I have played Warhammer 40k since my early teens some 15 odd years ago, but it has only been in recent years where I've been dropping back in and out of the hobby since I left uni where I've begun to notice the great imbalances in the game and between different armies and units. This always leads to me lose interest after some time and drop out of the hobby, only to come back because of the great models and interesting and rich background but with a new edition of the rules, which turns out to be just as imbalanced or more so than previous editions.
My proposal for this community project it to right all the wrongs of the careless rule writers at Games Workshop and bring some semblance of balance to 40k, a new rule-set based closely on the official rules but tailored via community input to be balanced for more competitive and entertaining games. Rules which can be adopted by clubs and tournament organisers and the community as a whole around the world. However, not only will the core rules need to be addressed but the codexes themselves as balancing can not come from core rules alone, the eventual goal of the project would be that every single codex unit is a viable option to be used in a competitive and varied list, death to spam lists I say!
What will be required -
A project chairman. Someone passionate about the project, but also who has the time and capability to organise a project of this scale and delegate responsibility amongst all project members, able to manage a large number of people and chair meetings on voip software. This person must be focused on the goal of a tightly balanced rule-set(not lets do this because it benefits my army of choice).
A secretary. A person with the skillset needed to take some of the workload off the chairman and co-ordinate with the committee, writers and community as a whole.
A committee of up to maybe 20-30 people with vast experience of the game, veterans that know the ins and outs of 40k but fed up with the imbalance and willing to do something about it. These 30 people will be responsible for collection of ideas from the community as well as bringing in their own ideas to be voted on by either the committee or the 40k community for major proposals. Again these people must be driven to achieve the goal of the project and be able to work together towards that common goal.
A team of highly competent writers will be required during the re-writing of the core rules, able to adhere to strict naming convention and follow a coherent writing style and also able to write clear rules in plain English that are not easy to misconstrue.
Proof readers....NO TYPOS ALOUD!
And of course ALL OF YOU! the community, without support from the community projects such as this are doomed to fail! Constant input and feedback to the members of the project will be needed if this stands any chance of success.
Right now I'm testing the waters, I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this idea, if the initial feedback is positive then I will start looking to find people that are interested in taking up roles within the project.
xruslanx wrote: I don't think you need a "project". I could "balance" the IG codex in about 5 minutes, i daresay most people could do the same for their codex.
It's more to do with ending up with something that will be widely accepted and adopted by everyone.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Interesting idea but by the time everything is ironed out they will come out with a new version.
Isn't the plural of Codex -> codices?
Which could easily be ignored if the community project rules are just flat out better in every way.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Interesting idea but by the time everything is ironed out they will come out with a new version.
Isn't the plural of Codex -> codices?
Yes, but a Warhammer Codex has been largely accepted as a different thing than the old/unusual term for book/collection of writings and codexes is normally the accepted plural.
xruslanx wrote: Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.
You mean only if you understand how the language works and don't insist on inventing new words just because you're GW and you're special. The plural of 'codex' is 'codices', end of discussion.
orkybenji wrote: It would be nice if such a thing took off. You could walk into your FLGS, find a random opponent. Ask "vanilla or balance hammer?" And go from there.
Yes exactly and hopefully once someone had tried the project ruleset they would stick to it because it would lead to better balanced and more fun games.
xruslanx wrote: I don't think you need a "project". I could "balance" the IG codex in about 5 minutes, i daresay most people could do the same for their codex.
No you couldn't. You could make some of the biggest balance issues less severe but making a balanced set of rules requires huge amounts of playtesting and design work. An IG codex with 175 point Vendettas is not a finished balanced codex, and that's all you're going to get with a small amount of effort.
xruslanx wrote: Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.
You mean only if you understand how the language works and don't insist on inventing new words just because you're GW and you're special. The plural of 'codex' is 'codices', end of discussion.
The Oxford Dictionary disagrees. In general English usage, either is acceptable.
xruslanx wrote: Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.
You mean only if you understand how the language works and don't insist on inventing new words just because you're GW and you're special. The plural of 'codex' is 'codices', end of discussion.
It is if you want to rigidly adhere to Latin grammar rules.
If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.
Mike712 wrote: If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.
Honestly, what makes your plan more likely to succeed and deserving of publicity than all the countless other "it would be really cool if someone re-balanced 40k" proposals that have been made in the past?
I don't mean to be rude by saying this, but I think it is largely a waste of time. If you want to play a balanced game there are plenty of alternatives out there. Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Dust and others all have balanced rules and great models in their own right. Maybe just give one of those games a shot. They are cheaper to get started and it doesn't mean you can't still play 40k when you're looking for more casual games and don't want to focus and super balanced game play. It will save you a lot of time and you'e likely to find a community who has the same mindset as you when it comes to gaming.
azreal13 wrote: Can we have a little less of the linguistic willy waving now? I think this is great idea, and something I've been seriously thinking about myself
It's good to hear some positivity about the idea already!
Mike712 wrote: If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.
Honestly, what makes your plan more likely to succeed and deserving of publicity than all the countless other "it would be really cool if someone re-balanced 40k" proposals that have been made in the past?
Starfarer wrote: I don't mean to be rude by saying this, but I think it is largely a waste of time. If you want to play a balanced game there are plenty of alternatives out there. Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Dust and others all have balanced rules and great models in their own right. Maybe just give one of those games a shot. They are cheaper to get started and it doesn't mean you can't still play 40k when you're looking for more casual games and don't want to focus and super balanced game play. It will save you a lot of time and you'e likely to find a community who has the same mindset as you when it comes to gaming.
Yes, that's a fair point, but those games aren't 40k, there's just something about the 40k models and fluff that seem more appealing to many, and yes I've seen other systems, warma/hordes is played extensively at my local club. The 40k rule-set has potential in it, it's just that games workshop makes up some crazy rules to sell unpopular models, iron out these broken rules, ditch the stuff that makes no sense, balance some points costs and you end up with a balanced and fun game.
My personal thoughts were more along a kind of "40K Advanced" so not just balance, but also a few other tweaks to.
(My initial thoughts were a return to to hit modifiers for speed and cover, rather than cover saves, some adjustments to make assault more viable and less unpredictable, as you might surmise, I hadn't really got deep into it!)
Mike712 wrote: If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.
Honestly, what makes your plan more likely to succeed and deserving of publicity than all the countless other "it would be really cool if someone re-balanced 40k" proposals that have been made in the past?
I'm willing to put in considerable work myself, I know what's broken and what doesn't work well in the 40k rule set, I'm willing to sit down with other 40k fans and discuss at length over voice comms problems with the game and what can be done to change it. I'm willing to make compromises for the better of everyone who plays 40k and I'm open to listening to the community as a whole.
This is a community project, we're all passionate about our hobby lets make it better together!
Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.
Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.
azreal13 wrote: My personal thoughts were more along a kind of "40K Advanced" so not just balance, but also a few other tweaks to.
(My initial thoughts were a return to to hit modifiers for speed and cover, rather than cover saves, some adjustments to make assault more viable and less unpredictable, as you might surmise, I hadn't really got deep into it!)
These are all things that would be brought up during the committee stage of the project, deciding how the fundamentals of the game works is the first step, once a consensus is reached, some play testing done on the alpha balancehammer 40k rule-set the basics tweaked, how the turn works, movement, shooting, assault, the committee would then move onto finer details such as balancing special rules, then finally onto the armies themselves.
Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.
Much of the streamlining to keep things relatively simple makes for a good game, it's only the really daft or broken stuff that completely ruins things.
Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.
I am fully aware of what such a project entails, this is why I'm trying to enlist the help of 40 or so people, I know there are those out there that would be willing to put some time into making this a reality, we all like to talk about our hobby right? well lets put that towards something productive!
Mike712 wrote: Much of the streamlining to keep things relatively simple makes for a good game, it's only the really daft broken stuff that completely ruins things.
Are we talking about the same game here? One of 40k's biggest problems is the lack of streamlining, there are way too many rules with pointless detail and dice rolling.
Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.
Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.
Honestly? You don't go promoting any fix 40K thread.
You're pretty vocal about opinion of 40K, and I'm largely in the same camp, but if your reaction to someone saying "well, ok, let's fix it" is to be equally negative, then one could, perhaps quite reasonably, accuse you of just being negative, and perhaps enjoying moaning more than sorting anything out.
Perhaps this is an attempt that succeeds, perhaps it isn't, but if everyone shares your attitude, failure is a nailed on, cast iron guarantee.
Plus the OP has expressed a desire to undertake a large percentage of the work, but it makes sense to use a resource like a massive online wargaming community and all its experience in this sort of project (as long as it doesn't go all Gates Of Antares)
After the immense butthurt over"community FAQ" and how so many egos wanted their own interpretation and the fragmented way now of " how the game should be played" you will NEVER get an agreement of valid balance from the so-called community and especially never see it used universally as every person would have their own ideas and will modify it to suit their local event, which in turn defeats the purpose.
Rules by committee never work when doing game development, it won't work when rewriting rules. You would just need to do it yourself, publish it, then solicit feedback and then make it "your" balance hammer. If it is good, then it might take off... Or it might not. Even if you had perfect balancehammer, many will never read it simply because it is not official, regardless how useful it is.
Sounds like a disaster and a waste of time, especially since the people who play 40k don't have an issue for the most part with imbalance, and those who want true balance and skill can just play a better game.
Mike712 wrote: Much of the streamlining to keep things relatively simple makes for a good game, it's only the really daft broken stuff that completely ruins things.
Are we talking about the same game here? One of 40k's biggest problems is the lack of streamlining, there are way too many rules with pointless detail and dice rolling.
Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game, I've thought friends how to play using a few 100 points on my dining table, the many special rules just add an abundance of variety in my opinion plus a potential for a lot more if all units were actually viable some just need to be toned down, altered or even re-worded to be less ambiguous for the sake of balance.
Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.
Not to Word Nerd on you, but thee correct plural is codices. GW maintained "codexes" for the longest time, and then under the veil of night, they took to their Errata and FAQs and put them all to the sword until the interns in charge of the PDFs changed it to the correct version, which is, has been, and always should be, codices.
As for the topic at hand, if anyone can get their hands on Just Dave, he might be down for helping with an endeavor, he's penned a fandex or two while here on Dakka.
nkelsch wrote: After the immense butthurt over"community FAQ" and how so many egos wanted their own interpretation and the fragmented way now of " how the game should be played" you will NEVER get an agreement of valid balance from the so-called community and especially never see it used universally as every person would have their own ideas and will modify it to suit their local event, which in turn defeats the purpose.
Rules by committee never work when doing game development, it won't work when rewriting rules. You would just need to do it yourself, publish it, then solicit feedback and then make it "your" balance hammer. If it is good, then it might take off... Or it might not. Even if you had perfect balancehammer, many will never read it simply because it is not official, regardless how useful it is.
Sounds like a disaster and a waste of time, especially since the people who play 40k don't have an issue for the most part with imbalance, and those who want true balance and skill can just play a better game.
To start with I would only be looking for people who can set their egos aside, if someone can't be rational and diplomatic they are in no way suited to a project of this sort, I see no reason why 20 ish calm logical people via discussion could not come up with a rule-set that would appeal to most if not all.
Rules coming from a single person are more likely to be one sided, 20-30 people would cover a fairly broad scope of the community, if more than half of those people vote in one direction or another on an idea, it's likely that at least half the community will agree with that decision too, that's just the way things work, as in a democracy most people will end up more of less happy. About it being official, well yes something like this would never be "official" but if it became so successful due to it's own merits as a game, that wouldn't really matter, because everyone in the community would be saying "play this balancehammer it's better" it's not like any of us actually play in GW stores anymore anyway.
I would say that's untrue, on the net and spoken about at every club I've been to, is how this or that is broken, it's fairly well documented that people are consistently unhappy with the imbalances in 40k.
Alfndrate wrote: Not to Word Nerd on you, but thee correct plural is codices. GW maintained "codexes" for the longest time, and then under the veil of night, they took to their Errata and FAQs and put them all to the sword until the interns in charge of the PDFs changed it to the correct version, which is, has been, and always should be, codices.
Again, as per the Oxford Dictionary, either is acceptable. So how about we all stop de-railing the thread with arguments over spelling?
Firstly I'd be all for this and love to be a part of it. I've already made my own attempt at it using the Warmachine rules (which worked well) but I'm happy to do another version if it gives me a 40K I can easily play.
Secondly I think that the whole thing needs to go and be redone from the ground up, and some things should probably be excluded.
Mike712 wrote: Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game, I've thought friends how to play using a few 100 points on my dining table, the many special rules just add an abundance of variety in my opinion plus a potential for a lot more if all units were actually viable some just need to be toned down, altered or even re-worded to be less ambiguous for the sake of balance.
I'm not talking about the over-abundance of special rules, I'm talking about core mechanics. For example, wound allocation is a hopeless mess. You need to keep track of where each model in the unit is, exactly how far away from each model in the shooting unit it is, whether a tiny fingertip is poking out from behind cover or not, etc. And most of the time the difference between the current system and just rolling all your saves and removing models of your choice is not very significant. A better game attempting to operate at 40k's scale would use the simpler method to keep things moving faster, even if it means sacrificing a bit of realism (not that 40k's system is at all realistic, of course).
Or consider even the basic stat line. Why does WS exist at all as a separate stat? All it does is decide whether you hit/get hit on a 3+ or a 4+, and the answer is almost always the same as just comparing initiative values. The answer is that 40k is just a re-skinned 1980s fantasy game where the outcome was usually decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table and shooting was limited at best. Keeping WS in the game is just pointless extra complexity, and that's one of the smallest problems with the assault phase.
Also, I really doubt you're teaching anyone the game in 20 minutes. A very simplified version of move-shoot-assault with basic infantry squads and a goal of "be able to roll the dice" that doesn't necessarily involve understanding very well, maybe. But that's not even close to the full game.
Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.
Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.
Honestly? You don't go promoting any fix 40K thread.
You're pretty vocal about opinion of 40K, and I'm largely in the same camp, but if your reaction to someone saying "well, ok, let's fix it" is to be equally negative, then one could, perhaps quite reasonably, accuse you of just being negative, and perhaps enjoying moaning more than sorting anything out.
Perhaps this is an attempt that succeeds, perhaps it isn't, but if everyone shares your attitude, failure is a nailed on, cast iron guarantee.
Plus the OP has expressed a desire to undertake a large percentage of the work, but it makes sense to use a resource like a massive online wargaming community and all its experience in this sort of project (as long as it doesn't go all Gates Of Antares)
That has been my experience.
Dakka user X: I like 40k, I enjoy the experience playing. The rules aren't great but I get by.
Peregrine: how can you enjoy it, you yourself say the rules aren't great. Since when has getting by been the standard for fun? The game is completely unbalanced etc etc etc
Dakka user Y: let's get together and figure out how to make 40k a fun and balanced system. I am even willing to do the lions share of the work.
Peregrine: can't be done. Who are you to do this anyway, what makes this something I should support? Nothing.
On topic, while I do enjoy 40k if a system for using my cool models existed that was more balanced and still enjoyable I would use them in a second. If I had more time I would help you develop this, if it works out that you are making head way I will gladly help promote it anyway that I can. Best of luck.
Kojiro wrote: Firstly I'd be all for this and love to be a part of it. I've already made my own attempt at it using the Warmachine rules (which worked well) but I'm happy to do another version if it gives me a 40K I can easily play.
Secondly I think that the whole thing needs to go and be redone from the ground up, and some things should probably be excluded.
Splendid, at this stage any and all support I can get is very welcomed!
Mike712 wrote: Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game, I've thought friends how to play using a few 100 points on my dining table, the many special rules just add an abundance of variety in my opinion plus a potential for a lot more if all units were actually viable some just need to be toned down, altered or even re-worded to be less ambiguous for the sake of balance.
I'm not talking about the over-abundance of special rules, I'm talking about core mechanics. For example, wound allocation is a hopeless mess. You need to keep track of where each model in the unit is, exactly how far away from each model in the shooting unit it is, whether a tiny fingertip is poking out from behind cover or not, etc. And most of the time the difference between the current system and just rolling all your saves and removing models of your choice is not very significant. A better game attempting to operate at 40k's scale would use the simpler method to keep things moving faster, even if it means sacrificing a bit of realism (not that 40k's system is at all realistic, of course).
Or consider even the basic stat line. Why does WS exist at all as a separate stat? All it does is decide whether you hit/get hit on a 3+ or a 4+, and the answer is almost always the same as just comparing initiative values. The answer is that 40k is just a re-skinned 1980s fantasy game where the outcome was usually decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table and shooting was limited at best. Keeping WS in the game is just pointless extra complexity, and that's one of the smallest problems with the assault phase.
Also, I really doubt you're teaching anyone the game in 20 minutes. A very simplified version of move-shoot-assault with basic infantry squads and a goal of "be able to roll the dice" that doesn't necessarily involve understanding very well, maybe. But that's not even close to the full game.
I definitely agree with you about wound allocation being a mess, that's for certain. I'm sure you have many ideas on how to address these issues, if there's enough interest for this idea over the next few days I'll create a forum for the project where each core mechanic can be discussed individually in detail starting with the basics, maybe start on turn sequence and movement, I'd really appreciate your input if you're up for it.
OverwatchCNC wrote: Dakka user Y: let's get together and figure out how to make 40k a fun and balanced system. I am even willing to do the lions share of the work.
Peregrine: can't be done. Who are you to do this anyway, what makes this something I should support? Nothing.
You know why I say that? Because there's never a good plan for moving "lets get together and fix this" beyond making a few forum posts and then giving up. If someone presents a solid plan for writing a new game in the 40k universe and getting anyone to ever play it then I will happily participate in the project. But so far the OP looks like just another "lets fix this" thread that will be forgotten by the end of the week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike712 wrote: I definitely agree with you about wound allocation being a mess, that's for certain. I'm sure you have many ideas on how to address these issues, if there's enough interest for this idea over the next few days I'll create a forum for the project where each core mechanic can be discussed individually in detail starting with the basics, maybe start on turn sequence and movement, I'd really appreciate your input if you're up for it.
You're already several steps too far ahead in the design process. Before you can even start to think about mechanics you need to decide what exactly the goal of the game is. Is it to make a skirmish-scale game with a focus on heroic characters? Is it to make a company-scale game with epic battles and tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it to make a competitive tournament game? Etc. Without doing the basics you can't even begin to answer questions about, say, what a good movement mechanic is, because what a good movement mechanic is depends on what the goal of the game is.
For example:
Skirmish game: lots of detail. Varying speeds for different units/characters, special effects for different terrain type, detailed rules for climbing in ruins/smashing through a locked door/etc.
Company-scale: lots of abstraction. All units of a class move X" measured in a straight line. Terrain is simplified to a small number of types. Units are assumed to be able to find a ladder/kick the door down/etc.
Tournament: lots of precision. Measuring freely on a table leaves too much opportunity for cheating, so use a grid system instead.
On topic, while I do enjoy 40k if a system for using my cool models existed that was more balanced and still enjoyable I would use them in a second. If I had more time I would help you develop this, if it works out that you are making head way I will gladly help promote it anyway that I can. Best of luck.
Thanks, it's very encouraging seeing others that would also like to see change for the better, any input no matter how small will be greatly appreciated, even if it's just ideas and suggestions that can be discussed during the committee stage.
To the OP: before committing time and resources, I would think very hard about exactly what the game needs to be balanced. IMO either you scrap the entire ruleset to it's core and build up a ruleset that is capable of representing 40k from a fluff perspective, and probably other sci-fi settings (that might mean that existing forces based on the stucture of GW codices may be irrelevant). Such rulesets already exist and may be able to be tweaked slightly to be playable or more accurate for the 40k universe.
Or, are we talking about some points changes, the addition of a few rules changes here and there? In that case I think some unit comp is a better choice. The game of 40k is random enough as it is that merely limiting some particularly deadly combos and spam would have the desired effect. In friendly games this is done automatically by peer pressure. Some books might still be better than others yes, but the game is random and unbalanced to it's core. The whole thing is meant to be played casually so that's how you should play it.
Peregrine wrote: You know why I say that? Because there's never a good plan for moving "lets get together and fix this" beyond making a few forum posts and then giving up. If someone presents a solid plan for writing a new game in the 40k universe and getting anyone to ever play it then I will happily participate in the project. But so far the OP looks like just another "lets fix this" thread that will be forgotten by the end of the week.
In fairness, my 40K conversion to the PP ruleset is playable with over 100 units, and locally we've done just that. Granted that doesn't address getting players elsewhere to pick it up but I for one have the energy and devotion to do it. Files available in my sig if you doubt.
Peregrine wrote: You're already several steps too far ahead in the design process. Before you can even start to think about mechanics you need to decide what exactly the goal of the game is. Is it to make a skirmish-scale game with a focus on heroic characters? Is it to make a company-scale game with epic battles and tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it to make a competitive tournament game? Etc. Without doing the basics you can't even begin to answer questions about, say, what a good movement mechanic is, because what a good movement mechanic is depends on what the goal of the game is.
This bit however I must wholly agree with. 40K used to be a skirmish sized game and has moved to near Epic. All of this needs to be looked at and decided before anything gets done. That doesn't mean it can't be done though.
And by the way, one of the biggest reasons why 40k's rules are garbage is that GW refuses to answer those questions. They don't have a clear picture of what kind of game they want 40k to be so they just bolt on more rules every time they think of a cool idea. So in the same edition they add rules where whether a sergeant is armed with an axe or a sword is very important and the sergeant will fight epic duels against enemy sergeants, but also add rules where that sergeant can be sniped out of the squad on turn 1 by a heavy artillery tank (which just happens to be much more accurate than an actual sniper rifle).
Meade wrote: To the OP: before committing time and resources, I would think very hard about exactly what the game needs to be balanced. IMO either you scrap the entire ruleset to it's core and build up a ruleset that is capable of representing 40k from a fluff perspective, and probably other sci-fi settings (that might mean that existing forces based on the stucture of GW codices may be irrelevant). Such rulesets already exist and may be able to be tweaked slightly to be playable or more accurate for the 40k universe.
Or, are we talking about some points changes, the addition of a few rules changes here and there? In that case I think some unit comp is a better choice. The game of 40k is random enough as it is that merely limiting some particularly deadly combos and spam would have the desired effect. In friendly games this is done automatically by peer pressure. Some books might still be better than others yes, but the game is random and unbalanced to it's core. The whole thing is meant to be played casually so that's how you should play it.
I personally and also others who have posted here believe that some or much of the core game needs a bit of shaking up, it will have to be a somewhat new rule set to avoid stepping on GWs copy-write anyway, though using some of the better more playable elements from current or past editions of the game so it still feels like 40k.
The army changes themselves would be minor rules and points tweaks to bring not only balance between all the codexes, but internal balance too.
You're already several steps too far ahead in the design process. Before you can even start to think about mechanics you need to decide what exactly the goal of the game is. Is it to make a skirmish-scale game with a focus on heroic characters? Is it to make a company-scale game with epic battles and tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it to make a competitive tournament game? Etc. Without doing the basics you can't even begin to answer questions about, say, what a good movement mechanic is, because what a good movement mechanic is depends on what the goal of the game is.
For example:
Skirmish game: lots of detail. Varying speeds for different units/characters, special effects for different terrain type, detailed rules for climbing in ruins/smashing through a locked door/etc.
Company-scale: lots of abstraction. All units of a class move X" measured in a straight line. Terrain is simplified to a small number of types. Units are assumed to be able to find a ladder/kick the door down/etc.
Tournament: lots of precision. Measuring freely on a table leaves too much opportunity for cheating, so use a grid system instead.
It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.
It's warhammer 40k, but balanced and no longer a victim of codex creep.
Mike712 wrote: It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.
Even this though is contentious. As I said, 40k started out as a skirmish game and I for one would like to see it go back that way. There's a ton of stuff I think has no place in the game (notably super heavies and fliers) and would be better suited to Epic but is currently part of 40k. I think if a overhaul is on the table it should address everything- including the scale, not just poor wording or contradictions.
Mike, you'll need to define for yourself what a "poor rule or mechanic" is, as well as what a "worthless or broken unit" looks like.
If you intend to stick with this long term, you do need to have a clear goal in mind, and then set goals for each step of the process, starting from the largest picture possible and going down from there. Part of that has to be you deciding what exactly you want to do. Are you looking for a total rewrite? Or are you looking to just tweak units or abilities or some other small aspect of the game?
You then have to realize that there has to be a decision maker, and some of those helping will get butthurt when their suggestions aren't taken. You simply won't get a group of guys(hell, 5 guys would be hard to do) to actually agree on all the intracacies of a new ruleset. It's also going to be a HUGE load of work to do.
If you manage to pull it off, you'll have something pretty sweet in front of you. But it will take years.
Mike712 wrote: It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.
The problem is that 40k is several different games blobbed into a single rulebook. You have skirmish-scale rules for fighting heroic duels between characters in the same game as epic-scale tanks and aircraft, with design decisions pulling in opposite directions. You have tons of statements about "forging the narrative" alongside tables of random warlord traits/terrain/etc that replace character/story choices by the player with random luck. And the whole rulebook is full of stuff like that. You can't start getting rid of "poor rules and mechanics" until you define which 40k you want to work with because which rules need to go is going to depend heavily on that choice.
And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.
Mike712 wrote: It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.
The problem is that 40k is several different games blobbed into a single rulebook. You have skirmish-scale rules for fighting heroic duels between characters in the same game as epic-scale tanks and aircraft, with design decisions pulling in opposite directions. You have tons of statements about "forging the narrative" alongside tables of random warlord traits/terrain/etc that replace character/story choices by the player with random luck. And the whole rulebook is full of stuff like that. You can't start getting rid of "poor rules and mechanics" until you define which 40k you want to work with because which rules need to go is going to depend heavily on that choice.
And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.
- I feel the scale should remain somewhere around where it is now, where games generally work best with around 1-2k points of models on the board, of course the model counts would be ever so slightly different with rebalanced codexes.
- I honestly don't know what I'd personally do about fliers, tanks should remain more or less where they are though I guess you could move all vehicles over to toughness + save for the sake of simplicity what's the point in having 2 systems.
- Duels(challenges) should to go in my opinion, they don't bring anything to the game I feel, I'm not sure how others feel about this.
- You're right IGOUGO needs to be changed to something else, being alpha'd off the board without any chance to retaliate is bad however you look at it.
- I'm not keen on fortifications, they need looking into, at least balancing like some tournaments already do.
- I'm personally not keen on the randomness of powers and traits, I think simply reduce the number of them, balance them all in power/usefulness depending on the army build and let you choose them.
- Cover saves are a poor mechanic, a to hit modifier would be better, how to scale this correctly would take play testing.
- Wound allocation needs fixing as you already said.
- Assault armies need some way of actually assaulting.
Mike712 wrote: - You're right IGOUGO needs to be changed to something else, being alpha'd off the board without any chance to retaliate is bad however you look at it.
And this right here negates everything else on your list. You can't even begin to talk about rebalancing fortifications because fortifications in a new 40k-universe game with a different turn structure are going to be so different from the current ones balance-wise that you might as well be talking about how many points Vendettas should cost in MTG.
So, like I said, you're way ahead of where you should be. Stop looking at individual rules you want to fix and start working on defining your idea how how this new game should play. What do you want to experience in an average game?
troa wrote: Mike, you'll need to define for yourself what a "poor rule or mechanic" is, as well as what a "worthless or broken unit" looks like.
If you intend to stick with this long term, you do need to have a clear goal in mind, and then set goals for each step of the process, starting from the largest picture possible and going down from there. Part of that has to be you deciding what exactly you want to do. Are you looking for a total rewrite? Or are you looking to just tweak units or abilities or some other small aspect of the game?
You then have to realize that there has to be a decision maker, and some of those helping will get butthurt when their suggestions aren't taken. You simply won't get a group of guys(hell, 5 guys would be hard to do) to actually agree on all the intracacies of a new ruleset. It's also going to be a HUGE load of work to do.
If you manage to pull it off, you'll have something pretty sweet in front of you. But it will take years.
If i didn't get the writing support I needed I'd probably do most of the writing myself and simply change the worst rules based on advice from the community and release it as a supplement to the BRB, at the same time as releasing balanced in both points and rules codex updates, if I get plenty of support and assistance I'm sure the scope of the project could be far greater.
Mike712 wrote: - You're right IGOUGO needs to be changed to something else, being alpha'd off the board without any chance to retaliate is bad however you look at it.
And this right here negates everything else on your list. You can't even begin to talk about rebalancing fortifications because fortifications in a new 40k-universe game with a different turn structure are going to be so different from the current ones balance-wise that you might as well be talking about how many points Vendettas should cost in MTG.
So, like I said, you're way ahead of where you should be. Stop looking at individual rules you want to fix and start working on defining your idea how how this new game should play. What do you want to experience in an average game?
I don't see how changing to say a system of alternating players move shoot assault a single unit till all units have moved shot assaulted changes anything but devastating alpha strikes with no chance to retaliate. Or add a new stat, turn sequence with a range 1-5, models with 1 go first 5 go last, or even alternate between players fast attack/HQ, elites/HQ, troops/HQ, heavy in more or less that order.
Mike712 wrote: I don't see how changing to say a system of alternating players move shoot assault a single unit till all units have moved shot assaulted changes anything but devastating alpha strikes with no chance to retaliate. Or add a new stat, turn sequence with a range 1-5, models with 1 go first 5 go last, or even alternate between players fast attack/HQ, elites/HQ, troops/HQ, heavy in more or less that order.
How many games have you played with this new system?
I think what Peregrine is saying is the turn sequence is the underlying OS of the game, so to speak. Once you decide you're changing that EVERYTHING needs an overhaul in line with it.
I think the first thing to start with though is scale. Work out what you want to see on the table and remember there is already a perfectly good Epic system out there. Once you have that a turn order and then rules for individual actions within that order. Then, once you have a system that supports vanilla troops mauling each other you can actually look at building special rules in to account for fluff.
Instead of Overhauling the whole 6th edition, why not replace the problematic rules, with the rules that worked from previous edition's? (as far as it is possible).
I personally would like to see the CC return from the 2nd edition (and overwatch,although highly unlikely)
Jehan-reznor wrote: Instead of Overhauling the whole 6th edition, why not replace the problematic rules, with the rules that worked from previous edition's? (as far as it is possible)
Because many of the problems are with the fundamental mechanics (for example, the turn structure), so you need a complete re-write from the beginning. And the old rules aren't necessarily compatible with the newer ones, so you're probably introducing more problems than you solve.
For example, flyers: before 6th they had a permanent 4+ cover save and AA weapons were extremely rare (not even all flyer weapons were AA, a Thunderbolt had two AATL autocannons but the lascannons were not AA), but pretty much every flyer was AV 10 and "immobilized" results counted as "destroyed". And depending on whether you're talking about 4th or 5th their movement rules were completely different, either you made strafing runs during your opponent's turn and flew off the table immediately (4th), or moved anywhere on the table more than 36" away pointing in any direction (5th). You can't just change the current flyer rules to the old ones without completely re-balancing the current flyer and AA unit rules. Just to give an obvious example, Tau AA effectively deletes flyers from the game if you make all of them AV 10 again.
In order to break 40k down into a manageable ruleset you'd have to figure out what scale you want to play it on. Platoon, Company, Battalion, Regiment, Army, etc... that all matters.
I'd almost like to see a ruleset that is dependent on game point values; something like 0-500 uses rules X, 501-1000 uses rules Y, so that you could keep the lower point games with more involved rules but the higher point games wouldn't suffer. Of course, that's a stupid amount of work for something that people would probably just find annoying.
And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.
And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.
Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?
In cases where a person cannot 'defend' themselves in an IGOUGO format means that hot dice, 'better tactics', and unbalanced armies can lead to games ending long before their natural conclusion (i.e. turns 5-6). If you and I spend 25 minutes setting up a board, rolling for Warlord Traits and psychic powers, and deploying our armies just to watch me get crippled in turn 1 without a chance to defend myself, what makes that fun?
If you look at other games that run on a similar scale to 40k, the IGOUGO format may still be in use, but there are ways around it. Most of the issues with an IGOUGO system are limited in skirmish level games due to weapon ranges. In 40k we have weapons that can reach the other side of the board without issue, so you're able to negate the distance setup by deployment zones, force your opponent to spend his turns jumping from cover to cover because to hide out in the open is suicide. So in games like Warmachine the shorter weapon ranges coupled with the 10inch deployment zones mean that the first turn should be used to maneuver and get into place, making it less decisive than if you were to just blast your opponent on the first turn. Malifaux, Brushfire, EFT, and games like Bolt Action and X-Wing to an extent are alternating activations where you might be able to get your big bad OP unit to go, but it's going to be my chance to retaliate before you can use your next big bad OP unit. This gives the players a better chance at staying in the game longer as well as mitigating the damage done by hot dice rolls.
Flames of War also uses an IGOUGO system, but I feel as though it works better than in 40k, though the last game I played was a few weeks ago and I lost half my Shermans on turn 1.
40k's turn system wouldn't be as much of an issue if there were mitigating circumstances that prevented hot dice and overpowered units from decimating an opponent before they got the chance to do anything. The leafblower list from 5th edition basically exploited IGOUGO by using the entirety of their large guns/tanks to cripple choice pieces of your army before you could go/get near them.
Mike712 wrote: Yes, that's a fair point, but those games aren't 40k, there's just something about the 40k models and fluff that seem more appealing to many
You can use another game system without having to change anything about the minis and the fluff.
Writing 40k lists for Infinity or Eden would be way easier than trying to fix 40k. The same thing has already been done with WHFB and KOW, the alternative army listes are widely accepted in casual games and just work great.
Mike712 wrote: Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game
My introductory games never include things like flyers, skimmers, psykers, jump infantry, or anything eldar/necron/tau/tyranid/daemon. Same thing with WHFB : special lists for special games.
When I play introductory games like HOTT or KOW, I can bring regular lists and use all the rules : magic, artillery and so on.
Because these systems are streamlined and well-thought, and not just three tons of special rules added on top of a loose sci-fi adaptation of a fantasy game.
Kojiro wrote: I think what Peregrine is saying is the turn sequence is the underlying OS of the game, so to speak. Once you decide you're changing that EVERYTHING needs an overhaul in line with it.
I think the first thing to start with though is scale. Work out what you want to see on the table and remember there is already a perfectly good Epic system out there. Once you have that a turn order and then rules for individual actions within that order. Then, once you have a system that supports vanilla troops mauling each other you can actually look at building special rules in to account for fluff.
Edit: finished the post.
Frankenberry wrote: In order to break 40k down into a manageable ruleset you'd have to figure out what scale you want to play it on. Platoon, Company, Battalion, Regiment, Army, etc... that all matters.
I'd almost like to see a ruleset that is dependent on game point values; something like 0-500 uses rules X, 501-1000 uses rules Y, so that you could keep the lower point games with more involved rules but the higher point games wouldn't suffer. Of course, that's a stupid amount of work for something that people would probably just find annoying.
I'm fairly set on the idea of balancing 40k at a scale very close to what it is now so people can keep their armies more or less as they are, the less changes that are needed in that regard the more who are likely to give the balanced rule-set a try.
xruslanx wrote: Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?
When it is army wide and leads to huge alpha strike potential leaving the opponent with nothing to shoot back, yes i'd say yes IGOUGO is objectively bad and needs a shake up.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Instead of Overhauling the whole 6th edition, why not replace the problematic rules, with the rules that worked from previous edition's? (as far as it is possible)
Because many of the problems are with the fundamental mechanics (for example, the turn structure), so you need a complete re-write from the beginning. And the old rules aren't necessarily compatible with the newer ones, so you're probably introducing more problems than you solve.
For example, flyers: before 6th they had a permanent 4+ cover save and AA weapons were extremely rare (not even all flyer weapons were AA, a Thunderbolt had two AATL autocannons but the lascannons were not AA), but pretty much every flyer was AV 10 and "immobilized" results counted as "destroyed". And depending on whether you're talking about 4th or 5th their movement rules were completely different, either you made strafing runs during your opponent's turn and flew off the table immediately (4th), or moved anywhere on the table more than 36" away pointing in any direction (5th). You can't just change the current flyer rules to the old ones without completely re-balancing the current flyer and AA unit rules. Just to give an obvious example, Tau AA effectively deletes flyers from the game if you make all of them AV 10 again.
Can you explain to me how you think a turn sequence of player A does fast attack, played B does fast attack, player A does elites, player B does elites, player A does troops, player b does troops, player A does heavy support, player B does heavy support or something similar using a turn sequence stat. introduces new problems to the game or vastly changes other mechanics? There are people that play now with IGOUGO but one unit at a time apparently it works fine. I can not only see this dealing with the issue of alpha strike, where someone's army is pretty much rendered ineffective in a single turn with no chance to react in any way apart from rolling saves and striking back in combat, but it also adds another layer of tactical complexity, having to balance the threat of a model/unit that hasn't yet fired which the threat/power levels of the models left on the board when it comes to prioritising targets. You could also structure how you play your turn with your army list, want to have more units go first take more fast attack or units with low turn sequence stat, want an army that can react more to your opponents actions, take more units from heavy or with a higher turn sequence stat or run a balanced list that can do both.
Your time would be infinity better spent simply making a new rule system compatible with multiple miniature lines on the market right now and focusing primarily on balance and competitive play.
Then you don't have to convince others to play your version of 40k or deal with people who disagree with your ideas of "how the game should be played".
If you have your own system, then it YOUR system and you can determine what is needed. And then if it grows, and people adopt it, it is not because they want balancehammer, but because your system is fundamentally good. Then your hard work can actually have value as it is not dependent on GW codex updates and other things, it stands on its own.
nkelsch wrote: Your time would be infinity better spent simply making a new rule system compatible with multiple miniature lines on the market right now and focusing primarily on balance and competitive play.
Then you don't have to convince others to play your version of 40k or deal with people who disagree with your ideas of "how the game should be played".
If you have your own system, then it YOUR system and you can determine what is needed. And then if it grows, and people adopt it, it is not because they want balancehammer, but because your system is fundamentally good. Then your hard work can actually have value as it is not dependent on GW codex updates and other things, it stands on its own.
I value you input, however what you have described is not a a project I'm would want to invest my time and effort into, currently I'm looking for people willing to support and who are interested in the goal of creating a balanced version of 40k. Due to the amount of effort involved with such a project it needs to be something I'm passionate about, as it's likely that the management of this project will become my primary hobby taking up much of my free time for the foreseeable future. This would not be the first time that I have dedicated a vast amount of time to something I am passionate about, my extensive work on a community fan site over the period of 2 years starting in mid 2009 centred around the spaceship MMO eve online popularised the use of certain ship classes in PvP that were previously deemed unfit for purpose, at last count around a year ago the builds I had created in that time had received well over a million views. I was also senior moderator for that site so have experience of co-ordinating and managing a small team of other dedicated fans towards a common goal. I feel that if I'm able to shake up the meta in an MMO I'm able to do similar things for a table top board game too.
While I am not interested in the project, please do not take the following as a snipe on the attempt, the contrary.
You do not need a committee of 20-30 veteran players, designed by committee and all that.
You need one lead game designer and maybe 2-4 game designers under him to speed up the work between the various armies and ease the workload.
What you need in quantities is playtesters and proofreaders.
Sticking to the "original" 40k game system (meaning 6th ed iirc) is problematic because it has many gameplays thrown together from abstracted shooting to personal dueling between heroes without emphasizing much on any of its aspects.
Personally I would advise laying out the gameplay you want to achieve and then the game designer can start working on the 40k game system streamlining it towards the gameplay it is designed for, then balance on each army can be done, but you will find that again a complete rewrite of the army keeping in spirit to what the army is supposed to be instead of what GW has in any codex will work better.
xruslanx wrote: Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?
Oh good, I can already see where this is going. You're going to complain about how there's no such thing as "objective" in this context, and compare playing non-IGOUGO games to having sex with your dog.
And to answer the relevant question, yes, IGOUGO is bad. If you replaced saves with rolling to defeat saves (mathematically equal) you could have one player walk away and get lunch while their opponent takes their turn and not miss anything. Having to spend long periods of time watching someone else play the game instead of playing just isn't fun. And that's not even considering the balance issues with alpha strike armies, or the absurdity of trying to explain the fluff of what is going on when a unit charges across half the table and slaughters your troops in melee while they stand around waiting for permission to shoot back.
Mike712 wrote: Can you explain to me how you think a turn sequence of player A does fast attack, played B does fast attack, player A does elites, player B does elites, player A does troops, player b does troops, player A does heavy support, player B does heavy support or something similar using a turn sequence stat. introduces new problems to the game or vastly changes other mechanics?
Again, how many games have you played like this? You can't talk about how it will or will not change anything until you've tried it. Come back and tell me it doesn't have a major balance effect once you've played a hundred games or so (with the same armies each time).
I can not only see this dealing with the issue of alpha strike, where someone's army is pretty much rendered ineffective in a single turn with no chance to react in any way apart from rolling saves and striking back in combat, but it also adds another layer of tactical complexity, having to balance the threat of a model/unit that hasn't yet fired which the threat/power levels of the models left on the board when it comes to prioritising targets.
So, let me get this straight: you're saying here that removing IGOUGO will have significant effects on the power level of alpha strike armies and completely change target priority decisions, but you can't see how it will have any impact on the rest of the game? You just mentioned two big changes in that same paragraph!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike712 wrote: I value you input, however what you have described is not a a project I'm would want to invest my time and effort into, currently I'm looking for people willing to support and who are interested in the goal of creating a balanced version of 40k.
The point we're trying to tell you is that creating a balanced version of 40k is going to mean creating an entire new game using the 40k fluff/models. The question now is whether you want to create an entirely new game from a clean start with the freedom to do whatever you need to do to make it work, or an entirely new game that's stuck with a bunch of extra baggage because you need to be able to point to enough rules from 40k to legitimately call it a "rebalancing" instead of a new game.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that you can fix 40k by making a few rule changes and re-balancing the point costs, and that just isn't going to happen.
This would not be the first time that I have dedicated a vast amount of time to something I am passionate about, my extensive work on a community fan site over the period of 2 years starting in mid 2009 centred around the spaceship MMO eve online popularised the use of certain ship classes in PvP that were previously deemed unfit for purpose
PsychoticStorm wrote: While I am not interested in the project, please do not take the following as a snipe on the attempt, the contrary.
You do not need a committee of 20-30 veteran players, designed by committee and all that.
You need one lead game designer and maybe 2-4 game designers under him to speed up the work between the various armies and ease the workload.
What you need in quantities is playtesters and proofreaders.
Sticking to the "original" 40k game system (meaning 6th ed iirc) is problematic because it has many gameplays thrown together from abstracted shooting to personal dueling between heroes without emphasizing much on any of its aspects.
Personally I would advise laying out the gameplay you want to achieve and then the game designer can start working on the 40k game system streamlining it towards the gameplay it is designed for, then balance on each army can be done, but you will find that again a complete rewrite of the army keeping in spirit to what the army is supposed to be instead of what GW has in any codex will work better.
The idea behind the committee is to ensure that the game and it's rule-set appeal to to as much of the player-base as possible, with 20+ you are likely to get a broader representation of opinion and this I feel is critical to ending up with a game that the majority will enjoy most aspects of.The committee would also be responsible for sourcing the most popular ideas from the community, community input through discussion and poll ensures that most are happy with the rules too. This is crowd sourcing, but applied to a rule-set rather than a more typical product or service.
You are correct, play testing will be critical, this again will be a community effort, once the alpha rules are decided on and published, gamers can try them in their own games and give feedback to the project team.
These conflicting gameplays are indeed something that will be addressed with the core focus being on unit based combat and positioning as has been the case since 2nd and 3rd edition when I started playing, much of the unnecessary features of the current game streamlined or ditched completely, for example challenges as you and others have already mentioned.
The idea behind the committee is to ensure that the game and it's rule-set appeal to to as much of the player-base as possible, with 20+ you are likely to get a broader representation of opinion and this I feel is critical to ending up with a game that the majority will enjoy most aspects of.The committee would also be responsible for sourcing the most popular ideas from the community, community input through discussion and poll ensures that most are happy with the rules too. This is crowd sourcing, but applied to a rule-set rather than a more typical product or service.
You are correct, play testing will be critical, this again will be a community effort, once the alpha rules are decided on and published, gamers can try them in their own games and give feedback to the project team.
These conflicting gameplays are indeed something that will be addressed with the core focus being on unit based combat and positioning as has been the case since 2nd and 3rd edition when I started playing, much of the unnecessary features of the current game streamlined or ditched completely, for example challenges as you and others have already mentioned.
It falls in the category of too many cooks in one pot, if I remember the proverb in English correct, the community can help with feedback and playtesting, but the design should be in the hands of few people.
Have you ever considered that its a sound design decision and a bad implementation of it does not make it a fundamentally bad system?
I'm fairly certain I'm going get some flak, but PS, correct me if I'm wrong, but Infinity is essentially IGOUGO right? Infinity has the ARO system in place that allows the defending player to do things when it's not their 'turn' (i.e. when they're not the active player). That would be a good implementation of IGOUGO.
like I said earlier, skirmish games can get away with an IGOUGO system because the idea that you can hit someone from 48 inches away with the weapons is rare in those games.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Have you ever considered that its a sound design decision and a bad implementation of it does not make it a fundamentally bad system?
I've considered it and rejected it. IGOUGO is fundamentally flawed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: I'm fairly certain I'm going get some flak, but PS, correct me if I'm wrong, but Infinity is essentially IGOUGO right?
Not really. The reaction system makes it completely different since you're not just standing around waiting for your opponent to finish their turn.
Again, how many games have you played like this? You can't talk about how it will or will not change anything until you've tried it. Come back and tell me it doesn't have a major balance effect once you've played a hundred games or so (with the same armies each time).
Personally I haven't, but alternating unit activation in 40k is used by some and documented to work well, it also removes the major issue that you have mentioned which is alpha strike. Obviously play testing will be needed to devise the best possible and most play friendly turn sequence to utilise in the balancehammer rules, I personally feel that the methods of deciding sequence I've already briefly outlined could be effective, and theoretically not game breaking anything that worked poorly in could be balanced by altering or giving a modifier to the turn sequence stat.
So, let me get this straight: you're saying here that removing IGOUGO will have significant effects on the power level of alpha strike armies and completely change target priority decisions, but you can't see how it will have any impact on the rest of the game? You just mentioned two big changes in that same paragraph!
Isn't that something a new balanced rule set would look to resolve anyway? the reduced effect of alpha strike is positive fallout that would occur if such changes are made. Briefly run through your mind how a game of 40k might play out as it stands now, but instead substitute IGOUGO for alternating based on FOC slot or a turn sequence stat, what issues do you feel may arise from this? I'm honestly interested in your opinion on the matter.
The point we're trying to tell you is that creating a balanced version of 40k is going to mean creating an entire new game using the 40k fluff/models. The question now is whether you want to create an entirely new game from a clean start with the freedom to do whatever you need to do to make it work, or an entirely new game that's stuck with a bunch of extra baggage because you need to be able to point to enough rules from 40k to legitimately call it a "rebalancing" instead of a new game.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that you can fix 40k by making a few rule changes and re-balancing the point costs, and that just isn't going to happen.
Why not? take any 2 mid tier armies and play them against each other, will you not end up with a relatively balanced game compared to say playing a mid tier army against say eldar or tau, or in 5th ed space wolves, BA or grey knights? Now add in a modified turn sequence to neuter alpha strike, would that not make for a better paced and more tactical game?
Off topic, but which site was that? RvB?
The fan site I worked for and managed the mod team of was BattleClinic.
Alfndrate wrote: I'm fairly certain I'm going get some flak, but PS, correct me if I'm wrong, but Infinity is essentially IGOUGO right?
Not really. The reaction system makes it completely different since you're not just standing around waiting for your opponent to finish their turn.
That's why I said essentially IGOUGO. It's not alternating activations because you don't take care of an entire unit/model/whatever and then pass it to your opponent to do the same thing and back and fort etc... While your opponent is the 'active' player, you have the option of AROs, which are limited forms of what you can do when you're the active player. It's still IGOUGO, but it's IGOUGO with interruptions. I do agree that pure IGOUGO is flawed and should probably be scrapped in most cases for alternating activation.
Mike712 wrote: Personally I haven't, but alternating unit activation in 40k is used by some and documented to work well, it also removes the major issue that you have mentioned which is alpha strike. Obviously play testing will be needed to devise the best possible and most play friendly turn sequence to utilise in the balancehammer rules, I personally feel that the methods of deciding sequence I've already briefly outlined could be effective, and theoretically not game breaking anything that worked poorly in could be balanced by altering or giving a modifier to the turn sequence stat.
You've kind of wandered from the point here. The point isn't that it's a bad idea, it's that you need to do these things first. Play a hundred games with the activation system, make changes, play another hundred games, make changes, etc. Once you've got an absolutely solid activation system (and any other core mechanics you're going to change) you can start thinking about things like how to change fortifications.
Isn't that something a new balanced rule set would look to resolve anyway? the reduced effect of alpha strike is positive fallout that would occur if such changes are made. Briefly run through your mind how a game of 40k might play out as it stands now, but instead substitute IGOUGO for alternating based on FOC slot or a turn sequence stat, what issues do you feel may arise from this? I'm honestly interested in your opinion on the matter.
Again, the problem is that you're speculating about stuff like re-balancing fortifications that depends on the core rules. It's pointless to talk about fortifications until you've tested the new core rules because you might find out that alpha strike armies have been over-nerfed and need better fortifications to compensate, just to give one potential example.
And I don't know what issues might arise. That's what playtesting is for. You don't speculate about issues, you play a hundred games with the rules and see what comes up.
Why not? take any 2 mid tier armies and play them against each other, will you not end up with a relatively balanced game compared to say playing a mid tier army against say eldar or tau, or in 5th ed space wolves, BA or grey knights?
Only for a very generous definition of "relatively balanced". You still have awful internal balance, an awful bloated mess of the core rules, etc. It's still going to be a bad game, it's just going to be a bit less one-sided.
Now add in a modified turn sequence to neuter alpha strike, would that not make for a better paced and more tactical game?
I don't know. Play a hundred games with those rules and tell me if it's better paced and more tactical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PsychoticStorm wrote: Infinity is indeed IGOUGO, the ARO mechanism brings it to modern era and illustrates it's strength and how it can be done correctly.
It isn't because the defining characteristic of IGOUGO is that I make all of my moves, then you make all of your moves, and we don't interact much while we're doing it. Infinity isn't IGOUGO, it's an action-reaction system.
There are 4 activation system that I can think of, IGOUGO were the game is divided in turns and each player alternatively play his "half" of the turn and then his opponent does so, the alternative activation were both players play the same turn alternating the use of elements in their force until there are no more elements left, the random activation were each element is randomly assigned a "card" or some other way of randomly determining which element is activated and finally the turnles activation were each element after its activation goes back on queue, interaction between the elements is not part of the activation process.
PsychoticStorm wrote: There are 4 activation system that I can think of, IGOUGO were the game is divided in turns and each player alternatively play his "half" of the turn and then his opponent does so, the alternative activation were both players play the same turn alternating the use of elements in their force until there are no more elements left, the random activation were each element is randomly assigned a "card" or some other way of randomly determining which element is activated and finally the turnles activation were each element after its activation goes back on queue, interaction between the elements is not part of the activation process.
That's not a very good way of classifying them. A better general rule:
1) IGOUGO: I make my moves, you make your moves, and we don't really interact while doing it.
2) Alternating activations: I make a move, you make a move, until we've both made all of our moves.
3) Action-reaction: I make a move, you react to it.
The deciding factor is when during a turn each player is acting vs. waiting while the other player acts. IGOUGO and action-reaction are fundamentally different because IGOUGO says "this is my half of the turn, I'm going to do stuff while you watch" while action-reaction says "this is 'my' half of the turn, but you're going to make choices too". So, in 40k if I make a shooting attack the only decisions you get to make are about how you remove your casualties. In Infinity if I make a shooting attack you get to return fire, and that's a very different situation. It's different in terms of keeping you from getting bored while I take my turn, and it's different in terms of making strategic decisions at all times vs. executing your strategy and then waiting while your opponent executes theirs.
If you have 16 elements but each turn you are allowed to move one (chess) is it a IGOUGO or alternative activation?
If in alternative activation one player purposefully swarms the opponent with elements in order to essentially get consecutive orders from the units he wants is it really alternative activation anymore?
If a player purposefully avoids any and every interacting elements of an action/ reaction mechanism (academic) what does the unit activation method makes it?
Interaction is not the same with game activation, I can design a game with alternative activation were each player in his sub turn only throws dice, yes the change will come sooner but the other guy still does not do anything while the player does stuff and could very well go make a tea for himself.
In Infinity the game system is IGOUGO but the interaction mechanic means you can really play in your opponents turn if you have played well, leaving no gap of interaction.
You have avoided mentioning the last two activation methods but both are quite popular.
PsychoticStorm wrote: If you have 16 elements but each turn you are allowed to move one (chess) is it a IGOUGO or alternative activation?
Alternate activation. You make a single move, followed by your opponent making a single move.
If in alternative activation one player purposefully swarms the opponent with elements in order to essentially get consecutive orders from the units he wants is it really alternative activation anymore?
Of course it is. Implicit in alternating activation is that if your opponent runs out of activations you just do the rest of yours. The swarm strategy is still working within the rules of the system (or exploiting them, if you want to criticize it) and has costs and benefits within that system.
If a player purposefully avoids any and every interacting elements of an action/ reaction mechanism (academic) what does the unit activation method makes it?
It's still action-reaction obviously. A player making terrible strategy choices out of spite (the only reason this could ever happen) doesn't change the fact that those options exist and are a fundamental part of the rules.
Interaction is not the same with game activation, I can design a game with alternative activation were each player in his sub turn only throws dice, yes the change will come sooner but the other guy still does not do anything while the player does stuff and could very well go make a tea for himself.
Can we not make up absurd straw man games? In the context of tabletop wargaming (as opposed to "games you play with your small child") there are decisions.
In Infinity the game system is IGOUGO but the interaction mechanic means you can really play in your opponents turn if you have played well, leaving no gap of interaction.
And this is why it isn'tIGOUGO. The gap of interaction is a fundamental part of IGOUGO. That's why it's "I go, you go", not "we go simultaneously but one of us is kind of in charge of starting the action/reaction sequence right now".
You have avoided mentioning the last two activation methods but both are quite popular.
No, I avoided mentioning them because they're fundamentally the same as alternating activations. Random activation order or "turnless" activation are just different methods of determining what order you do those activations in.
The idea behind the committee is to ensure that the game and it's rule-set appeal to to as much of the player-base as possible, with 20+ you are likely to get a broader representation of opinion and this I feel is critical to ending up with a game that the majority will enjoy most aspects of.The committee would also be responsible for sourcing the most popular ideas from the community, community input through discussion and poll ensures that most are happy with the rules too. This is crowd sourcing, but applied to a rule-set rather than a more typical product or service.
The 5th edition INAT Community FAQ showed why this is an impossible dream and an exercize in futility. People on the internet cannot handle a consensus or bowing to the majority.
There are always going to be people who disagree with YOUR balance or the MAJORITY's Balance and always want their own version which means even if you do a framework with 80% correct balance, people wills till have fragmented versions of the balance hammer because 'they know better than you'.
Then there are the people who reject it flat out because it isn't official and direct from GW.
Seriously, go read all the history threads and arguments over community FAQs. It was an uphill battle, and did a lot of good, but they never did get consensus of the community and people will never agree on 'what is balanced'.
So if you are prepared to do a lot of work for a system which no one will ever adopt and may never see actual play outside your gaming group and will constantly be invalidated by GW's newest release which will require re-balancing of your entire system every 3 months, then go for it. You are in for a lot of wasted time and the chances of people adopting your balance hammer widely in the community is virtually none.
Oh, and when you finally finish it, expect GW to sue you for copyright infringement and trademark infringement. They can't copyright mechanics, but they can get you for anything you reproduce in part or in whole. You would have to name the units 'generic spaceman A' and 'Alien facesmasher B' and 'Bugmonster crusher D' and such which will make appeal of your rules even less.
nkelsch wrote: Seriously, go read all the history threads and arguments over community FAQs.
And when you do, remember that those FAQs were only intended to fix ambiguous rules that GW's own FAQs left unresolved. They didn't attempt to handle balance issues, something that is even more controversial.
Having been on a few very large committees, generally government and non-profit type stuff, I have a recommendation. Invite a few people to be your "central committee." Maybe four people. The central committee would hash out major concepts for your game and then delegate tasks to sub committees. So maybe central committee would determine how the turn system works, and then delegate movement to a movement committee.
Another recommendation is: do not make it "balance hammer," but give it a generic name and create a nice beer a pretzel game that will work for any science fiction fluff. Create general skirmish rules that can play any 28MM sci-fi or modern combat theatre and then produce "codices" that allow for easy conversion. Power armor is power armor whether Heinlein wrote it or Jervis Johnson wrote it. The idea is GURPS skirmish, 28mm. Savvy?
Finally, digitize it, make it free, and make it donation supported. That way the GW legal team can never assault your high tower, just like Linux vs. Microsoft. I pledge $20.00 right now. . .
The idea behind the committee is to ensure that the game and it's rule-set appeal to to as much of the player-base as possible, with 20+ you are likely to get a broader representation of opinion and this I feel is critical to ending up with a game that the majority will enjoy most aspects of.The committee would also be responsible for sourcing the most popular ideas from the community, community input through discussion and poll ensures that most are happy with the rules too. This is crowd sourcing, but applied to a rule-set rather than a more typical product or service.
The 5th edition INAT Community FAQ showed why this is an impossible dream and an exercize in futility. People on the internet cannot handle a consensus or bowing to the majority.
There are always going to be people who disagree with YOUR balance or the MAJORITY's Balance and always want their own version which means even if you do a framework with 80% correct balance, people wills till have fragmented versions of the balance hammer because 'they know better than you'.
Then there are the people who reject it flat out because it isn't official and direct from GW.
Seriously, go read all the history threads and arguments over community FAQs. It was an uphill battle, and did a lot of good, but they never did get consensus of the community and people will never agree on 'what is balanced'.
So if you are prepared to do a lot of work for a system which no one will ever adopt and may never see actual play outside your gaming group and will constantly be invalidated by GW's newest release which will require re-balancing of your entire system every 3 months, then go for it. You are in for a lot of wasted time and the chances of people adopting your balance hammer widely in the community is virtually none.
Oh, and when you finally finish it, expect GW to sue you for copyright infringement and trademark infringement. They can't copyright mechanics, but they can get you for anything you reproduce in part or in whole. You would have to name the units 'generic spaceman A' and 'Alien facesmasher B' and 'Bugmonster crusher D' and such which will make appeal of your rules even less.
Yes of course and those people will be a minority as this would be a project based on community input, if most are happy that's all that matters, if you collect enough differing opinions it becomes easy to see trends and these trends are what you base the rules and balance on.
Why even move over to a newer edition of the 40k ruleset, why the constant need for change, new scenarios could be added to keep things fresh, however if there are good concepts in a new rulebook use them of course.
GW won't sue me, if they tried they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, I'm not going to be reproducing any of their works and it doesn't infringe on any trademark law because it's a non-commercial venture. I can say and write "space marine" as much as I damn well want to as long as I'm not making any money from saying or writing it.
Yes of course and those people will be a minority as this would be a project based on community input, if most are happy that's all that matters, if you collect enough differing opinions it becomes easy to see trends and these trends are what you base the rules and balance on.
Why even move over to a newer edition of the 40k ruleset, why the constant need for change, new scenarios could be added to keep things fresh, however if there are good concepts in a new rulebook use them of course.
GW won't sue me, if they tried they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, I'm not going to be reproducing any of their works and it doesn't infringe on any trademark law because it's a non-commercial venture. I can say and write "space marine" as much as I damn well want to as long as I'm not making any money from saying or writing it.
'Not making money off it' is a myth. Good luck in court with that one. Websites have been threatened for years for posting rules or statlines or point values... If you attempt to use any of the current rules 'as-is' you may find yourself using copyrighted works. Reprinting rules and stats in part or in whole will get you a takedown notice especially if you are making a 'whole new ruleset' which effectively balancehammer would be seen as.
And 'As long as most are happy with it' has shown to not be successful truth at all in this community. Besides never getting 'most' you will always have people who you will never please and if they run large events in large areas, you then have a whole group of 'gamers' who may like your ideas but won't use them because actually playing the game is more important than a ruleset they can never use. If major tourneys won't even entertain your ruleset (which they won't) you will have a large number of people who may like your idea never entertain your ruleset because they simply can't use it anywhere of note, which ultimately defeats the entire purpose.
necrondog99 wrote: Having been on a few very large committees, generally government and non-profit type stuff, I have a recommendation. Invite a few people to be your "central committee." Maybe four people. The central committee would hash out major concepts for your game and then delegate tasks to sub committees. So maybe central committee would determine how the turn system works, and then delegate movement to a movement committee.
Another recommendation is: do not make it "balance hammer," but give it a generic name and create a nice beer a pretzel game that will work for any science fiction fluff. Create general skirmish rules that can play any 28MM sci-fi or modern combat theatre and then produce "codices" that allow for easy conversion. Power armor is power armor whether Heinlein wrote it or Jervis Johnson wrote it. The idea is GURPS skirmish, 28mm. Savvy?
Finally, digitize it, make it free, and make it donation supported. That way the GW legal team can never assault your high tower, just like Linux vs. Microsoft. I pledge $20.00 right now. . .
- J
Thanks for the advice, this does make a lot of sense, if I can find just a few dedicated people that are willing to get things started it would be much easier to co-ordinate a small group initially, but still run everything by the community so we could make properly informed and unbiased decisions.
PsychoticStorm wrote: If you have 16 elements but each turn you are allowed to move one (chess) is it a IGOUGO or alternative activation?
Alternate activation. You make a single move, followed by your opponent making a single move.
If in alternative activation one player purposefully swarms the opponent with elements in order to essentially get consecutive orders from the units he wants is it really alternative activation anymore?
Of course it is. Implicit in alternating activation is that if your opponent runs out of activations you just do the rest of yours. The swarm strategy is still working within the rules of the system (or exploiting them, if you want to criticize it) and has costs and benefits within that system.
If a player purposefully avoids any and every interacting elements of an action/ reaction mechanism (academic) what does the unit activation method makes it?
It's still action-reaction obviously. A player making terrible strategy choices out of spite (the only reason this could ever happen) doesn't change the fact that those options exist and are a fundamental part of the rules.
Interaction is not the same with game activation, I can design a game with alternative activation were each player in his sub turn only throws dice, yes the change will come sooner but the other guy still does not do anything while the player does stuff and could very well go make a tea for himself.
Can we not make up absurd straw man games? In the context of tabletop wargaming (as opposed to "games you play with your small child") there are decisions.
In Infinity the game system is IGOUGO but the interaction mechanic means you can really play in your opponents turn if you have played well, leaving no gap of interaction.
And this is why it isn'tIGOUGO. The gap of interaction is a fundamental part of IGOUGO. That's why it's "I go, you go", not "we go simultaneously but one of us is kind of in charge of starting the action/reaction sequence right now".
You have avoided mentioning the last two activation methods but both are quite popular.
No, I avoided mentioning them because they're fundamentally the same as alternating activations. Random activation order or "turnless" activation are just different methods of determining what order you do those activations in.
No, but you can insist that activation and interaction are the one and the same, I do not think I can sway your mind that the fundamental mechanism in an IGOUGO system is not the non intractability of the players, but a more cohesive coordination of once playing elements.
Likewise the alternative activation is a mechanism were the interruption of flow and not the interaction of elements is the fundamental mechanism
The other two are not "variations of alternative activation" since the one has a random predetermined (usually unknown) order for each turn and the other has a continuous known order of units activating without a turn order, variations and mixing between the systems are known, for example bold action has a random activation, but players choose the unit instead of been predetermined, but how and if the elements will interact with each other is not part of the activation sequence.
You may want to demonize IGOUGO all you want and maybe think alternative activation is godsend, but they are just activation systems, not interaction systems.
'Not making money off it' is a myth. Good luck in court with that one. Websites have been threatened for years for posting rules or statlines or point values... If you attempt to use any of the current rules 'as-is' you may find yourself using copyrighted works. Reprinting rules and stats in part or in whole will get you a takedown notice especially if you are making a 'whole new ruleset' which effectively balancehammer would be seen as.
And 'As long as most are happy with it' has shown to not be successful truth at all in this community. Besides never getting 'most' you will always have people who you will never please and if they run large events in large areas, you then have a whole group of 'gamers' who may like your ideas but won't use them because actually playing the game is more important than a ruleset they can never use. If major tourneys won't even entertain your ruleset (which they won't) you will have a large number of people who may like your idea never entertain your ruleset because they simply can't use it anywhere of note, which ultimately defeats the entire purpose.
Good luck... You will need it.
It's not a myth, copywrite is always protected, you can't duplicate someone else works of writing, but trademarks are only protected when something is commercial. Any rules that came from GW itself would be a case of refer to the BRB.
I don't think they could do anything about altered stat lines either, again anything that stayed the same would be a case of refer to codex.
I feel that if everyone was playing an altered rule-set because it was better, tournament organisers would be quick to pick it up, of course this would take time, but the new rules would spread throughout the community by word of mouth and on the net too if it really was a more entertaining and balanced game.
GW is a company known to be overprotective, unreasonably demanding, legally trigger happy and with a history of claiming they own things they do not own.
Its not unreasonable to expect some heavy reaction from them, especially if they feel you are using/ misrepresenting/ profiting (remember reality does not matter)/ whatever from their IP.
I do not say it will definitely happen, but expecting it is not a bad idea too.
Mike712 wrote: tournament organizers would be quick to pick it up, of course this would take time,
Have you ever met or talked with any of these tourney organizers who would be quick to pick up a totally different ruleset? Considering how intolerant people are to COMP, a rebalanced ruleset is by definition COMP.
Mike712 wrote: tournament organizers would be quick to pick it up, of course this would take time,
Have you ever met or talked with any of these tourney organizers who would be quick to pick up a totally different ruleset? Considering how intolerant people are to COMP, a rebalanced ruleset is by definition COMP.
Initially people may be intolerant of new rules, but if the new rules becomes the game of choice when using 40k models there's no reason why they wouldn't want to play it at tournament level either, I like to think the community is not completely close minded and I've certainly met people who would be open to new rules even games workshop used to heavily promote being creative.
Ive been toying with a re-write as well.
No need to re-invent the wheel.
As a wargamer, the best part of the game IMHO is the sense of not knowing who is going to win the match til the very end of the game. I like the idea of issuing orders as well.
Lets face it, the 40K mechanic of a number scale form one to ten and a dice mechanic that operates on a one through six range is inhierantly ( spelling ) broken.
So first...
Change the dice...Make it a D10.
Next...Make issuing orders a part of the game.
Finally, change the IGUG manner of the game. By making an order system you can bring both players into the turn sequence.
The D10 system works like this...
Keep the stat lines the same, just change the target number from 4 to 6.
Soooo... WS 4 vs. WS4 needs a 6 to hit, not a 4. WS 5 vs WS 9 needs a 10 to hit. WS 5 vs WS10 needs a 10 as well.
WS4 vs WS10 needs a 10 followed by a 6+
just work the scale up and down with a bump of one die "pip" per point of difference.
Armor Values are just adjusted based upon the D10...Penetration is D10 + strength of weapon.
Rhinos are AV 15/15/14
Land Raider is 18/18/18
Wave Serpent becomes a 16/16/14
By adjusting the number scale into a D10, all the math suddenly works and Vehicles become cool again and Hand to Hand monsters are still viable.
The number needed to hit for shooting is BS minus 10 .. so BS 4 needs a 6+ to hit. BS 9 hits on 2+ rerolling results of one and hitting on 6+
Any other ideas out there?
I think a better solution would not to modify any of the rules of the game, but to simply re-adjust point values to reflect over/undercosted units. Then people don't need to learn to play via new rules and there is little effort to actually re-write the game, it simply changes how units cost.
Example: NOBZ and Flash Gitz are almost exactly the same price for points, but due to being heavy support and lacking NOB unit upgrades, literally a unit of NOBZ with TL shootas/kombiskorchas are more effective at shooting for less cost than Flash gitz. Flash gitz (like meganobz) deserve a discount for being inflexible. 3 MANZ are 120 pts for a PK and a 2+ save where 3 Nobz are 150pts for a PK and 4+ save. The NOBZ are more expensive because they have more options which make them 'better'. So you could fix flash Gitz simply by making them 'cheaper' than their NOB counterparts. If a more dakka git was 5-10 points cheaper than a NOB, then it would justify the lack of PKs, dedicated transport and such.
The most overpowered, underpowered unit or rule can be mitigated by point value changes.
Then all that would be required is a re-costing of all codexes when a new codex is released. If something is released which under/over values a specific type of unit, then an adjustment may be needed. Maintaining a 'recosted' list opposed to rewriting rules would keep people invested in a system they already know how to play but only require army rebuilding. Buy-in would be much easier as it would only be a change in army list opposed to a change in how the game is played.
Makes a nice change to see someone actively doing something about it other than harping on and on.
I myself do not have any issues with the balance so to speak but still I Hope it all goes well for you.
If anyone out there has played the original EPIC rules by jervis, you will see this coming..
play with an order sequence.
Each player gives thier detatchments orders before the turn.
Some are Fire! , Advance, Charge!, Fall Back..that type. Then each player activates those units with those orders on the table according to an initiative roll or perhaps an alternating first player, second player type of turn counter...?
Hi all.
It is apparent lots of people can see the symptoms of 40ks core problem.But how many can identify the cause of all these symptoms?
Some people would be happy with adjusted point values to improve internal and external balance.
However, this is hampered by the plethora of special rules , that over complicate ignore or conflict with the core game mechanics and resolution methods.(And are a completely impossible to allocate PV to with any sort of accuracy.)
And these special rules are needed as the 'core rules' DO NOT cover the game play of 40k.
Some people identify the fact that there is very limited scope to make units significantly different with deterministic use of a D6.
And think that using a larger dice in a deterministic way would improve the situation.
But this STILL limits the scope to the size of the dice.And would just 4 or 6 more results be enough?
D10 and D12 are fine if you just roll one or 2 per units, but rolling 30 at a time could be a problem.
Its the resolution methods that are REALLY limiting, not the dice size.
Over the last 15 years of 'battle game' 40k, lots of people have tried to improve 40k by making small adjustments here and there to the rules.
In general they ADD far more complication than they add to game play.(Especially GW game developers, under the instruction of GW sales department. )
Apart from those that rewind back to a 2nd ed based game and add in more modern resolution methods.
If we look at EPIC rules , they seem far more accomplished battle game rules.(Net Epic /Epic Armageddon.Better defined , less complicated , and FAR more intuitive!)
I think to get a massive improvement in game play and reduction in complication , to improve the balance of 40k .
A re write is the most effective option.
Some say why re-invent the wheel?
Well if 40k rules were a 'wheel' it would be square, with hundreds of widgets that roll, swing , or drop on the periphery of the square to allow very bumpy rolling before something fails to move at the right time or in the right way,and it comes crashing to a halt.
So I would say lets define what a wheel should do first, before we decide if we have already invented it!.
Because what we have for 40k is NOT a rule set developed for the 'intended' game play of 40k.
But a quick fix that went horribly wrong a long time a go, and NO-ONE knows how to put it back on track.(|Or decide what track it is supposed to be on.)
When new rules can be written and balanced good enough for solid competitive play within 5 years.(With community feed back.)
Why try to unpick a mess decades in the making ?
I try not to be so blunt and negative but my friend, this is a fool's errand if I ever saw one. How do you define community? Because that's the first thing that you need to seriously consider. I seem to think that based on what you have written you mean community as the Warhammer 40k community at large. If this is the case then you are deluded.
Do you seriously think that you're going to be able to get the entire 40k community including those who play at official GW stores, to embrace some internet bastardization ( for better or worse) to a meaningful extent where tournament organizers are going to adopt your ruleset as the defacto standard?
And the best part is that you plan on doing this with a 40 man committee! I seriously doubt you even be able to get that size committee to agree on the name of the title! You say that you are in college, try this as a little experiment.. Go to one of your classes and see if you can get everyone to agree on what to have for lunch.
In nearly 30 pages of discussion on this forum recently regarding the quantitative merits GW games have, the only defense put forth for them is the ease of access in finding players. By cooking up a homebrew ruleset that completely negates the games only selling point.
And if that's the case, then why are we even playing 40k at all?
Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.
Amen.
I've had an idea playing in my head for quite a while. A mixing of what I find best in the games I play. Streamlined stats based on troop types all across factions (Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Armoured Infantry, etc). A turn sequence based heavily off Infinity (with the exception of a 'moral status' rule which either allows or limits AROs based on the status (either Ready, Spent, Broken or Panicked) of the unit). Limitations on the amount of dice throwing (only one dice to to both hit/wound), different armour rules (giving armour values only to vehicules and armoured troops) and a Living Card Game system to replace Reserve and the Army Org system and to include a bit of strategic gameplay above the table gameplay.
Which would leave the game looking nothing like 40k, and more like a frankenstein monster built from 40k, Wm/H, Infinity and Netrunner.
I always liked the first warzone rules, it was activation and action-reaction in one, and units had 3 actions to spend, making the game very strategic.
But first the current game issues have to be indentified, a governing body must be chosen, testers/proofreaders must be named.
Because otherwise it will be just be 50 captains and one confused wheelman.
FarseerAndyMan wrote: If anyone out there has played the original EPIC rules by jervis, you will see this coming..
play with an order sequence.
Each player gives thier detatchments orders before the turn.
This is and will always be a fantastic system. 40k converted to this would be awesome.
xruslanx wrote: Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?
Oh good, I can already see where this is going. You're going to complain about how there's no such thing as "objective" in this context, and compare playing non-IGOUGO games to having sex with your dog.
And to answer the relevant question, yes, IGOUGO is bad. If you replaced saves with rolling to defeat saves (mathematically equal) you could have one player walk away and get lunch while their opponent takes their turn and not miss anything. Having to spend long periods of time watching someone else play the game instead of playing just isn't fun. And that's not even considering the balance issues with alpha strike armies, or the absurdity of trying to explain the fluff of what is going on when a unit charges across half the table and slaughters your troops in melee while they stand around waiting for permission to shoot back.
Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.
xruslanx wrote: Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.
Ah perigrine. Carry on dear boy, carry on
His objection- which is sailing clear over your head- is that IGOUGO is non interactive. Interacting with your oppoent is the essence of collaboration and competition.
xruslanx wrote: Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.
Ah perigrine. Carry on dear boy, carry on
His objection- which is sailing clear over your head- is that IGOUGO is non interactive. Interacting with your oppoent is the essence of collaboration and competition.
So any enjoyment gathered by it is invalid?
I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?
No, but then that's not what was asked or what was said. The comment was about the system itself, not how much you enjoy it. You could, for example, enjoy sex with animals but that wouldn't make it the best sex possible.
xruslanx wrote: I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?
Your enjoyment is not at all objective, it's entirely subjective. But again, we're talking about the IGOUGO systems objective quality, not your subjective enjoyment of it.
If you want to claim it's a good system, make an argument for why a lack of interaction is superior to more interaction.
No, but then that's not what was asked or what was said. The comment was about the system itself, not how much you enjoy it. You could, for example, enjoy sex with animals but that wouldn't make it a good idea.
Perigrine stated that IGOUGO was objectively inferior. If a game - something that is designed to be *fun* to the people who play it - cannot be judged on how much enjoyment the people who play it garner, then it cannot be judged at all.
Your enjoyment is not at all objective, it's entirely subjective. But again, we're talking about the IGOUGO systems objective quality, not your subjective enjoyment of it.
If you want to claim it's a good system, make an argument for why a lack of interaction is superior to more interaction.
See above. You can't judge something that is designed to be fun, then declare that peoples' fun experiences with it are irrelevent. If peregrine (or you) doesn't enjoy IGOUGO, for whatever reason, then fine. But to claim that it is objectively inferior to alternatives is untrue.
But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?
azreal13 wrote: But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?
I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me
azreal13 wrote: But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?
I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me
Only by your own lack of understanding.
Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?
If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?
azreal13 wrote: But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?
I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me
Only by your own lack of understanding.
Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?
If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?
I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.
Tell me xruslanx, which systems- and why- is IGOUGO superior to?
Anyone can claim 'I enjoy X the best!' and even mean it.
I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no? Make an argument for a lack of interaction if you're so in favour ot it. Stop claiming it's the best and explain why it is and don't use subjective (ie your personal enjoyment) to justify it.
azreal13 wrote: But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?
I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me
Only by your own lack of understanding.
Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?
If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?
I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.
40K could simply be improved by thorough play testing, and regular updates to errata and FAQ to address conflicts where the rules are inadequate. You know, like the makers of other games do.
You still have yet to allow that depth and diversity are not mutually exclusive to well written rules with no room for misinterpretation, nor that a balanced ruleset, where there are no bad choices, just choices, is inherently more desirable than a ruleset which allows for such a disparity in quality that units range from game-breaking to unplayable the moment you start to even consider the possibility of designing a list to have a chance of winning.
These things exist in the wargaming hobby, they are achievable, if not completely, then certainly substantially, and those of us with a broader perspective hold these things to be self evident, you, however, do not, in no small part because your frame of reference is so narrow.
I've seen numerous, specific, examples of how things work in other systems cited to you, yet you still ignore them, you state other people "only rationalise criticism of 40K by saying try other rulesets" Well how the bloody hell else to you criticise something if not in comparison to its peers? That's just nonsense, the only way to assess something is in comparison to other things.
Until you at least concede the possibility that your position is flawed, and it is flawed, then there is no hope for any sort of dialogue.
I've always liked the system in the Lord of the Rings game, where at the beginning of the turn, both players roll for priority. The winner (P1) moves all his things, the other player moves his, P1 shoots, the other player does, and then close combat is done simultaneously. I've tried it before in 40k, moving the charging bit to the movement phase, and it works remarkably well, evening out some of the issues that there are.
azreal13 wrote: But you're only judging it on the amount of fun you have, rather than the community at large, and it has been well established you have no frame of reference and could possibly have more fun under another system, but how would you know?
I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me
Only by your own lack of understanding.
Surely, by all the posts in all the threads that have been written around this subject recently, where many people with waay more patience than me have attempted to explain in multiple ways to you their feelings on the subject, and the apparent lack of more than one or two people who have even vaguely agreed with you, surely, somewhere in that closed off, 40K-centric brain of yours, you might be coming to suspect that perhaps you're in a minority here?
If you are indeed, in a minority of people who genuinely feel that 40K is as good as it gets for wargaming and is as good as it can be, then you must, at the very least concede that you aren't a great measure of that ruleset's quality?
I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.
Wait, i think i know this guy. Arent you the forever smug pseudo intellectual that's only here to feel good about yourself by contributing nothing to the situation but controversy? Yeah i know you.
Could have counter pointed any of the logical negatives to IGOUGO, but you didn't. You didn't because you spun it into 'feelies' and of course, NOBODY can prove feelies wrong. And your'e only here to look down your nose at folks, so I suppose that's all we'll get from you in this thread. Even this last post of yours was full of nothing. no substance. lots of open ended implications, vagueries, and subtle challenges (because arguing against vague 'feelies' lets you troll easier). Just here to say 'nuhuh, you guys are wrong'. You arent a politician are you?
IGOUGO is an activation method, it has the advantage of providing a player the means to make more coherent use of his forces elements and formulate a more coordinated strategy.
Its disadvantages are that there are no means to use your elements in direct response to your opponents use, there are many reaction mechanisms used in many game systems to counter this from the plainer "overwatch" style reaction used in 40k 2nd edition to the more sophisticated (and the best up to date in my opinion) ARO of Infinity.
Alternative Activation is an activation method in which each players elements take turn, one at a time, this increases the players ability to respond on opponents actions, but has the disadvantage of been incoherent and making the use of elements synergy problematic, there are mechanics like delay that can allow players to make more coherent use of their force.
I don't really have a problem with IGOUGO. I don't feel a back-and-forth initiative based system would benefit a game on the scale of 40K. It would get clumsy rather quickly. I base this on other games like it that I've played. I mean, BattleTech has an Initiative system that I really like, but the scale of the game supports such a thing. You've got like 12 units at most, and that's a big game, and then maybe tanks/infantry/aircraft, but each unit is a major thing with its own record sheet and accounting for its actions, heat, ammo and so on. It's not 6 Tactical Squads, all with different weapons, some with transports, plus Bikes, Dreads, Termies, Characters, tanks and half a dozen other things across an analogue table-top (NB: analogue as in measured by hand, not done on a hex-grid like BTech, something which removes a lot of the ambiguities allowing you to focus better on the initiative-based alternate activation method). Epic (some versions of it) had similar methods, moving "detachments", at a time, which is a nice discreet unit of which you only have a few. Easier to focus on.
I could see a non-IGOUGO system working with a smaller scale game like Necromunda (again, for the same reasons - limited model count, individual playing pieces over squads). I don't think IGOUGO is bad for 40K. The current system is certainly better than, say, 2nd Ed 40K, where there was no interaction outside of the psychic phase. As the concept of "cover saves" didn't exist your own turns just consisted of removing your own units. From 3rd Ed onwards, the introduction of Cover Saves meant you had something to do during your opponent's turn.
Kojiro wrote: ... which is sailing clear over your head...
A reoccurring theme, wouldn't you say?
xruslanx wrote: I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me
I'll go ahead and add "scathing" and "sarcastic" alongside "strawman" on the list of things you don't know the definition of.
And I just ended a sentence with "of". Uhh! I did it again!!!
Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.
Amen.
I've had an idea playing in my head for quite a while. A mixing of what I find best in the games I play. Streamlined stats based on troop types all across factions (Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Armoured Infantry, etc). A turn sequence based heavily off Infinity (with the exception of a 'moral status' rule which either allows or limits AROs based on the status (either Ready, Spent, Broken or Panicked) of the unit). Limitations on the amount of dice throwing (only one dice to to both hit/wound), different armour rules (giving armour values only to vehicules and armoured troops) and a Living Card Game system to replace Reserve and the Army Org system and to include a bit of strategic gameplay above the table gameplay.
Which would leave the game looking nothing like 40k, and more like a frankenstein monster built from 40k, Wm/H, Infinity and Netrunner.
I'm going to start polls soon, to see if everyone thinks the project should focus on a adaptation of the current rules or a complete re-write.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I always liked the first warzone rules, it was activation and action-reaction in one, and units had 3 actions to spend, making the game very strategic.
But first the current game issues have to be indentified, a governing body must be chosen, testers/proofreaders must be named.
Because otherwise it will be just be 50 captains and one confused wheelman.
At this stage I'm still looking for support for the idea, the first poll I'll run will be a question about if people are actually interested in seeing a new community made rule-set, if it gets say 1000 positive votes and those votes outweigh the negative or don't care by a factor of at least 2 the project is worth investing my time in.
I would suggest starting small....skirmish level....then work your way up. Balance will be hard from every standpoint as you may have to literally reinvent the Hobby for GW.
xruslanx wrote: I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them. But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be. I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k. Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.
Variety is the spice of life as they say young man. One cannot measure how great something is until they measure it against its peers. Manchester United can't be considered the greatest football club of all time if they have no one to compete against. 40k cannot be considered 'as good as it gets', flawless, or anything else if you don't compare it to other game systems. In a bubble of GW, 40k is the greatest game you'll ever experience. Once you leave the shadow of the Ivory Tower of GW and venture into the Iron Kingdoms, Malifaux, WWII Earth, etc... you'll never appreciate the 40k rules for what they are, good or bad. You may venture forth and travel the world of miniature wargaming hobbies and find that none of these games scratch the itch that 40k does, or you may find yourself play multiple games and being all the happier for it.
There's not wrong with wanting a better 40k, regardless of the existence of 'better' rulesets.
IGOUGO is not flawed in itself, it's just the choices that GW has made in implementing it that fail too often.
GW's way of making rules is bad, even if some of the actual rules are not. It needs a complete overhaul into a tighter and better ruleset. Why start with the turn sequence and then put all sorts of rules that have nothing to do with it INSIDE that section? What if I shoot outside the shooting phase? How does that work? etc..
Undoing this will be a lot of work, especially since you'd need to re-do all the codices too.
Lanrak wrote: I agree there is nothing wrong with the core mechanics and resolutions used in 40k.
IF they were used in different games ,in completely different combinations.
But they way they are used for 40k is about as sub optimal as I have seen.
I would much prefer starting with Epic rules, (Space Marine/Armageddon.) And ADD DETAIL to bring it up to 28mm from 6mm scale.
Starting with good battle game rules , and ADDING detail makes more sense than starting with WHFB skirmish rules and chopping lumps out.(IMO.)
So I would vote for a complete re-write.
I think 28mm epic would be fun and would stand alone on its own. Armageddon is a disaster where 28mm epic could be both a replacement for 40k and armageddon.
The fundamental problem of 40k is the scale and scope, 28mm are too big for what is on the table, even with the minimal terrain 40k has it is cluttered with few possibilities for tactical maneuvers.
But I still think a really good game designer can salvage the system without essentially writing a new system, but for me the huge amount of models and vehicles on the table must either go or the rules be made abstract enough to correctly facilitate company level engagements.
While for GWs financials more models = great, from gameplay perspective, especially if one would love to have the fluff on the table smaller engagements might be better.
A good game designer could write rules specifically for the intended game play of 40k.
NO-ONE can salvage the GW rules for 40k. As they are just horribly mutated WHFB skirmish rules hatcheted up and crudely patched with counter intuitive special rules.
(Alessio gave up on fantasy in space after the first beta test of Warpath GW have been trying to get it right with a TEAM of professional game developers for 15 years...)
There is NOT ONE game mechanic or resolution method in 40k ,that can not be replaced with more intuitive /simpler/more synergistic one.
Current 40k is based on 30 year old Napoleonic rules .I think MODERN rules for MODERN combat would suit it much better, .
If you want a improved 40k rule set,Look at 'Grim Dark' rules by Rabid on the rules development forum.
You can keep the game play of 40k , but use other rules you know.
I have used other rules to play games of 40k,Tomorrows War, Warpath, Stargrunt ,etc.
So please dont think its not 40k when you use other rules.(Epic Space Marine/fan supported Net Epic, has always been my favorite rules set for the 40k universe.)
Oh I will not agree with that, the question is, when somebody says "I play WH40K" he means the background or the game rules and is the level included in his/her expectations?
PsychoticStorm wrote: The fundamental problem of 40k is the scale and scope, 28mm are too big for what is on the table, even with the minimal terrain 40k has it is cluttered with few possibilities for tactical maneuvers
I'm wholeheartedly behind this project but please, please, please look at the scale. Especially if you want to be true to the fluff.
At 28mm you want to be focusing on each model, it's gear and it's placement because that's the 'unit' of model you have. Contrast that with Epic or other game where you have a squad to a base. I strongly urge you to keep Epic scale models- Baneblades, Stompas, Titans, even Wraithknighs and Riptides- out of the new rules. And I would add fliers to that unless they're some small attack craft or Little BIrd like analogue.
A better idea, altogether may be to just convert 40K to a better rules set.
Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.
Amen.
I've had an idea playing in my head for quite a while. A mixing of what I find best in the games I play. Streamlined stats based on troop types all across factions (Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Armoured Infantry, etc). A turn sequence based heavily off Infinity (with the exception of a 'moral status' rule which either allows or limits AROs based on the status (either Ready, Spent, Broken or Panicked) of the unit). Limitations on the amount of dice throwing (only one dice to to both hit/wound), different armour rules (giving armour values only to vehicules and armoured troops) and a Living Card Game system to replace Reserve and the Army Org system and to include a bit of strategic gameplay above the table gameplay.
Which would leave the game looking nothing like 40k, and more like a frankenstein monster built from 40k, Wm/H, Infinity and Netrunner.
I'm going to start polls soon, to see if everyone thinks the project should focus on a adaptation of the current rules or a complete re-write.
I think you'll face the problem of trying to please too many people at the same time. Thing is, if more people tackled this issue, and actually produced sets of modded or re-written rules for GW games, you'd start seeing the interest. What I'd suggest would be to create a modding community, intent on helping and motivating each other to actually work on those rules, and playtest those of each other.
It's sad, but you'll get people decide they'll stay away from a game idea for the stupidest/most meaningless reasons. You'll lose interest the second you say ''D10'', when ''D10'' is, over ''D6'', an absolutely superior option. I expect quite a few GW players would look at the list of ideas I've listed, read 'Living Card Game' and immediatly thought ''lol nope'' simply on principle.
Oh : BS should be thrown against a difficulty rating. Give each ranged weapon a Increment stat (like 4 for pistols, 8 for a Boltgun, 10 for a Lasgun), and have difficulty equal to the number of increments between the target and the point of origins, plus modifiers for stuff like snipers and cover.
Kojiro wrote: Tell me xruslanx, which systems- and why- is IGOUGO superior to?
Anyone can claim 'I enjoy X the best!' and even mean it.
I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no? Make an argument for a lack of interaction if you're so in favour ot it. Stop claiming it's the best and explain why it is and don't use subjective (ie your personal enjoyment) to justify it.
I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems". What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.
If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.
xruslanx wrote:
I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?
So, you enjoy seeing what youre opponent does, whilst simultaneously not being able to do anything about it? this is not actually an objective look as to why the mechanics are superior.
xruslanx wrote:
I never said that 40k was "as good as it gets", or that it is flawless - indeed its flaws are many, and I would be happy to discuss them.
you're being intellectually dishonest again. how many threads have been waded through where folks listed a huge amount of the failings of the 40k game (bloated, and excessive game mechanics, cluttered, counter intuitive, cobbled together, and essentially byzantine resolution methods, lack of playtesting, proofreading, c lack of direction etc) where you simply ignore them?
xruslanx wrote:
But if the *only* way that people can rationalise a critisism of 40k is by saying "try other rulesets", it leads me to believe that 40k is - more or less - as good as a game with such a large scope can be.
Incorrect. and a flawed perspective. Why is it you are so adamant about refusing to accept or acknowledge the (a) existence, (b) validity and (c) relevance of other games, and what they bring to the table? 40k is not in a world of its own, its one horse in a rather large and growing stable. You cannot accurately discuss the merits and flaws of anything without direct comparisons to its peers. you were happy to bring computer games as comparisons into one of your previous threads (along with sex with animals) but you refused to acknowledge more relevant comparisons with other TTGs.
40k is not as good a game with such a large scope can be (and this can clearly be demonstrated with both many examples of poor rules writing, poor and sloppy implementation of said rules, and with any discussion of the merits and faults of its in-game mechanics) . other games play the company level engagement far better than 40k, but again, you refuse to accept their existence. And im sorry, but "i dont play them" is not an excuse,(it doesnt make them disappear), especially when the mechanics they use are brought up, shown and explained.
but then again, your only experience of wargames is 40k. and you refuse to look beyond it, or acknowledge whatever else is out there. its no wonder your perspective is so narrow and flawed, considering you have no other measure with which to develop your opinions.
xruslanx wrote:
I would love to read a logical argument for how 40k could be improved while - and this is important - retaining the depth and diversity of 40k.
(1) having a defined 'direction', 'scale' and 'scope' for what 40k is meant to be. right now, its a mess. it tries to be a company level game, with bolted on additions more suitable for larger games like epic, whilst simultaneously using model based micromanagement far more suitable for a warband, or skirmish game. in the end, all these subtract from each other. Also, this defined direction must be maintained. I've seen it too often where GW changes direction (eg the back to basics codices - chaos, dark angels from fifth followed by the more overblown matt ward era grey knights, space wolves and other OOT codices). All books should be based on the same direction to maintain balance.
(2) buildin mechanics specifically to represent the scope (and not just bolting on 'moar stuff'' as they do now) rather than using 30year old mutated napoleonic rules sets. Using a modern, or current system.
(3) taking objective feedback from the community, and accepting external playtesting.
(4) Clear, tight, and unambiguous rules writing, with accurate, up to date and complete FAQs and erratas.
Please note, none of this comes at the expense of depth and diversity - actually it will increase both.
xruslanx wrote:
Saying "it should have less rule inconsistancies" is pointless. Yes, everything should have as few mistakes as possible, and maybe 40k should have less than it does. But that's not a philosophical argument, and by and large pointless.
Its far from pointless my good man. its simulatenously philosophical, mechanical and practical. youre rejecting the notion that it should be designed to be as clear, and as tight as possible and saying its irrelevant when any amount of chat on the subject will tell you the opposite.
how is it that in the same breath you both acknowledge that there are faults, that there should be less faults, but that its irrelevant and 'pointless' to discuss them? i know politicians that arent as good at weaseling out of arguments and facts as you are.
xruslanx wrote:
I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems". What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.
If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.
with respect, but no, you didnt. you basically said you enjoy watching your opponent do his stuff whilst you cant actually do anything about it, you like to think about what you will do.
larger amount of time is just that: a larger amount of time. Warmachine is an IGOYOUGO game, except its Steamroller rules have timed turns (7minute turns for 35pt games, 10minute turns for 50pt games, with a number of extensions allowed). Believe me, having timed turns makes the game a lot more tense and exciting. you cant make mistakes. you cant just hum, or haw. you have a plan, put that plan in motion, make your moves, and commit without any time for mistakes. 25minute turns? yeah, i'll go and have my dinner, thanks! WIth other games like Infinity, or the old Starship Troopers, the ARO and reaction mechanisms make the game a lot more interactive. its not just about watching your enemies carefully laid plans unfold. you can actively throw a spanner in the works, which makes me feel like im always engaging in the game. No one wants to let his enemies plans entirely unfold whilst doing nothing but watching. Nothing frustrated me more when i plated 40k than seeing rhinos, assault marines and land raiders drive up to within an inch of my guys, deloy their troops, casually spend a round shooting and then wade into melee whilst my guys did nothing. So, when melee came about, i could fight back then, but when the other guy was moving, shooting etc, i had to stand there and take it, with no avenue to react or counter? you know, i can react to him punching me, but i cant react to him driving to within 2" of my position? I cant react to his shooting by shooting back? I cant try and pin his assault elements in place? No, i have to let him have his cake and eat it. Yeah, thats disengagement from the game, right there.
I think psychoticstorm did a great analysis earlier of the strenths of igoyougo, and alternative activation:
IGOUGO is an activation method, it has the advantage of providing a player the means to make more coherent use of his forces elements and formulate a more coordinated strategy.
Its disadvantages are that there are no means to use your elements in direct response to your opponents use, there are many reaction mechanisms used in many game systems to counter this from the plainer "overwatch" style reaction used in 40k 2nd edition to the more sophisticated (and the best up to date in my opinion) ARO of Infinity.
Alternative Activation is an activation method in which each players elements take turn, one at a time, this increases the players ability to respond on opponents actions, but has the disadvantage of been incoherent and making the use of elements synergy problematic, there are mechanics like delay that can allow players to make more coherent use of their force.
to be fair, i think IGOYOUGO has evolved since the advent of Andy Chambers' Starship Troopers to have/want/need some kind of mechanism of reactions. despite what peregrine seems to think, that is the more 'modern' IGOYOUGO template. its evolution. and games have benefited from it.
You have? Let's quickly filter the thread to find your explanation...
You! wrote:I could "balance" the IG codex in about 5 minutes, i daresay most people could do the same for their codex.
Nope. No explanation there.
You! wrote:Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.
None there either.
You! wrote:Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?
That's more of a question that an explanation.
You! wrote:Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively bad...is that you don't enjoy it.
Nope. No explanation here either.
You! wrote:I enjoy watching my opponent manouvre his forces, planning counter-attacks, contemplating what he'll shoot at, wondering where i'll deep strike - if he wipes out x unit then i'll deep-strike there, if he shoots at y unit then i'll deep-strike there. I enjoy watching my opponent's movements unfold like a battleplan as I sit and plot my response - how is that "objectively inferior" to anything?
This is you explaining what you like about IGOUGO, not you explaining its advantages. You might think the above quote of yours is an explanation, but really, to (mis)quote your own words:
Your proof that IGOUGO is objectively good... is that you do enjoy it?
Perigrine stated that IGOUGO was objectively inferior. If a game - something that is designed to be *fun* to the people who play it - cannot be judged on how much enjoyment the people who play it garner, then it cannot be judged at all.
That's not an explanation. That's... I don't even know what that is. Red Herring, at best. You're attempting to shift focus away from the actual question. Someone asked if you were a politician, and I'm beginning to wonder that myself.
I have to break the next quote in two:
You can't judge something that is designed to be fun, then declare that peoples' fun experiences with it are irrelevent.
"Designed to be fun" is an utterly meaningless statement and an even less useful "measure" of something's worth. Designed to be fun? What the hell else was it designed for? To be torturous? To cook toast?
If peregrine (or you) doesn't enjoy IGOUGO, for whatever reason, then fine. But to claim that it is objectively inferior to alternatives is untrue.
But you've yet to explain why it's untrue (despite repeatedly saying that you have... which you haven't).
I was going to post something sarcastic and scathing but you did it for me
We've already covered that you don't know the meaning of the word "sarcastic" (or irony, it seems), so I won't go any further into this one.
And then we come back to your latest:
I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO.
To which I can unequivocally say:
No you haven't. You haven't explained anything. It's almost as if you're familiar with the concept of an argument, but just not really sure how to make one.
xruslanx wrote: You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems".
Selective reading much? Here are some quotes from this very thread, which means you either didn't read them or lack any form of reading comprehension:
In cases where a person cannot 'defend' themselves in an IGOUGO format means that hot dice, 'better tactics', and unbalanced armies can lead to games ending long before their natural conclusion (i.e. turns 5-6). If you and I spend 25 minutes setting up a board, rolling for Warlord Traits and psychic powers, and deploying our armies just to watch me get crippled in turn 1 without a chance to defend myself, what makes that fun?
Most of the issues with an IGOUGO system are limited in skirmish level games due to weapon ranges. In 40k we have weapons that can reach the other side of the board without issue, so you're able to negate the distance setup by deployment zones, force your opponent to spend his turns jumping from cover to cover because to hide out in the open is suicide.
40k's turn system wouldn't be as much of an issue if there were mitigating circumstances that prevented hot dice and overpowered units from decimating an opponent before they got the chance to do anything. The leafblower list from 5th edition basically exploited IGOUGO by using the entirety of their large guns/tanks to cripple choice pieces of your army before you could go/get near them.
When it is army wide and leads to huge alpha strike potential leaving the opponent with nothing to shoot back, yes i'd say yes IGOUGO is objectively bad and needs a shake up.
And to answer the relevant question, yes, IGOUGO is bad. If you replaced saves with rolling to defeat saves (mathematically equal) you could have one player walk away and get lunch while their opponent takes their turn and not miss anything. Having to spend long periods of time watching someone else play the game instead of playing just isn't fun. And that's not even considering the balance issues with alpha strike armies, or the absurdity of trying to explain the fluff of what is going on when a unit charges across half the table and slaughters your troops in melee while they stand around waiting for permission to shoot back.
I said earlier, skirmish games can get away with an IGOUGO system because the idea that you can hit someone from 48 inches away with the weapons is rare in those games.
(Emphasis mine)
It isn't because the defining characteristic of IGOUGO is that I make all of my moves, then you make all of your moves, and we don't interact much while we're doing it.
(Emphasis mine)
The deciding factor is when during a turn each player is acting vs. waiting while the other player acts. IGOUGO and action-reaction are fundamentally different because IGOUGO says "this is my half of the turn, I'm going to do stuff while you watch" while action-reaction says "this is 'my' half of the turn, but you're going to make choices too". So, in 40k if I make a shooting attack the only decisions you get to make are about how you remove your casualties. In Infinity if I make a shooting attack you get to return fire, and that's a very different situation. It's different in terms of keeping you from getting bored while I take my turn, and it's different in terms of making strategic decisions at all times vs. executing your strategy and then waiting while your opponent executes theirs.
His objection ... is that IGOUGO is non interactive. Interacting with your oppoent is the essence of collaboration and competition.
I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no?
[The disadvantages of IGOUGO] are that there are no means to use your elements in direct response to your opponents use, there are many reaction mechanisms used in many game systems to counter this from the plainer "overwatch" style reaction used in 40k 2nd edition to the more sophisticated (and the best up to date in my opinion) ARO of Infinity.
If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.
See all the quotes above. If you can't fathom what people are saying out of that then we'll know it's a lack of reading comprehension. If you can understand the above yet fail to acknowledge it, then I don't know what to think.
Just adding my tuppence worth.
I do not really mind IGOUGO that much, although I guess it could be argued that it is a dated method, originating from basic turn based board games probably.
If I were given a choice I did much prefer the way the old epic rules worked, where each unit was given orders at the start and followed the order sequence. I think that was probably my favourite system ever tbh.
Rayvon wrote: I do not really mind IGOUGO that much...
Neither do I, but I do acknowledge that the "alpha strike" issue is a pretty big problem and it won't go away no matter how balanced individual Codices are.
It'd be easy to say "Do what BattleTech does!" and have everything happen simultaneously (ie. I blow up your Land Raider, but you still get to use it as nothing "dies" until the end of the turn when all casualties are removed), but again we have to come back to the scale of 40K. In BTech that works because (as I mentioned earlier) a lot of the analogue parts of the game (movement, terrain, LOS, range, etc.) are taken away from the players and digitised in the form of hex-grid map sheets*. This means players have to concern themselves less with measuring those things (as there's no ambiguity when you use a hex grid as everything is binary - either in range or not, either in LOS or not - no kneeling over for LOS checks, no vagaries of tape measures and no Imperial Measurement System) and have more headspace to look after their units. And as everything happens at the same time, there's a much lower chance that your [Powerful Unit X] will be annihilated before it can have its first turn.
40K, if the assumption is made that the scale will stay the same (ie. sub-Marine Company sized game and lower), then non-IGOUGO systems can become rather cumbersome, as you're going back and forth with multiple units. Easy in a Draigo Wing, sure. Harder with Guard and 'Nids I'd wager.
*I know BTech has full miniature rules, but I'm specifically referring to the standard method that BTech is played.
What do you think about interleaved phases?
So players get to perform ONE action with all their army before the opposing player gets to perform an action with all their army.
Or interleaved phases with order counters, so you have more options of what units do what and when.
Kojiro wrote: Tell me xruslanx, which systems- and why- is IGOUGO superior to?
Anyone can claim 'I enjoy X the best!' and even mean it.
I'll say it again- interaction is reason we have an opponent. Interaction makes things dynamic, shifting and brings more of the player to the table. These are good things, no? Make an argument for a lack of interaction if you're so in favour ot it. Stop claiming it's the best and explain why it is and don't use subjective (ie your personal enjoyment) to justify it.
I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems". What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.
If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.
Its hard to have a dscussion with someone who talks alot but doesnt say anything
I see the emphasis above, but I have to say, the IGOUGO as an activation method, does not include the non intractability of elements, this design decision is different to the decision of activation method.
I can actually say that there are alternative activation games out there that have less elements interaction between players turns than IGOUGO systems, but players ignore it because they "will activate their unit next"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: What do you think about interleaved phases?
So players get to perform ONE action with all their army before the opposing player gets to perform an action with all their army.
Or interleaved phases with order counters, so you have more options of what units do what and when.
Personally, I would like to see a priority activation game with a hidden orders sub phase.
Essentially, at the start of the turn the initiative is determined from who has the most victory points from the last turn first turn the attacker.
Players assign "orders" to units, orders are hidden from opponent, "orders" are essentially a restriction to what "actions" the unit can do in this turn, for example a unit assigned "advance orders" can move, shoot, use special actions that are in the Advance group, embark/ disembark and so on.
After all elements have their orders assigned the orders get revealed.
Now comes priority, each element has a tier from 1-5 first all tier 5 elements get to activate starting from the player that has the initiative then the other player can activate a tier 5 element then the player with the initiative does so until there are no more tier 5 elements left then tier 4 elements and so on.
Players remove the order counter/ card from activated units to mark them as used.
Turn ends VPs are counted to determine who gets the initiative next turn in tie the attacker.
How could this adapted to 40k?
Assign actions in groups for example move, run, shoot, ballistic and support Psychic powers to "advance" orders, move, assault, CC, CC psychic assaults to "melee" orders, of course it needs more work than that, each unit could act on two different things from the list per activation.
Then units activate according to either Slot or LD, both are not the best choices, but I try to have the game as less modified in this example as possible.
The problem is this is a system I like and have used in the games I have designed in the past, it is not 40k as people think about.
And this is what the basic question of any balance attempt to 40k should first consider, will they modify the system in a workable modern solution? or keep the theme and make a new system from scratch.
In either case the community will be opposed in general that's understandable in may many ways, but if you do this you should do it for the game design experience, not for anything else.
Fascinating, I would be vastly disappointing if somebody had not used it.
It would mean two things, either I would be an isolated genius, which is strongly improbable (it would also mean it would be really too complicated to be of practical use)
or
It would mean its such a bad game mechanism that nobody likes to use it, which would be far more probable.
As I usually say there is nothing new or innovative in creation.
There are some differences from what you mention, chiefly on how initiative is determined and implemented, but the idea of orders determining what actions a unit can perform and how they perform them is almost lifted straight from the rulebook.
The QuickStart rules and provisional army lists (musters) can be found here...
People should stop replying to xruslanx, he is just rattling the cage, he isn't engaging in the discussion, he/she/it is just trying to cause controversy.
Jehan-reznor wrote: People should stop replying to xruslanx, he is just rattling the cage, he isn't engaging in the discussion, he/she/it is just trying to cause controversy.
Great trolling techniques though
Lol, the last time I implied he was trolling, he reported me!
Nothing came of it though, read into that what you will.
After reading Darklands, it is quite different but has some nice ideas in it, retaining the initiative is a clever rule, I think they missed a lot with the exhaustion mechanism tied in with the hours (turns) mechanism, they should make it progressively deteriorating and have a "rest" (skip turn) revitalization mechanism, like Saga,
@Psychotic Storm
Thanks for explaining that for me.
Hidden orders that are revealed in the 'action phase' is a VERY good idea used in lots of good battle games.
I think activating at 'initiative' groups determined by VP could be a tad over complicated though for a battle game.(And due to the imbalance in units in 40k probably NOT the most optimal option.)
In a similar way using victory points to determine who activates groups first could get complicated/overpowering.
This sort of game turn mechanic is brilliant in other games, but probably not the best option for 40k ,IMO.(Unless we make MASSIVE adjustments to units,)
Agreed, it was more a suggestion on what I would Ideally love to see than what can realistically happen.
For me personally, unrealistically and improbably the "current" 40k must be remade into 15mm and get abstracted enough to support the company level game, and the current 28mm models become a proper new skirmish game.
This cannot happen for more reasons that I care to count, so the current initiative is an interesting proposal on trying to iron out 40k.
The basic questions remain how much of the 6th will remain intact, will the project focus on rebalancing points cost and clearing up the badly written rules, or be more adventurous in the rules structure and if more adventurous to what extend?
PsychoticStorm wrote: After reading Darklands, it is quite different but has some nice ideas in it, retaining the initiative is a clever rule, I think they missed a lot with the exhaustion mechanism tied in with the hours (turns) mechanism, they should make it progressively deteriorating and have a "rest" (skip turn) revitalization mechanism, like Saga,
Those are essentially the draft rules, so it is entirely possible things like that will enter the game (there's already a similar action to recover from spell casting)
If there's anything you feel strongly about, I'm sure Rob would be interested to hear it, but I think they're fairly well down the line as far written rules go, the book is due to KS backers in June IIRC, so factor in production and shipping times and they're probably not massively far from final copy.
Kudos for initiating action! It is clearly a controversial topic.
I've been involved in a lot of projects and the successful ones always had one thing in common. They all identified what needed change and communicated well. Then there were a series of actions, mostly small, many generated outside the "core team", that showed that something was happening. Visible progress is important.
My suggestion for you is to start small-a small team posting what they see as improvements. Put them up for play testing and see what happens.
I think it is a great initiative, happy to help if I can.
Although others have done a perfect job of dismantling this it was directed at me so I feel I should answer.
xruslanx wrote: I explained above the advantages of IGOUGO. You can't seem to explain the disadvantages without simply saying "well you've not played other game systems".
Actually *I* have never said anything of the sort, though I would agree in order to appreciate the difference between any two things direct experience of those things would be beneficial. But I don't think anyone has said a) your like of IGOUO is wrong or not genuine because you're not experienced only that you lack perspective. You're in no position to judge Renegade Legion because you've never played Renegade Legion and so- better or worse than 40K- you cannot even subjectively say let alone objectively.
xruslanx wrote: What exactly is the advantage of a system with 5 minutes in between plays, over a system with 25 minutes between plays? It seems obvious that the larger amount of play-time a single player has allows for more advanced tactical play, since it involves less variables on the opponent's behalf.
Aside from the interacting with your opponent bit? The fact is that the depth/level to which you're playing is directly proportionate to the amount of, well, playing you're doing.
Let's say we have three games- one where the turns are completely IGOUGO, another where the it's mostly IGOUGO but with with shorter turns and a third with an alternating system. Let us say, for the sake of balance, that each game is using the same number of models (so each player has the same amount of stuff to move/shoot). With me so far?
In game 1, which would cover 40K, you are completely irrelevant to your opponents turn. You do not need to be there except for saves and there is nothing tactical about them- your opponent could make (as Peregrine has said) a 'defeat armour roll' with mathematically identical odds (or even just make the save for you). Your input (or presence) is not required. Now you can certainly be thinking about your next move and planning but that's not unique to this set up. You spend 50% of the game irrelevant and play only against the static end situation you're left with.
In game 2, which would cover something like Warmachine, you still get to watch your opponents plans unfold and plot your next move BUT you're also able to make decisions which affect your opponent during your turn on occasion. Do you want the Drakun to countercharge now, when the solo moves up or not at all? Does Haley want to burn a focus to protect the unit or is Gaspy suckering you in for a spell assassination? Which Errant do you want to remove? Or do you want to Martyrdom him? These are just a few things and they make you more involved. They make your plan deeper and more tactical by the sheer virtue of extending past your turn and into your opponents. The state of play, at the end of your turn is not static because you can still interact and affect your opponent and likewise you have to account for interruption to your plans sometimes. You're involved in both turns, albeit much less in your opponents, and so more involved with the game and able to make a whole new level of tactical decisions. Shorter intervals of down time are also inherently more involving.
In game 3, which might cover say Epic (Space Marine), you're involved almost constantly. It's like ping pong back and forth and you have to adjust and account for your strategy constantly (almost as if the enemy weren't static statues, standing there letting your whole plan unwind). Yeah I put my devastators on First Fire to smash that falcon detachment but alas I did not realise those jet bikes were within charge range. My opponent has read the board and seen my obvious move and is covering the falcons loaded with aspect warriors as best he can. Luckily I've given my assault marines charge orders and can get them there this turn to save the devastators but my plan is still thwarted. But- and this is why it's so great a system and will forever be one of my favuorites- it was thwarted by my opponent reading me, not his units. Both players are involved constantly in a back and forth. We're both still able to look at the board and formulate plans and watch an opponents plan but- within the limits of orders we've given- we can fight back. There is no alpha strike, no sitting around and you're engaged with the game and your opponent for the majority of play time. In fact if your opponent (or you) can make a plan and successfully execute it under these conditions it is vastly more rewarding simply because you had to anticipate and account for counter plays.
xruslanx wrote: If you'd like to offer an explanation for the advantages of alternatives I'm all ears.
I believe I have done this. Now of course it's possible that the things I listed don't actually appeal to you. I could be trying to set you up on a blind date with a Victoria's Secret model but if you're not into tall, gorgeous Brazilian women then all the flattering descriptions (no matter how accurate) in the world won't sell you on even giving them a go. Or maybe you're just happily married with the first girl who gave you the time of day and no matter how poor a wife she is, she's still the best you've ever had. But wargames aren't wives, you're allowed to 'cheat' on them and I strongly encourage you to do so with 40k. Maybe that tired old nag really is the perfect one for you but you're never know unless you try something else.
PsychoticStorm wrote: After reading Darklands, it is quite different but has some nice ideas in it, retaining the initiative is a clever rule, I think they missed a lot with the exhaustion mechanism tied in with the hours (turns) mechanism, they should make it progressively deteriorating and have a "rest" (skip turn) revitalization mechanism, like Saga,
Those are essentially the draft rules, so it is entirely possible things like that will enter the game (there's already a similar action to recover from spell casting)
If there's anything you feel strongly about, I'm sure Rob would be interested to hear it, but I think they're fairly well down the line as far written rules go, the book is due to KS backers in June IIRC, so factor in production and shipping times and they're probably not massively far from final copy.
I don't feel strongly about anything and I think the development phase is long into completion for radical gameplay changes.
My observations are on glance and to be really fleshed out need some extensive playtesting, to be fair I am not interested in doing it.
Of course if you feel the game could be improved by them, feel free to share them.
Well fellas,
We tried out an Alpha Order system yesterday....
We played Marines v. Daemons. 1500 pts broken into 500 pt detachments.
We used the old Epic order system with the First Fire, Advance, Fall Back, and Charge orders.
It worked....okay..
We came to find that each unit needed its own order token and detachment orders didnt work so well with different kinds of units. The players liked the idea of giving orders to their units and that there was a built in initiative system by alternating turns with first player / second player.
Soo...
Orders are a definate.
Simple unit actions are a must....maybe use the Special weapon / Heavy weapon as a choice to modify the dice roll against infantry or tanks...Rolling lots more dice doesnt always mean lots more fun..
Vehicles need a more defined roll. Either they are a centrifical part of the game with great in depth rules and points cost to go with them or they need to be simple constructs with simple rules and low points ...special cards for unique damage effects would be fine. And after further consideration.....
I do indeed think the game needs a complete re-write.
We played Marines v. Daemons. 1500 pts broken into 500 pt detachments.
We used the old Epic order system with the First Fire, Advance, Fall Back, and Charge orders.
It worked....okay..
Not surprising, really. straight ports are often gonna have issues.
FarseerAndyMan wrote: Well fellas,
We came to find that each unit needed its own order token and detachment orders didnt work so well with different kinds of units. The players liked the idea of giving orders to their units and that there was a built in initiative system by alternating turns with first player / second player.
Regarding the detachment orders, how did you 'organise' the armies? i can imagine if a 'detachment' was, say, 3 tactical squads, then it would be relatively easy to have them pulling the same battlefield role, but i will agree with you; this would fall down with combined arms forces where everything does something slightly different as part of its greater whole. it also sounds like a bit of a headache with book keeping.
Orders are a good mechanism. have a look at starship troopers though. each unit gets 2 actions per turn. for each action they can do things like move, shoot, assault, perform a ready action (necessary for any/all special actions unique to the unit like jetpacks/heavy weapons) and if anyone finishes an action within 10" of one of your squads, they get to perform a free 'action' as their reaction (move away if things get close, shoot, counter charge etc).
I'd also look into a 'scaled up' ARO/reaction system from infinity/starship troopers. rather than 'my turn/your turn', you're dealing with an 'active turn', and a 'reactive turn' more so than alternating turns. It allows for a more engaging game if you ask me.
FarseerAndyMan wrote: Well fellas,
Simple unit actions are a must....maybe use the Special weapon / Heavy weapon as a choice to modify the dice roll against infantry or tanks...Rolling lots more dice doesnt always mean lots more fun..
One solution is not to allow mixed loadouts. tank hunting squads hunt tanks. infantry squads gun down infantry. boring, but easy to implement.
Or more along the lines of what you say, have 'squads' or 'platoons' roll a set amount of anti infantry dice depending on their loadouts of small arms and anti infantry weapons (with the emphasis on the 'squad' rolling x anti infantry dice, rather than 10marines contributing 2 shots each. to be fair, small arms dont do a significant amount of killing in real life - they're for suppressing movement mainly, its artillery and your heavy machine guns that do most of the dirty work) or similarly, roll a set amount of anti armour dice, depending on their loadout. not sure if this is practical though.
FarseerAndyMan wrote: Well fellas,
Vehicles need a more defined roll. Either they are a centrifical part of the game with great in depth rules and points cost to go with them or they need to be simple constructs with simple rules and low points ...special cards for unique damage effects would be fine.
well, we could have told you that! problem with vehicles is there are a bolt-on to a napoleonics themed wargame mechanics. there is no issue with vehicles per se, but what you are referring to is the 'direction', and 'scope' that is needed for the game. decide for yourselves what you want it to be.
Will it be an infantry-centric game with limited vehicle support (even off field?) with the emphasis on squads of troopers? Will it be armourhammer? You need to decide on what the 'soul' of your game will be.
Regarding the damage, look at how warmachine applies damage to its jacks, based on a grid.
FarseerAndyMan wrote: Well fellas,
And after further consideration.....
I do indeed think the game needs a complete re-write.
yup. See above. Define the direction and scope for the game, and then develop mechanics to acheive this and support this.
When we feel froggy we simply do this to shake things up. Movement phase, see how many units you have and alternate movement, with the player who has more moving two units to the other players one until there is a even amount.
Do the same thing for shooting and assaults with one final assault phase to end the round. It really changes things around and helps to balance a ton of the alpha strike opportunities. Not perfect, but it is a nice change from time to time.
Hi all.
For a re write to get a well defined modern BATTLE game .(Including infantry armour artillery and air support.)
IMO,the best way to proceed would be define stats that cover ALL units , and unit interaction in an intuitive and easy to resolve way.(No tables that reduce the number of outcomes to 3 or less options!)
I would use just 3 resolution methods.
A)Direct representation .(Distance of movement /effect, or number of dice rolled.
B)Stat as target score, the (modified) number to beat to make a successful roll.
C)Stat as a dice modifier, the stat value is added to the dice roll to compare to opposed value.
EG
A)Movement Value 6" the model may move up to 6" when taking a movement action/Weapon effective ranges.Number of dice rolled for attacks etc.
B)Morale value 3+.The unit has to roll over 3 to pass a morale test.
C) Armour value (1 to14) is added to the armour save roll (D6). if this value is higher than the weapon hit Armour Penetration value,(4-17) the model passes its armour save roll.
Just to provide an alternate point of view, this thread has got me seriously thinking about what I'd change in 40k (I'm not going to say "needs" to change - because this is my personal opinion.)
Igougo isn't one of the things I'd actually change. There is a significant challenge to setting up your plan and forces to win the game over the 5+turns. I like getting to make my plans, trying to force the other player to do something by placing my units just so, taking my shots etc. Equally, I think it is quite enjoyable watching to see what the opponent is doing and getting time to think about what I'm going to do next turn.
It also makes the game WAAYYY simpler....which makes it easier to learn the basics for all ages (my 7, 10 and 12 year olds like playing). In many ways it also makes the games feel more casual to me - you don't have to worry about complicated facings, action reaction, how many orders/resources you have left.
I'm not saying that any of that is bad, in fact I like games with that level of complexity. But if I want that level of complexity I can always play a different game. 40k fits a certain niche and does it comparatively well.
There are certainly things I'd like to change, and some things we do in the house when we play which help us enjoy the games more.
Firstly, terrain. We have loads of it, and lots of LOS blocking.
Second, Point limits. We find that smaller point games (1000-1250) really reduces the waiting times. We'll play higher limit games if we have time, but that is when the game starts to drag a bit. 1500, is probably our upper limit.
Third, Army lists. We tend to change them up a lot and try different things.
Some of the balance changes I'd suggest to 6E are comparatively simple - and targetted at making things more reasonable:
Blast/Large blast Weapons with ranges >36' cannot be AP3 or better.
No rerolls on 2+ saves
Making cover easier to understand and use.
Of course, this is just imo and a lot of it has come about because as a family we've been looking at whether we should start fantasy armies.
From the research we've done, fantasy seems like a logical step up to a more tactically complex game. So we can keep 40k in it's niche (casual, shoot things, have a laugh) and step up to fantasy if we really want to exercise our tactical heads!
Mark
ps...just priced up fantasy armies, so if anyone has any recommendations for alternate games (infinity? warmahordes?) please pm!
Well lets see.
IGO UGO game turn simple and restrictive and non interactive game turn.
Core rules , similarly simple and restrictive .
IF this covered all the game play of 40k, I would agree 40k rules were simple and easy to learn and play.
However, as the game needs extra rules for vehicles, flyers, cavalry /beasts, bikes , walker ,tanks , and faster vehicles, monstrous creatures, artillery ,jump/jet packs, etc
So unless you only play with 'standard infantry' units 40k rules are NOT simple at all are they?
A slightly more interactive game turn, (interleaved phases,) removes the need for 'overwatch' special rules , and is just as simple to understand.
EG
I take an action
You take an action
I take an action
You take an action.
WHFB rules work ok for WHFB.
But Kings of War rules deliver a similar amount of game play but with much more straightforward rules(About a fifth of the pages of rules !)
(I would look at Mantic Games website as they let you download the rules and basic army lists for free!)
I had a discussion about 40K with a friend to day, and I'm shocked to say that I actually like 6th Ed. I thought 4th Ed was tremendously tedious and I loathed 5th Ed, but 6th Ed has some of the weird flare that 3rd Ed had (for all its absurdity).
It's overly bloated with too many special rules, and GW's inane need to make everything "cinematic' by way of random D6 charts is fething annoying, but structurally I like a lot of the changes they made. I also don't mind IGOUGO, but that's just me.
I would change some things though:
1. Hull Points. These are my single most hated thing in the game. I'd remove them completely. Get a Glance? Roll on the chart with a -2. Anything 0 or less counts as "no effect", because your shot glanced off the armour.
2. Charging from vehicles. I'd let units charge from stationary vehicles (ie. vehicles that did not move that turn) as well as from coming in on reserves. The charge rolls are random anyway, so it's tough enough getting into assault. Plus I think the current method over-values Assault Vehicles.
3. Casualty removal. Owning player chooses casualties from those in range and LOS. None of this "closest model" stuff. This will speed things up.
4. Blast Markers. Must we roll scatter for every single shot? This is tedious and does nothing but slow the game down. Large blast, ok. But small blast? No.
5. Walkers. All current AV walkers become T/W walkers. They work better that way.
6. Area Terrain. Have it completely block LOS from one side to the other. This means there are more things that generally block LOS completely, rather than seeing models through the crack of a window on the other side of a set of ruins. Again, speeds things up.
And I'd do something about aircraft. I don't like their implementation. The games can get too focused on them, and armies without anti-air cover are basically at the mercy of air-heavy armies (which are too easy to do). Air craft should be a supporting element of a ground force, not the main push in a game that focuses on ground skirmishes.
Can someone please make a version of 40k that is more balanced at ~400 points so that I can play a game in a lunch break without drowning in my rulebook and codex? Oh and is it possible to somehow condense army rules/lists a bit in order to capture the core principles behind an army's playing style, without having tons of clunky 'flavor' rules that create extra rolls and randomness there seemingly just to clog the game up?
1. Hull Points. These are my single most hated thing in the game. I'd remove them completely. Get a Glance? Roll on the chart with a -2. Anything 0 or less counts as "no effect", because your shot glanced off the armour.
5. Walkers. All current AV walkers become T/W walkers. They work better that way.
Hull points was a move in the right direction majorly botched as usual, option 5 should be the same for all vehicles, there is no real reason why vehicles should be different than monstrous creatures, or put it in another way, not have the same profile with the rest of the units.
Swastakowey wrote: Personally i dislike how you can only target one unit. In my opinion squads should have an area of effect for their shooting for X amount of models.
So for example 10 guardsmen have a "large blast" sized area of effect, when they shoot they place the large blast anywhere in their range. You roll to hit like normal but wounds are taken from the models within the "area of effect" like normal. so if the area of effect goes over 3 different squads then all those squads can be effected. (but only those MODELS under the blast)
Umm... what, sorry thats just, I don't even have a word for it. Either let every model in a unit pick who they want to shoot or every weapon line in a unit pick who they want to shoot.
I mean in smaller scaled games shooting is done on a model by model basis during the unit's activation, which gets around this issue, but with an boyz mob or a blob squad, that could get tedious
Well, it looks like we have a crew of people ready to playtest!!
So...
In the interest of getting the ball rolling, lets throw around what we want and dont want.. based strictly upon reasonable arguements and counterpoints brought up by folks on this thread.
Wants :
1. Alternating turns - In essence we would like to see both players active in the turn.
2. Balance of stat line versus effect in game - WS 10 should mean something!!
3. Straight forward 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 mechanics.
4. Easy to play - not necessarily dumb mechanics, just easy mechanics to learn and implement with a minimal of reference.
5. One mechanic for all resoloution of combat - whether it is man v. man or man v. machine or machine v. machine.
6. Game play that fits the narrative.
7. To be able to use our current collection of models and play a game that can range from a few figs in a skirmish to a table full of machines blasting away at each other.
Dont Want :
1. An encyclopedia of rules.
2. Alpha Strike game enders.
3. Rules that change to encourage model sales.
4. Static turns of inaction.
That being said, I propose we come up with a system similar to the old Epic rules in which Orders are issued, and actions are "Interruptable" with a reaction system.
Close combat is quick and bloody with a definate resoloution at end of turn ( ala Flames of War style ).
Vehicles and Infantry have the same method of destruction, but each is capable of effecting one another to a major or lesser degree.
Flyers should be given orders rather than being able to zip into a series of 180' turns in the length of less than 100 yards.
Any other thoughts im missing ?
I really like this idea (only read the first page so I have not read any further pages ahead atm), as I have been thinking on this myself on re-writing the rulebook for 40k...
I can help with core rules and The CSM/CD/Traitor Guard codex's and Orks if you would like to include me in this project just shoot me a PM
Personally I think with Core rules it should be more inclusive but with the same turn sequence such as fist player movement phase, second players movement phase, first players shooting phase and so on..
I would say give vehicles a statline like a dreadnought/MC does (but double the wounds/HP if you shoot the rear armour) and if your going to include HP double the amount they already have.
I would also suggest the AP mechanism to work similarly to the Str modifier chart to WHFB, I personally would use it like this:
AP 5+ = 0 AP 4 = -1 to the targets armour save AP 3 = -2 AP 2 = -3 AP 1 = -4
If the AP value forces the armour save to go beyond a 6 then the target is not allowed an armour save, remove the target model.
I would also suggest a split fire mechanism with only heavy weapon guys in a normal squad for example you have a squad of marines all with bolters except one guy with a missile launcher, and the guy with the heavy weapon can fire at a different target (so whilst some marines will fore into a squad the Missile launcher can fire at a nearby tank for example), the only time this would not apply is when you have a squadron of heavy weapons guys, to keep is simple, fast and fair imo.
Fixed charge distances like back in 5th ed, I personally really don't like the 2D6 charge mechanism they have done for 6th.
I would also use an extensive amount of modifiers instead of random dice to keep it fast paced
Swastakowey - Indeed, the shooting would be in that one mechanic as well.
And I agree with you , my Warp Spiders are Tank hunters supreme but cant kill a Fire Warrior for squat!!
I would propose the following alternative to arrive at a SINGLE damage resolution process.
(Roll to hit based on TARGETS 'Stealth value' for ranged attacks , and 'Assault value' for close combat.Similar to FoW)
ARMOUR SAVE ROLL.
ADD a D6 to the models Armour value.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover infantry.Values of 1 to 14 )
IF this is higher than the Attackers weapon hit Armour Piercing value , the target passes the armour save roll.NO DAMAGE or further action taken.
This means heavy armour makes the target immune to some ranged weapons .Eg a main battle tank is immune to small calibre pistol and rifle /smg shots.
(But usually the same heavy armour makes the unit less agile , and at a dis advantage in assault.Especially if the heavy armoured unit is out numbered / swarmed by
more agile foes.)
IF the target fails the armour save roll.
Compare the targets 'Resilience' value (T) to the weapons (*modified) Damage(S)value .
If the Resilience value is HIGHER than the (*modified) Damage value the unit is suppressed but not damaged physically.
If the Damage value is Higher than the targets Resilience value the target takes damage.
Loose one wound/structure point if
Damage value is over the target Resilience value , but less than DOUBLE the target Resilience value.
Lose two wound/structure points if
The Damage value is at least DOUBLE the target Resilience value up to TRIPLE the targets Resilience value.
Automaticaly killed destroyed if.
The Damage value is over TRIPLE the targets resilience value.
(*The damage value can be modified by how much the target failed its armour save roll by , to give a 'penetration bonus' as an option.)
If over half the models in a unit are suppressed /removed as casualties the unit becomes suppressed.(Shaken)
This single resolution method covers ALL units, and gets rid of the clutter of special rules that current 40k has .
Simply because it compares numerical values directly , and we can use what ever values we need.As we are NOT restricted to the roll of a D6 to determine results.
Why are you talking about what damage mechanic to use when you haven't even figured out basic things like "what size will the average game be" or "is this a simulation game or an abstracted game", or decided on a formal structure for your development process? Throwing around random ideas in a forum thread is just wasting time.
(And yes, it matters. A single damage mechanic is a great idea if you want an abstracted game where fast and simple gameplay is the priority and the focus is on the fluff experience the players imagine together, but it's a terrible idea if you want a simulation game where you want to accurately represent what would happen in the 'real' battle.)
Is the OP still active on this? seems like this actually has a little ground but not a whole lot of orginization. Also sounds like everyone agrees that a "balancing" what work, where a rewrite is really in order. FarseerAndyMan seems to have a good lead on this so far and i would like to help. Has anyone started a file with the collected information?
@Perigrine.
The most detailed simulation war game I play ,(Firefly WWII 300th scale simulation.)
Has very simple resolution methods ,BUT uses lots of modifiers to get the level of detail .(over 20 modifiers for artillery bombardment!)
IF you look at most GOOD simulations they follow the nature of the interaction of REAL world events and recreate them in a simple way.
Simply using a Dice roll to represent variables in the interaction, and modifiers to cover situational adjustments.
Where 40k rules falls down is it uses D6 to determine the entire interaction, and restricts it , to the point where other resolution methods and rules have to be added.(resulting in messy over complicated and counter-intuitive rules.)
I agree the scale and scope of the game should be defined.
If we use the current game size (company level , ?) and assume game play that it should be in synergy with (simple) simulation of modern warfare.(An equal balance of mobility , fire power and assault.)As the units in 40k map on to modern warfare units in terms of deployment and function closer than ancient warfare.
This is what 40k should be IMO.
Because there are lots of excellent skirmish games for 20mm minis and up.And loads of great battle games for 15mm minis and smaller.And NO good rules for 28mm heroic battle games .AFAIK.
And if we define UNIT interaction in enough detail.Single model units and multiple model units can be used .
The skirmish variant of the game just uses infantry as single model units, and the battle game vehicles and MCs as single model units and infantry etc,as multiple model units
Here is the latest WIP alternative 40k rule set we have been working on.Its completely based on intended game play, using ideas from good battle games , and up scaled to 28mm .
there may be some concepts or ideas that might be useful ?
waiting to hear from the OP if hes still around for this. Ive got some ideas to help kick start this a bit more so we could start getting published version of the rules put out, and actually get this moving along. it could work but needs structure and folks to help. got the folks just need to get the foundation set.
IF we are doing a complete re-write of 40k.
Should we start a new thread in the proposed rules section ?
I think the first thing we should define is the intended game play .(WHFB in space, or Epic Armageddon with larger minatures and more detail.).
Then discus the basic game mechanics and resolution methods we can use.
I would like to use no more than 2 resolution methods other than direct representation*.(*maximum range of movement /weapons, or number of dice rolled.)
Because most good games only use 2 or 3 in total.
Just a thought.
Oh just as an additional note.
IF you want to use AP values in a similar way to the current rules.
Just let the AP value ignore save roll dice of that value or higher.
Eg
AP 6 , discard dice rolls that roll a natural 6.(-1 armour save.)
AP 5 , discard dice rolls that roll a natural 5 or 6(-2 armour save.)
AP 4 , dicard dice rolls that roll a natural 4 ,5,or 6.(-3 armour save.)
AP 3 discard dice rolls that roll a natural 3,4,5or 6. (-4 armour save.)
Eg a Ork in mega armour with armour save roll of 2+ is hit by an AP 3 weapon, he ONLY saves on a roll of 2. (Rolls of 3 ,4,5,or 6 are negated by the AP value of the AP 3 weapon.)
(This way we can use 1+ saves , but would need to re evaluate AP value and weapon /armour costing.)
This gives exactly the same effect as the old armour modifiers , but is more intuitive and easier to implement.(Remove dice rolls of a set value .)
)
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}