If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation and let them be the modeling company they profess to be? The only thing stopping us from improving on their rules is us.
We have a huge community on Dakka that we can use for a project like this. We have all kinds of creative, intelligent contributors here, and some of the most vocal, active people in the community are writers, lawyers, gaming veterans, and others that could very easily put their heads together and come up with something better than the tripe GW is pushing these days. There are a number of different ways to set up an online living document that can be added to, edited, and amended over time. Crowd-sourcing this project to the community that cares the most about the gaming aspect of 40k seems like it would produce the most robust, balanced system possible.
It could be something as simple as a community-wide agreement to use certain rules interpretations. When a stupid, poorly-designed, or contentious rule or codex entry comes up, we'll have the discussion on YMDC, vote or poll over it, and come to a consensus. This consensus ruling then gets moved into the repository, and used going forward. Tournaments and gaming groups use smaller versions of this process in every game, all we'd be doing is expanding on the process and making it more comprehensive and globally acknowledged.
Ultimately I would envision going so far as to re-cost some units and wargear to get around GW's never ending game of making models useless compared to cost, in order to push their new hotness.
If it ever looks like it could be an issue, copyrights, trademarks, and patents can all be avoided / worked around with some tacit agreement by the players regarding the language used, and / or sufficiently vague language.
Assuming what we, as a community, can come up with is truly better than what GW is currently pushing, what would be the downside?
Because it's impossible to get Dakka to agree on what to have for lunch.
If you want to see the sorts of horrors that a rules discussion can unleash, I recommend browsing some of the 20+ page threads in YMDC.
Even if Dakka were to do the impossible and agree on a ruleset, there's nothing that says Bolter & Chainsword, Bell of Lost Souls, Tau Tactica, or any one of a thousand other 40K fansites needs to adopt it, which means that you're stuck playing against only people on Dakka, because no one else uses the rules you do.
I'm sure you could have a good time running Infinity with 40k miniatures. I've been tempted to try it out with Warmachine, but I think it would be kind of awkward to implement in a way that makes sense fluff wise.
What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.
What Psienesis said was the truth.
Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.
Psienesis wrote: Even if Dakka were to do the impossible and agree on a ruleset, there's nothing that says Bolter & Chainsword, Bell of Lost Souls, Tau Tactica, or any one of a thousand other 40K fansites needs to adopt it, which means that you're stuck playing against only people on Dakka, because no one else uses the rules you do.
And don't forget that Warseer will whine about it .
The biggest problem with ballancing the rules is everyone will try to over compensate for their codex's weaknesses. Each codex has strengths and weaknesses. If its not raw then one side will always say its op and complain about it. There is no way to make everyone happy.
namiel wrote: The biggest problem with ballancing the rules is everyone will try to over compensate for their codex's weaknesses. Each codex has strengths and weaknesses. If its not raw then one side will always say its op and complain about it. There is no way to make everyone happy.
As mentioned, it simply can't be done. Some want an edge, others will just be biased. On top of that, we could never get an answer. Heck, look at some of the debates about CC. You have people that think CC is underpowered, others that think them equal, others that say CC is OP and then a few that say CC is inferior to shooting as it should be. We have a large proportion of players in favor of the imperium and primarily 3+ saves and who knows what that could influence. How will you convince other online sites to dollar your rules? Why not they make their own? When you go to a FLGS why would the stranger want to play your custom rules.
I do find it odd that forums dedicated to the Specialist games rather than 40K seem to be able to come up with some pretty good consensual ways to keep those games alive.
It can't be done in a way that would be favorable for all because these rules would be written by fans not the designers. Fans have biases towards one way of doing things since those are the things that they saw in the franchise. For example, some people love CC and would buff it to hell if they wrote 7th. Some people love shooting and would buff that in 7th. Designers are, ideally, impartial towards any particular playstyle and would write what they feel is a fun ruleset for all. Plus what Hedgehog posted.
To elaborate more on that point I, and probably a lot of people, would like the ability to go anywhere and play 40k. Sure there may be a houserule or two but those are usually fairly simple. If everyone started making what they felt was the best version of 40k you'd have a ton of different versions of 40k that you'd have to learn between regions or FLGS. That's just mental.
More people DON'T play your codex, than do. While everyone may be angling for their specific army, there will be a lot more arguing against. It's my belief that there's enough commonality between the codexes that a consensus can be reached.
While there are other communities out there, I'm not suggesting we exclude them. Quite the opposite, I suggest that we include them all. I don't want a DakkaDakka only rule set.
It can be done if there is a will to do it. Far more complicated things take place, each and every day, than the re-balancing of a ~100 page book of rules.
Furyou Miko wrote: The designers are just as biased. (un)fortunately, they have the sales figures to guide them.
It may sound odd, but I disagree with you on this: of course they are biased, but what guide them is not the sales figures.
The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction? The Chaos codex was a really huge success in third edition, creating a high number of fans. This is the reason books like "The First Heretic" made it into the New York Times Best Sellers List. Chaos fans are legion, pun intended. Look at polls regarding Chaos vs Loyalist, there are lots of potential buyers.
And the same can go for Orks and other armies. All factions, actually. The amount of effort dedicated to some armies is minimal compared with others, regarless sales figures.Sales figures are dictated by the quality of the product, not the only way around.
And there are obvious missing oportunities. It would be a huge success to release a Codex Chaos Legions or a Codex Inquisiton (a proper one) yet they are not doing it. Quite the contrary. And a single hour of effort would do wonders to the Adepta Sororitas Codex, which would cause an immediate boost in sales. Just by adding a flyer the codex would get far more interesting. Ten minutes effort? Less.
So I think it is not the money.
It is personal bias, and nothing else. Kelly likes Eldars, so he does a lot of effort. Cruddace likes Marines (I think everyone in the Studio likes Marines), so he does a lot of effort. At this moment, nobody in the Studio has the slightest interest in Sisters or Chaos, so they get a worse Codex (regarding size and effort) with every edition.
Matt Ward admitted this in an interview regarding Chaos Daemons on Fantasy: he liked the faction so he made it overpowered as hell. He did the same with Grey Knights (a rather unknown faction, especially compared with the eagerly expected Inquisition) and Necrons (he liked the look, he didn´t like the background though). He wrote the Sisters of Battle in quite a different matter.
So it is not the money. The persons writting the rules for the units are fans, and they do a completely different work depending on their personal bias on the unit. Balance is not in their minds, at all.
With the exception of some new units made overpowered as money-grabbers, the Codexes are written with two possible goals: made them overpowered and funny to play or made them easy prey for the favorite factions of the person writting the book.
This is the reason I truly believe in house rules.
/rant over.
More people DON'T play your codex, than do. While everyone may be angling for their specific army, there will be a lot more arguing against. It's my belief that there's enough commonality between the codexes that a consensus can be reached.
While there are other communities out there, I'm not suggesting we exclude them. Quite the opposite, I suggest that we include them all. I don't want a DakkaDakka only rule set.
It can be done if there is a will to do it. Far more complicated things take place, each and every day, than the re-balancing of a ~100 page book of rules.
I envy your ingenuity.
I have been creating house rules and fan-made Codexes since forever. If you ever get this project on, count on me to give you as an unbiased feedback as I am able to give.
Also look in the Proposed Rules sections for ideas. There is really cool stuff out there.
More people DON'T play your codex, than do. While everyone may be angling for their specific army, there will be a lot more arguing against. It's my belief that there's enough commonality between the codexes that a consensus can be reached.
While there are other communities out there, I'm not suggesting we exclude them. Quite the opposite, I suggest that we include them all. I don't want a DakkaDakka only rule set.
It can be done if there is a will to do it. Far more complicated things take place, each and every day, than the re-balancing of a ~100 page book of rules.
You still run into the problem of getting anybody that's not on one of the participating forums to accept your rules. Also, you don't have a clear consensus on WHAT is broken about the rules. Some people feel Overwatch is broken, others feel Assault is broken, so on and so for. By fixing one alleged problem, you are likely creating 10 more.
There is a reason that the 40K rules have been considered "broken" since 2nd edition. I am not entirely sure you can make a perfectly balanced game with all the bases that 40K is trying to cover. The focus is far too broad. Other rules sets are tighter, but they don't try to do as much or the faction differences are mainly cosmetic. 40K's "everything AND the kitchen sink" approach is problably one of the driving reasons for its success, but also the main reason for all the criticism.
Moment of truth time - 40k players don't play 40k because of the rules
There are far better wargaming systems out there with either simpler and faster rules, or more complex and realistic rules, depending on players choice. There are games in historical settings, 'what if'' settings, fantasy settings, near-future sci-fi settings and far future sci-fi settings. There are squad level skirmish games, battlefield-level games, grand strategy games, small ship naval games, big ship naval games, aircraft games, space fighter games and even sports games.
If people want better rules, then there are better rules available, without question.
So why do people still play 40k if it's not the best game around?
There are three main reasons why 40k is still light-years ahead of its competitors in terms of audience: - The depth and variety in the background - The models are distinctive and overall of a high quality - It's already the most popular miniatures wargame
It's the last of these that causes a problem with your idea. One of the key reasons why so many people play 40k is because they know that they will be able to find a group of players wherever they go, and the only reason they'll be able to play a game is because virtually every 40k player worldwide uses exactly the same ruleset.
Yes, DakkaDakka is a large community of 40k players, but it's not all (or even most) of the 40k players everywhere. You might be able to try something like this for a smaller, unsupported game where the majority of the remaining players have congregated in one or two online communities, but not 40k.
If you managed to get this going and if you finished it and if you managed to get your own gaming group to give it a try and if they liked it - then you can't play 40k anywhere else. New players to the area will likely avoid your local group, And, most likely, the rules you've come up will still have major problems of their own. For a case in point consider the various fan-made codices hanging around on the web. You'd be very hard pressed to find any that are accepted by any gaming group, anywhere.
So while I applaud your enthusiasm, and fully agree there are significant improvements that can be made to the 40k rules, don't expect this to actually go anywhere - even if you do somehow manage to succeed.
The end result of it is that the same people who passionately believe that GW's rules are wrong also tend to equally passionately believe that every one else's attempts to fix the wrong rules are also wrong (or are making it worse).
I'm sure there's a game theory out there where you put 10 paranoid schizophrenics in a room, lock the door, and then announce that there's a personality in the room that's trying to kill them.
Its baffling to me that so many on this board have such difficulty with the rules. Its 40k, not game 7 of the NHL finals. Be flexible and have fun. If its a tournament - read the rules beforehand, if you don't like them don't enter. If its a club game or a pick-up in your local shop - be prepared to make compromises. Use your social skills. Dont be the guy that gets pissy over easily resolved and trivial issues. Its a game
I think it can be done, albeit in a far less democratic version than envisioned. The whole thing just needs a little bit of structure and organization.
First of all, there should be 3 groups of people actively working on the thing.
First group works on the general rules. "Core rulebook" if you want.
Second group is splitted into subgroups of say 2-4 people each, working on the codices.
Third group is the controll group. They set the guidelines (what should be average range? 24"? 30"? Should there be special rules for emergency exit of light infantry from skimmers or should the system be simple for quick learning...) People who are genuinely interested in a well-ballanced system and can overrule the descisions made by the other two groups.
As far as other websites are concerned, you could simply allow them in on the team. Why not let their most usefull members contribute to the project. The way I see it, the amount of people should be along the lines of "few, but with an neckbeard of epic proportions", thus the demand for the most dedicated will probably not be satisfied by dakka alone (just guessing).
Anyways, I'm neither long enough in the community to decide who's the most trustworthy nor experienced enough for ballance descisions, so I'll be eating popcorn and watching the proceedings from the couch over yonder...
da001 wrote: What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.
What Psienesis said was the truth.
Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.
when idiots talk about how imbalance keeps it fresh and how a more balanced game would be boring. or how bad changes for changes sake is somehow "evolving" the game. (devolving more like it). or use the fluff to justify broken rules.
da001 wrote: What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.
What Psienesis said was the truth.
Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.
Sad, but I think it is the truth
*looks down at feet*
*raised hand*
"Guilty as charged..."
You are hereby condemned to be banished back to the Warp. For all eternity...
I think that if you disagree with GW's rules and want to make rules of your own, house rules are a much easier and faster way to do so than 'writing an entire new rulebook with the entire Dakka community'.
Martel732 wrote: I'm sure that myself and a couple of gaming buddies could write better rules in a weekend, but no one would use them.
This is true too.
Many fan-codexes and house rules that can be found in the Proposed Rules subforums are
1) More clearly written
2) Far, far, far more respectful with the fluff
3) Far more interesting and fun to play
4) In many cases, more balanced
than most stuff GW is throwing out nowadays. They are acts of love instead of acts of money-grabbing. Stuff like the Riptide would be shunned down, let alone a Riptide R´Varna. And if someone writing about the Black Templars ignore that it is the Edict of Nikaea the reason they lack Librarians, he would probably be mocked at. Or someone claiming that Undivided Daemon Princes do not exist, in spite of having many of them alive and kicking in the setting.
But the threads are full of people complaining that their favorite faction will be "utterly destroyed" if any single house-rule is applied. So at the end nobody would use them. They could lose.
This is perhaps the one real exception. I'm pretty sure everyone could agree on a better codex format layout than GW has right now.
The GW way:
Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take a single mark of chaos from the wargear list.
Pg. 91: Models may take a mark of khorne for 10 points.
Pg. 30: Models with a mark of khorne have rage and counter-attack
... and now I have to break out another book, and look at two different entries on two different pages. To figure out what my warpsmith can do as one of it's options, on a whole, requires two books, and looking at five entries. That's insane.
The Ailaros way:
Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take one of the following: 10pts - Mark of Khorne (+1 A), 15 pts - Mark of...etc.
There, one entry in one place. No page flipping. No nonsense.
Better formatting - real change we can believe in...
This is perhaps the one real exception. I'm pretty sure everyone could agree on a better codex format layout than GW has right now.
The GW way:
Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take a single mark of chaos from the wargear list.
Pg. 91: Models may take a mark of khorne for 10 points.
Pg. 30: Models with a mark of khorne have rage and counter-attack
... and now I have to break out another book, and look at two different entries on two different pages. To figure out what my warpsmith can do as one of it's options, on a whole, requires two books, and looking at five entries. That's insane.
The Ailaros way:
Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take one of the following: 10pts - Mark of Khorne (+1 A), 15 pts - Mark of...etc.
There, one entry in one place. No page flipping. No nonsense.
Better formatting - real change we can believe in...
The amount of times i have said a rule (or someone else) and people go really? Then we look for it and find heaps of similar rules, only to weeks later find that rule and realise we are playing the rulebook wrong. Its a real pain really. For a book with hardly any rules compared to other games its so hard to follow without looking in the index constantly.
The GW community is too fractured to agree on the unified system it desperately needs. The top TOs have gotten together and tried, but apparently they could not reach a consensus with one another.. Even right now, we don't even use GW's unified system, but use custom tournament house rules and scenarios, with each tournament being completely different.
The problem is that the only reason to use 40k's rules is that they're so popular. They might be unclear, unbalanced, and generally a bloated mess, but at least you can be confident that if you show up at your local store's 40k night you'll have people to play against. And that's something no other game can really claim. But once you start making your own version of the rules you lose all of that. You can have the best rules ever but that doesn't matter if nobody else plays it, and nobody else is really interested in learning a whole new set of rules just to play a random pickup game. Meanwhile you're stuck with all the baggage of the existing rules, including awful core mechanics like IGOUGO and the D6-based stat lines, so you probably don't even have a very good game.
The game itself is fine*. The core mechanics for the last 25 years have changed from edition to edition, but the game itself remains fundamentally the same and has spawned other tabletop miniature games to either develop around the core that GW created or a new game using GW's systems as a measuring stick against (I would think warmahordes and all other systems therein would be very different if 40k and Fantasy did not exist or something else was the standard).
*Does the current edition need fixing? Hell yes. Is the slippery slope getting more downward spiral-like? Double down that yes. But I'd argue if the game was total crap, NO ONE would be playing it. Rather, people are trying to rescue it from itself.
Peregrine wrote: Meanwhile you're stuck with all the baggage of the existing rules, including awful core mechanics like IGOUGO and the D6-based stat lines, so you probably don't even have a very good game.
Graph, chart, and page number for citation please.
I frankly play the game for the setting, not the rules, and I think a very large number of people are in the same boat as me. I mean, from being with 40K over the years, just in my house, I can play games in the 40K setting with 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition rules. Or Necromunda, or Gorkamorka. Or Epic. Or go completely indie and use "In the Emperor's Name". I agree though that the modern ruleset is a thoroughly bloated mess of Supplements, FAQ's, Errata, Universal Special Rules, Allies.....blech.
The only think that keeps GW going with 40K so successfully is the mythos, which is why they can make money with all the games and material they publish that isn;t linked to the current ruleset. If they had to stand on rules alone I don't think they could do nearly as well.
I mean, cmon, I can have just as much fun running around as my faction with "In the Emperor's Name", which has absolutely nothing in common with the official 40K rules, as I can with official GW material, to me that speaks quite loudly of the rules.
AegisGrimm wrote:Necromunda, or Gorkamorka. Or Epic.
I'm a little surprised that we're not starting to see a bit more of that, honestly. Even GW is trying to shoehorn different versions of 40k in there.
AegisGrimm wrote:The only think that keeps GW going with 40K so successfully is the mythos, which is why they can make money with all the games and material they publish that isn;t linked to the current ruleset.
Exactly. That and they produce and distribute a durable good, of course.
AegisGrimm wrote:If they had to stand on rules alone I don't think they could do nearly as well.
... unlike countless others. Most miniatures games fail quickly, and fail hard.
Having a "better" rules system isn't enough to drive sales and keep a company in business.
Well, it's fine if you define "fine" as "adequate for using your models and imagining a story". By any sane definition the rules of 40k are garbage.
The core mechanics for the last 25 years have changed from edition to edition, but the game itself remains fundamentally the same and has spawned other tabletop miniature games to either develop around the core that GW created or a new game using GW's systems as a measuring stick against (I would think warmahordes and all other systems therein would be very different if 40k and Fantasy did not exist or something else was the standard).
And that's exactly the same. Other companies innovate and make better rules, GW just keeps adding more rules onto the core mechanics of a 1980s fantasy game, resulting in a bloated mess with tons of ambiguous/contradictory rules, horrible gameplay, and a complete lack of identity in what the rules want to be doing.
But I'd argue if the game was total crap, NO ONE would be playing it.
I think you underestimate the "everyone else is playing it" factor. 40k has nice fluff and models that draw people in, and a bad game that you can play is better than a great game that collects dust on your shelf. If 40k was a new release today it would almost certainly fail, but it has a lot of inertia behind it that keeps the game going even when it doesn't deserve it on its own merits.
Graph, chart, and page number for citation please.
Citation for what, that 40k's rules are awful? Do you also want a citation for 1+1=2, or water being wet, while I'm at it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ailaros wrote: I'm a little surprised that we're not starting to see a bit more of that, honestly. Even GW is trying to shoehorn different versions of 40k in there.
It's the critical mass factor. A game of 40k, even as much as the rules get in the way of having fun, is better than sitting alone in the corner wishing that someone would play Epic with you.
In my opinion this is what would happen during the rule writting:
"It was better last time" or "that's never going to work" and "how does that make sense? My idea was better!"
I just can't see everyone agreeing on what to do and what to change. Everyone wants something diffrent. Maybe there is a few things that could be agreed on but that's not enough to write a rule set. Not forgetting that it would have to be Play-tested! That would start a whole new argument. I just think that it would never work.
Peregrine wrote: Well, it's fine if you define "fine" as "adequate for using your models and imagining a story". By any sane definition the rules of 40k are garbage.
40k rules are not garbage. Now I'm not going to spend several hundred posts white knighting every exact problem in a popcorn subforum for such rule breaks and interpretations, but suffice to say I can sit down with an opponent and play a game without a problem. The rules give us a format that I can pick an army, the opponent can pick an army, and we can play the game without spending several hours arguing how to play.
And that's exactly the same. Other companies innovate and make better rules, GW just keeps adding more rules onto the core mechanics of a 1980s fantasy game, resulting in a bloated mess with tons of ambiguous/contradictory rules, horrible gameplay, and a complete lack of identity in what the rules want to be doing.
The basic premise of the game has not changed. Each edition adds or subtracts based on where the company wants to direct the game. A game simply adds more the older it gets in the modern age. Look at MtG. And like MtG, the company should address issues in a game system so old that some mechanics become broken or overpowering. GW does not get off the hook by allowing something overpowering and then ignoring it.
Peregrine wrote: I think you underestimate the "everyone else is playing it" factor. 40k has nice fluff and models that draw people in, and a bad game that you can play is better than a great game that collects dust on your shelf. If 40k was a new release today it would almost certainly fail, but it has a lot of inertia behind it that keeps the game going even when it doesn't deserve it on its own merits.
I agree that the history behind the game largely drives it today.
Peregrine wrote: Citation for what, that 40k's rules are awful? Do you also want a citation for 1+1=2, or water being wet, while I'm at it?
I'm not sure 1+1 equals 2 as psychic powers stacking seems to break such tenets. And unfortunately on Page 103 of the BRB, water does not necessarily have to be wet. It can also be on fire.
40k rules are demonstrably some of the most complicated of any major game on the market. The wording is not clear, which leads to complications and arguments. There is little to no effort made to balance the game. You being able to sit down and play a game with a friend in a casual setting is fine, but compare it to any other game out there made by a real company and the complete lack of professionalism really shows.
40k rules are demonstrably some of the most complicated of any major game on the market. The wording is not clear, which leads to complications and arguments. There is little to no effort made to balance the game. You being able to sit down and play a game with a friend in a casual setting is fine, but compare it to any other game out there made by a real company and the complete lack of professionalism really shows.
I kind of like that though. It makes the competitive players (who care to argue about unclear rules, rather than just 4+ing it) go away. The balance, I agree, is not there - but that doesn't bother me. I'll tell someone who's being a dick as much to their face, and they've usually gotten better after a good talking to.
I agree about the lack of professionalism, but I really do like that I can just get down, play some 40k games without having to worry about anything, and then go home for the night. I'm unsure why people think it is so impossible to do that.
I kind of like that though. It makes the competitive players (who care to argue about unclear rules, rather than just 4+ing it) go away.
Yes. I love being able to tell the rules to go fk themselves when I and my friends are mid-battle, having a laugh, and can't quite figure out if some guy has a cover save or not.
We also tend to allow a 5+ cover save if we're in doubt about a shooting rule, just to balance it out when we say "ah fk it, make the shot".
Martel732 wrote: I'm sure that myself and a couple of gaming buddies could write better rules in a weekend, but no one would use them.
This is true too.
Many fan-codexes and house rules that can be found in the Proposed Rules subforums are
1) More clearly written
2) Far, far, far more respectful with the fluff
3) Far more interesting and fun to play
4) In many cases, more balanced
than most stuff GW is throwing out nowadays. They are acts of love instead of acts of money-grabbing. Stuff like the Riptide would be shunned down, let alone a Riptide R´Varna. And if someone writing about the Black Templars ignore that it is the Edict of Nikaea the reason they lack Librarians, he would probably be mocked at. Or someone claiming that Undivided Daemon Princes do not exist, in spite of having many of them alive and kicking in the setting.
But the threads are full of people complaining that their favorite faction will be "utterly destroyed" if any single house-rule is applied. So at the end nobody would use them. They could lose.
I am trying to be positive but I can´t.
Riptides are awesome models. But clearly, they overperform for their points. So they need to be more expensive, or do less on the table top. This kind of logic can applied to every model that is a) never being fielded or b) is ALWAYS fielded. Why GW can't grasp this is truly mystifying.
The GW rules are 100% terrible as 100% of scientists can tell you with empirical accuracy down to a .001% margin of error. You're ruining scientific literacy (and are an insult to intelligence itself) if you choose to be a GW rules are bad denier.
Saying otherwise is just troll-baiting, apparently.
But the threads are full of people complaining that their favorite faction will be "utterly destroyed" if any single house-rule is applied. So at the end nobody would use them. They could lose.
I am trying to be positive but I can´t.
I wonder if the GW release schedule (rush of releases, and then nothing for months or years) has something to do with the players of different factions being so partisan--that, and the cost of an army making it harder to run more than one faction. For games like Warmachine or Malifaux, where everyone gets a roughly regular stream of new stuff for their faction, there's nowhere near the level of feuding or fear that rebalancing would ruin their faction.
I kind of like that though. It makes the competitive players (who care to argue about unclear rules, rather than just 4+ing it) go away. The balance, I agree, is not there - but that doesn't bother me. I'll tell someone who's being a dick as much to their face, and they've usually gotten better after a good talking to.
I agree about the lack of professionalism, but I really do like that I can just get down, play some 40k games without having to worry about anything, and then go home for the night. I'm unsure why people think it is so impossible to do that.
Wouldn't it be better if those arguments could be resolved by simply checking what the book says, and then by applying the rules as written? That's not an impossible dream, it's been done. It's not being a dick if both players honestly have different readings of a poorly written rule; rules arguments add nothing to the game, and neither does "You can cheat if you can find an ambiguity in the rules, and then roll 4+".
I've made this comparison before, but have a look at the multi-page threads in the YMDC forums for 40K, and then in Warmachine (or Privateers own rules questions forum). You'll see the difference instantly.
da001 wrote: What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.
What Psienesis said was the truth.
Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.
Sad, but I think it is the truth
*looks down at feet*
*raised hand*
"Guilty as charged..."
Ork boyz have 4+ FNP choppas are AP2 and are 4 points.
-What happens when you put me in charge of codex orks.
The GW rules are 100% terrible as 100% of scientists can tell you with empirical accuracy down to a .001% margin of error. You're ruining scientific literacy (and are an insult to intelligence itself) if you choose to be a GW rules are bad denier.
Saying otherwise is just troll-baiting, apparently.
They are not the best but if garbage, why play any semblance of the game at all?
GW makes many rule mistakes. They're not incomprehensible. You can drive trucks the size of 16 wheelers through the holes in the rules, but arguing they are garbage would mean you would not play the game at all. Yes there are issues but to argue they are pristine is ignoring the ugly and arguing they are garbage ignores those who do play the game but accepts the faults.
da001 wrote: What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.
What Psienesis said was the truth.
Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.
Sad, but I think it is the truth
*looks down at feet*
*raised hand*
"Guilty as charged..."
Ork boyz have 4+ FNP choppas are AP2 and are 4 points.
-What happens when you put me in charge of codex orks.
"My Vindicator shall cost 1000 points, and everything else in the codex shall cost only 1 pts, and have Hatred, Rage, Counter-Attack, FnP(2+)!" - Matt Ward, if he was allowed to do anything with a codex.
Calling the 40K rules "garbage" or "100% terrible" is a bit much. Yes, they have some very large holes that are often filled with a soup of vague or poorly worded intended rule interpretations, but by and large, the rules are playable to an extent where the game is quite enjoyable. Garbage rules that are 100% terrible generally equals completely unplayable and unfun, something 40K is most definitely not.
I think one of the biggest problems with the rules is that GW doesn't seem to understand the large number rules-lawyers that play their game. Their lazy writing opens the rules up for all sorts of creative interpretation, and we get mired in RAW versus RAI rules for months.
For example, a friend and I have been disagreeing on the Sweeping Advance versus Everliving debate for over two months, sometimes the arguments have been heated, other times they have been civil. But we are still having this disagreement, and are no closer to coming to an agreement. There has been no sign of a meaningful FAQ or Errata from GW in over 6 months. I can forgive sloppy writing, but a complete and utter lack of FAQ support for such a long period of time is inexcusable. Additionally, it just adds to player frustration and feelings that GW just doesn't give one crap about its fan base.
Peregrine wrote: The problem is that the only reason to use 40k's rules is that they're so popular. They might be unclear, unbalanced, and generally a bloated mess, but at least you can be confident that if you show up at your local store's 40k night you'll have people to play against. And that's something no other game can really claim. But once you start making your own version of the rules you lose all of that. You can have the best rules ever but that doesn't matter if nobody else plays it, and nobody else is really interested in learning a whole new set of rules just to play a random pickup game.
Exactly.
It's a great idea in theory and, if your gaming group wants a new ruleset then, by all means, create one, but for random pick up games, I wish you luck trying to get people to play "Dakkahammer" with you.
The GW rules are 100% terrible as 100% of scientists can tell you with empirical accuracy down to a .001% margin of error. You're ruining scientific literacy (and are an insult to intelligence itself) if you choose to be a GW rules are bad denier.
Saying otherwise is just troll-baiting, apparently.
They are not the best but if garbage, why play any semblance of the game at all?
GW makes many rule mistakes. They're not incomprehensible. You can drive trucks the size of 16 wheelers through the holes in the rules, but arguing they are garbage would mean you would not play the game at all. Yes there are issues but to argue they are pristine is ignoring the ugly and arguing they are garbage ignores those who do play the game but accepts the faults.
No, they're pretty much garbage. Any system where the wave serpent exists at its price point is 100% bat guano insane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClassicCarraway wrote: Calling the 40K rules "garbage" or "100% terrible" is a bit much. Yes, they have some very large holes that are often filled with a soup of vague or poorly worded intended rule interpretations, but by and large, the rules are playable to an extent where the game is quite enjoyable. Garbage rules that are 100% terrible generally equals completely unplayable and unfun, something 40K is most definitely not.
I think one of the biggest problems with the rules is that GW doesn't seem to understand the large number rules-lawyers that play their game. Their lazy writing opens the rules up for all sorts of creative interpretation, and we get mired in RAW versus RAI rules for months.
For example, a friend and I have been disagreeing on the Sweeping Advance versus Everliving debate for over two months, sometimes the arguments have been heated, other times they have been civil. But we are still having this disagreement, and are no closer to coming to an agreement. There has been no sign of a meaningful FAQ or Errata from GW in over 6 months. I can forgive sloppy writing, but a complete and utter lack of FAQ support for such a long period of time is inexcusable. Additionally, it just adds to player frustration and feelings that GW just doesn't give one crap about its fan base.
Nah, it's not quite enough, are allowed to say 110% garbage?
Peregrine wrote: The problem is that the only reason to use 40k's rules is that they're so popular. They might be unclear, unbalanced, and generally a bloated mess, but at least you can be confident that if you show up at your local store's 40k night you'll have people to play against. And that's something no other game can really claim. But once you start making your own version of the rules you lose all of that. You can have the best rules ever but that doesn't matter if nobody else plays it, and nobody else is really interested in learning a whole new set of rules just to play a random pickup game.
Exactly.
It's a great idea in theory and, if your gaming group wants a new ruleset then, by all means, create one, but for random pick up games, I wish you luck trying to get people to play "Dakkahammer" with you.
Dunno.
I've been around a few local clubs. If somebody puts the idea out and asks people to start a round of Infinity, Saga, Malifaux, Mercs, DZC whatever, it usually happens. I've never had problems getting people to play other systems. I've played DreadBall fairly religiously for the past year. Dabbled in X-Wing and Dropzone Commander.. Deadzone is pretty hot right now.
And yet, plans to "start" 40K always come back. People gravitate back to it even when (or especially if) they've been doing other games for a while. And I haven't had to rely for a totally "out-of-the-blue" pick-up game for years.
40K does attract people, even long-term gamers with a plethora of experience in other systems, in ways that the "everything-about-40K-rules-except-their-popularity-is-bad"-stance doesn't allow for.
StarTrotter wrote: Except what attracts people? The rules? Or the models, their own army, nostalgia, and/or the fluff/atmosphere?
When games are played without cheese and with good friends who're happy to solve a dispute on a 4+ (serious doubt calls for a 5+ with my group), it's great fun.
It's when somebody is going for the win that things degenerate rapidly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In some ways, I actually like the clunkiness of the rules. Roll to hit, wound, save, Ld. It just feels right. Bulky. Like my CSM.
But then you get all the extra crap with the idiotic mess that are terrain rules, the exceptions on exceptions on exceptions etc...
StarTrotter wrote: Except what attracts people? The rules? Or the models, their own army, nostalgia, and/or the fluff/atmosphere?
When games are played without cheese and with good friends who're happy to solve a dispute on a 4+ (serious doubt calls for a 5+ with my group), it's great fun.
It's when somebody is going for the win that things degenerate rapidly.
Again, what's wrong with going for the win in a game? That's surely the point of playing a game with somebody, rather than an activity with no winner or loser. The link of winning, or trying "too hard" to win, to being a douche is something I only ever seem to see in conjunction with GW, which suggests that the rules are indeed busted. Let's suppose that instead of going with 4+ on a rules dispute, you check the rulebook, find the answer written there in an unambiguous way, and implement it. Does that make the atmosphere more hostile somehow? Not in my experience with more balanced games.
StarTrotter wrote: Except what attracts people? The rules? Or the models, their own army, nostalgia, and/or the fluff/atmosphere?
When games are played without cheese and with good friends who're happy to solve a dispute on a 4+ (serious doubt calls for a 5+ with my group), it's great fun.
It's when somebody is going for the win that things degenerate rapidly.
Again, what's wrong with going for the win in a game? That's surely the point of playing a game with somebody, rather than an activity with no winner or loser. The link of winning, or trying "too hard" to win, to being a douche is something I only ever seem to see in conjunction with GW, which suggests that the rules are indeed busted. Let's suppose that instead of going with 4+ on a rules dispute, you check the rulebook, find the answer written there in an unambiguous way, and implement it. Does that make the atmosphere more hostile somehow? Not in my experience with more balanced games.
I agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with going for the win, but the 40k ruleset does not take kindly to it. It has been written with the mindset of "beer and pretzels storytime" by some pretty biased rulemakers, who have a penchant for making totally disorganised and self-contradicting rules.
Selym wrote: I agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with going for the win, but the 40k ruleset does not take kindly to it. It has been written with the mindset of "beer and pretzels storytime" by some pretty biased rulemakers, who have a penchant for making totally disorganised and self-contradicting rules.
And this is exactly why 40k's rules are garbage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote: 40k rules are not garbage. Now I'm not going to spend several hundred posts white knighting every exact problem in a popcorn subforum for such rule breaks and interpretations, but suffice to say I can sit down with an opponent and play a game without a problem. The rules give us a format that I can pick an army, the opponent can pick an army, and we can play the game without spending several hours arguing how to play.
That's a ridiculously low standard. I'm sure plenty of parents have had fun playing "roll a die and move that many spaces" games with their young children, but I don't think anyone is going to defend the rules for those "games". 40k is the same kind of game: the rules are terrible, but sometimes you can have fun despite the rules.
And I also disagree about being able to sit down and play. That only works if you and your opponent don't have different ideas about how powerful your lists should be, don't disagree on any major rule interpretations, etc. Real "sit down and play" games don't have these problems.
The basic premise of the game has not changed. Each edition adds or subtracts based on where the company wants to direct the game.
And that's exactly the problem! The basic premise of the game is awful. IGOUGO is incredibly boring, the D6 core mechanics cripple diversity (for example, your only choice for a unit's BS is hitting on a 4+ or hitting on a 3+), and the basic unit stats still have the baggage of a 1980s fantasy game where melee combat dominates and effective shooting is rare. And each edition GW just makes some superficial changes (usually by adding on more rules without any overall plan beyond "this sounds cool") without any consistent direction for the game. Instead of refining the game into its ideal form GW is just wandering aimlessly and throwing more rules onto the bloated mess.
A game simply adds more the older it gets in the modern age. Look at MtG.
Yes, a game adds more, but there's a place for those additions: the codices/expansion sets/etc. The core rules don't have to get more complex, and they haven't in MTG. The basic structure of MTG is the same, all the extra complexity has come in the individual sets where you only have to deal with a small subset of that complexity at a given moment and you can scale it up or down by adding or removing complex cards. Contrast this with GW where the core rules keep getting more and more stuff to deal with on top of all the extra complexity in each army.
I agree that the history behind the game largely drives it today.
Then you have to consider that history when talking about the quality of GW's rules. Questions like "if it's so bad then why does anyone play it" ignore the history of the game and GW's dominance of the market (often through driving independent stores out of business through questionable tactics).
Some people play the game for other reasons than for the game itself. Like me. I play because I love the idea of the Imperial Guard and I like using my tanks.
The game is utterly stupid and the fact that people have to 4+ rules in the first place is just a damning example of it's stupidity. It's weird how people use the "If you don't play it seriously, it's good" defense. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion since it only shows how you enjoy the game not how good the rules are.
TheCustomLime wrote: Some people play the game for other reasons than for the game itself. Like me. I play because I love the idea of the Imperial Guard and I like using my tanks.
The game is utterly stupid and the fact that people have to 4+ rules in the first place is just a damning example of it's stupidity. It's weird how people use the "If you don't play it seriously, it's good" defense. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion since it only shows how you enjoy the game not how good the rules are.
There can be fixes for these problems but it has to come from GW to make the rules better than they are now.
Fixes by players unfortunately do not count. We have a rule set that can be enjoyed but we need participation from GW. Balance between codices, fixing loop hopes and the like and delineating which parts of rules for playing expansions or certain armies would make a semi decent rules et become better.
If the 40k rule set was complete and utter garbage, it would be abandoned and left behind for a newer edition or other game systems. Such as it is, it does need fixing and it does need GW to step up to the plate to make it better. Taking a page from WoTC, use player feedback to fix it like from DnD 3.0 to 3.5 and 4.0 to 5.0.
I agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with going for the win, but the 40k ruleset does not take kindly to it. It has been written with the mindset of "beer and pretzels storytime" by some pretty biased rulemakers, who have a penchant for making totally disorganised and self-contradicting rules.
It's a quirk of gw games where winning is sinning, and is actively frowned upon. I feel that it's almost implied and heavily guilt tripped by some folks that I nearly have to apologise for winning a game, and the win should come about by accident, as it were. Gw games are the only games I know where 'casual' and 'competitive' enjoy such mutually exclusive connotations amongst larger segments of the player base - in other games, you just rock up, put your bits on the board and have at 'em.
I sometimes wonder if it's the players collective histories that cause this. Face it, a lot of us are nerds. A lot will be, or were on the bottom of the social ladder (as distinct from 'those' players, who rate lower!) and how many of us got bullied at school? I know I did, back in the day (happy to laugh it off now though). And sometimes I wonder if we all carry a collective sense of 'baggage' with regard to this stuff, and we carry it over to our hobby - one some level, I feel there is an implied attitude amongst the players of 'if no one wins, no one loses, and I'm tired of being a loser'. it's interesting. Since I've gotten into more competitive, and far more physical pursuits since school, my outlook towards 'doing my best' and 'pushing' things has changed completely from my attitudes in school, back in the day. Far less of the 'stop playing so hard against me' and far more 'I'm taking you down punk, bring it on.' (Punk being tongue in cheek, obviously)
Deadnight wrote: I sometimes wonder if it's the players collective histories that cause this. Face it, a lot of us are nerds. A lot will be, or were on the bottom of the social ladder (as distinct from 'those' players, who rate lower!) and how many of us got bullied at school? I know I did, back in the day (happy to laugh it off now though). And sometimes I wonder if we all carry a collective sense of 'baggage' with regard to this stuff, and we carry it over to our hobby - one some level, I feel there is an implied attitude amongst the players of 'if no one wins, no one loses, and I'm tired of being a loser'. it's interesting. Since I've gotten into more competitive, and far more physical pursuits since school, my outlook towards 'doing my best' and 'pushing' things has changed completely from my attitudes in school, back in the day. Far less of the 'stop playing so hard against me' and far more 'I'm taking you down punk, bring it on.' (Punk being tongue in cheek, obviously)
I think it has more to do with the quality of the game.
In X-Wing balance is pretty good, there are few "never take if you want to win" options, and as long as you put a little thought into making a coherent strategy for your ships you're going to have a fair chance of winning. So there's much less of a division between "casual" and "competitive", you just put your ships on the table and play the game. And if you win or lose consistently it has to do with your own skill, not how seriously you take the game.
In 40k, on the other hand, balance is pretty much nonexistent and GW doesn't help you at all. So if you like a certain kind of 40k game the only way to get it and not be crushed by someone with a better list is to add a layer of social pressure to avoid making too many good decisions and winning too easily. And since the game itself is constantly trying to overcome that pressure and bring back auto-win strategies you feel like you're under siege and the pressure gets stronger in reaction. And of course you don't want to admit that you're just bad at the game or playing a special variant, so it has to be that everyone else is doing it wrong. And so you yell really loudly about how you're "just having fun" and "beer and pretzels" and are very serious about telling the world how casual you are, while simultaneously refusing to consider the possibility that more competitive players are also having a lot of fun. The two options become polarized opposites to the point that every bad strategy/list/etc automatically becomes "fun" or "fluffy" just because it isn't competitive, and fluffy lists that are good at winning are automatically "TFG behavior" regardless of how well they follow the background fiction.
And then with 40k you have the additional factor of GW encouraging that kind of "casual at all costs" attitude because it means they can save money by cutting playtesting and design time. Making a good competitive game isn't easy, and if you can convince everyone to 4+ all the rule disputes and shun anyone who brings overpowered lists then you don't have to waste all of that effort and money on something that doesn't really help with the main target market (young kids who rarely ever play the game). And it's even better when you get people white knighting GW by proudly bragging about how little they care about the rules and how anyone who dares to question GW's sacred wisdom is TFG.
Peregrine just hit the nail on the head with that post IMO. I do not understand people who go "oh, the rules are a total mess but it's okay because I'm having fun". You know, because well written rules would suck all the fun out of the game, right? My friend who's played mechdar for as long as I've known him now can't go to other clubs in the area because his 7 year old army is now "cheese". If you buy Forge World, who knows where or when you'll be able to use it, because the play testing seems to be totally non-existent (just look at the R'Varna for crying out loud) and people are iffy about accepting to play it. With Escalation and Stronghold Assault, who knows what you'll play with a random person or what they want to play.
The rules for the core game are badly worded and regularly make no sense - cover doesn't help you AT ALL from small arms unless you're guard; toughness just makes no sense generally, where things made of metal are as tough as an Ork wearing a t-shirt, or alternatively a pyrovore yet similar models like tyrant guard are far tougher for some reason; assaults are ridiculously stupid, from challenges by Abaddon only killing IG sergeants, to models deciding that having killed a unit they'll just stare at the scenery for a bit before charging someone else; entire armies will just watch all their guns explode before thinking about moving thanks to the UGOIGO system; the "most elite" units in the game are regularly garbage; lists in no way have to resemble the background and are often better not doing so... the list goes on. How would fixing that make it less fun? Just because you CAN make the wonky rules work doesn't mean it wouldn't be far better for everyone if they just worked anyway. Imagine this alternate scenario, if GW fixed their game: if an army is unfluffy, you cannot field it; the rules are concise and everything has a use; you can pick up any model you like the look of and make a good list around it; units alternated in goes, so the battlefield dynamically shifted rather than block movement; assaults were more of a huge morale shock which can just break units; morale is actually meaningful and you need to carefully consider positioning to avoid losses. Is that not the game you'd rather play? The one where there is no divide whatsoever in the community, because all units could function and no-one could make ridiculous armies? I think it would be. I can't see why tat wouldn't be way more fun than what we have currently. I'm not asking everyone to throw away those fun games, I just want to be able to use the models I want everywhere rather than having to build multiple lists in case my opponent has different house rules, preferences, the stars align with Jupiter, etc. Is that so bad? Does that really make me TFG, wanting a fair game where everyone has a chance?
What I wonder though is this: We don't need to use GW models. We don't need to use GW stores. GW doesn't support tournaments. GW doesn't care what you do with your models. So... what happens when the community decides it can make better rules as a community? What does GW have left? This is why, IMO, their business plan is far too short sighted. It will take a long time for the community to do that, but if the game keeps going this way either the player base will shrink massively or GW will go out of business as the community takes over. Not a bright future.
Tyberos the Red Wake wrote: The GW community is too fractured to agree on the unified system it desperately needs. The top TOs have gotten together and tried, but apparently they could not reach a consensus with one another.. Even right now, we don't even use GW's unified system, but use custom tournament house rules and scenarios, with each tournament being completely different.
40K definitely needs a Smogon equivalent.
I absolutely agree, I go to smogon often (yes, I love me some pokemon and proud of it) and I applaud the fact that their community and admins put real effort into the making the game as enjoyable and fair as possible. Yet they also don't sugar-coat things, for example with the tier system you can obviously see whats viable and what isn't, and why, there is no two ways about it. Though, saying the obvious here, the pokemon community and the 40k community are more than likely much different beasts. Just from reading what people post on Dakka were a pretty jaded bunch. Might be rather difficult to put together a smogon-esque standard for competitive play, but as far as tournies go Reecius and others have begun making formats, which a lot of people including myself have stolen for use in our own FLGS. Hopefully, a similar thing can happen with the base rules when the community takes things into their own hands and realizes that GW could give two gaks about the rules or the game.
I'd like to see the armour system dropped in favour of all units having a toughness/wounds/save characteristic.
Vehicles could lose offensive power as they lose wounds, say a gun every three wounds or something like that starting with their most powerful gun.
The same rule would apply to things like riptides, which should have been vehicles.
TheCustomLime wrote: Some people play the game for other reasons than for the game itself. Like me. I play because I love the idea of the Imperial Guard and I like using my tanks.
The game is utterly stupid and the fact that people have to 4+ rules in the first place is just a damning example of it's stupidity. It's weird how people use the "If you don't play it seriously, it's good" defense. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion since it only shows how you enjoy the game not how good the rules are.
There can be fixes for these problems but it has to come from GW to make the rules better than they are now.
Fixes by players unfortunately do not count. We have a rule set that can be enjoyed but we need participation from GW. Balance between codices, fixing loop hopes and the like and delineating which parts of rules for playing expansions or certain armies would make a semi decent rules et become better.
If the 40k rule set was complete and utter garbage, it would be abandoned and left behind for a newer edition or other game systems. Such as it is, it does need fixing and it does need GW to step up to the plate to make it better. Taking a page from WoTC, use player feedback to fix it like from DnD 3.0 to 3.5 and 4.0 to 5.0.
I completely agree. The problem though is that while most professional companies that sell a product that requires constant interaction with the customers listens to feedback since superior products drive sales, Games Workshop is content to stick their fingers into their ears and say "LALALALALA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU FORGE A NARRATIVE CINEMATIC!". I think they honestly believe that their way of producing rules is superior due to their market dominance. A classic blunder of correlation/causation if you will.
I agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with going for the win, but the 40k ruleset does not take kindly to it. It has been written with the mindset of "beer and pretzels storytime" by some pretty biased rulemakers, who have a penchant for making totally disorganised and self-contradicting rules.
It's a quirk of gw games where winning is sinning, and is actively frowned upon. I feel that it's almost implied and heavily guilt tripped by some folks that I nearly have to apologise for winning a game, and the win should come about by accident, as it were. Gw games are the only games I know where 'casual' and 'competitive' enjoy such mutually exclusive connotations amongst larger segments of the player base - in other games, you just rock up, put your bits on the board and have at 'em.
I sometimes wonder if it's the players collective histories that cause this. Face it, a lot of us are nerds. A lot will be, or were on the bottom of the social ladder (as distinct from 'those' players, who rate lower!) and how many of us got bullied at school? I know I did, back in the day (happy to laugh it off now though). And sometimes I wonder if we all carry a collective sense of 'baggage' with regard to this stuff, and we carry it over to our hobby - one some level, I feel there is an implied attitude amongst the players of 'if no one wins, no one loses, and I'm tired of being a loser'. it's interesting. Since I've gotten into more competitive, and far more physical pursuits since school, my outlook towards 'doing my best' and 'pushing' things has changed completely from my attitudes in school, back in the day. Far less of the 'stop playing so hard against me' and far more 'I'm taking you down punk, bring it on.' (Punk being tongue in cheek, obviously)
I think the problem is, as mentioned. The rules are just that bad, so imbalanced, so messy and clunky they don't work right. When you open the codex, count the good things, count the mediocre things, and look for how many trap units there are. Awesome looking models and or cool fluffy units... that just aren't worth their price and you know full well that they aren't as good. Why take ____ when ____ does its job 10 times better? I can't blame others for bringing heldrakes. At the same time though, I've shelfed mine because only one person in our group had a real way to counter it and it wasn't entertaining to watch my friend just take models off every turn helplessly. Seerstars, screamerstar, etc all of these things are competitive lists yet they aren't necessarily fun to play against simply because the internal balance and external balance of the game is so horrifically messed up that you can get a re-rollable 2+ invuln save.
I think it has more to do with the quality of the game.
In X-Wing balance is pretty good, there are few "never take if you want to win" options, and as long as you put a little thought into making a coherent strategy for your ships you're going to have a fair chance of winning. So there's much less of a division between "casual" and "competitive", you just put your ships on the table and play the game. And if you win or lose consistently it has to do with your own skill, not how seriously you take the game.
In 40k, on the other hand, balance is pretty much nonexistent and GW doesn't help you at all. So if you like a certain kind of 40k game the only way to get it and not be crushed by someone with a better list is to add a layer of social pressure to avoid making too many good decisions and winning too easily. And since the game itself is constantly trying to overcome that pressure and bring back auto-win strategies you feel like you're under siege and the pressure gets stronger in reaction. And of course you don't want to admit that you're just bad at the game or playing a special variant, so it has to be that everyone else is doing it wrong. And so you yell really loudly about how you're "just having fun" and "beer and pretzels" and are very serious about telling the world how casual you are, while simultaneously refusing to consider the possibility that more competitive players are also having a lot of fun. The two options become polarized opposites to the point that every bad strategy/list/etc automatically becomes "fun" or "fluffy" just because it isn't competitive, and fluffy lists that are good at winning are automatically "TFG behavior" regardless of how well they follow the background fiction.
And then with 40k you have the additional factor of GW encouraging that kind of "casual at all costs" attitude because it means they can save money by cutting playtesting and design time. Making a good competitive game isn't easy, and if you can convince everyone to 4+ all the rule disputes and shun anyone who brings overpowered lists then you don't have to waste all of that effort and money on something that doesn't really help with the main target market (young kids who rarely ever play the game). And it's even better when you get people white knighting GW by proudly bragging about how little they care about the rules and how anyone who dares to question GW's sacred wisdom is TFG.
I think the problem is, as mentioned. The rules are just that bad, so imbalanced, so messy and clunky they don't work right. When you open the codex, count the good things, count the mediocre things, and look for how many trap units there are. Awesome looking models and or cool fluffy units... that just aren't worth their price and you know full well that they aren't as good. Why take ____ when ____ does its job 10 times better? I can't blame others for bringing heldrakes. At the same time though, I've shelfed mine because only one person in our group had a real way to counter it and it wasn't entertaining to watch my friend just take models off every turn helplessly. Seerstars, screamerstar, etc all of these things are competitive lists yet they aren't necessarily fun to play against simply because the internal balance and external balance of the game is so horrifically messed up that you can get a re-rollable 2+ invuln save.
Startrotter, I fully agree - however whilst what you and peregrine say demonstrates the fundamental flaws of the game of 40k, I don't think it fully captures the hostility in the mentality towards 'winning' that I see in the community. Personally, I think that that's something that goes deeper.
Regardless, to both of you, I'm Agreed on all counts. I like the term 'casual at all costs' - it's quite apt. Reinforce that with a bit of dogma, and a lot of social pressure, back it up with sneering at 'those' other people who are wrong for liking different the game played in a different way, offer the dream and reward of a perfect game after all this struggle, and you've got the cult of 40k. Or a religion.
I'll be honest though - I was referring mainly the mentality behind the disgust/dislike I see towards 'winning' on these, and other boards, which is a slightly different issue to what you've posted, but regardless , yours is entirely on the mark.
In X-Wing balance is pretty good, there are few "never take if you want to win" options,
Wrong
X-Wing balance is piss-poor. Tie-Swarms (maximum Hull-Points per points) or Double-Falcon (Maximum-Shield-Points per points) are easily (and easily identifiable) the best X-Wing lists.
The X-Wing miniatures game is, by and large, pretty bad. But it's fun. And it's Star Wars.
Zweischneid wrote: X-Wing balance is piss-poor. Tie-Swarms (maximum Hull-Points per points) or Double-Falcon (Maximum-Shield-Points per points) are easily (and easily identifiable) the best X-Wing lists.
Yeah, those lists are just unbeatable, which is why a five-ship rebel list with no upgrades won the most recent world championships...
Plus, even if you feel that those lists are overpowered that's two lists out of the whole game. X-Wing's balance overall is MUCH better than anything in 40k. The power level of average lists is a lot more even, a much higher percentage of the ships and upgrade cards are viable choices, and there are just a lot fewer situations where you set up the game and realize that the outcome has already been decided.
Zweischneid wrote: X-Wing balance is piss-poor. Tie-Swarms (maximum Hull-Points per points) or Double-Falcon (Maximum-Shield-Points per points) are easily (and easily identifiable) the best X-Wing lists.
Yeah, those lists are just unbeatable, which is why a five-ship rebel list with no upgrades won the most recent world championships...
Plus, even if you feel that those lists are overpowered that's two lists out of the whole game. X-Wing's balance overall is MUCH better than anything in 40k.
There is no list in Warhammer 40K that is unbeatable either.
You need to get the difference between "unbalanced" and "unbeatable" right.
Unbalanced = Will win > 50% of the games, assuming equal player skill, etc...
Unbeatable = Will win 100% of games, no matter what.
There's a world of difference between the two.
And no, given that there are only what? 10 or 12 models in the entire game of X-Wing, balance is far, far, far, far worse than 40K if you account for the infinitely greater number of units in the mix.
Zweischneid wrote: There is no list in Warhammer 40K that is unbeatable either.
Yeah, let's get out the dictionary and assume that "unbeatable" means "literally 100% impossible to beat it" rather than the more common definition in this context: a list that has such an overwhelming advantage that it would be extremely surprising if it lost without a huge difference in luck or player skill to explain it.
And no, given that there are only what? 10 or 12 models in the entire game of X-Wing, balance is far, far, far, far worse than 40K if you account for the infinitely greater number of units in the mix.
No. There are only 12 models, but each of those models has at least 4-5 pilots and there are a lot of upgrades. And a much higher percentage of them are balanced choices that are neither so powerful that you always want to take them or so weak that you can hardly imagine a situation where you want them. Compare that to 40k where most units and upgrade choices are either blatantly overpowered or so weak that they might as well not exist.
No. There are only 12 models, but each of those models has at least 4-5 pilots and there are a lot of upgrades. And a much higher percentage of them are balanced choices that are neither so powerful that you always want to take them or so weak that you can hardly imagine a situation where you want them. Compare that to 40k where most units and upgrade choices are either blatantly overpowered or so weak that they might as well not exist.
Still, the complexity is far less than in even a single 40K Codex.
X-Wing isn't really a better game, it's only a far more simple one. If balance means that much to you, that you are willing to bring down 40K to X-Wing levels of complexity, you shouldn't have a problem.
For your next 40K Tournament
- Only allow two Codexes (Imperial vs. Rebels), say Space Marines vs. Chaos Space Marines.
- Only allow 6 entries from each Codex.
- Use low point values that result in fewer than a dozend, usually fewer than half-a-dozend models on the table. Probably around 150 or 200 pts, possibly the new Kill-Team rules (specialist rules should stand in for pilot-abilities fairly nicely)..
- Simplify all "basic shooting" (Bolters, Lasguns, whathhaveyou) into a single standardized BS 4, Str. 4 AP 4 "standard-shooting" that is the same for all units in the game.
- Allow no more than 5 or 6 different missiles/"upgrade-weapons" (say Plasmagun, Heavy Bolter, Meltagun, Missile Launcher, Autocannon).
- Remove Close Combat completely from the game.
- Remove LD-tests and all morality rules completely from the game.
- Play on perfectly flat tables with only one type of terrain ("rocks") in equal numbers on all tables.
- Etc..
If people want "X-Wing-levels" of "balance" in 40K, it's easy to do.
Zweischneid wrote: Still, the complexity is far less than in even a single 40K Codex.
Sure, but 40k is full of pointless complexity. You have useless upgrades, useless units, even useless armies if you're at the wrong time in the update cycle. Does it really matter if my IG veterans can take grenade launchers? Of course not, that text might as well be blank. If you look at the options that people actually take you've got a game that isn't even close to complicated enough to justify the shameful lack of balance.
And of course then you could always compare it to MTG, a game with much more complexity (at least in terms of options, as you define it here) but also much better balance. But I guess that's the benefit of having a company that doesn't use "but it's hard" as an excuse to avoid proper playtesting.
If balance means that much to you, that you are willing to bring down 40K to X-Wing levels of complexity, you shouldn't have a problem.
No, you're just confusing complexity with lazy design. 40k could be balanced without sacrificing any interesting complexity. The only reason it isn't is that GW doesn't care enough to do it.
People who don't like it are free to play simpler games, including X-Wing. People who like the "pointless" complexity 40K can play 40K. There is nothing to be gained in making 40K as simple as, to stick with the example, X-Wing, because X-Wing is already on the market.
Sigh. You're missing the key difference between a complex and interesting game where each of those complex options matters, and a bloated mess where there are lots of rules but you can ignore half of them because they're so bad that nobody ever uses them. You think 40k is in the former category, the truth is that it's in the latter one. You could cut out large parts of 40k and hardly anyone would miss it, and you'd still have a game that's significantly more complicated than X-Wing.
Anyway, this is all a complete tangent. You can insist on pulling out one sentence and debating it to death, but the simple fact is that in my experience the X-Wing community isn't plagued with the same "casual at all costs" players who obsess over how casual they're being and how little they care about the game. And my impression is that the biggest reason is that X-Wing games are more likely to be fun and balanced even without negotiation, while trying to play a 40k pickup game without first agreeing on how competitive you're going to be often ends in a one-sided massacre that nobody enjoys. Feel free to substitute some other balanced game for X-Wing if you want, the basic point remains the same.
Anyway, this is all a complete tangent. You can insist on pulling out one sentence and debating it to death, but the simple fact is that in my experience the X-Wing community isn't plagued with the same "casual at all costs" players who obsess over how casual they're being and how little they care about the game. And my impression is that the biggest reason is that X-Wing games are more likely to be fun and balanced even without negotiation, while trying to play a 40k pickup game without first agreeing on how competitive you're going to be often ends in a one-sided massacre that nobody enjoys. Feel free to substitute some other balanced game for X-Wing if you want, the basic point remains the same.
Again, because X-Wing is a far, far more simple game. And because people, in my experience, don't go claiming the entire game is ready for the bin because Tie-Swarms are overpowered, as they do with 40K, where every little hick-up has people screaming that the sky is falling. X-Wing players just move on and make Tie-Fighter noises, cause it's cool, even if the game ain't perfect. If 40K player were to approach it with the same spirit, we'd have no issue.
Zweischneid wrote: And because people, in my experience, don't go claiming the entire game is ready for the bin because Tie-Swarms are overpowered, as they do with 40K, where every little hick-up has people screaming that the sky is falling.
That's because 40k updates screw over one large part of the community, buffs another large part, and leaves a ton of people in the middle ground wondering what the hell just happened.
I sometimes wonder if it's the players collective histories that cause this. Face it, a lot of us are nerds. A lot will be, or were on the bottom of the social ladder (as distinct from 'those' players, who rate lower!) and how many of us got bullied at school? I know I did, back in the day (happy to laugh it off now though). And sometimes I wonder if we all carry a collective sense of 'baggage' with regard to this stuff, and we carry it over to our hobby - one some level, I feel there is an implied attitude amongst the players of 'if no one wins, no one loses, and I'm tired of being a loser'. it's interesting. Since I've gotten into more competitive, and far more physical pursuits since school, my outlook towards 'doing my best' and 'pushing' things has changed completely from my attitudes in school, back in the day. Far less of the 'stop playing so hard against me' and far more 'I'm taking you down punk, bring it on.' (Punk being tongue in cheek, obviously)
Not really--I don't remember seeing this sort of attitude in any game where the rules are better balanced, at least not to that degree. In mean, in my Warmachine group, you might get a raised eyebrow or good-natured ribbing if you drop some of the known top-tier pieces, but certainly not people refusing to play against you.
Where the game system is less breakable, the rule of social conduct moves from what you're putting on the board and what tactics you're using as grounds for disapproval, and onto your actual conduct and personality as a player. The burden of balancing the game, and preventing overpowered combos and "why did I show up?" experiences is taken up by the system instead of the players, as it should be.
Zweischneid wrote: And because people, in my experience, don't go claiming the entire game is ready for the bin because Tie-Swarms are overpowered, as they do with 40K, where every little hick-up has people screaming that the sky is falling.
That's because 40k updates screw over one large part of the community, buffs another large part, and leaves a ton of people in the middle ground wondering what the hell just happened.
As X-Wing screw-ups would, if the game only 1% of the complexity and 1% of the player-base of 40K. The scale of 40K obviously amplifies things to a far greater extend, and I am no saying that is irrelevant nor that a game like 40K, which requires a much greater investment, shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
But, to return to the original point, simply saying X-Wing is "better balanced" (despite several obvious and grievous imbalances with barely 10 different unit existing in the entire game) than 40K with its hundreds and hundreds of units and rules and mechanisms, is utterly stupid.
I am not saying that there are no issues with 40K at all. I am merely pointing out one of the most ludicrous cases of apples and oranges to have graced the interwebs in a while.
Guys i don't get all of this whining about the imbalance of the game. I have just rekindled my love of all GW after 20 years out. I find the new versions of the game much better to play now, although it helps to have the money now to buy what units i want to.
I have just started on 40k earlier this year and have Ebayed a 3,000 to ultramarine army since the new codex.
Now some units are overpriced imho such as Terminators and some are massively underpriced such as the TFC. But some games my terms have stomped on 1000pts and my TFC has been destroyed in turn 2 after killing a big fat Zero.
But in all of these games i have enjoyed playing it, if it didn't i would't do it.
All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.
All I wish is that the rules team would even try, I can't understand what kind of a gamer would let something like the old Slaanesh minor psychic powers pass, I mean of course somebody is going to take 6 of them and have a daemon prince you can't shoot or assault. It should immediately come to mind that it's going to be ridiculously broken, so why did it exist?
Or the recent 2++ vs. D! thing. It should have been obvious in the first place that you shouldn't be able to re-roll invulnerable saves, but at least don't let the guys with access to 2++ saves for units have it (or the 2++ save, way too good). All you need is some D to dick that over, yeah that seems legit just have an unit that can remove the other unit with no effort. It should have been really obvious that if D weapons are needed they should be pretty specialised anti-titan weapons and even then they should never one-shot a titan. At the very least it would have been nice if anybody involved in escalation gave a crap about trivialities such as point costs.
It's not like it's impossible to have a relatively balanced game.
All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.
If you don't like it play something else!!
Here's the thing. Play something else, and then come back to 40k. The issues crystallise.
Your list wasn't good enough? Well, yeah, but that just reinforces the simple fact that 40k boils done to a bare handful of viable codices, with a bare handful of viable builds, and everything beyond this is frankly pointless. Craft world starcannon spam eldar in third, or blood angels rhino spam. Skimmer spam and six man las/plas in fourth and that iron warriors list, grey knights, and long fang spam in fifth. Mc and flyer spam, or taudar in sixth.
Here's the thing, compare this to warmachine, where everything can be built into a game winning strategy, where all factions are represented at the top tables with very fair win loss ratios across the board, and where, frankly, you are not punished because you play faction x. Compare it to infinity, where the over riding attitude to playing better is ' it's not your list, it's you'. Again, across the board, you've got excellent balance and no one thing dominates.
Sour grapes? Well. Yeah. The game mechanics are rubbish. I want better from my game. I get that elsewhere, and frankly, want the same thing from 40k. I want to like 40k again. I want 40k to be the best game it can be, and sadly it falls far too short of the mark.
My gaming group has been working on a wargaming system based on the D10 instead of the D6. it allows for a much greater range of stats and abilities. most of the rules are roughly based on a imiler system, we just made it more 'realistic' and took out a lot of the bugs. Of course, as with any custom rulesets, it is largely useless outside of the group that designs it so for tourneys and pick up games at the shop and all, it's back to the 'official' rules.
You are really missing my point here, if you are playing another game and you think it is much better than 40k then stay playing it…..
40k won't miss you.
But you keep coming back for some reason, i.e. your mates play it, you have loads of models or actually you enjoy it. GW are there to be opoular, they are like the referees at a football match, they keep things on the straight and narrow and sometimes they make a bad call… not intentionally but they do and hacks like you moan about it forever and ever and ever.
I stand by my original quote. You moan because you lost because of poor troop choice, poor tactics or poor dice roll..end of.
All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.
If you don't like it play something else!!
Here's the thing. Play something else, and then come back to 40k. The issues crystallise.
Your list wasn't good enough? Well, yeah, but that just reinforces the simple fact that 40k boils done to a bare handful of viable codices, with a bare handful of viable builds, and everything beyond this is frankly pointless. Craft world starcannon spam eldar in third, or blood angels rhino spam. Skimmer spam and six man las/plas in fourth and that iron warriors list, grey knights, and long fang spam in fifth. Mc and flyer spam, or taudar in sixth.
Here's the thing, compare this to warmachine, where everything can be built into a game winning strategy, where all factions are represented at the top tables with very fair win loss ratios across the board, and where, frankly, you are not punished because you play faction x. Compare it to infinity, where the over riding attitude to playing better is ' it's not your list, it's you'. Again, across the board, you've got excellent balance and no one thing dominates.
Sour grapes? Well. Yeah. The game mechanics are rubbish. I want better from my game. I get that elsewhere, and frankly, want the same thing from 40k. I want to like 40k again. I want 40k to be the best game it can be, and sadly it falls far too short of the mark.
Many players do play other games as well as 40k. not many pigeonhole themselves to just one game and instead keep thier options open or just play different ones for variety.
madd_leeroy wrote: You are really missing my point here, if you are playing another game and you think it is much better than 40k then stay playing it…..
40k won't miss you.
But you keep coming back for some reason, i.e. your mates play it, you have loads of models or actually you enjoy it. GW are there to be opoular, they are like the referees at a football match, they keep things on the straight and narrow and sometimes they make a bad call… not intentionally but they do and hacks like you moan about it forever and ever and ever.
I stand by my original quote. You moan because you lost because of poor troop choice, poor tactics or poor dice roll..end of.
All the arguments of this unit is too good and that unit are too cheep just sounds like sour grapes, your list wasn't good enough, your tactics were poor and your dice rolls sucked.
If you don't like it play something else!!
Here's the thing. Play something else, and then come back to 40k. The issues crystallise.
Your list wasn't good enough? Well, yeah, but that just reinforces the simple fact that 40k boils done to a bare handful of viable codices, with a bare handful of viable builds, and everything beyond this is frankly pointless. Craft world starcannon spam eldar in third, or blood angels rhino spam. Skimmer spam and six man las/plas in fourth and that iron warriors list, grey knights, and long fang spam in fifth. Mc and flyer spam, or taudar in sixth.
Here's the thing, compare this to warmachine, where everything can be built into a game winning strategy, where all factions are represented at the top tables with very fair win loss ratios across the board, and where, frankly, you are not punished because you play faction x. Compare it to infinity, where the over riding attitude to playing better is ' it's not your list, it's you'. Again, across the board, you've got excellent balance and no one thing dominates.
Sour grapes? Well. Yeah. The game mechanics are rubbish. I want better from my game. I get that elsewhere, and frankly, want the same thing from 40k. I want to like 40k again. I want 40k to be the best game it can be, and sadly it falls far too short of the mark.
Firstly, just a quick thing, and there certainly isn't any rule, but generally on Dakka, the quote precedes the reply, I know that's not always the convention on other boards, but that just seems to be the way this one operates, and once you're in the habit of reading things one way, switching it around can be a bit off putting.
Secondly the argument "if you don't like it, don't play it" is asinine. Many people have thousands of pounds, potentially tens of thousands of man hours invested in their model collection. If the reason they have made those investments is to play a game which has now been altered to the point where they no longer enjoy it, they have every right to be annoyed about it, and to seek a resolution.
While 40K has always existed as a vehicle to promote model sales, it has been steadily devolving into a state where that is now the be all and end all, to the detriment of the game's playability. If you've not long come back, you're probably still in the first flush of enthusiasm, but I'd be interested to know how long you maintain that when you've played a few games where you've basically stood there and taken your models off the table and precious little else (Serpent/Riptide spam being the main culprits of this) and come away realising there wasn't anything you could have done to affect a different outcome.
It's all well and good saying "poor troops, tactics or dice" but if 40K were better, there would be no poor options, just options used poorly, dice will even out for everyone over time, so while they can be significant in terms of one result, they should be irrelevant over say, several rounds in a tourney, unless a system is over reliant on dice rolls because it uses randomness as a substitute for proper balance of course (ahem!) and that would just leave tactics. Which is all anybody wants.
In tactics and strategy games, player decisions need to matter and be critical to the outcome of the game. As azareal13 has pointed out, 6th edition has introduced many game elements that make game outcomes almost predetermined.
Compare to Starcraft, where I can *choose* to scout out my opponents' tech and then build counter tech. He will simultaneously try to hide his tech to make it harder. Because there are no clearly inherently superior choices, like say *WAVE SERPENTS*, there are so many tactics that might work, especially when your tactic is not scouted.
There is no decision making when I fire my overcosted Imperial heavy weapons at Wave Serpents and nothing happens. I just stand there and lose.
I still think that a fan base can pull together and make a set of GW rules better if they want to. Look at Epic Armageddon.
The GW rules are a mess. If you want to download the rules from GW, you also need a 21-page FAQ, and a 9-page Eratta PDF. And for anything other than the 4 factions in the main book, you need to download and look through several different PDF's. All for a game that GW doesn't support anymore.
But with a quick trip on the internet, I found a Forum who has compiled the main rules (with the required rules changed as per the eratta) into one main PDF with the FAQ items as numbered footnotes on each page with the rules they fit with. The community there has also pretty extensively developed and playtested army list entries for every 40K race, with several factions of some of the races (Imperial Guard tank companies, Siege Companies, and Alaitoc versus Biel-Tan army lists) They also cleaned up and sometimes even altered unit entries where the community thought the rules or points costs should have been different. And supposedly they update this main PDF every year.
Well, if anyone's interested, I'm pretty good at offering unbiased analysis. I didn't like 3rd because meqs were too good, but I hated 2nd because non-chaos meqs were hopeless.
I have no trouble taking out wave serpents. Almost tabled the guy who came in 2nd behind me (first) at the last region tourney. A lot of times, it is the order you fire which weapons at them. Forexample, many will start off with shooting a manticore at them and then move to the autocannons and then las cannons.. I would fire the las cannons at the first as they are hole punchers that would otherwise only kill a single pointy ear. Then, i would move to the autocannons as they still have a fair chance of destroying it and would only hit 2 at most elves after they roll out. THEN, only after failing with all else will I fire the manticore at it because if it is popped before then (and it usually is), you can pie plate over the entire unit rolling out instead of just one or two. little tricks like that add up in no time at all to spell victory.
Is this with Imperial Guard? I've often hypothesized that the IG can bring enough pew pew to grind through all the cheesy elf defenses. OF course, I also maintain that the IG book is still better than any meq book, including the new one. With meqs, you need lucky grav hits or they might as well be immortal. The CSM and DA are just hosed.
Is the problem with the core rules themselves, or with the expanded rules via Codex, Supplements, Expansions? Seems to me that the main problem is really with poor play testing of new mechanics introduced in the expanded rules.
For example, 2++ rerollable wasn't possible until Codex: Chaos Daemons made it a reality. D-weapons weren't an issue until Escalation introduced them to standard 40K. Balance issues don't come from the core rules, they come from poorly playtested Codices that try to cram every possible advantage over the previous army that was released. I feel that with this, the issue really is that you have individuals leading the efforts on different armies, and they likely don't collaborate near enough to make sure these things balance out. Anybody with half a brain would have seen that the 2++ rerollable Lord of Change was a bad idea, or that dedicated transports bearing an extreme range gun with good strength, potential for re-rolling missed shots, and IGNORES COVER wouldn't be abused.
ClassicCarraway wrote: Is the problem with the core rules themselves, or with the expanded rules via Codex, Supplements, Expansions? Seems to me that the main problem is really with poor play testing of new mechanics introduced in the expanded rules.
For example, 2++ rerollable wasn't possible until Codex: Chaos Daemons made it a reality. D-weapons weren't an issue until Escalation introduced them to standard 40K. Balance issues don't come from the core rules, they come from poorly playtested Codices that try to cram every possible advantage over the previous army that was released. I feel that with this, the issue really is that you have individuals leading the efforts on different armies, and they likely don't collaborate near enough to make sure these things balance out. Anybody with half a brain would have seen that the 2++ rerollable Lord of Change was a bad idea, or that dedicated transports bearing an extreme range gun with good strength, potential for re-rolling missed shots, and IGNORES COVER wouldn't be abused.
I'd have said that the BRB is the source of the problems, and that this has been compounded on with every new release.
Martel732 wrote: Is this with Imperial Guard? I've often hypothesized that the IG can bring enough pew pew to grind through all the cheesy elf defenses. OF course, I also maintain that the IG book is still better than any meq book, including the new one. With meqs, you need lucky grav hits or they might as well be immortal. The CSM and DA are just hosed.
yes, this is with my guard. it seems that each army is "stronger" against some armies and "weaker" against others. Against eldar, it is looking like my guard is fairly strong against eldar.
i think this goes beyond the guns though. For example, my guard swing last against almost every army out there while the eldar specialty is to swing first and they give up toughness and strength to make up forit. Against guard, this eldar trade off is wasted and is actually a detriment to them as it makes them less likely to wound me, more likely for me to wound them and they woulda swung first anyway.
Isn't being multi assulted by the seer council a serious problem? Wave serpents are broken, but they are far more broken in context of the Eldar lists that contain Seer Council and Warp Spiders.
The seer, multiple farseer, baron biker council does hurt me. The only thing i can do is use flamers if i can, hellhound, stuff like that (or a coatex unit of monkeys with the right div power) as allies..
Of course, this is the case with about every army and a prime example of how battle brothers in allies is broken. Love the idea of allies, hate the battle brothers aspect as it allows too many unintended combos.
Allies wouldn't matter as much if immortal units with 2+ rerollable didn't exist. The Baron only matters because the best tactic with the seer council is to tarpit.
Ahh,thanx. Hadnt realized that. I can see where that can be OP against some armies.
The extra +1 on the saves is what kills me. The hit and run doesnt really come into effect against me as they kil y unit on the turn they asault. .
ClassicCarraway wrote: Is the problem with the core rules themselves, or with the expanded rules via Codex, Supplements, Expansions?
Both. The core rules are a bloated mess, and GW has no idea whether they want the game to do (small infantry skirmishes with a focus on heroic characters, epic tank battles, etc). Then on top of that mess you add bad codex/expansion rules with no playtesting. Honestly it's a small miracle that 40k's balance and quality aren't even worse than they are now.
Martel732 wrote: Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?
Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.
I don't quite understand this post.
Well. Where Evil Inc said "I can see where that can be OP against some armies.", and you replied "Try all armies.", my brain did a backflip.
And told me that fliers and ordnance care not for deathstars, as they're infantry. And thus can be avoided/blown to bits with the right force.
But, then again, I know little of the codex this deathstar comes from.
Martel732 wrote: Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?
Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.
I don't quite understand this post.
Well. Where Evil Inc said "I can see where that can be OP against some armies.", and you replied "Try all armies.", my brain did a backflip.
And told me that fliers and ordnance care not for deathstars, as they're infantry. And thus can be avoided/blown to bits with the right force.
But, then again, I know little of the codex this deathstar comes from.
Fliers can't hurt the Seer Council and neither can Ordnance really. And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.
Martel732 wrote: Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?
Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.
I don't quite understand this post.
Well. Where Evil Inc said "I can see where that can be OP against some armies.", and you replied "Try all armies.", my brain did a backflip.
And told me that fliers and ordnance care not for deathstars, as they're infantry. And thus can be avoided/blown to bits with the right force.
But, then again, I know little of the codex this deathstar comes from.
Fliers can't hurt the Seer Council and neither can Ordnance really. And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.
I can't forget what I'm currently ignorant to.
Though, I do see how you're probably right.
i said some armies because with some armies, it plays a larger role. Against my army for example, H&R doesnt play a big role as they kill me on the charge. against an army that can standup to the assault and actually fight back , it plays a larger role.
Oh, yes. I see that point then. They are a nightmare for every list. In fact, Seer Council backed up by serpent/war spider is probaly the strongest thing in the game right now. Barring FW. But I haven't heard of any FW stuff better than Seer Council.
And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.
I'm not following this. I've seen this referenced a couple of times in this topic indicating that the Seer Council can split up in the last (or any) turn. Where exactly is this described because the Eldar codex doesn't reference this in any way that I can find.
And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.
I'm not following this. I've seen this referenced a couple of times in this topic indicating that the Seer Council can split up in the last (or any) turn. Where exactly is this described because the Eldar codex doesn't reference this in any way that I can find.
I know the Farseers at least can do it because they are ICs and can split off. So can the Baron.
i hate to jump on the bandwagon, but i love it when people say the rules aren't that bad, and people can play games with no issues, and always use the D6 process of "fixing rules issues". the current rules are terrible. 40k suffers from, as a whole, inconsistent verbiage use, inconsistent definitions, inconsistent analogy, and inconsistent methodology and nomenclature when discussing feature, functions, abilities, capabilities, options, ect ect...
It is very clear that whoever wrote these rules has never once stepped into any form of a technical writing class, or have themselves ever read any type of rule book with which to draw inspiration or at a minimum organization from.
People can play a game without arguing/debating/actively discussing a rule? I doubt this. I haven't seen a game of warhammer in 6th edition yet not stall in some kind of questions/debate and sometimes argument about how the rules work. While the degree of the discussion is certainly different between players, every game i have played and seen in 6th has ALWAYS resulted back to two people spending 15 min looking through their books, ipads, websites, and finally giving up and rolling a D6 on it...and that brings me to my personal favorite, - lets 4+ it and see what happens.
If this is a mainstay rule in any game system, its fundamentally broken. something has stopped working properly. I understand that you cant possibly cover ALL rules interactions throughout the course of developing a game system, but after 25 years you would think someone has a handle on it. instead, we get the steadfast rule of "if you don't know, then just roll a dice on it if it isn't clear in the BRB." Honestly through, that doesn't bother me as much as GW using this as a method to actually ANSWER questions in their own FAQ, which is a document comprised to do the exact opposite of providing ambiguity. The other problem is that gamers love rules, because we love to push them, bend them, and skirt them. Gamers love to play games where we can use some really cool trick to win with, or we get to use this awesome unit because they kill stuff ridiculous all over the place. Gamers also have to be right. games don't agree on "rolling dice" to see how this rule works, because games want consistency in how they approach the rules, and rolling a D6 just doesn't cut it when you have invested more into this game than the price of your car. no one wants to buy a unit of whatever and it completely sucks half of the time because the rules aren't clear and all you can do is "D6 it." thats like throwing away money, and a good chunk of it now given GWs prices, to not have a unit play the way YOU think it should play because the freaking rules are specific or accurate.
But, the biggest problem is that gamers have to have a standard. There has to be one source that releases rules that says "hey guys, this is how your toy army men will play, and this is the number of dice you need to roll". Gamers cannot be left to themselves to govern this, because then stuff gets more broken (is it possible) than it is now. Whether your a competitive player or a fluff bunny that "never plays to win", there has to be consistency in the rules set that allows players to go from one game to the next and somewhat have a reasonable expectation of what the experience will be. with independent development of rules, that simply cant happen.
honestly, i still have my ultramarines, and some Templars and other stuff, but they sit around and collect dust. even in my small town, i have no problems finding war machine players and hordes players and have been having a fun time playing those games. i don't think gamers will be able to unite to fix this game. gamers will not unite. our very definition defies that process. however, there are alternatives. i found a few, and from what i gather, there is a group looking up to start AT43, and im super interested in that, so i may be moving on to the next game. who knows.
point is, gamers cant fix this. there has to be a singular set of rules and one voice to bring them out. stick to house rules. they will make games more palatable until the next edition where submarines are the next flyers and they can destroy half of the board in one turn, or when someone else gets a new codex, or when the FOC just doesn't matter anymore and they go back to a % based system like in 2nd edition, so you can take even more allies with more data slates, and all kinds of other fun and new and exciting ways to completely ruin a game.
i guess the good news is that if GW keeps breaking gak at the rate they are doing it, sooner or later, everyone is just playing horribly broken stuff, and that, oddly, will bring al ittle balance back.
In the mean time, as i have seen so many times, GW compared to MTG and Hasbro, i will say this.
5 color control was terrible for the game of magic. the color pie didnt matter and colors lost all of their uniqueness to them. since that standard rotation, while lorwyn Shards were in, Hasbro has been increasingly launching more crazy and broken stuff to "balance" the color pie out.
it hasnt worked yet. it wont work here.
lets just hope that when GW does sell their business to hasbro, or whatever they are planning on doing, the next people who get the IP, and the chance to do something about it, know that games like organized play, gamers need structure, and gamers need concise rules that make sense.
if they do that, 40k will be one hell of a game agian. and the ultramarines will show back up in my local segmentum.
Silly question, but wouldn't it be easier to simply come together as a community and buyout GW? Feth, I'd throw money at a Dakka Kickstarter whose sole purpose would be to take over GW.
That would be even less feasible than the community coming together on a ruleset they made themselves, for the same reasons discussed earlier. Money would have to be spent to take the company in a direction that can't be agreed upon, because there will always be a vocal group whe feel they're getting the short end of the stick, so the money won't come. While I'm sure many of us want GW to have a change in management, the 40k community is too splintered and widespread in opinion that there will be no total satisfaction and acceptance of wherever it heads afterward.
madd_leeroy wrote: What exactly are the problems? I myself have not had any rules that cannot be resolved by sensible discussion. With my opponent.
The very fact that you have to have those discussions in the first place beyond "Let's go look and see what the rules say." for one. Take a look at any of the 5/10/20+ page topics in the YMDC forum. Unfortunately, not everyone that plays 40k has the luxury of having regular opponents with which to sit down and discuss the various rules issues.
Well, to be fair...I never had any rules issues pop up in the games I play. I can't recall having any arguments with my opponents over how rule X interacts.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, to be fair...I never had any rules issues pop up in the games I play. I can't recall having any arguments with my opponents over how rule X interacts.
There are two threads over in You Make Da Call just from the Cypher datasheet, both of which look like they wouldn't have existed if GW just wrote out their rules in a clearer manner.
It's all well and good to say that you don't have any trouble playing with your friends but unfortunately that is entirely anecdotal and there are plenty of examples of unclear wordings in pretty much everything GW publishes.
Well IF we managed to enforce proper proof reading and editing on GW towers.
It would help with the basic level of making a well defined rule set.
However, It would NOT help with the main rules problems that have built up over the last 15 years.
The constant change in direction and NOT having the freedom to do what is right, just what can be made backwards compatible has left the rules in a bad way.
(Compared to rule set that were allowed to re-boot when needed.)
Using WHFB skirmish rules for 2nd ed, 40k skirmish game was just about ok.But using ancient skirmish rule to base 40k s modern battle game on is less than optimal.
And I am sure the ability to improve balance in 40k will be hampered by the over complication of multiple and diffuse resolution methods.
The only way to actually remove GW from the equation, is NOT to try to fix their rubbish rule set,
But write our own rule set ,starting from scratch based on what the current game is meant to be.
And then we would be free to play anywhere with what ever minatures we wanted to use.
Because 2nd ed was a large skirmish game.
The rules were written for detaied model interaction, and most armies were not that large for this to cause a problem.
(As always with GW model count increased as time went on.)
3rd ed on wards have been battle games ,( much larger minature counts,)that involve unit interaction .
BUT rather than re write the rules to focus on detailed UNIT interaction .They have a horrible mess of micro managing some areas and macro managing others.. Because GW still used WHFB skirmish rules ,,chopped out lots of it, and covered the holes with poorly applied patches.
In fact GW removed the 2 things that STILL applied to modern battle games , movement rates, and simple modifiers for cover.
And kept the game turn mechanic and damage resolution from Ancient warfare rank and file rules!
Lanrak wrote: Because 2nd ed was a large skirmish game.
The rules were written for detaied model interaction, and most armies were not that large for this to cause a problem.
(As always with GW model count increased as time went on.)
3rd ed on wards have been battle games ,( much larger minature counts,)that involve unit interaction .
BUT rather than re write the rules to focus on detailed UNIT interaction .They have a horrible mess of micro managing some areas and macro managing others.. Because GW still used WHFB skirmish rules ,,chopped out lots of it, and covered the holes with poorly applied patches.
In fact GW removed the 2 things that STILL applied to modern battle games , movement rates, and simple modifiers for cover.
And kept the game turn mechanic and damage resolution from Ancient warfare rank and file rules!
/ This. And it is sooooo awkward. 2nd ed was pretty good in comparison, I must admit.
OP. I can see the benefit. The idea is a grand one.
But you would need to have 4 or 5 people that make the final decisions on everything.
Those 4-5 people would just be the new GW..
ascended_mike wrote: OP. I can see the benefit. The idea is a grand one.
But you would need to have 4 or 5 people that make the final decisions on everything.
Those 4-5 people would just be the new GW..
Except they'd know that the internet exists, and would probably be far more open to criticism and suggestions.
Okay you lot, anyone with enough time and energy to spare to actually give a shot at a new rulebook?
The way I see it, you guys will keep debating for another 25 pages instead of just nominating a couple of trustworthy guys to review the core rules and get that 20-30 page document done (seriously, without the fluff, pictures, model showcase and whatnot, the core rules can be probably reduced to less than 30 pages).
So, by virtue of personal arrogance and until community disapproval, I hereby declare that I shall supervise the whole thing and boss people around. For starters, I look for applicants to actually set out and get things going. I want 2-5 guys who feel they are fractionwise neutral and enthusiastic enough to make core rules. Volunteers, one step forward!
Or we could all find another wargame, like infinity, warmachine, or thousands of lesser known ones, and have a vote on which rule set is the best. It might be fun for home games, like, "today, we're playing the malifaux rules" or something. Also, there was a failed kickstarter called Proxy Army, and I played a few games using their ruleset, and found it very enjoyable, should anyone want to look into that. It was very flexible.
A noval idea this is, but that is it.
If you play in tournaments you have to use the tournament rules, codex's.
If you play at a club they usually have house rules.
If you play with a small group, like 95% of my gaming, you adjust the rules to an agreeable point, based on the armies we play and stick with them.
GW never tried to fix any rules set. They sold them broke and when people grew weary... or GW put something new out there they came up with a new edition. Never fixing the problems of the previous edition.... they just change a gak load of stuff. We decided to stay with our house ruled 5th edition because it was what fit our likes best. 6th edition, again, changed a ton of crap, added even more and is still broken. GW should stay in the miniture business but they have not the heart or mind to put together anything good in the way of rules. If they did each edition would incorporate and cover the holes, gaps and oversights of the previous edition, not open a whole new can of worms.
If I thought for a moment this could be done in this forum, I would be in but just don't see it working.
Besides, our little group has sworn off GW and have been GW free for over a year now!
It feels great, I have more than ever.
Even the Grognards can't agree on a historical rules set... I know... I am one!!!
Regards, and nice try.
Well we have had a go at writing a NEW rule set for 40k.
Its assuming 40k is supposed to be a modern battle game about detailed unit interaction.
(Not some sort of ancient warfare skirmish rule set hacked to bits to speed up play , then slowed down with poorly applied patches, like GW efforts).
Its just gone into Aplha testing , refining game mechanics and resolution methods.And so still a WIP.
But it covers 90% of 40k game play with simple intuitive rules , (using unit stats directly, no tables or charts, but handy unit cards.)
its just the best my gaming group and I could put together.(Working on the idea of simple rules and complex game play.)
I could post a PDF of our latest WIP version under play testing if you like?
Lanrak wrote: Well we have had a go at writing a NEW rule set for 40k.
Its assuming 40k is supposed to be a modern battle game about detailed unit interaction.
(Not some sort of ancient warfare skirmish rule set hacked to bits to speed up play , then slowed down with poorly applied patches, like GW efforts).
Its just gone into Aplha testing , refining game mechanics and resolution methods.And so still a WIP.
But it covers 90% of 40k game play with simple intuitive rules , (using unit stats directly, no tables or charts, but handy unit cards.)
its just the best my gaming group and I could put together.(Working on the idea of simple rules and complex game play.)
I could post a PDF of our latest WIP version under play testing if you like?
Yes please!
If you make it a thread in "Proposed Rules" and then link us to it, that'd be wonderful
Lanrak wrote: Well we have had a go at writing a NEW rule set for 40k.
Its assuming 40k is supposed to be a modern battle game about detailed unit interaction.
(Not some sort of ancient warfare skirmish rule set hacked to bits to speed up play , then slowed down with poorly applied patches, like GW efforts).
Its just gone into Aplha testing , refining game mechanics and resolution methods.And so still a WIP.
But it covers 90% of 40k game play with simple intuitive rules , (using unit stats directly, no tables or charts, but handy unit cards.)
its just the best my gaming group and I could put together.(Working on the idea of simple rules and complex game play.)
I could post a PDF of our latest WIP version under play testing if you like?
I'd be very interested in reading this Lanrak.n
I'm in the same boat, but for different reasons. I've done up a very basic rules set myself for myself and a small group to play platoon level games- we play flames of war for big games, infinity for small ones, but have nothing for in between - hence my wee project. Even though it's Nothing fancy, (and it's not necessarily 40k focused either!) it was a very interesting, and engaging mental exercise (I am interested in game theory, and wanted to experience the 'writing of' part). After we test it, I'll put up a post on my thoughts about the whole thing too.
Hi folks.
I have attached a PDF to my post on page 8 of Sister Sydney s thread, 'How to re boot 40k?..'
I have explained some concepts in detail in that thread, and also discussed some alternatives.
It is the latest document we use as a base for our play testing.(No rules for setting up battles or missions yet , we are still working on them )
Please feel free to post comments or questions in the thread , or PM me if you prefer.
We decided to try to stick to using D6 to see if we could make it work with comparison and modification resolution methods to cover the majority of 40k game play.
Because FoW , Epic , and plenty of other games seem to get complex game play from these simple resolution methods.
1) Direct representation.
The stat tells you DIRECTLY the mobility rate, (how far the unit may move up to when taking a Move or Assault action.)Or the effective range of a weapon in Inches.
Example Eldar Ranger 'Mobility' (Legs) 6". Shoota 'Effective range 18"'
Or the MAXIMUM Number of dice rolled.
Example 'Attack value' 2 means roll 2 D6 for the models weapon attacks.
2 ) Basic target score for success, (with modifiers.)
Example a UNIT with 'Stealth value' of 3+ , is hit by enemy ranged weapons,IF the enemy roll a 3+.(After the enemy declares a ranged attack that is in range and LOS.)
IF hitting the target is HARDER , because the unit is in cover or over long range .ADD 1 to the target score.
If unit with a 3+ Stealth value is in cover and at long range.(over 30 " away.)
The attacker now needs to roll 5+.(3+1+1=5)
If hitting the unit is EASIER. Because the attacker has targeting equipment, or on Fire Support orders.
Add 1 to the dice roll to hit score.
(NO FETHING SUBTRACTION! )
3) Direct oposing stat comparison.(Using the stat as a modifier.)
Units have a level of armoured protection , this is called ARMOUR VALUE. (AV)In the new rules all units have an AV of 1 to 15.(6+ save = AV 1, Super heavy tank AV 15.)
ALL weapon(effects,) have a level of Armour Peneteration.(AP)
When you take an Armour Save roll roll a D6.(This represents the variation in weapon impact points and angles on the target models armour.)
Add this value to the target models AV.
If this total is HIGHER than the weapon HIT AP , the model makes it save throw and takes NO DAMAGE.
If the total is EQUAL or LOWER than the weapon hit AP, the MODEL becomes 'suppressed'.
The target model MAY take physical damage (lose Wounds/Structure) if the attacker rolls a successful damage roll.
Roll to hit.(Based on TARGETS 'Stealth skill' for ranged attacks and Assault value for close combat.These values have simple modifiers.)
Roll to save, (Difference between targets AV and weapon hits AP.Comparison with D6 being the variable modifier.)
Roll to damage .(Weapon damage value , modified by target resilience.)
All stats will be on the unit card with any special abilities the unit might have.(So we do not need to search through rule/codex books! )
I am awful at explaining things.So please PM me any questions /comments you may have.
The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction?
I'm sick and tired of reading this. Please, just please, could someone explain to me all the ways the Eldar Codex is amazing and of superior quality in comparison to for example both the Chaos codices or the Tyranids? Eldar? Really? Multiple useless units -- Check. Senseless background material -- Check. Boring and uninteresting units with a few random roll psychic powers and no additional synergy mechanisms whatsoever -- Check.
Just face it, almost all of the modern 40K codices are equal in terms of how inspirational and interesting they are. The only thing that differs is that some have an obviously overpowered unit, some have several, and some have none. It just seems that the community picks the one that ended up with the largest quantity of badly priced (overpowered) units and raises it on some pedestal of brilliant army design. It's laughable. An overpowered rules supplement (army book) is equally bad games design as an underpowered one, and I already said the intangibles are pretty much the same for every army.
As far as your question about Chaos being a minor faction goes -- It reeks of the stuff I used to read at MMO forums. The threads usually started with "Why does Blizzard hate my class?".
I'll speak from my personal experience in trying to rewrite this game.
The main thing that kills it is losing support from the community. I worked on and actually got it to the point of being a cohesive ruleset and had two solid codices done, all of which was play testable and I have played several games with. It was a blast, but I could only carry it on for so long with just my own motivation.
The moral of the story is if you want to do it, make sure you get a team to work on it that is as dedicated as you are.
The people that don't like it eventually get up enough ambition to find something else to play. Leaving you with two other audiences: The people that like playing the current system as it is (as broken as it may be) and the people that enjoy complaining about the current system.
With the related observation concerning the number of times someone has observed "Only GW could have published that ________. It would have gotten laughed out of town in the proposed rules forum."
The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction?
I'm sick and tired of reading this. Please, just please, could someone explain to me all the ways the Eldar Codex is amazing and of superior quality in comparison to for example both the Chaos codices or the Tyranids? Eldar? Really? Multiple useless units -- Check. Senseless background material -- Check. Boring and uninteresting units with a few random roll psychic powers and no additional synergy mechanisms whatsoever -- Check.
Just face it, almost all of the modern 40K codices are equal in terms of how inspirational and interesting they are. The only thing that differs is that some have an obviously overpowered unit, some have several, and some have none. It just seems that the community picks the one that ended up with the largest quantity of badly priced (overpowered) units and raises it on some pedestal of brilliant army design. It's laughable. An overpowered rules supplement (army book) is equally bad games design as an underpowered one, and I already said the intangibles are pretty much the same for every army.
As far as your question about Chaos being a minor faction goes -- It reeks of the stuff I used to read at MMO forums. The threads usually started with "Why does Blizzard hate my class?".
Well, who knows, perhaps you are right.
I read the Eldar Codex and I feel the urge to start a new army. I see lots of viable or fun options. Sure, there are some particularly powerful units, but most of them are playable. I also liked the fluff. And perhaps I am biased due to Codex: Dark Eldar, perhaps the best Codex ever released (in my opinion, of course).
I am not boring you to death with what I feel when I read Codex: CSM, Codex: Chaos Daemons or the recent Codex: Tyranids. It is not a good feeling. I have armies of these three factions, and all of them have been pushed out of the game. Many units have become significantly worse or have been scratched off the Codex, and some fluff I loved was retconned.
Taking in consideration your words, perhaps the reason is that I know these three factions, so I know their issues and how the changes affect them, while I do not collect Eldars and know very little of it. So the Codex Eldar looks pretty neat to me, perhaps out of ignorance.
On topic, I have tried to rewrite the entire game a couple of times. Sometimes I get someone to test the new rules, sometimes I do not. Good luck to anyone trying to do so. It is time consuming, and you invest a lot of effort and love in something that will probably get ignored and forgotten.
Some random thoughts:
1) Keep it simple. At least at the beginning. Get rid of anything that may cause complications, and reduce the number of units and factions to a minimum. Keep exceptions low. Ignore most options. IF the system works, there would be time to make it more complex. Try your system at 500 points, no vehicles, no named characters before going wild.
2) For me, the most interesting change would be scratching off the "player´s turn". Instead of "I do everything, you do everything" try "my unit X do everything, then you pick a unit, and so on". It is far more intense.
3) Add stuff based on fluff. Making some fluffy rules will attract some players. And stick to the background. The game is supposed to bring the setting to live. If it is not doing so, it is a massive failure, or a completely different game. Unfluffy changes will not be welcome, no matter how "fun" they are. Which means that knowledge of the background is needed.
The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction?
I'm sick and tired of reading this. Please, just please, could someone explain to me all the ways the Eldar Codex is amazing and of superior quality in comparison to for example both the Chaos codices or the Tyranids? Eldar? Really? Multiple useless units -- Check. Senseless background material -- Check. Boring and uninteresting units with a few random roll psychic powers and no additional synergy mechanisms whatsoever -- Check.
Just face it, almost all of the modern 40K codices are equal in terms of how inspirational and interesting they are. The only thing that differs is that some have an obviously overpowered unit, some have several, and some have none. It just seems that the community picks the one that ended up with the largest quantity of badly priced (overpowered) units and raises it on some pedestal of brilliant army design. It's laughable. An overpowered rules supplement (army book) is equally bad games design as an underpowered one, and I already said the intangibles are pretty much the same for every army.
As far as your question about Chaos being a minor faction goes -- It reeks of the stuff I used to read at MMO forums. The threads usually started with "Why does Blizzard hate my class?".
Honestly I think Chaos, Eldar, Tau, and nids are all terribly balanced. The closest I can think of to balanced is the SM but even then they aren't perfect
@da001.
The real problem with a re write is most current 40k players have got so used to 40k, they WANT a fix to the complicated system they know.
Even though the current 40k rules have been distorted and mutated with 15 years of trying to improve the system but HAVING TO make it backwards compatible AND inspire the purchase of the latest edition GW products.
So clarity , brevity and elegance have pretty much been stamped out...Leaving the comparatively straight forward game play of 40k with massively bloated counter intuitive rules. Which are impossible to correct enough to make it worth while with out RADICAL changes.
So rules re writes either fall into 'slight fixes that make some improvements ' but are quite close to GW40k.Even though some have made significant improvements over GWs40k with limited changes.(More interactive game turn , unified damage resolution etc.)
The systems are close enough to GWs, players prefer to stick to the 'official' rules, and borrow some ideas from them for 'house rules'.
Or they are so far from what current 40k players know , they feel they are not '40k rules' because they are not written with the same level of exclusivity GW uses to inspire the sale of product.
GW 'These new minatures are so special they have these special rules that are specially for them,to make them a specially inspiring purchase! '
In short, a well defined , concise , intuitive rule set uses game mechanics and resolution methods that covers ALL game play.Written INCLUSIVELY.(Apart from a small amount of special abilities.)
EG Core rules cover 90% of the game play, 10 % of the rules for special abilities.
These are so from GW s rules , some people struggle to see how they could work compared to GWs rules.
40k has about 30% core rules, (standard infantry ) and 70% special rules, (vehicle rules, USRs,Codex special rules etc.).
A slight modification to your random thoughts.
1) Keep it simple.
Simple rules can generate complex game play if used properly. (40k substitutes complicated rules for complex game play.)
Use a MAXIMUM of 3 resolution processes.This means the game is MUCH easier to learn , and faster to play.
2) Use a game turn mechanic that is suitable for the intended game play.The shorter the time to engagement the more interactive the game turn.
Also be wary of the unit types in the game .Alternating unit activation is fine if units are of similar power levels, other wise alternating phases is preferable.
(To remove the need for additional conditional reactions.)
3)If the core rules are written for the intended game play , BASED on the background narrative.You can include a lot of back ground synergy in the core rules.But you are right a few 'special abilities' can tie the rules to the narrative background.
I write rules because I enjoy the process of creating and discussing them with others.We play a few games with them, and see what works and what does not.It is all good fun IMO.
Honestly I think Chaos, Eldar, Tau, and nids are all terribly balanced. The closest I can think of to balanced is the SM but even then they aren't perfect
I can speak for the armies I play: Chaos, Chaos Daemons, Tyranids, Sisters and Space Marines. All of them have lots of issues that makes them nearly unplayable (imho), with Space Marines being the exception. A lot of work went into the last Codex:SM and it pays: lots of options, background ok (more or less) and not bad balance. This is what I wish for every faction.
After reading your opinion and Therion´s, I will stop saying that Eldars or Tau are OK. They look ok to me, but I do not play the army.
@Lanrak: writing rules in an incredibly fun for me too. Perhaps the most interesting part of the game for me.
People expecting a full fleshed out game system that encompasses everything GW wrote in the last 20+ years is going to be disappointed. It is just too much. The game has grown out of proportion and everything has special rules, with exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.
This is caused by the way the new rules are integrated. Starting from scratch is the correct way to fully implement a change, but it will take a lot of effort and it will be a risky decision. GW is not doing it.
Now on the random thougths:
1: Keep it simple.
Simple rules can generate complex game play if used properly. Quite true.
Everything can be done, step by step.
Step 1: write the first section of the basic rules. Let´s call it "Units and Models". Define attributes, one by one. Define "attribute of a unit". Define models, define units, define unit coherency. Define what is it an entry in the Codex shows: what does Special Rules means? Gear? Weapons? Options? What is an Army?
Define the State of a Unit: a unit can be "Active" (normal) or, say, "Shaken" (not normal). Shaken can include Stunned, Gone to Ground, Out of Coherency, Retreating.... A unit can be in Reserve, it can be in Active Reserve, it can be Inside a Vehicle. When is a unit considered "Destroyed"? End of Step 1: define Type of Unit and say "every rule will be defined for Infantry. At some point other Types will be introduced."
Once this is fully tested, and everyone involved in the development fully understand it and is ok with it, we can move on to Step 2: the Game Turn. If something regarding the first Step must be changed, it should be done only after no other way is found, and it will affect everything in the game. No further changes should be taken before the Step 1 and the Step 2 are tested again, to see if that single change broke something previously accepted. This is basic Change Management, something the current rules (and probably GW itself) lack.
2: Use a game turn mechanic that is suitable for the intended game play.
"Also be wary of the unit types in the game .Alternating unit activation is fine if units are of similar power levels, other wise alternating phases is preferable. "
I am a fan of Alternating Unit Activation. It depends on the size of the armies, but if the army is big it is really boring for the players to wait until you do everything with every unit. A lot of people zoom out when the other player starts moving horde units.
Also it has lots of tactics inside. A weak, cheap unit can be moved first to see what the enemy does, or a powerful unit can be moved first to accomplish a goal before the enemy reacts.
More important: it simplifies trying to look ahead of your turn. Nobody can foresee what a 2000 points army will do in two turns, but using Alternating Unit Activation you only need to see which is your enemy´s next move for one single unit. This looks like chess to me, which is good.
3: the Background is important.
4: Objectives.
Another interesting point is: what are we aiming for? We are "solving problems" but, what are these "problems" we are trying to fix? We need to define goals.
The most common complaints I hear about this game are:
-> Lots of rules to the point you get sick of it. Difficult / counterintuitive rules that contradict each other. Lots of different books. Lack of proper definitions.
-> Boring to see your enemy moving a big army. Static game.
-> Too random elements. Your tactical decisions have no weight in the outcome. A single 1 or 6 can change the course of the battle, and it can happen many times in a single turn. Which is exciting for some, but boring for other people.
-> Lack of Balance. Internal and External. All units in a Codex should be desirable and useful, and all Codex should be able to compete against each other.
-> Background not properly represented in the game. This one is tricky, fluff discussions are endless and terrible.
@da001.
'The most common complaints I hear about this game are:
-> Lots of rules to the point you get sick of it. Difficult / counterintuitive rules that contradict each other. Lots of different books. Lack of proper definitions.
-> Boring to see your enemy moving a big army. Static game.
-> Too random elements. Your tactical decisions have no weight in the outcome. A single 1 or 6 can change the course of the battle, and it can happen many times in a single turn. Which is exciting for some, but boring for other people.
-> Lack of Balance. Internal and External. All units in a Codex should be desirable and useful, and all Codex should be able to compete against each other.
-> Background not properly represented in the game. This one is tricky, fluff discussions are endless and terrible. '
All the problems you list are down to the rules for 40k NOT being written specifically for 40k.
They are still a WHFB mod, and WHFB in space sort of worked at the skirmish level.(RT to 2nd ED.)
But has failed to work properly for battle games over the last 15 years.(Despite the best efforts of a TEAM of professional game developers at GW towers.)
Alessio (lead game developer on 40k 5th ed.)Gave up on fantasy battle games in space after the first try away from GW towers.(Warpath 1).And I have a HUGE amount of respect for him and Ronnie making that decision.
However, when the rules for Epic were abandoned by GW and left to 'community support by fans.'They seemed to flurish IMO.
Without the corporate interference , Epic Armageddon covered everything in 40k (including suppliments ) and EA army lists in 138 pages of clear concise rules.
IMO this proves the massive diversity in the 40k game setting CAN be covered with simple rules well written.
My development steps are slightly different.(Probably due to my old day job of conformance engineer for weapons systems development.)I prefer to look at the big picture first.
So I would put your 4) at the start.
As 6th ed 40k is WHFB in space v 3.7 and not a good fit with our expectations. (Well defined concise and intuitive rule set.)
What do we need to get a better rule set, what game play SHOULD we be focused on?
What is the scale and scope of the game play.What is the type and frequency of the interaction of players and elements within the game.
If we are talking about a war game , I find its best to find a real world warfare type that is closest to the intended game play .This makes it easier to get intuitive rules.
Eg No one has fought a battle in deep space with intergalactic cruisers.
However, we can be familiar with battles at sea, and so using naval terms like 'port' and 'starboard' , 'bow' /'stern'' 'broad side', and 'battery' sort of seem intuitive.
If you have massed ranks of infantry /cavalry fighting in close formation mainly using hand weapons.With ranged weapons used in a supporting role.
This is ancient warfare IMO.(Byzantine up to WWI.)
After WWI and the development of man portable devastating area effect weapons like HMG and Mortars etc.
A large group of troops in close formation stopped being scary, and became a target rich environment, and warfare changed for good. (Modern warfare.)
If the game is using small units (5 to 30) of skirmishing infantry , supported by AFV, aircraft and artillery.With mobility firepower and close assault ALL being equally important.
Then this is modern warfare IMO.(1920s to present day.)
This is the biggest reason why 40k fails IMO.The game LOOKS like it should play like modern warfare. (An equal mix of mobility, firepower and close assault.)
But has been stuck with ancient warfare rules (WHFB.) So all the things that should be in the core rules, (vehicles, all the units that are not ordinary infantry.)Are not. And HAVE to use loads of special rules that are exceptions to the core rules.
After establishing what type of basic warfare type the game is based on, and the size of the game.(Squad, Company, Battalion,Regimental, Army . Corps etc.)
I agree we need to define how the units interact.
This is where we establish the game mechanics and resolution methods and unit characteristics we are going to use.ALL the in game interaction SHOULD be covered by these characteristics and the resolution methods we use.(Leaving just a few special abilities to add flavor after the core game is finalized.)
IF the rules are written for the intended game play , based on the background narrative.The back ground is in the rules in an subtle way.And there is NO NEED to shoe horn it in with special rules ,IMO.
Lanrak wrote: If the game is using small units (5 to 30) of skirmishing infantry , supported by AFV, aircraft and artillery.With mobility firepower and close assault ALL being equally important.
Then this is modern warfare IMO.(1920s to present day.)
Not sure w40k is modern warfare.
Your artillery can be assaulted by demons, and be saved by a cavalry charge. Something is needed to make cavalry as important as tanks. It is not real, it does not make sense. But 40k is not a futuristic game, it is a fantasy game that combines ancient warfare with modern warfare, magic warfare and futuristic warfare. Every single thing is invited as long as it follows the rule of cool.
There is something visceral and dramatic in close combat, so many sci-fi writers have introduced elements from the ancient past in the way their futuristic civilizations wage war. In Dune, by Frank Herbert, we see a force field that stops anything as fast a bullet, so people fight with swords and martial arts. 40k (heavily inspired by Dune and many other similar books, movies and comics) goes beyond that.
And I like that. Magic, sword duels, demons, attacking with your axe... w40k is crazy and I think it is the way it should be.
The size of the game is quite important. I think it should be a skirmish game. A couple of squads and a hero should be the basic army. So the way it already is. Perhaps I am thinking about 500-1500 points to begin with.
So it is:
Problem-> Lots of rules to the point you get sick of it. Difficult / counterintuitive rules that contradict each other. Lots of different books. Lack of proper definitions.
Solution: get rid of exceptions. Get rid of rarely used rules. Eliminate rolls. Define everything in a way no discussion is possible. Keep track of everything so contradictions are reduced to a minimum. Reduce the number of units/books until the game is properly tested, and add things slowly and after a proper test.
Problem-> Boring to see your enemy moving a big army. Static game.
Solution: Unit Activation system, or keeping it at low points to avoid big armies.
Problem-> Too random elements. Your tactical decisions have no weight in the outcome. A single 1 or 6 can change the course of the battle, and it can happen many times in a single turn. Which is exciting for some, but boring for other people.
Solution: get rid of most of the random elements added in 6th edition. Random powers, random traits, random instinctive behavior, random warpstorm, random mutations, random charges (this one I actually like) and so on. More important: get rid of the "an 1 is always fail, a 6 success" thing. If you need a 7, you just don´t roll. If you need a 0, you automatically pass the roll.
Problem-> Lack of Balance. Internal and External. All units in a Codex should be desirable and useful, and all Codex should be able to compete against each other.
Solution: Test test test. Buffing up or nerfing any unit that need it. Start with a few number of units and slowly add the rest.
Problem-> Background not properly represented in the game. This one is tricky, fluff discussions are endless and terrible.
No solution. After remembering some discussions in the background section, the less this is mentioned the better.
Since no solution is given, is no longer a problem. Keep what official 40k gives us in this regard.
Lanrak wrote: If the game is using small units (5 to 30) of skirmishing infantry , supported by AFV, aircraft and artillery.With mobility firepower and close assault ALL being equally important.
Then this is modern warfare IMO.(1920s to present day.)
Not sure w40k is modern warfare.
Your artillery can be assaulted by demons, and be saved by a cavalry charge. Something is needed to make cavalry as important as tanks. It is not real, it does not make sense. But 40k is not a futuristic game, it is a fantasy game that combines ancient warfare with modern warfare, magic warfare and futuristic warfare. Every single thing is invited as long as it follows the rule of cool.
There is something visceral and dramatic in close combat, so many sci-fi writers have introduced elements from the ancient past in the way their futuristic civilizations wage war. In Dune, by Frank Herbert, we see a force field that stops anything as fast a bullet, so people fight with swords and martial arts. 40k (heavily inspired by Dune and many other similar books, movies and comics) goes beyond that.
And I like that. Magic, sword duels, demons, attacking with your axe... w40k is crazy and I think it is the way it should be.
True, 40k is not 'modern' warfare. Not only the rules were ported over from WHFB, the entire universe was.
The size of the game is quite important. I think it should be a skirmish game. A couple of squads and a hero should be the basic army. So the way it already is. Perhaps I am thinking about 500-1500 points to begin with.
I do heavily disagree with this. 40k should not be a skirmish game.You should be able to play it at any size from 500 to 5000+
The size of the game is quite important. I think it should be a skirmish game. A couple of squads and a hero should be the basic army. So the way it already is. Perhaps I am thinking about 500-1500 points to begin with.
I do heavily disagree with this. 40k should not be a skirmish game.You should be able to play it at any size from 500 to 5000+
Then some additional rules are needed, because the game scales pretty poorly.
The obvious one is the size of the gaming surface. Playing a game with 500 points should use a space ten times smaller than playing a game with 5000 points. If you mass 5000 points of grots and conscripts into the "recommended" board, you get a battle with no tactics, no sense, and at least for me no fun.
Movement is key in all warfare. It is perhaps the most important thing concerning tactics. And space is needed to move your units around.
Proposal: imagine a 2'x2' basic "square".
--- 500-1200: 4' x 4' gaming surface. 4 squares.
--- 800-2200: 6' x 4' gaming surface. 6 squares.
--- 1800-3200: 8 squares of 2x2
--- 2800-4200: 10 squares.
--- 3800-5200: 12 squares. That´s twice the size of the normal board.
Squares do not need to be disposed forming "bigger squares". A 1000 points battle can be fought in 4 squares or 6 squares, whatever the players want.
Following the "keep it simple" philosophy, I would focus on the 500 points matches until every single core rule is thoroughly tested. Testing 5000 points games takes an awful lot of time and resources.
Key concept for scaling: make units affect other units within a range. Do not use "this unit provides bonus X for all friendly units in the table". Instead: "...units within 24"."
So then 40k is WHFB in space? And the units march to war shoulder to shoulder mainly using close combat weapons in blocks representing 100 of actual troops arranged in regiments?
Ranged weapons are few and far between, a few units of bows/muskets and a couple of catapults/ cannons.
And the only units that move faster than infantry are cavalry and beast drawn?
What sort of war film is CLOSEST to the action in 40k?WWII or Napoleonic?
Yup deamons can materialize out of the warp and attack your artillery.The same way as airborne units dropped in and took out artillery in WWII.
40k used fantastic looking minatures , but the BASIC way they wage war has not changed much since WWII.
(DoW40k, and CoH WWII used the same game engine .No one said DoW felt wrong or counter intuitive like they do about GWs40k rules.)
The ONLY reason 40k is SO confused and over blown with complication is the core mechanics are from ancient massed battle games and INTUITIVE unit representation requires a analogy to modern warfare.
40k is NOT EXACTLY modern warfare, but is is close enough to BE BASED on modern warfare interaction.
And would be more intuitive if it has modern rules rather than 40 year old Napoleonic rules.(WHFB can be traced back to WGRG Napoleonic rules RP worked on the 1970s.)
Remember MODERN WARFARE IS AN EQUAL MIX OF MOBILITY FIREPOWER AND ASSAULT.
So ALL are equally important and valid to use in game .(Allowing for massive tactical variety.)Modern warfare does not mean just shooting stuff.(Thats JUST FPS!)Assault is equally important!
Perhaps this is why WHFB based rules can not cope with 40k BATTLE size game play.There are simply too many ranged weapons in the system, it can not cope! So there are assault favored editions OR shooting favored editions .NO edition managed to balance shooting and assault effectively .
ALSO IF 40k is supposed to be WHFB in space , why do ALL OTHER UNITS than STANDARD INFANTRY NEED SPECIAL RULES?
Because they do not fit the game mechanics and resolution methods to the limited ancient warfare of WHFB, that is why!
A game based on modern warfare CAN include all the wackiness of 40k.(Epic Space marine did!And even Epic Armageddon does a better job than 40k own rules IMO.)
And 'magic' is just technology we do not understand yet!
I would rather use a rule set where multiple levels of technology are represented ,(modern warfare).Than one where any thing more advanced than a sword or bow need special rules to cover it!
Just because WHRB rules worked better at the skirmish level, does not mean its the ONLY way to make 40k work.
If you want a 40k skirmish game there are loads of free rule to down load GOOD SKIRMISH rule sets you can easily convert.
If you want to keep to counter intuitive WHFB in space, I am sure GW will keep re hashing that for several editions.
However, IF you want a fast paced well defined concise rule set , that is elegant and intuitive for 40k.Then a modern rule set focused on the intended game play of the 40k narrative is the best way to go .(IMO)
Because all the good 'futuristic battle games' I know of are based on 'modern warfare interaction'.(Epic Armageddon, Drop Zone Commander, Dust Warfare,Tomorrows War, etc.)
And the cool thing about detailed UNIT interaction, is it can be transposed to single model 'units' to cover detailed model interaction in a skirmish version of the game!
So the skirmish game and battle game use the same rules, just up scale the level of interaction.
I know I might be going completely off the rails here but would it suffice to have Fantasy Flight have a take on this and let Games Workshop just wither away like manufacturers of the past?
Only way to learn humility with such a hubris is to fall flat on your ass and watch someone do the franchise better than you.
@Heavy Metal.
I do wish some one would write a rule set specifically for 40k, because GW plc just are not interested. FFG have written some good rule sets and would at least put more focus on actual game play IMO.
@da0001.
40k has based its 'visual style and basic narrative ' on WHFB. And transposed the basic motives of the old world races into a space faring setting.so 40k has a WHFB 'flavor to it'
However, HOW you wage war with high velocity , mass area effect / high energy weapons , is completely different to how you wage war with low tech hand weapons and bows and arrows.
I would treat units as units and focus on DETAILED UNIT STATS.
These stats cover ALL the unit inter action directly.And would be on a HANDY UNIT CARD to use in game .(No looking up charts and special rules etc in rule /codex books.)
The units mobility and survivability would be covered first.
Mobility, Stealth ,*Armour value ,Resilience,** Hit points, Assault value , Morale , Command.
(Vehicles and MCs have F/S/R armour values.**Structure for mechanical units, wounds for biological units.)
The the UNITS WEAPON EFFECTS would be listed underneath.Close combat AND ranged weapons(The net effect of the model(s) and weapons).
Name , Effective range, Attacks ,Armour penetration , Damage .
These cover single model units , (Vehicles, Characters, and Monstrous Creatures.) that record damage separately on the unit card .AND multiple model units that remove models to show damage to the unit.NO SEPARATE RULES FOR DIFFERENT UNITS!
This does NOT put any artificial loading or priority on a particular type of combat.(Eg 40k uses 4 stats for assault and only one for shooting. )
Roll to hit the target is based on the targets Stealth value for ranged attacks and target Assault value for close combat.
If successful the weapons hit AP is compared to the Targets AV to determine the save roll required.(If a model fails its save it becomes Suppressed.)
If the target fails its save the attacker rolls to damage the target.
lots of GOOD battle game use simple rules to deliver INTUITIVE complex game play.Are you familiar with any other rule sets I could use as reference?
If you would like to keep a dynamic and changing gaming environment, with many variables and lots of choice, you will never archive true 'balance'. Best way is to strip everything down, and make sure everything equates to a formula. Then you end up with a very boring game.
The problem is, something is always going to be statistically better than something else, unless everything is essentailly the same
Best way is to keep different armies happy is to shaking up the meta from time to time.
If you don't like the game, don't play it. There are hundreds of other miniature games to choose from. Community rules already exist, they are never going to be used in any large tourns or whatever.
Only after 6 pages people already have different ideas on what constitues balance, what the problem actually is and lots of their own differing rules.
@Nem.
No one is asking for perfect balance.(Because it is impossible!.)
We are striving for 'perfect imbalance' that naturally generates slow MULTIPLE shifts in the meta that keep the game interesting.
SLIGHT power differences that lead to creative solutions to combat the SLIGHT dis advantages , that create new power differences and new solutions to find.
Which is the complete opposite of GWs heavy handed power manipulation.
GW plc sell 40k as suitable for pick up and play games.The current balance level in 40k is NO WHERE near good enough for this.
There are lots of ways to write a rule set that is easier to balance than current 40k. There are HARDLY any ways which are worse!
And there are many people putting forward suggestions because the perceived problems with 40k are so wide spread.
As far as I am concerned this is a forum for discussing 40k, including its rules.So the 'play the rules GW sell , or play a different game ' seems a bit negative and out of place to me.
ESPECIALLY as GW tell you to make up your own rules if you want to in the 40k rule book!
People who actually care about the game play want to improve the rules.And this is a POSITIVE social interaction that is the cornerstone of the wider war gaming hobby.IMO.
Nem wrote: Community rules already exist, they are never going to be used in any large tourns or whatever.
While the rest of your argument is worthless and doesn't make sense, this part is factually wrong.
Tournaments make and follow community rules all the time. Even the large ones. In 5th there was the INATFAQ that was basically the go to FAQ for every large tournament. I don't think 6th has had enough time to simmer for one to be made yet.
The concept I was toying with was different. I was thinking of slowly going over every single rule from both 5th and 6th edition rulebooks, painstakingly defining and taking notes, to make sure that everything fix. I would make significant changes in the game turn, but I wouldn´t change the attributes. Your idea is far bigger in scope.
Vehicles and Infantry (not vehicles, actually) are clearly separated in the rulebook, since they need a different approach, and I was ok with that. I am not sure how a system that do not use separate rules for different types of units will work. Good luck with that and if you put something on Proposed Rules I will give you feedback.
Hi da001.
Rather than look at different versions of a '..basically flawed battle game rule set.. ' 40k 3rd ed to 6th ed, trying to put right 15 years of cumulative errors from 'compromised' game design.
(Because I went through that stage mid 4th edition. )
I have been looking at GOOD modern battle game rule sets, that deliver fast fun game play in an intuitive and concise way.And seeing what alternatives COULD be used for a new battle game rule set for 40k.
The only reason 40k has separate rules for vehicles and non vehicles, is because there are no modern armoured vehicles in WHFB !And 40k is still using WHFB rules so HAS to bolt on extra rules.Other rule sets simply pick game mechanics and resolution methods that cover ALL units in a straight forward way.
(Epic Armageddon, Drop Ship Commander, Dirtside, etc Eg 90% of the interaction is covered with core rules, and a FEW special rules 10% appx to add flavour )
Are you aware of the mechanics-effect- senses, relationship in game design?
The developers pick game mechanics to deliver the in game effects , and the in game effects deliver the sensory experience the players get.
Game designers, (even amateur ones like me,) look at the 'game mechanics end' to see what can be done to change the end results.And players often look at the sensory experience , to try to determine what the end problems are.
So often we are looking at the problems from the opposite ends of the game design process, and suggest different solutions to similar problems.
The fact changing a single game mechanic can have MASSIVE effect on in game interaction and the sensory experience. EG Increasing the level of player/unit interaction by using a different game turn mechanic.
Means I prefer to get the basic frame work of the rules (game mechanics and resolution methods )'right' first.As just a few slight tweeks /changes to the game mechanics and resolution methods can put right lots of problems AND simplify the instructions to play the game!
(All my current discussions/WIP on a 40k re write are in 'Sister Sydneys thread How would you re boot 40k..I look forward to your input! )
So then 40k is WHFB in space? And the units march to war shoulder to shoulder mainly using close combat weapons in blocks representing 100 of actual troops arranged in regiments?
Ranged weapons are few and far between, a few units of bows/muskets and a couple of catapults/ cannons.
And the only units that move faster than infantry are cavalry and beast drawn?
What sort of war film is CLOSEST to the action in 40k?WWII or Napoleonic?
Yup deamons can materialize out of the warp and attack your artillery.The same way as airborne units dropped in and took out artillery in WWII.
40k used fantastic looking minatures , but the BASIC way they wage war has not changed much since WWII.
(DoW40k, and CoH WWII used the same game engine .No one said DoW felt wrong or counter intuitive like they do about GWs40k rules.)
The ONLY reason 40k is SO confused and over blown with complication is the core mechanics are from ancient massed battle games and INTUITIVE unit representation requires a analogy to modern warfare.
40k is NOT EXACTLY modern warfare, but is is close enough to BE BASED on modern warfare interaction.
And would be more intuitive if it has modern rules rather than 40 year old Napoleonic rules.(WHFB can be traced back to WGRG Napoleonic rules RP worked on the 1970s.)
Remember MODERN WARFARE IS AN EQUAL MIX OF MOBILITY FIREPOWER AND ASSAULT.
So ALL are equally important and valid to use in game .(Allowing for massive tactical variety.)Modern warfare does not mean just shooting stuff.(Thats JUST FPS!)Assault is equally important!
Perhaps this is why WHFB based rules can not cope with 40k BATTLE size game play.There are simply too many ranged weapons in the system, it can not cope! So there are assault favored editions OR shooting favored editions .NO edition managed to balance shooting and assault effectively .
ALSO IF 40k is supposed to be WHFB in space , why do ALL OTHER UNITS than STANDARD INFANTRY NEED SPECIAL RULES?
Because they do not fit the game mechanics and resolution methods to the limited ancient warfare of WHFB, that is why!
A game based on modern warfare CAN include all the wackiness of 40k.(Epic Space marine did!And even Epic Armageddon does a better job than 40k own rules IMO.)
And 'magic' is just technology we do not understand yet!
I would rather use a rule set where multiple levels of technology are represented ,(modern warfare).Than one where any thing more advanced than a sword or bow need special rules to cover it!
Just because WHRB rules worked better at the skirmish level, does not mean its the ONLY way to make 40k work.
If you want a 40k skirmish game there are loads of free rule to down load GOOD SKIRMISH rule sets you can easily convert.
If you want to keep to counter intuitive WHFB in space, I am sure GW will keep re hashing that for several editions.
However, IF you want a fast paced well defined concise rule set , that is elegant and intuitive for 40k.Then a modern rule set focused on the intended game play of the 40k narrative is the best way to go .(IMO)
Because all the good 'futuristic battle games' I know of are based on 'modern warfare interaction'.(Epic Armageddon, Drop Zone Commander, Dust Warfare,Tomorrows War, etc.)
And the cool thing about detailed UNIT interaction, is it can be transposed to single model 'units' to cover detailed model interaction in a skirmish version of the game!
So the skirmish game and battle game use the same rules, just up scale the level of interaction.
Just so ya know, caps lock tends to be used for shouting in Dakka, rather than emphasis. I ended up reading the whole thing in an angry ranting tone, rather than the reasoned argument that it is.
Generally, we use Bold, Italics and/or Underlining for emphasis.
Heavy Metal wrote: I know I might be going completely off the rails here but would it suffice to have Fantasy Flight have a take on this and let Games Workshop just wither away like manufacturers of the past?
Only way to learn humility with such a hubris is to fall flat on your ass and watch someone do the franchise better than you.
Fantasy Flight Games would not know "game balance" if it kicked them in the pants.
You think GW is bad with poorly-playtested, poorly-designed rules? Hahahaha.
You haven't seen the abominations that FFG puts into their books.
@Selym.
Ooops I forgot sorry. I will use bold now for emphasis.
If it was possible to get a concise elegant intuitive rule set using WHFB rules as a basis , dont you think the team of professional game developers at GW towers would have managed it in 15 years?
And game developers leaving GW towers would not abandon WHFB game mechanics when they write their own modern rule sets away from GW corporate influence.
I will try to explain .
Most players see the symptoms of a poor choice in game mechanics and resolution methods.
Lack of interaction , bloated rules set, counter intuitive results, etc.However, they will try to find direct solutions to their own list of perceived problems. Eg add or change specific rules.
However, this usually just adds to the bloat of the rules.(Thats all the team of GW game developers have managed to do in 15 years, so why should we be able to do any better?)
I believe the best way forward is a re write using more appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.This does not mean it will not be 40k any more!
Eg.
Rather than do everything with all your units before your opponent gets chance to respond.
You perform one action with all your units, then your opponent performs one action with all their units.
So you still take turns , but players and units can interact at a more intuitive level.(No need for additional reaction rules, like over watch , as reaction is built into the game turn mechanic. )
And the damage resolution could be ...
Roll to see and hit .
Roll armour saves.
Roll to damage .
Same processes as 40k but in a more intuitive order for modern warfare.And because we could use direct representation stats (with limited modifiers, ) we can get a wider range proportional results without having to use special rules , USRs and charts ! Which makes the game faster to learn and play!
@psienesis.
FFGdo know about professional proof reading and editing though, which would be a massive imporovement on GW !
o you even play any more?Or do you just come here to moan?If you hate them that much why do you play them?(If you even do anymore)
When you can take a few steps to the side and joint the lord of the rings land.
)
