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.

As the title says, and only if you think it needs changing. I wouldn't suggest lowering the price because that is unlikely to happen. However, I would like the rulebook and codices to drop a little. I believe that's a reasonable expectation.

So, it can be rules, armies, terrain, fiction, anything.

I'd communicate more. one of the biggest issues IMHO 40k has is due to GW not communicting with the fans we're not sure exactly where they're looking at going etc. if I was in charge of GW I'd be regularly communicating with the fans. every WD issue would have an article written by me as I discuss what we've released, what we're releasing in the next few months. why we're doing what we're doing (If codex Space Marines 8th edition nerfed dreadnoughts, I'd explain WHY they where Nerfed, and why I think they're still worth taking) this isn't to say I'd automaticly do what the crowd insists, but I think just knowing the process that goes into decision making would be a biiiig change for the better

I'd reduce the rules to four pages, remove points, make the entire game unbound, kill off the setting and characters and start a new setting, then say we'd release free rules but still release rules in starter boxes and campaign books.

Joking aside, what 40k needs is some good FAQ. They need a guy who talks to the community and releases FAQs on actual frequently asked questions. Resolve some issues.
Perhaps, even go as far as repair point costs by overpriced unit

It needs improving.

Sort out the rules. Balance them better, write them well, and FAQ quickly.

I'd also like it if they stopped with the I Go You Go way of playing, to make it more interactive. So you don't have to sit there waiting for your turn, watching your army get wiped off of the table with no way to react.

I'd take 5E, slap in 4E Victory Points instead of Kill Points & 4E wound allocation rules, put in 7E Rapid Fire, Snapshot, vehicle squadron, & transported passenger effects rules, reduce most non-Ruins cover to 5+ cover from 4+, maybe a couple of other tweaks, and you've got a damn near perfect 40k ruleset.

7E at this point is an unplayable mess for anything but small group play with extensive self imposed (explicit or implicit) restrictions.

40k's Rules need tidying up. Lots of them overlap and melta/armourbane, and poison/fleshbane could be merged.

Random-ness needs looking at. Assault range and run distance are random, but Turbo Boost isn't.

Cover is all over the place. Ruins provide when stood-in, but woodland is LoS.

And so on.

'I am quite happy with the current ruleset, there are some iffy things that I don't like, for example the push towards superheavies and apocalypse, these should be optional at the discresion of both players, not in the main game, in my opinion.
For balance, I would start with doubling the points for everything, to allow better granularity in point costs. I would also scale back on the power creep and heavily errata the current power house codices back to the scale of AM/BA/Orks/DE.

For communication I would hire a community team who would be in charge of listening to the community, maybe not directly through GW mails and stuff, but read forums and report back to the people writing rules/FAQs.

I'd probably scale back on the release shedual a tiny bit, and try to do more major and memorable releases, long time since an old codex got a new unit.

Overall I quite like the game as it is now, except the push for apocalypse sized units.

Edit: I almost forgot: I would remove battle brothers. An army should be able to stand on it's own, battle brothers just makes it harder to get some kind of balance, especially since the access to BBs are so skewed.

Get rid of all the unnecessary random nonsense.

 Blacksails wrote:
Get rid of all the unnecessary random nonsense.

Remove dice?

I'd eliminate Allies or at least make it much tighter and restrictive.
I'd have all the codices free online and regularly updated with new models.
I'd create a tournament system you could download and run with purchasable packets of prize support and scenarios.

Meh, I'll just play Infinity!

 Konrax wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Get rid of all the unnecessary random nonsense.

Remove dice?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by unnecessary random nonsense.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd take 5E, slap in 4E Victory Points instead of Kill Points & 4E wound allocation rules, put in 7E Rapid Fire, Snapshot, vehicle squadron, & transported passenger effects rules, reduce most non-Ruins cover to 5+ cover from 4+, maybe a couple of other tweaks, and you've got a damn near perfect 40k ruleset.

7E at this point is an unplayable mess for anything but small group play with extensive self imposed (explicit or implicit) restrictions.

Very much agree.

I think I'd still take the 7E Psychic Phase. I've grown to like it. The powers themselves just need to be adjusted, but imbalanced Psychic powers have ALWAYS been a thing with 40k.

I'd welcome getting rid of Hull Points and going back to 5th Edition vehicle rules. That said, I'm enjoying 7th Edition's vehicle rules MUCH better than 6th. I still think all vehicles could use at least 1 or 2 more Hull Points than they have though. There still isn't enough incentive to actually use armor penetrating weapons.

I enjoy 7th Edition, but we use quite a few house rules to make it better.

I'd rather do away with the distinction between MCs and vehicles as they are now and have a unified system of toughness and saves. Then, you assign either the 'Vehicle' type, or 'MC' type to the unit which would then tell you what weapons are more effective against them (example being a vehicle type would be prone to haywire, but not MCs, likewise poison would be the opposite).

Boom. Simpler for all, easier to balance, and if done correctly, would allow the blending of the 'mechanical' MCs better with the crunch vs. fluff thing they have going on now.

Colehkxix wrote:


I'd also like it if they stopped with the I Go You Go way of playing, to make it more interactive. So you don't have to sit there waiting for your turn, watching your army get wiped off of the table with no way to react.

Nope, it's a perfectly good way of playing. Warmahordes and KOW use a more acute version of IGYG than 40k and no-one rightly consider it as a flaw for those rulesets.

I actually like the 7th edition rule set. I do, however, feel it needs going over with a fine-tooth comb to improve clarity.

More than anything, GW needs to open up and interact more with the community instead of putting it all on the store managers. FAQs and some sort of public discussion on their design philosophy would help as well.

Simplify the rules #1 priority

Get rid of the 15 minutes of pre-game ran-dumb-ness. Warlord traits, psychic powers, random gifts, etc. those things should be picked and ready at the list building stage.

Whoever thought random assault range was a good idea needs to die in a fire.

get rid of some of the double standards between shooting and assault. Either allow deep strike/outflank/disembark assaults, or make shooting units that deep strike outflank or disembark unable to effectively shoot that round. Basically either have units being deleted on command by a surprise unit a thing that both can do, or neither can do.

Fix MC rules compared to vehicles. Either have vehicles just have hull points or give MC's a way to lose arms and legs while being hurt, or maybe insta-die from a headshot.

Make cover a simple to hit mod. -1 for stealth/standard cover/jinking, -2 maximum for stealth in cover/shrouded/ruins. No cover saves.

Get rid of summoning. Murder it or make it some temp effect where the summoned models automatically vanish if the summoner casts something else, and they place a drain on your warp charges while they're out.

Fix broken rules. FAQ stuff. Really this shouldn't even need to be said.

The voltron detachments are actually a pretty good army building mechanic. Bring those to all the armies. Preferably like the eldar warhost with multiple core blueprints to choose from.

Beyond that, go head-hunting in codices looking for major offenders in point-efficiency, and start fixing. Watch tournaments to see what "always" and "never" gets taken by upper table lists, like scatbikes, wraithknights, canoptek harvests, or terminators and vespid.

Make some official tournament formats and monitor tournaments as above for points erratas.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Get rid of the 15 minutes of pre-game ran-dumb-ness. Warlord traits, psychic powers, random gifts, etc. those things should be picked and ready at the list building stage.

For some armies this makes sense, but yes, it takes too long right now. The randomness feels like sometimes it's just there to screw you over. If my Chaos Force gets Black Crusader, suddenly I'm doing fantastic against Space Marines. Otherwise I'm doing pretty badly.

Whoever thought random assault range was a good idea needs to die in a fire.

I like the random range more than I thought I would. You can usually be pretty sure, but sometimes your opponent fails a critical charge, or succeeds in a highly unexpected one. That allows some interesting game variance that I don't think I'd want to live without. Of course, that begs the question then of why not do it for shooting attacks too... (I do not want to see that, just pointing it out).

Get rid of some of the double standards between shooting and assault. Either allow deep strike/outflank/disembark assaults, or make shooting units that deep strike outflank or disembark unable to effectively shoot that round. Basically either have units being deleted on command by a surprise unit a thing that both can do, or neither can do.

This is a very good idea. I'd love to see all those Drop Pod marines suddenly only hit on 6's because they're dis-orientated from falling through the atmosphere. Deep Striking has gotten less and less dangerous by the edition, and Drop Pods get even more reliable the more enemies there are - which is totally messed up. This would be a welcome change.

Fix MC rules compared to vehicles. Either have vehicles just have hull points or give MC's a way to lose arms and legs while being hurt, or maybe insta-die from a headshot.

Not sure on this one. If vehicles only lose hull points, then what's the point of AP1 guns and anything else having to do with penetrating hits? Meanwhile, if you go the other way, why wouldn't regular multi-wound characters also lose abilities or be subject to the same rules as monstrous creatures? I like the current mix, but I think the biggest issue here are the Super-Heavies.

Make cover a simple to hit mod. -1 for stealth/standard cover/jinking, -2 maximum for stealth in cover/shrouded/ruins. No cover saves.

I'd like to see this for Stealth/Shrouded (to a minimum of BS1 - but still not snap fire), but not for actual Cover. Modifiers to cover should all be gaining Stealth/Shrouded to compensate for this.

Get rid of summoning. Murder it or make it some temp effect where the summoned models automatically vanish if the summoner casts something else, and they place a drain on your warp charges while they're out.

Your suggestion of modifying rather than get ridding of it altogether makes much more sense. Would make a nice daisy-chain effect if the original summoner got killed, then all the rest vanish. Fluffy too.

Fix broken rules. FAQ stuff. Really this shouldn't even need to be said.

It really shouldn't. I honestly am flabbergasted by this one. It's not 1990 any longer.

The voltron detachments are actually a pretty good army building mechanic. Bring those to all the armies. Preferably like the eldar warhost with multiple core blueprints to choose from.

I strongly disagree. I think that the unique rules given by the voltron detachments are fantastic - but that these should just be the core rules intrinsic to the armies themselves. Just give Necrons 4+ Reanimate, let all Eldar run 6", Space Marines get free basic transports, and Dark Angels fire at full ballistic skill. Why need to be a special detachment for that?

Beyond that, go head-hunting in codices looking for major offenders in point-efficiency, and start fixing. Watch tournaments to see what "always" and "never" gets taken by upper table lists, like scatbikes, wraithknights, canoptek harvests, or terminators and vespid.

If things were changed to a "living" codex, you could do that. I'd love this, but it's not going to happen so long as they make money selling codexes. Once that's no longer the case, then things will change. There was a great article about why this was - mostly due to newer codex printings meaning that they lose money on every single unsold codex prior. One day, this may very well be the case (though why not just go to a subscription model is beyond me). Until then, not going to happen.

Make some official tournament formats and monitor tournaments as above for points erratas.

I think this is great. There used to be an 'Ard Boyz format with big prizes. Some people say it was bad for the hobby, but their reasons seemed to be "people get too competitive". News flash, there will always be very competitive people. Unless you're in an area that's 100% casual, this can happen. if you don't like those tournaments, don't attend. If you don't want to run into "tourney practice lists", then just communicate with your opponent prior to the game that you don't want to play tournament-style lists.

I think the most important thing is to define what the game play of the current 40k game is supposed to be.
The scale and scope of the game play and the complexity of the interaction.

Then write rules focusing on that specific game play!

Rather than trying be a bit of everything to cover all bases and ending up a total mess.

If 40k is supposed to be a massed battle game with 28mm minatures fine.if its supposed to be a detailed skirmish game great.

It can not be both at the same time as the current rules try to do!

It can be a massed battle game with detailed unit interaction.This is my preferred game play focus.

I think this 40k game play type could be covered in about 40 pages of rules with just 2 resolution methods and a more interactive game turn.
it is important to keep to D6s and the three stage damage resolution though, IMO.

A rule set written focusing on game play could be far more tactical and straight forward than the current rules set.If the rules were written for game play, rather than pimping the latest releases.

I will second/third/fourth the motion of removing unnecessary randomness.
The mentally disturbed warlords and psykers are the particularly crazy points: what do I specialize in today? Not sure...
Random charge distances: assault is bad enough without this.

I would second that things that make a target harder to hit: Jink, light cover, flyer, invisibility, area terrain, super mirage device 2000... have a to hit modifier applied.
Plus, no, Orks going past 6 do not get to remain at 6, you roll, for all 6's you roll again and need a 2+ or 3+ depending on the modifier.

Closest to closest wounding/removal of models: no.
Opponent selects which models within range of the weapon.
It will make for some truly hard "sniping".

I would like it where each group cannot intermingle in any way other than like two separate forces run by one player.
Further restrictions on "global" abilities for one faction affecting another ally: try to have allies manage abilities within themselves.
Prevent allies to "lend" other groups their vehicles (like drop pods).
Failing the above goal, if the groups do use abilities or vehicles not theirs, it should have a drawback: mishaps or higher chance of some kind of failure.

Firm rule:
No magically appearing next to a unit and shooting/assaulting it before they get a chance to do anything.
No assault can happen in turn 1.
No deep strike in turn one.
No outflank in turn one.

If a unit is allowed to disembark from a transport, they would be allowed to assault but cannot get the extra attack (kind of like a disordered assault) unless it is open topped or has an assault ramp, etc. (designed to dump troops into melee). I would suggest the same for deep-strike.

This is the bad one: points cost "balance".
I wish a formula was made for abilities and stats of the models equaling a base cost.
Then an "overhead" cost for the model due to army inherent abilities or global effects that can be applied.
Hence the above rule on no intermingling of abilities / equipment of different armies lend some stability.

"Overhead cost" would need to be calculated for overall faction rules and availability of abilities a model may use that extends past the unit it joins (like the psykic hood).

Formations should be complete unto themselves: self-contained.
Use the proposed formula for the models and then apply the faction "overhead" cost based on what special rules are included/applied to the formation.
To be clear: to be treated like a separate army, no other abilities or vehicles can be added to the unit for use.
I see formations as an opportunity for a specialty group for "flavor".
Imagine the "13th Penal Legion Last Chancers" as a fine example.
Again a means of trying to prevent abuse but allow for a measureable means of balance without too many outside multipliers.

Vehicles with a # of attacks stat, monstrous creatures or LOW cannot be locked in combat unless with the 3 types listed.
(Preventing a huge machine of destruction being pinned down by Gretchen).
We need a "killing these is pointless" rule to go with "our weapons are useless" rule.

This is about where I would want it to be.
<edit> I think the "complete to itself" allies and formations may have the side benefit of breaking armies into "chunks" so it may scale better due to "global" rules and ally interactions having less effect.
Criticize but please suggest what you would do different.

But guys, balance is for waac tryhards, amirite?

But a serious note, 5th would probably be the best starting place for balance, throw on hull points, overwatch, change up kill points (don't know how 4e victory points worked) and you're probably 25% of the way there, wouldn't know where to start in the land of codex's and supplements.

5th edition would be a better place to start to try to achieve batter game balance than 6th or 7th ed.

But what a bout the flaws in the core rules that have been there since 3rd ed?
Is anyone interested in addressing the flaws that negatively impact on game play?

Does 40k rule set need to be so damn complicated, when the game play is relatively straight forward.
Do some players think complication in the rules is a good substitute for complexity in the game play?

Does 40k need to use 8 resolution methods and over 80 special rules to deliver the same amount of game play as a most other games manage with 2 resolution methods and a dozen or so special rules.

Too much over complication in the rules means 'special rules' and 'randum rolls' are used to drive the game play .Rather than using more suitable core rules to do the job.

Nuke it from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Id say improve it but i think GW will just take it as, take a sledge hammer as you hedons Don't deserve to play 40k.

Then re release 40k as something else probably age of Calgar.

Put the rules and all codices through a shredder and start over from scratch.

Not much to input here, most of my ideas have already been posted but:

Vehicles. Stop trying to make us functionally Monstrous Creatures that are weaker than other Monstrous Creatures. At least MS's dont havt to worry about being oneshotted by a lucky role on the damage table or being engaged in close combat by basic infantry. Hell, most MC's do not have to bother about basic infantry rapid firing them to death
Vehicles on the other hand do. They now have Hull Points which are essentially wounds for vehicles, and thanks to this most vehicles are vulnerable to basic infantry guns. A squad of Space Marines should not be able to bolter a Leman Russ to death but thanks to GW's slowed system they can quite easily kill a Leman Russ a turn if they are in its rear arc. More so if they have attached weapons.
So, vehicles are currently functioning akin to Monstrous Creatures for damage purposes. But MC's do not risk losing the ability to fight and possibley move next turn. They do not have to worry about weapons and legs being shot off, they have saves (usually very good saves) against all these wounding/damaging hits. And they do not have to worry about a lucky Lascannon shot causing them to spontaneously explode.

Get rid of the HP system. It is crap.

Instead I propose the following solution: When you hit roll to pen as normal. If you score above 10 but equal too or below the facings armour value then you glance it. If you roll above you penetrate. Roll on the appropriate table:

Glancing:
0- No effect: 'That one bounced'
1-3 crew stunned: Minus 1BS next turn
4 crew shaken: Minus 1BS next turn and half move only
5 Weapon destroyed: One randomly determined weapon is destroyed
6 Immobilised: The vehicle is immobilised for the rest of the game, unless is repaired
7+ Heavy damage: Vehicle is immobilised and one randomly determined weapon is destroyed

Penetrating:
0- Light damage: Roll on the glancing hit table with a +1
1 crew shaken: Minus 1BS next turn and half move only
2 Weapon Destroyed: One randomly determined weapon is destroyed
3 Immobilised: The vehicle is immobilised for the rest of the battle, unless it is repaired
4-5 Vehicle wrecked: The vehicle is destroyed. Leave the model on the table, it counts as impassible terrain.
6 Vehicle explodes: Roll a D6. All models within this range take a S4 AP4 hit. Leave the wreck in place, it counts as impassible terrain and blocks all LOS that moves through it
7+ EXPLOSION!!!: Roll 2D6. All models in this range take a S8 AP3 hit. Remove the vehicle model and, if possible, replace it with a crater.

If a result is inflicted that cannot take effect (such as an immobilised result on an already immobilised vehicle or a weapon destroyed result on an unarmed vehicle) then the attacker can add +1 or -1 to the damage roll.
If a vehicle (NOT a fortification) is immobilised and has no weapons then it is considered destroyed.

Modifiers:
AP1: +2 to the damage roll
AP2: +1 to the damage roll
AP6: -1 to the damage roll
AP- -2 to the damage roll

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd take 5E, slap in 4E Victory Points instead of Kill Points & 4E wound allocation rules, put in 7E Rapid Fire, Snapshot, vehicle squadron, & transported passenger effects rules, reduce most non-Ruins cover to 5+ cover from 4+, maybe a couple of other tweaks, and you've got a damn near perfect 40k ruleset.

7E at this point is an unplayable mess for anything but small group play with extensive self imposed (explicit or implicit) restrictions.

This. No more needs to be said.

 Flugel Meister wrote:
As the title says, and only if you think it needs changing. I wouldn't suggest lowering the price because that is unlikely to happen. However, I would like the rulebook and codices to drop a little. I believe that's a reasonable expectation.

So, it can be rules, armies, terrain, fiction, anything.

Everything.


Proper consistent design philosophy, good balance as a priority and watertight, streamlined, straight forward and intuitive rules. A defined direction and scale too, rather than 'kitchen sink'...

 Azreal13 wrote:
Nuke it from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

With Peregrine gone, someone needs to take up the mantle in these threads.

Everything has room for improvement, and 40K is no different.

Right now the biggest drawback in 40K is the lackluster appeal of most basic troops for most armies compared to the ones with bells and whistles-

Do you want 10 space marines with bolters, or do you want 10 space marines with bolters AND special ammunition?

To some extent that's the point where anything breaks down. Unless they give a tactical marine new equipment, any change to them should carry over to the fluffy more experienced tactical marine- i.e. they'd have to create Mark IX Power Armor with a riot-shield type bullet blocker too bulky for spec-ops units like sternguard that lets tac marines reroll their armor save.

Then make a bolter (and corresponding other basic weapons like lasguns) improved i.e. bolter is salvo 4/6, unless you use special ammunition in which case it's fewer but better shots (because it's not the basic weapon anymore)

The choice between a Tactical squad and a Sternguard squad (or any other but for example-) should be a choice not a tax, and it should be a HARD choice that requires more thought than how many points per model do I have to spend?