Switch Theme:

Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Does 40k need a complete re-write?
Yes total re-write from scratch.
Yes total re write but based on WHFB.
No it just needs some more special rules.
No it has no problems at all as it is.

View results
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
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi folks.
Since 3rd ed, GW has just added more and more rules to 40k,and some how lost more and more game play along the way.
I was wondering is a complete re-write from scratch would be the best way so solve the game play problems with 40k.

Considering the current 40k game is trying to use WHFB 3rd ed skirmish rules.(Which work fine for skirmish games up to about 30 models a side.)
Yet the current 40k armies contain the same amount of units as the old Epic Space Marine game did!

I think a complete re-write is necessary.

What are you views of the 40k rules.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh





The entire staff of writers needs to be fired. The entire company needs a hostile take over firing 100% of the previous employs. All the books need to be burned. All the 3rd parties sued.

EXTERMINITUS!!!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/21 07:40:35


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






The rules need a complete re-write, but first everyone involved in writing GW's rules needs to be fired. If you keep the same incompetent morons in charge of the game then all you'll get out of a re-write is a game that is just as bad but in different ways. Once they're gone the new people can write a decent scifi-focused game in the 40k universe to replace the current bloated mess of special rules and exceptions to special rules and exceptions to the exceptions piled onto the skeleton of a bad 1980s fantasy game.

Unfortunately the only way this will ever happen is if someone else buys the 40k IP.

#FreezePeach

My DKoK painting blog.

My X-Wing painting blog.

SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD SUPERHEAVIES

Armored Company
W/L/D: 2130235/0/1 (I played myself once and had a draw) 
   
Made in gb
Elite Tyranid Warrior




Gloucester/ Bristol UK

A rewrite would be best along with codex. However clarifications and nerf some units would be adequate.

But as stated, sack the lot of them. Poor fluff, poor balance, and boring rules for units that should be more fun/ fluff.
   
Made in si
Delicious Fruit Gardener







Yup. Fire everyone. Redo everything from scratch.

Posters on ignore list: 33

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Yes, 40k needs a complete re-write.
But not by Games Workshop.

Off the top of my head, Necromunda and Blood Bowl are the only games by GW that have good rules. Why are they better than the rest of the GW rules? That's because both of them have had [i]far[i/] more support from the community than from GW.
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





Bradley Beach, NJ

It depends on what you want from the game. A lot of people want 40k to be a balanced, competitive game. I disagree with that sentiment. 40k is FAR from perfect, but it's still fun. It's a beer-and-chips game with good quality miniatures. Personally, I wouldn't change the course of friendly 40k.
If you were to try to remake the game into something competitive or balanced, I'd vote for FFG to do the rules. But, I don't see the need to overhaul 40k.

Hive Fleet Aquarius 2-1-0


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/527774.page 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





It's a different thread topic but I've thought about starting open source rules, the same way linux is made etc etc. There is no real reason why not.. open source miniature designs that any manufacturer can make... the price would be incredibly low.. maybe even app based turnbyturn 2 player mobile version.. on a freemium model...I used to make a online game called warfleet 10 years ago that had thousands of players so I have some experience in what I am on about

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/21 18:51:14


 
   
Made in ca
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





I wouldn't say Fire Everyone.

I would think that there would be an lot of talented people in GW, many of whom have exclusive knowledge of fluff and tournament stats, etc.

What I would say is that GW lacks direction - it doesn't have a leader with vision and it's in dire need of a strong guiding hand.

A good preliminary step would be to scratch the current rules and re-write them from the point of view that Dice should be used to Enhance Gameplay - not as an integral part of it.

I would also say that the current game designers should be given a sabbatical to go off an re-discover what modern game design has come up with, so they can approach 40k with a fresh mindset.



What I would like to see out of 40K:

A Dual Resource system instead of a FOC (Regular "points", and then "secondary points" for specialist items like special weapons, elites, heavy support, characters, etc.)

An allies system that makes sense and brings something interesting to the table.

Cover looked at and TLOS reconsidered in light of how slowed it is

Statistics scale change and simplified comparisons (If I have a BS of 5, I need 5 to hit. No fancy charts.)

Morale Overhauled

Off-table abilities brought in through Secondary Resource spending ("My list contains a number of orbital bombardments", "I bought x acts of faith for my sisters", "My Ork Horde can WAAAGH three times this game", etc.)

I would also like to see turns taken in some kind of initiative order where players alternate their activations. This is harder to do IRL than it is with a simple priority stack on the computer unfortunately :c

That being said, I really like Maelstrom missions. They feel a lot more contentious than Eternal War missions. I WOULD like to see the ability for each player to craft their own deck (and it would be sweet if the cards were also usable as a WH40K CCG).

Pit your chainsword against my chainsw- wait that's Heresy. 
   
Made in es
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine





I voted for the complete rewrite.

In its current iteration I think the game is just a bloated mess, with too many special rules piling up over a base that clearly cannot support them.

I'd even say the "only D6" system should be replaced, relying on D6 dices for everything hinders the game a lot, as the attribute system gets mostly underused. So perhaps going back to a multiple dice system could work, specially for things like the hit chart and armor saves (D10 would be better for that, IMO).

The game needs more balance, and differences between units should be solved by using the attributes chart, not with a thousand special rules for everything.

Also the whole lot of random events need to go. I can stomach (to a degree) random charges, but running? Wouldn't it be more simple and effective if things just ran their movement stat in the movement phase? I mean, at the beginning of the movement phase, you declare which units will run, so they move their M stat x2 and then do not shoot nor charge until next turn.

It will never happen. At least, not while GW owns 40k.

Edit:
 chrisrawr wrote:
I would also like to see turns taken in some kind of initiative order where players alternate their activations. This is harder to do IRL than it is with a simple priority stack on the computer unfortunately :c


Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as activations, but I'd really like to see an "alternate turn sequence" in place. It's my turn, so I move first, but then you move before I cast physic powers. Then you do. Then I shoot, you shoot. Etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/21 20:49:44


Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.

GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get. 
   
Made in fi
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





 Squidmanlolz wrote:
It depends on what you want from the game. A lot of people want 40k to be a balanced, competitive game. I disagree with that sentiment. 40k is FAR from perfect, but it's still fun. It's a beer-and-chips game with good quality miniatures. Personally, I wouldn't change the course of friendly 40k.
If you were to try to remake the game into something competitive or balanced, I'd vote for FFG to do the rules. But, I don't see the need to overhaul 40k.

This.

Maybe add a new set of rules for skirmish-sized competitive game, but 40k is good as it is for fun gameplay.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/21 20:47:26


 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh





Keep the Artists and Novel Writters. Keep the fluff where it belongs out of the rule books.

Fire Mat Ward, Phil Kelly, etc... all of them rule writers. And also force them into a covenant not to compete for life! and any publication of rules any where.

Eliminate power creep by Having all codex and core rule book free on line and updated monthly or at least quarterly. Errata the rules on the site directly and made proper edits.

It is ridiculous that I should have to pay $1000 to learn all the rules and all the armies codex and forgeworld books.

Consolidate Forgeworld books and models so there is no more confusion and separation from GW. That way the over powered rules can be mitigated.

Get rid of WS shield that was clearly a typo of 60"!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/21 20:55:53


 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Virginia

Stop adding Strength D to things, and make it harder for people to bring deathstars and the like, and 40k would be in a great state.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/21 20:55:59


40k:
7,900+ pts - Varantekh Dynasty
3,700+ pts - Hive Fleet Awesome
200 pts - Craftworld Althwyn  
   
Made in us
Malicious Mandrake




Crawfordsville Indiana

It needs tighter rules, less ambiguous terms throughout, and definitely a solid formula for giving models a point cost. The "it feels right" method is probably the worst way to do it.

Overall, the core is okay, not stellar, but not really trash either. But small problem 1 on top of small problem 2 and so on creates the mess we have now.

My vote is two fold:
To keep some consistency, just fix the rules, write them more clearly, and come to a consensus on how a model will get a cost, use a formula that is consistent, and apply it across the board. Tweak it when a special rule ends up being better than anticipated.

To modernize the game, and make it compete with other games. Total rewrite.

All the worlds a joke and the people merely punchlines
 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





Bradley Beach, NJ

 Filch wrote:


Fire Mat Ward, Phil Kelly, etc... all of them rule writers.


Ward left GW in 2014...

Hive Fleet Aquarius 2-1-0


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/527774.page 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Fort Smith, Arkansas

There is no option for my vote.
"No, but it needs LESS special rules."

Out of hundreds of units, there are maybe a dozen that are too wacky OP, and maybe another dozen that are wacky UP.
Rein those in closer to the center, and start simplifying rules.

-Cost slower cc units, special cc weapons, and cc upgrades more appropriately (generally by reduction) to bring assault and shooting back to a more harmonious state. It shouldn't cost 50 points just to have a decently threatening melee veteran sergeant that can still be taken out by a single shot from uncountable numbers of things far before he's anywhere close to melee.

-Be quite a bit less generous with high strength low AP board wide range ignore cover guns that can be fired while moving from very durable platforms.

-Nix cover saves, change it to "hard/harder/hardest to hit BS modifier." - a little less complicated, less dice rolls required in game.

-Nix look out sir and wounds from direction of enemy. Take wounds on who you want, but you must take wounds on already wounded models first.

-Nix a lot of ran-dumb stuff. Run is half movement, and done in move phase to stop slowing the game down in shooting phase, assault is back to a set value. Kill random wl traits and psychic powers with fire. If you want a trait or power, pay for it.

-Either kill formations or make them cost extra for what they do. Make them take up a slot in a foc chart, bring the game back to manageable force org chart territory. 6th was pretty good in that regard with one foc+ally below 2k points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and nix challenges too.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/21 21:38:43


15000+ points
Tournament reports:
St. Charles MO 1850 ITC event: 5th place and best BA
Ft smith August 2015 HobbyTown USA 1k event: 1st place
1st annual Iron Halo GT 2015: 1st place
Wargames con 2015: 8th place and best BA
Mizewell games team event: 3rd place team
Ft Smith April 2015 Hobbytown USA tournament: 1st place
Mizewell March Madness ITC event: 3rd place and best BA  
   
Made in us
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Dawn of War games

Its good the way it is. Just sayin'

IMA FIRIN' MAH LAZOR!!!!!!!!!!
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY DOG JUST ATE HER LUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One seven three four six seven three two one four seven six Charlie three two seven eight nine seven seven seven six four three Tango seven three two Victor seven three one one seven eight eight eight seven three two four seven six seven eight nine seven six four three seven six lock.

Are you absolutely, completely, utterly, perfectly, entirely, horrifically, killyourplanetically certain you want to do that?  
   
Made in au
Horrific Howling Banshee





They should fire all the writers except jeremy vetock, hire some play testers and an editor

Wh40k Eternal Crusade Referral Number: EC-J79JWAXML7RYP 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





West Chester, PA

niv-mizzet wrote:
There is no option for my vote.
"No, but it needs LESS special rules."

Out of hundreds of units, there are maybe a dozen that are too wacky OP, and maybe another dozen that are wacky UP.
Rein those in closer to the center, and start simplifying rules.

-Cost slower cc units, special cc weapons, and cc upgrades more appropriately (generally by reduction) to bring assault and shooting back to a more harmonious state. It shouldn't cost 50 points just to have a decently threatening melee veteran sergeant that can still be taken out by a single shot from uncountable numbers of things far before he's anywhere close to melee.

-Be quite a bit less generous with high strength low AP board wide range ignore cover guns that can be fired while moving from very durable platforms.

-Nix cover saves, change it to "hard/harder/hardest to hit BS modifier." - a little less complicated, less dice rolls required in game.

-Nix look out sir and wounds from direction of enemy. Take wounds on who you want, but you must take wounds on already wounded models first.

-Nix a lot of ran-dumb stuff. Run is half movement, and done in move phase to stop slowing the game down in shooting phase, assault is back to a set value. Kill random wl traits and psychic powers with fire. If you want a trait or power, pay for it.

-Either kill formations or make them cost extra for what they do. Make them take up a slot in a foc chart, bring the game back to manageable force org chart territory. 6th was pretty good in that regard with one foc+ally below 2k points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and nix challenges too.


I very much agree: simplify, streamline, and de-randomify.

"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun

2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points 
   
Made in ca
Krazed Killa Kan





 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
Its good the way it is. Just sayin'


The thread is referring to 7th ed. From what I remember, you're playing 5th ed. so I don't know if you understand some of the issues that currently plague this edition.

My milkshakes bring all the boys to the yard and they're like, hurr darry darr.


My suggestion to you is to get married, if you have a good wife you'll be happy, if you have a bad wife you'll become a philosopher. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@niv-mizzet.
The option for people who want to keep the core mechanics of WHFB in 40k, but reduce the amount of special rules is a re-write based on WHFB rules.

Eg use a movement rate and simple modifiers, rather than a load of special rules added to a core rule set that is too restrictive without them.

Any form of 'tidy up' that does not address the core problem of WHFB game mechanics in a game using the number and type of units from the Epic Space marine/Armageddon games is basically a re-write based on WHFB rules.

@all who think 40k is a good rule set as is.
How do you qualify this point of view?

Can you have fun playing YOUR version of 40k?
If this is you definition of a good game then you have set the bar very low IMO.

A rules set by definition should clearly define and explain the game play of the game
It should give clear instructions on how to play the game.

The current 40k game play is very straight forward.This is a good thing!

However the rules are needlessly over complicated, poorly written, and inadequately edited/proof read. This is a bad thing.

Games that have similar game play complexity to 40k, generally have rules books of less than 50 pages .
(Even Games that have far more complex* game play, like Epic Armageddon for example only needs 138 pages to cover everything 40k does,including ALL the army lists!)
(Complex game play allows players to have lots of in game options , so they can make meaningful decisions.)

7th ed 40k rules are far too complicated* to be considered 'beer and pretzel' type game.
( *Complicated means using multiple methods to cover a single function. )

@All those that think you have to choose between rules written for balanced competitive play and friendly narrative games.
THE ONLY VALID REASON TO USE POINT VALUES IN A RULE SET IS TO PROVIDE ENOUGH BALANCE FOR FUN RANDOM PICK UP GAMES.

So if GW only want you to just 'forge the narrative' , then they would not publish any point values or force organisation charts.As friendly narrative games are just agreed by the players before hand.

In games that ARE balanced for fun random pick up games.
Players are totally free to ignore any or all 'restrictions' for random pick up games,when they play narrative scenarios they have agreed upon.
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PLAYING A RANDOM PICK UP GAME. BUT A NARRATIVE SCENARIO OF THEIR OWN CREATION!

If you are house ruling the 40k rules to get games you like, eg basically ignoring the bits you do not like, and making stuff up you think is cool.

How can a rule set that is clearly defined and has point values and F.O.C that are good enough for fun pick up games magically prevent you from ignoring the bits you do not like, and making up stuff you think is cool?

Here are two facts ..
1)Well defined rules enhance the playing experience for everyone .(Apart from rules lawyers.)

2)Having accurate enough point values and well devised force organisation charts, allows players to have fun random pick up games of they want to,
AND STILL allows players to ignore the F.O.C for mutually agreed narrative scenarios if they want to play them.

   
Made in dk
Camouflaged Zero






Can't we just play pancake-edition? From what I heard, it was quite well received from those who playtested it. In fact, I remember that it people liked it so much that they were very outraged when it turned out to be fake, mostly because it didn't feel like clickbait when the pancake-edition was "leaked", it played like 5th with well thought out (and well needed!) tweaks.
   
Made in ca
Missionary On A Mission





GTA

I've been saying this for years now.

Go back to a 2ed revised model. 2ed had some great ideas and mechanics but it had it's problems too. Fix CC, the physic phase and tone the codexes down while adding a proper foc and we're off to the races.

 MrFlutterPie wrote:
Have my babies Anvil Industries!

 Anvils Hammer wrote:

@MrFlutterPie - That's not currently a service we offer, but you can purchase quality miniatures from us..

 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Things that ruin 40k for me (almost all these things were dreadful ideas)

1) random psychic powers - just stupid
2) random warlord traits - just stupid
3) FnP is FAR too powerful in a game with "one save roll" someone gets TWO?
4) no real use for psychology based play (i.e.gaming your style to making things rout is so unrealistic hard 99% of the time)
5) cover doesn't affect TO HIT rolls
6) rolling sixes needs to mean more.. i.e. a six to hit auto wounds etc
   
Made in ie
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Dublin

They absolutely do. Summarising on stuff I've already discussed in past threads:
A complete rewrite using a D10 system, taking guidance for values on the current system, and retaining what are deemed to be solid elements from the current system. (No matter how cynical I feel, there are some solid rules in the current set). Re-write should aim to:
1) Reduce the overabundance of random dice rolls for things which should be at least partially consistent (run and charge distances, difficult terrain, etc)
2) Provide a more tactical ruleset, with proper cover bonuses and an order system, and by connection adressing imbalances that don't belong in a serious battlegame like hull points, the current armour/ cover mechanic, etc
3) Serious revision and adress of balance issues in, and between codexes.

The last problem is by no means the least. We're all aware that GW alter the power of certain gemeplay elements by edition. And I don't begrudge them that -they are after all a business. But what I find unacceptable is the blatant imbalances that they have consistently neglected, whether out of sheer laziness or ineptitude or what I don't know. Why has a plasma pistol been overpriced for 3 editions? How come a wolf claw is hands down better than a frost sword for the same points? Why are low AP weapons so cheap and abundant that terminators are questionable choices at best.

If I'm to continue pay money for a game system, I want the writers to put serious thought into the above, not provide some half-assed mechanics that are more at home in an RTS computer game than a tabletop wargame. Rant over. Going to bed now.

I let the dogs out 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Although I voted a total rewrite, I think lots of core elements are ok - GW just continues to add layers of garbage on top of a system that only needed tweaking. I'd say strip down 3rd or 4th edition and start again from there.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Beaverton OR


I like the rules ok, and honestly am still getting a handle on 7th so I feel I'm not really "qualified" to critique them yet...but that being said: simplify simplify simplify. The massive tome of the rulebook does not need to exist, as so much of it can be streamlined and paired down for practically the same effect.

I second the idea of being able to spend points for "off board" upgrades and such (bombardments, warlord traits ect,)

I also super super super support the idea of a free online codex for each army, updated regularly. The game is plenty expensive enough as it is, thank you, without adding on increasingly expensive codexes and supplements to milk us for every last penny.

If you lower the barrier cost of entry (which right now is ridiculously high) you will have more players. More players mean more sales. More sales mean more money.

I think I speak for most of us when I say that I would rather spend my 40k budget on cool new minis, paints, and scenery then on buying the next edition of the rule-book, codex, and suppliment in order to play the @#$% game.
   
Made in us
Inquisitorial Scourge of Heretics







There are problems with the game that a rewrite from the ground up would fix, but the core framework is solid. An actual editing staff who pays attention to game balance and solves rules conflicts, a release schedule not geared towards new-stuff-beats-old-stuff, and special rules that actually interact with each other could make the game function without having to rewrite the core rules at all.

That said the core rules aren't perfect; there could be some streamlining and removing of redundancy.

Victoria est autem vita.

Project Blog up at http://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
(Meridian status: in progress) 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Just a few notes on comments so far...

I am sure a tidied up 2nd ed rule set for a large skirmish game would work very well.
This is what the GW game devs actually worked on for 3rd ed 40k , but GW corporate threw it out at the 11th hour, and wanted to push for bigger game sizes.
So the 3rd ed we ended up with is actually an 11th hour rush job, not the game the developers wanted to make.

So if GW wanted to 'reboot '40k as a skirmish game. Then a'fixed' 2nd ed rule set would absolutely be the best way to go.

However, if the game size is to be kept at the larger size , (4th to 7th ed.)
Then rules focused on detailed model interaction are too time consuming and micro managing.So there has to be sacrifices some where.
40k 7th edition simply reduces some complex resolution to a single dice roll.(And has to use umpteen special rules to get the resolution back.)Yet keep others to an obsessive level of detail.
7th ed flip flops between micro and macro managing, which leads to so many WTF moments.(Breaks the flow of the game.)

Rules focused on detailed UNIT interaction would be the best solution .
With the units stat profile covering all the in game interaction directly,(only special abilities need special rules.)

IMO. some thing moving faster, or having better armour, or having a better chance of hitting, wounding or saving should be covered by the core rules.
Only actual special abilities , like chemical weapons ignoring cover, should have special rules.

Most games I play deliver special rules in 2 ways.
1)ignore one condition.
2)Allow limited re roll.

EG
1)Amphibious units ignore movement penalties for water based terrain.
2)Units with 'Veteran leaders'' re roll natural 1s when attempting to rally.

So to be fair, before any re-write is attempted,the game play has to be clearly defined.

Is it 'WHFB in space', or '28mm scale Epic'?
Is it a skirmish game, or a mass battle game?
Is it supposed to be easy to learn for new players?
Is it supposed to be tactically deep enough to retain players long term?
(These last two are NOT mutually exclusive.)

Straightforward rules and complex game play are the hallmark of great game design.

40k has got this the wrong way round.It has complicated rules, and simple game play .
(And the GW game devs have been proposing a complete overhaul since before 4th ed was published.)
   
Made in gb
Krielstone Bearer




West Yorkshire, England

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
It depends on what you want from the game. A lot of people want 40k to be a balanced, competitive game. I disagree with that sentiment. 40k is FAR from perfect, but it's still fun. It's a beer-and-chips game with good quality miniatures. Personally, I wouldn't change the course of friendly 40k.
If you were to try to remake the game into something competitive or balanced, I'd vote for FFG to do the rules. But, I don't see the need to overhaul 40k.


Thing is, a "beer & pretzels game" should be easy to learn, have a low buy-in, be quick to play, and very little time spent on setup or hashing out rules. That doesn't sound like 40K.

"Surround yourself with human beings, my dear James. They are easier to fight for than principles." 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Polls
Go to: