes, supposedly rare artifacts are easily purchased for every squad. If a single meltagun is more useful than the 10 guys in the squad, then make it cost more than they do.

 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought





The Beach

I'm actually working on a platoon level version of 40K using 2nd Edition core mechanics mixed into some of the better aspects of modern and WW2 games.

Some of the features I'm incorporating:

More emphasis on individual models and small units (larger coherency, split targeting, movement, etc)
Cover as a hit modifier rather than a save
Scalable AP values/modifiers that fix the "all or nothing" aspect of armor.
More realistic weapon ranges and overwatch
Which in turn emphasis maneuver and cover
Modified army building that reduces min-maxing and death stars by focusing on core troop units.
Redefining Monstrous Creaters and Walkers
Better vehicle implementation and damage models
Alternating unit activation rather than IGoUGo, with mechanics that break squads up into smaller teams to account for variable unit sizes.
Flyers and onboard/offboard artillery more realistically represented, reducing the Measure/Countermeasure trap.
Space Marines that are actually Space Mariney (and consequently more expensive).
Orks that are more Orky with more dakka.
Tyranids that are more swarmy and gribbly


Obviously won't appeal to everyone. It's mostly so my friends and I can play 40K and not hate ourselves for doing so, heh.

Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?

True Scale Space Marines: Tutorial, Posing, Conversions and other madness. The Brief and Humorous History of the Horus Heresy

The Ultimate Badasses: Colonial Marines 
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control






I would make it clearly stated on the first page:

"FW IS LEGAL NO BUTS."

Also minimize Imperial presence (too much and I play them) and change the way 1st turn works.

Currently whoever gets first turn has a ridiculous advantage, and I have had trump units blown off the board before doing anything because of it.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




The biggest change I would make is to adjust the way the wounds are handled. Rather than have all the most basic infantry for each faction have one wound, things like guard and fire warriors, the things accepted to be fairly squishy and "easy" to kill fluff wise would have one wound. As things become more difficult to kill they gain more wounds, not just better stats, similar to the way WM/H does it. Point costs would be increased appropriately. Basically, it would allow for a much broader range of difficulty in actually putting your target into the ground, which I don't think the current toughness and wound system currently gives.

This would also allow you to cut back on the model count for many armies, which would more accurately portray the fluff. As it stands now, two guardsmen are about equal to a space marine, which goes against the fluff to a fair bit.
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




As has been stated before.

Define the scale and scope of the intended game play.Write rules for the intended game play.

PLAY TEST everything for at least 2 years with the help of the community to improve balance clarity and brevity of the rules...

Basically follow the bench mark of good game development , rather than short term marketing.

It is possible to use the same core rules for skirmish and larger battle games.(if you select carefully.)

But the element of interaction is 'single models' in the skirmish game, and 'units' in the larger battle game.

However, as 1970s Napoleonic game mechanics and resolution methods have been surpassed for twenty years or more.
I would re write the entire rules using more modern game mechanics and resolution methods.

When you see how good Epic rules are, It really makes you scratch your head and ask what were they smoking when they wrote 40k 7th ed.

I agree it would be better to have separate core 'skirmish game rules ' and core 'Battle game rules '.
But then I would expand them with 'narrative campaign ' and 'tournament play ' packs.

The former expands the options available while sacrificing game balance slightly, the latter reduces options slightly while optimizing balance.

This give clearly defined scales and types of play ,rather than a 'single big book of cool ideas,' that players have to decipher and negotiate through...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/10 16:22:13


 
   
Made in ca
Furious Fire Dragon





More variety. 6 "armies" of SPESS MURRENZ! is very dull.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 cosmicsoybean wrote:
More variety. 6 "armies" of SPESS MURRENZ! is very dull.


Well the Imperium of Man DID manage to conquer most of the galaxy

I would prefer more depth in each existing faction before they made new ones. Some Tau and Necron love would be great. And, more subfactions!
   
Made in ca
Furious Fire Dragon





Talys wrote:
 cosmicsoybean wrote:
More variety. 6 "armies" of SPESS MURRENZ! is very dull.


Well the Imperium of Man DID manage to conquer most of the galaxy

I would prefer more depth in each existing faction before they made new ones. Some Tau and Necron love would be great. And, more subfactions!

I would love to see more people play xenos races or subfactions. Marines are just too decent at everything and personally I find them very boring to play against. Hell, the Eldar controlled like the entire galaxy before, and I personally have only ever seen 3 craftworlds be played.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Well they are a dieing race


I would prefer there simply be 3 books.

The Imperium
The Forces of Chaos
The Xeno

Nice and simple.

Fill it out with what they normally come with

Have there little allied matrix or whatever or even let them mix and match whatever they want.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






The Xeno would be a humongous book

I would rather have the books organized like this:

- 1 book with all of the lists, but no fluff. $100.
UPDATED EVERY YEAR WITH ADDITIONS. Black and white is fine, with just a the odd color page.

- 1 pictures & fluff book for IoM. $100
- 1 pictures & fluff book for each of the alien races $50

This would significantly cut down on the number of books people "have" to buy, but doesn't really change the amount of money the average player actually spends. If anything, it increases it slightly, as it guarantees $100/year/player.

And the people who go and buy all the codices are still going to buy all the cool purdy fluff books. They could throw in a few scenarios into the fluff books, to give it a gaming reason to exist.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: