I keep thinking about 40k and getting mixed opinions on the game.
On the one hand I kinda like the whole premise, on the other hand I really dislike a lot of things about it.
For example I like the imperium of man but just hate the over saturation of it... Do we really need this many marines?
I like the game, but hate the increasing scale (I prefer smaller numbers of models a bit like kill team).
So my question is if you were to rebuild the 40k game or fluff what would you change and what would you keep?
I'd get flak for it, but I'd role all the Space Marine factions into one and call it "Space Marines." I'd also add in some Eldar factions (exodites) and Legions to Chaos for some anti-imperial variety.
I'd change the way turns are done. With such large armies they either need to speed turns up or find a way so one opponent isn't just sitting around checking facebook while the horde player moves his army.
I'd make rules so fliers and LOW either aren't hard counters or make separate versions of the game to scale.
Oh, and I'd make every unit viable and not have clear auto-takes and auto-leaves.
I think really they need to pick a scale, so that's where I'd start. Is it a Skirmish game, or a mass battle game? At the moment it has the rules of a skirmish game but the model count of a much bigger game, which means there's tonnes of rules bloat and turns take ages.
I don't know which I'd pick, but I think making a decision would be a good place to start.
I am with Arschbombe on this one. Unbound, come the apoc, and lords of war need to be in a different game type. Include them in the rules, but make it so you decide on what game you play before hand.
I'd severely reduce 40k's scale to around 20-40 infantry a side. Lets leave the huge ass battles to 15mil where we arent fighting over a Wal-Mart parking lot.
As a bunch of other posts already stated, I'd like to see the game stick to a set size concept, or at least offer different rule sets for different scales of game. I'm guessing most people are into the skirmish-battle size that was prevalent up through 5th, so I'd like to see that return. Fliers, fortifications, and super heavies can all go back into Apocalypse.
Accolade wrote: As a bunch of other posts already stated, I'd like to see the game stick to a set size concept, or at least offer different rule sets for different scales of game. I'm guessing most people are into the skirmish-battle size that was prevalent up through 5th, so I'd like to see that return. Fliers, fortifications, and super heavies can all go back into Apocalypse.
Id actually have no issue with fliers forts of super heavies
They should be part of the game in mega apocs OR specific mission games
would rather see ACTUAL Narrative mission type games.
(more attack or defend. and missions that actually involve more than king of the hill or deathmatch.)
Too much to really go into, but I'd basically have a solid and flexible set of core rules and then split them three ways:
* A more detailed set for skirmish type games where individual models matter
* A company-level game (the default) where things have enough stats to be meaningful, but not swamp you in details
* A large-scale game with abstracted rules e.g. you might not care if a squad has a missile launcher and a flamer, just that it's a Tactical Squad w/heavy weapon. Ideally this wouldn't be even using the same scale, but realistically it would.
I'd also focus on having well-written rules that outline exactly what happens so no more of this RAI vs. RAW stuff, and the rules would allow for flexibility for narrative and campaign games where you want something balanced but different e.g. there would be an internal framework of sorts for special rules, so if you want to make your own you can easily see what they should be like.
Things like flyers, superheaves, etc. would be optional and balanced. Flyers in particular would have basic and advanced rules, with basic being something like they act as bombardments and advanced being closer to how they are now. I would also have a set of guidelines (no more than a page, say) for tournament/competitive play that limits the optional rules, but also clearly states they are guidelines and a tournament might modify them.
In short: A game that is balanced for tournament and casual play, without drawing a line in the sand between the two and that properly scales from skirmish level to battalion-level
Radically change the force org. 1 HQ and 2 troops are mandatory. For each 2 troops choices in the army you may take 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, and 1 Elites choice.
Lords Of War would require 3 units of troops to take, and would fill both a force org slot and Lord of War slot.
Unbound would be completely removed.
Make the rulebook free online, with an expanded edition with fluff and gallery available for $50. Make codexes free online, and have an expanded edition with fluff and gallery available for $30.
Sell T-Shirts.
Hire the top tournament players to write rules for the rulebook, with casual players to proofread.
Reduce new player cost. $130 of books and $300 of models is just too much no matter how you slice it, and that's for the basic experience. And really get in with the community, fixing rules issues and hearing what units need updating edition to edition. No excuse for Wraithlords and Terminators to be stuck in 3rd while a jet plane costs less.
@Verviedi - I can't imagine models being 40% less. This would be wonderful, but almost nobody MSRPs new scifi models at 40% less than GW models :( On the other hand, rule books are WAY WAY too expensive. Softcover smaller version for 50% or 60% less, IMO.
I think there should be a set of skirmish rules, that excludes all the big stuff, and a separate set of rules for big battles.
Remember when TSR released Basic D&D, with the Expert expansion? That wasn't a bad thing, because full rules were just too complicated for people getting into roleplaying, and the core aspect of roleplaying is not just mechanics. But, as you get used to the rules, perhaps you wish to migrate to a more complex system. Plus, Basic (as compared to AD&D) limited the ability to get crazy high levels and essentially break the game, slaying gods and dragons at a whim. Still I was an AD&D kinda guy
As said before, put the marines in one book and give non-imperium armies some more factions to play with.
I love fluff and/or common sense so screw any rules that simply don't make sense. Infantry walking through walls, soldiers choosing plasma guns with a nearly 1/6 chance of killing most wielders, etc. Obviously, this requires some rebalancing.
I also dislike super heavies and the like being legal choices in everyday battles. Do what someone said above and keep them where they belong (in apocalypse).
Balance out the heavier cheese builds and reduce the extent to which power gaming out competes everything. The game just isn't fun for me when I have to constantly see cookie cutter power lists with no care for fluff or fun. Most of my enjoyment of this game comes from laughing at my crappy rolls and making up stories for the funnier things that happen.
Oh, and axe seizing initiative. I don't find seized initiatives fun or strategically satisfying. Clearing up rules vagaries would be nice as well.
Officially support "formats" of play, similar to Magic the Gathering.
So instead of having to tell an opponent, "sure I'll play, no unbound, no 400+ point lords of war, only one ally, no invis, max one flyer, and max of 1 riptide, knight, or wave serpent sound good?..." you could instead just say "Hey, 2k standard game?"
You could have formats like:
Codex: Your codex and relevant errata only. No super heavies.
Standard: No super-heavies over 20% of the point value, codex and one additional source (ally, formation, or whatever) only.
Approaching apocalypse: Do what you want, but obey the force org chart.
And apocalypse as is, of course.
That and keeping some quality playtesters to make slight errata alterations for rules and sometimes fix problems with units, like tactical termies on the low end, and riptides and invisibility on the high, and post said errata on the site.
I would really love for 40k to try once the alternating squad sequencing that most games now have. The "I go - you go" is very very fething boring. Infinity remedies this a little by doing ARO's (actually it remedies this a lot) - but ARO's in 40k would be a complete mess.
Instead it should be a squad by squad activation - that would really put the thinking back into the game I think (do I assault this unit with my activated squad, or do I wait to activate them, take more shots to the face, but shoot the squad and soften them more)
I like the size of 40k now, but I think that turns should be done unit per unit, say, with cards:
each unit has a card, and you shuffle them each turn. The order of the cards determines what unit goes when, and maybe some spells or abilities (like Ig orders, or deep strike relays or something) would allow you to slightly modify the order of the firsts or last few cards, or look at the deck and determine its order to aid in tactical planning.
Actually, maybe the order of the first 5 cards should be visible (so some tactics are allowed).
A card system would encourage highlander games, and possibly limit the number of identical units you could have in each army (because of the limit of different cards you could have)
Furthermore, I'd like to see a system like tactical objectives, but that you'd generate at the start of each mission and that would rarely (if ever) change.
RE: Price I don't think a 40% reduction would be good, although we'd all love it. What they should do is increase the value and make value better overall. One of the big reasons why WMH is considered cheaper than 40k is that you get more bang for your buck with units due to little or no duplication (barring some skew lists).
Back in 2nd edition a 1,500 point army was a tactical squad, a terminator squad, a bike squad and a couple of characters. You could increase value by adding more figures (e.g. undo the nonsense of 5 guys in a box when you generally want 10), giving more options (e.g. a box contains all the possible options instead of superfluous bits that go right in the bitz box), and maybe even increasing points values of models slightly so you feel like you're getting a better deal. Not up to 2nd edition levels which IMHO was too small, but not what we have now either.
fidel wrote: Welp I am surprised no one has mentioned this.
I would really love for 40k to try once the alternating squad sequencing that most games now have. The "I go - you go" is very very fething boring. Infinity remedies this a little by doing ARO's (actually it remedies this a lot) - but ARO's in 40k would be a complete mess.
Instead it should be a squad by squad activation - that would really put the thinking back into the game I think (do I assault this unit with my activated squad, or do I wait to activate them, take more shots to the face, but shoot the squad and soften them more)
They could do this as a separate rule set, but changing core rules this way would piss off as many people as it would make happy. There are some fundamental issues as squads can be 1 model... Or 30 models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: RE: Price I don't think a 40% reduction would be good, although we'd all love it. What they should do is increase the value and make value better overall. One of the big reasons why WMH is considered cheaper than 40k is that you get more bang for your buck with units due to little or no duplication (barring some skew lists).
Back in 2nd edition a 1,500 point army was a tactical squad, a terminator squad, a bike squad and a couple of characters. You could increase value by adding more figures (e.g. undo the nonsense of 5 guys in a box when you generally want 10), giving more options (e.g. a box contains all the possible options instead of superfluous bits that go right in the bitz box), and maybe even increasing points values of models slightly so you feel like you're getting a better deal. Not up to 2nd edition levels which IMHO was too small, but not what we have now either.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure point inflation solves anything. Games would just go from 1850 to 3700 if everything doubled in cost :X
There isn't any way around the design paradigm of 40k giving players a choice of having high or low model counts. You can spend a thousand points on 100 models, or you can blow it all on one revenabt titan. I'm not advocating this as an ideal situation (and I think it causes many problems) but this is the universe and model collection we play with.
I would like to see a clear, codified way of specifying a type of game which would spell out the points size, terrain, and scenario.
I don't have this worked out, but there should be some 'offical' way of saying:
This game is played on a 4x4 board, assuming dense, multiple level terrain. This scenario doesn't call for huge superheavies or fliers, and there will also be nowhere to put them on this type of board. You will be assumed to be bringing an infantry heavy army (or perhaps, beasts, or gargoyles, etc.).
vs.
This game is going to be played on a 4x6 or 4x8 board with relatively sparse terrain, and very little dense, multiple level terrain. You will have the space to deploy large vehicles and move large models like Fliers and FMC. Mobility and range will be much more important. Bringing an infantry horde will make this type of game grind to a halt.
I don't think that the game requires a LOT of rules changes to accommodate the types of games most people play (500pts-2000pts, and even higher). However, I do think that those different points levels require and encourage different types of board set ups, terrain set ups, and missions, and a better rule book would actually work towards spelling that out rather than just "talk with your opponent".
Past that, I would really like to see the rules structure reworked (probably from the ground up, sadly) to reflect the fluff. If Space Marines are totally awesome, then the weapons that mow them down like wheat should be suitably rare and hard to find. If Terminators are elite and deadly, then they shouldn't die in droves to commonly available weapons.
Most of this should be considered entirely divorced from points costs. Make sure every element of the game works the way it is supposed to in the fluff, and THEN, work out points for it. If, for example, plasma pistols are really deadly, then, fine, make them deadly. Once you have done that, then work out a points cost. If one marine should be able to beat up a squad of 10 guardsmen at little to no risk to himself, then write the rules up that way.
Don't use points costs to enforce rarity. If something is really rare, then write the rules so that it is rare (in any way that works: hard limits, one per HQ, whatever). Then, if something is really effective, no matter how common it is supposed to be, make it expensive. Sometimes, stuff is cheap because it's common, and sometimes, supposedly rare artifacts are easily purchased for every squad. If a single meltagun is more useful than the 10 guys in the squad, then make it cost more than they do.
I'm actually working on a platoon level version of 40K using 2nd Edition core mechanics mixed into some of the better aspects of modern and WW2 games.
Some of the features I'm incorporating:
More emphasis on individual models and small units (larger coherency, split targeting, movement, etc)
Cover as a hit modifier rather than a save
Scalable AP values/modifiers that fix the "all or nothing" aspect of armor.
More realistic weapon ranges and overwatch
Which in turn emphasis maneuver and cover
Modified army building that reduces min-maxing and death stars by focusing on core troop units.
Redefining Monstrous Creaters and Walkers
Better vehicle implementation and damage models
Alternating unit activation rather than IGoUGo, with mechanics that break squads up into smaller teams to account for variable unit sizes.
Flyers and onboard/offboard artillery more realistically represented, reducing the Measure/Countermeasure trap.
Space Marines that are actually Space Mariney (and consequently more expensive).
Orks that are more Orky with more dakka.
Tyranids that are more swarmy and gribbly
Obviously won't appeal to everyone. It's mostly so my friends and I can play 40K and not hate ourselves for doing so, heh.
The biggest change I would make is to adjust the way the wounds are handled. Rather than have all the most basic infantry for each faction have one wound, things like guard and fire warriors, the things accepted to be fairly squishy and "easy" to kill fluff wise would have one wound. As things become more difficult to kill they gain more wounds, not just better stats, similar to the way WM/H does it. Point costs would be increased appropriately. Basically, it would allow for a much broader range of difficulty in actually putting your target into the ground, which I don't think the current toughness and wound system currently gives.
This would also allow you to cut back on the model count for many armies, which would more accurately portray the fluff. As it stands now, two guardsmen are about equal to a space marine, which goes against the fluff to a fair bit.
Define the scale and scope of the intended game play.Write rules for the intended game play.
PLAY TEST everything for at least 2 years with the help of the community to improve balance clarity and brevity of the rules...
Basically follow the bench mark of good game development , rather than short term marketing.
It is possible to use the same core rules for skirmish and larger battle games.(if you select carefully.)
But the element of interaction is 'single models' in the skirmish game, and 'units' in the larger battle game.
However, as 1970s Napoleonic game mechanics and resolution methods have been surpassed for twenty years or more.
I would re write the entire rules using more modern game mechanics and resolution methods.
When you see how good Epic rules are, It really makes you scratch your head and ask what were they smoking when they wrote 40k 7th ed.
I agree it would be better to have separate core 'skirmish game rules ' and core 'Battle game rules '.
But then I would expand them with 'narrative campaign ' and 'tournament play ' packs.
The former expands the options available while sacrificing game balance slightly, the latter reduces options slightly while optimizing balance.
This give clearly defined scales and types of play ,rather than a 'single big book of cool ideas,' that players have to decipher and negotiate through...
Well the Imperium of Man DID manage to conquer most of the galaxy
I would prefer more depth in each existing faction before they made new ones. Some Tau and Necron love would be great. And, more subfactions!
I would love to see more people play xenos races or subfactions. Marines are just too decent at everything and personally I find them very boring to play against. Hell, the Eldar controlled like the entire galaxy before, and I personally have only ever seen 3 craftworlds be played.
I would rather have the books organized like this:
- 1 book with all of the lists, but no fluff. $100.
UPDATED EVERY YEAR WITH ADDITIONS. Black and white is fine, with just a the odd color page.
- 1 pictures & fluff book for IoM. $100
- 1 pictures & fluff book for each of the alien races $50
This would significantly cut down on the number of books people "have" to buy, but doesn't really change the amount of money the average player actually spends. If anything, it increases it slightly, as it guarantees $100/year/player.
And the people who go and buy all the codices are still going to buy all the cool purdy fluff books. They could throw in a few scenarios into the fluff books, to give it a gaming reason to exist.
Yeah I would like the cost of books to come down. It's very annoying for people like me that cannot afford to buy every single book, or to go to a LGS and read them.
I would encourage fuller use of the BS and WS spectrum to differentiate warrior skill a little bit better than currently. Especially if BS directly worked against cover saves when you went above BS 4.
I'd like to see the old armories come back, when each army had pages and pages of personal wargear characters of all different ranks could bring.
Improve troops across the board. As it is now, people generally don't like taking their troops. This got a little better in 5th and 6th, then got nerfed again in all the new codexes. Don't bend over backwards with obsec or whatever else to make troops chug less wang, just make them better in general.
Get rid of First Blood. Instead give 3-5 points for the player who tables his opponent. Takes the focus off of killing stuff over playing the mission.
Activate units within the game turn according to initiative, leadership or some additional/different stat so that they work like units in X-Wing. It's never your turn then your opponents turn, its just "the" turn.
Personally I like unbound, though I don't go crazy with it. But the mechanic of losing ObjSec for using it would be appropriate if it was applied to other objectionable slots in peoples armies.
If you stick to the traditional Battle-forged FoC you lose nothing and gain nothing.
If you go unbound you lose ObjSec.
If you bring a Superheavy your opponent gains "X".
If you bring a Lord of War your opponent gains "Y".
If you bring a Formation your opponent gains "Z".
Most of all, I'd rewrite the Raven Guard chapter traits to allow their command squads to take jump packs. Mostly that.
Boniface wrote: So my question is if you were to rebuild the 40k game or fluff what would you change and what would you keep?
Game-wise, I'd roll the rule design and Codexes back to early 3rd Edition, when armies and units were characterized by (maybe) 1 or 2 (simple) special rules, and the rules themselves emphasized unit vs unit play over model vs model play. Smooth and fast.
Fluff-wise, I'd probably leave things well enough alone - the Fluff informs the rules, but it's not necessary for Fluff to drive the rules at a micro level. Keep the abstraction high.
dracpanzer wrote: Get rid of First Blood. Instead give 3-5 points for the player who tables his opponent. Takes the focus off of killing stuff over playing the mission.
Activate units within the game turn according to initiative, leadership or some additional/different stat so that they work like units in X-Wing. It's never your turn then your opponents turn, its just "the" turn.
Personally I like unbound, though I don't go crazy with it. But the mechanic of losing ObjSec for using it would be appropriate if it was applied to other objectionable slots in peoples armies.
If you stick to the traditional Battle-forged FoC you lose nothing and gain nothing.
If you go unbound you lose ObjSec.
If you bring a Superheavy your opponent gains "X".
If you bring a Lord of War your opponent gains "Y".
If you bring a Formation your opponent gains "Z".
Most of all, I'd rewrite the Raven Guard chapter traits to allow their command squads to take jump packs. Mostly that.
This. Except the bit about Raven Guard. Not a bad idea, I just don't care
1: Change the absoluteness of the system. Right now there's too much "this always happens" or "this always happens except when you have a thing that ignores it and then it doesn't happen at all" (armour saves are my favourite example), change things that are all-or-nothing to partial ranges (armour save and to-hit penalties from WHFB instead of ignores-or-doesn't and hits-normally-or-on-6s the way the rules do now). The primary intent of this is to remove the rock-paper-scissors-ness of the system and make models more interactive; I don't want to have to take Flyers or AA that can't shoot at ground targets just in case the other guy brought Flyers, I want some sort of unit that can deal with Flyers but can do other things if it turns out my opponent didn't bring any.
2: Shorten the turn. Four phases in which a given model can attack people four times in one game turn is long, needlessly complicated, and gets boring quickly when it isn't your turn. My rewrite project linked to below deleted the Assault phase entirely and split psychic powers back into their own phases, but a less chopped-down turn order might be P1 Move/P2 Move/P1 Shoot/P2 Shoot/Combined Assault phase.
3: Army list variations. The 3e/4e SM/CSM/Guard/Craftworlds books had one core army list and had a variety of variant lists in the appendices that let you play the army different ways, do that, don't charge people for an extra Codex that's really just something that ought to have been two pages in the end of the main Codex anyway.
4: More missions. The battle missions in the rulebook are catered to specific approaches to the game that everyone ends up playing; try doing asymmetrical objectives.
Simples, make it a default 3-4 layer system.
Rules tailored for with restrictions on units
Sqaud/patrol level ie less, no big hevey armour etc. No super expensive units.
Company level, normal
Enhanced level, super hevies, mini apoc Apoc
Each one is slightly different and designed to work at certain levels and a rough points range, so rules alter abit but core game is same.
So at every level its fair, balanced and adjusted to better work as required.
No rules for one, all and if they do not fit.
But the shocker, all in ONE book . The army book, rule book, extra options like add ones for one fair price that is worked out by doing all the survays, maths, comparison etc. If new supplement made, download for free, print or tablet.
Limited fluff and pics, if yp want that more expensive version is for sale . ie the real money maker.
Its cheaper as you only ever need one book to play game with that army.
Yes some with 2 or more may get extra game rule chunks but for one army all you even need is one book. No carrying 3-4.
I'd make some minor rule tweaks and clarifications. I'd reintroduce rules FAQ and errata.
Furthermore, i'd love to introduce some sort of mechanism of changing unit's stats over time and not just with the codex releases. That'd add A LOT to the ballance as most of the complaints are about ballance. People would even deal with such cost of a product. And this sort of assurance that nothing would be too underwhelming or over the top for longer than a month would inspire more sales. Here's how i'd do it if i were responsible for it on the GW part:
Make a full list of active units with their current per-model point cost and introduce changes to the per-model cost when needed.
Why not full model stats and changes to gear rules? That'd invalidate codex sales and GW doesn't want to loose money. Furthermore, a person might buy a unit for it's specific ability and than it gets redone and he's left with something he doesn't need. But if all the stats and abilities are left as per codex and only point cost changes, the model still does what it's supposed to do but there'd be no situations like: "I love warp talon models! But for 25 ppm they're totally not worth it!". So, you make it 20-22 ppm and they see more use without being over the top.
That might cause the issue of a model being alwayz worth it and people not needing to spend money on new FOTM stuff. However, i have a feeling that it's gona ballance out by more people actually joining and actively buying models due to the same fact! Besides, it'd open the gate to more variable playstiles - meaning more units sales cause people generally want to expand and change something about their gameplay a bit.
How would you test if a model's price is good or not? Leave it to gamers. Seriously, 1-2 people responsible for hearing the constructive feedbacks of their customers-playtesters and the problem's solved. How to get constructive feedbacks? Make a strict format for them. Feedbacks like: "This unit SUX!!!!1" wouldn't do. Constructive feedbacks are needed. With actual reasons why they think that the point cost is unreasonable. For example:
Statement: Wave serpent is undercosted
Reasons: - It has ability to get 3+cover save in the open still maintaining good firepower because most of the weapons are twinlinked and high ROF - Outstanding serpent shield, which combined with scatter laser and ignore cover, is a deadly weapon that, for the current cost makes something like a falcon unimportant
- It's a dedicated transport, thus is often objective secured and quite easilly spammable
Proposal: I think it should cost 20-30 pts more.
After recieving such feedbacks from many playtesters, the dev team has lots of food for thought and direction to go.
Another thing I would do is make sure I had a rules framework to add things without unbalancing things. Then I could have all the basic armies in a single book, and focus on producing supplements for variations (e.g. SM Chapters) that change things up a bit for people who want something different.
For instance, you would have your regular vanilla Space Marines (e.g. Ultramarines) in the main book. Then I would have supplements (not full Codexes) for other major chapters and their successors that allowed them to do things a bit differently than normal Space Marines, but still enough to be balanced. I would basically get rid of the FOC and go back to percentages like 2nd edition, with the idea that you should have the freedom to do other types of companies without adding special rules that are open to abuse.
@WaynTheGame.
Rather than clunky '% per slot' I would rather just use a simple ratio.
HQ unit allows 2 to 8 common units.
For every 2 Common units a Specialized unit can be taken.
For every 2 Specialized units a Restricted unit can be taken.
Then each codex can list several themed armies,(representing Klans, Chapters, Regiments, etc.)
That tell the player which HQs can be taken, and what units are Common, Specialized and Rare in each themed list.
The stats and equipment and PV for units do not change , just how 'rare' they are in each list type.
Abandon the d6, move to a d10 or d20 based system so there can actually be some variation between the models in reasonable increments.
An activation system of some sort to break the turn sequence up - but suggest you activate using 'command points' generated by characters - so a well led army could and would activate generally fully before a less well led one even if it was smaller
+lots on sort out what scale of game you have, indeed write a skirmish, platoon and company (apoc) set of rules that are different but use the same models
Lanrak wrote: @WaynTheGame. Rather than clunky '% per slot' I would rather just use a simple ratio.
HQ unit allows 2 to 8 common units. For every 2 Common units a Specialized unit can be taken. For every 2 Specialized units a Restricted unit can be taken.
Then each codex can list several themed armies,(representing Klans, Chapters, Regiments, etc.)
That tell the player which HQs can be taken, and what units are Common, Specialized and Rare in each themed list.
The stats and equipment and PV for units do not change , just how 'rare' they are in each list type.
I hope you understand what I mean?
That could work too. Reminds me kind of like Kings of War where for every core choice you could take a hero, war machine or monster.
Really though, Bolt Action is basically a better 40k and the "right" way in which 40k should be balanced. Or possibly Beyond the Gates of Antares, which looks to be a sci-fi Bolt Action so essentially 40k 2.0 (or I guess 4.0 if 1.0 = RT, 2.0 = 2nd, 3.0 = 3rd and everything since then has been a patch) since it's written by Rick Priestley himself.
I've got a whole lot of changes i'd implement if it were up to me. There's even a started document in my cloud with some first outlines but I just can't find the time.
Well, the core ideas are thus:
Simpler combat system. A unit has only one combined armor/toughness value. Combat works like this:
Attacker throws his attack value (WS or BS). If he hits, he hits. Defender needs to roll with his "Toughness" against the strenght value of the attack. Terrain, cover etc. increase the T value while unit is eligible for the benefit. If he saves, he saves, otherwise he's wounded.
Moar charge. All transport vehicles are considered "assault"-vehicles (why the hell would you ride anything into battle that prevents you from dismounting fast?). You can charge after coming from reserves, deep striking, whatever.
An almost complete genocide of special rules. Unit strenghts are based on their statline and warger, ballanced through points. No confusing "may reroll to hit when using the pistol instead of ccw in the first round of cc against dark eldar in pink light armor before the 5th turn" on every second unit anymore.
The only units that may have some special rules are unique characters.
Work in progress but I think there's potential here:
Only two phases that can be used up in any combination of shoot, moove and charge. May need some carefull rethinking here.
if you use more modern resolution methods there is not need to change from the standard D6 we all have and like to use.
Only if you use restrictive game resolution methods like 40k does does dice size seem limiting.
If we are redesigning 40k I would use stats directly ,with modern resoluition methods , and get rid of pointless complication!
The only special rules needed are for actual special abilities , which make the ODD unit/weapon /equipment actually special.
Eg chemical weapons ignore cover, amphibious units count water features as open ground.
However, some people are only comfortable with 2nd -3rd ed re working.(Rather than a complete re write.)This could still be used to de clutter the 40k rules somewhat.
Change the way missions are discarded. No d3 or d6VP, but fixed numbers for all. Change skimer rules to make them fast,but vunerable and not super fast land raiders as resilience goes.
Plasma is ap 3 ,melta is ap 2 ,las ap 2, MM is ap 1.
And do something to stop alfa strike being super strong against non meq armies.
Charge has a fix range depending on unit that is charging. Overwatch is actualy useful for someone other then tau. Hits on 6, but slow the charging unit down . Fearless unit would not be slowed, but they would also get hit on +5 for not zigg zagging.
If I were to re-do things, I'd start with one really small, insignificant thing that bugs me far too much than it should.
I would ban tufts of grass on the bases of models. Nothing ruins the idea of Superhuman Space Marines fighting on alien planets with lava-flows and blood rivers and skulls more than tufty grass.
SickSix wrote: First thing I would try is changing turn sequence. I think it should be: P1 moves > P2 moves, P1 shoots > P2 shoots, P1 assaults > P2 assaults.
That would be an improvement that's not too drastic.
SickSix wrote: First thing I would try is changing turn sequence. I think it should be: P1 moves > P2 moves, P1 shoots > P2 shoots, P1 assaults > P2 assaults.
This. Plus either a tournament rule set or simply a better written one - the latter benefits everyone but non-tournament players rage against the idea so...
Crazy Jay wrote:Make it a D12 system so that the lonely D12 can finely get some love.
Let's use all the D&D dice D4, D6, D10, D12, D20! Then we can go into a 40k game carrying, like, 200 dice rofl.
hellpato wrote:I will add a good skirmich system for game between 100 and 250 pts.
Kill Team is a 200 point game, and the rules are pretty good. You should check it out -- a cheap buy on Black Library ($6 or something)
cosmicsoybean wrote:Yeah I would like the cost of books to come down. It's very annoying for people like me that cannot afford to buy every single book, or to go to a LGS and read them.
I agree. I've said this before, but there should be ONE compendium with all the codex lists, produced, every year, for $100. Then, separate fluff books that are optional priced at, whatever (since they're optional). Fluff books can have some scenarios to give them a game-reason to exist.
All the Dataslate stuff that once-upon-a-time would have been free in White Dwarf but is now not free on Black Library, should be free. Paying money to buy one formation is stupid. In the next year, the formation should just be added to the codex compendium.
Back in RT / 2E, 40k used all of the DnD polyhedrals. It was a great thing to standardize the game to standard d6s, while removing the Sustained Fire die. Also nice to standardize on a single Flamer template.
I think I'll be the contrarian voice here and ask: why should heavily armored unit get the same benefit from cover as a lightly armored one? Especially since that the cover would actually do less for poorly armored unit against armies with a higher BS, a -1 from light cover vs a 5+ save is 25% less hits vs 33%, while a BS 3 firing in kind would be the same against no armor but would stack on top of armor that does save, and with a -2 from heavy cover vs a 4+ cover as that would be the same with a BS of 4 (50%) and would be worse with BS 3. So it's a double bonus for armies like space marines.
If given the task of redesigning 40K, I'd take copies of the 6th and 7th ed rulebooks, hand them to Alessio Cavatore with instructions to "make these play like the happy offspring of 5th ed and Warpath. Bring it in at 84 pages, cover and fluff included."
The biggest changes should be simplifying assault and removing a vast majority of the special rules. Trying to teach a new player the game goes really well until I get to the assault part. Declare charge, overwatch, saves, roll charge distance, 3" movement to get in base contact, work out all the different weapon profiles, roll to hit, roll to wound, armor save, tally up wounds, Ld test, initiative off, check for ATSKNF, consolidate. All this for 1 squad during 1 minor phase of the game.
Why do we need 127 different special rules, some applying to only one unit, some that do basically the same thing as others?
I'm fine with IGOUGO, most other TTWGs use the system and it's fine.
Xenomancers wrote: Just fix cover to the point that it helps all types of units and not just low armored ones.
The whole cover vs armor thing is terrible. Maybe my #1 gripe with the core rules.
The worst part is they've known since 3rd Edition that cover was borked, and stuck with the Cover Save system. It either needed to be an additional save, or better, just been a To-Hit modifier like it was in 2nd and RT.
Shotguns at the ready Necron players, because i would remove Necrons. Personally they feel so out of place in a universe where aliens run rampant. Also i would mould Dark Angels into the Space Marine codex. Mabye the Blood Angels as well, but mainly Dark Angels. Their units are too similar to SM, and so is their style of play. Finally, i would do something to make 40k actually futuristic. For example, the best weapon a human super soldier has is a gun that shoots exploding shells, or one of the best anti tank weapon is a gun that shoots very hot metal.
If I had to remove an army from the game it'd be Dark Eldar. They serve no purpose to the overall narrative than to either troll the Imperium or be all dark n' edgy. I don't know, in a game set in a galaxy of conflicts that span entire star systems I don't get why there is a whole model line dedicated to a group of individuals that raid stuff.
As has been mentioned already in the thread ,the biggest problem I see is a lack of direction with regard to the scale.
GW needs to decide whether they are creating a game of small skirmishes or monstrous battles, not trying to shoehorn them into the same thing.
Having these ridiculously huge models like the Riptide and Lord of Skulls in games where there is only a handful of infantry always seems so silly and cartoonish to me. There needs to be a clearer separation between standard standard 40k battles and Apocalypse.
I think there should be clear division in the game sizes.
Rules with detailed MODEL interaction focused rules.
'Small 'skirmish for new players 'an easy in'.(Kill team /40k in 40 mins type.)
This grows into' larger 'skirmish game.(2nd ed size.)
Rules with detailed UNIT interaction rules.
'Small'battle game , (3rd ed size..)
This expands to'massive' battles, (Apocalypse.)
This way there is a simple and clear progression through the game sizes and types, that players can easily identify with.
And the core rules can be used in both game types, just the element of interaction changes from model to unit.
WarbossDakka wrote: Shotguns at the ready Necron players, because i would remove Necrons. Personally they feel so out of place in a universe where aliens run rampant. Also i would mould Dark Angels into the Space Marine codex. Mabye the Blood Angels as well, but mainly Dark Angels. Their units are too similar to SM, and so is their style of play. Finally, i would do something to make 40k actually futuristic. For example, the best weapon a human super soldier has is a gun that shoots exploding shells, or one of the best anti tank weapon is a gun that shoots very hot metal.
If you think dark angels play the same way as normal marines your doing it wrong.
Greenwing: yep pretty much the same
Ravenwing: not even remotely, even white scars play differently
Deathwing: codex marines can't even do this.
However, I still agree with your fundamental point, all marines could be rolled into codex marines but with supplements, these would cover just the unique units and army special rules.
Thing with the dice, drop the d6 and use d10, d12, d20 and the rest but do it sensibly. Example is in order, this is from a WW2 navy game, the same situation but two rules systems.
The situation is the HMS Prince of Wales firing its main weapons batteries at a target, this is 10x 14" guns.
System one, Victory at Sea, somewhat similar to warhammer, uses D6.
Player rolls 1d6 for each gun barrel, thus 10d6 the misses are removed, each hit then does three damage, each of which is a further dice to see if the shell did anything or not. So similar to WH we have each weapon rolling to hit, then rolling to wound, here with the potential to do multiple wounds done slightly differently - its a lot of dice
System two, Micronaughts, uses a d20 Player rolls 1d20 to hit, this determines if they have the range to the enemy or not, if they have a second 1d20 is rolled to see how many of the tend shells fired have actually hit. There is no "to wound" roll, a hit does 'x' damage, a near miss 'y' and a total miss 'z'.
Both systems then roll for hit locations etc
Point being, you can use the d20 to get a wider range of results, without the need for a bucket full of dice.
Back to 40k.
Say a mob of orks assault something, once you get through all the initial stuff and the orks actually smack something they roll 1d6 for each attack, assuming you can find enough space to actually roll them or do it in batches. Such a huge number of dice will give the average result or there abouts more often than not.
So why not give each model a single d20, with a level of success - exceed that by a bit and you hit twice, a bit more you hit three times.
Down from 3-4 dice per model to one per model, could even go to one per squad with a lookup to see how many blows actually landed.
Point?
There are a great many ways to resolve actions that don't involve yahtzee with models, they can be balanced a lot better as it becomes a lot harder to simply swamp the enemy with die rolls.
If I was recreating 40k the first thing I;d do is get my hands on and play a good few other games of the desired scale to get a feel for what works and what doesn't then make the game around the best of the best for the core mechanics.
The more I read suggestions, the more I'm happy the game is as it is.
The only thing I would change to 40K is move all rules content to digital for free (+ print on demand) to accelerate the release schedule even more (which they have vastly improved already).
As someone who was pretty much put off ever playing 40k again by 6th and 7th there's a lot of work to do as in my opinion most of it needs to be thrown out.
The first issue is one of scale as suggested by several others. Is 40k a platoon or company sized game? The force org char suggests a platoon but many armies approach company sizes with ease (looking at you guard, nids and orks). Given the size/cost of the miniatures I would say that 40k should be a platoon system. To enforce that I would reduce the recommended points level to a reasonable amount (say 1000 points) and change the force organisation to be a percentage system ala WHFB.
Support would be a merging of FA and HS units. However to prevent abuse of the system particularly powerful FA or HS units should be reclassified as Elite. In addition to the percentage system from WHFB I would also pinch the limit on repeat choices, say 0-2 of any unit type from support and 0-1 in elite and HQ. Yes that's right no more spamming just one or two for flavour. The bulk of an army should be it's basic troops! Of course certain characters could change things abit.
Oh and allies and huge apoc units are gone. Keep those for Apoc games.
Next thing is the turn structure, I would personally switch to an alternating activation system with each phase being something each unit goes through individually. This should ensure that all players are constantly engaged in the game rather than sitting around waiting for ages. At the start of each game turn the players will roll for initiative, something simple like 2D6+warlords ld would do. Winner goes first.
Alternating activation does open up one issue and that's the new psychic phase which is in theory a good idea. The way I would work that is that at the start of each game turn the player with initiative (ie the one going first) rolls 2d6 for the number of dice available to each player. Now to pinch something else from Fantasy for each psyker in their army the players should roll a D6 and on the roll of a 6 get an extra dice (up to a cap of 12). Yes it's the channelling system. Now those dice are to be used for both casting and defending against psychic powers, which should make for some fun tactical decisions. As for getting the powers off well that's going to again pinch a basic idea from fantasy, just beat the total needed. With a double 6 being a warp related issue ala miscasting. Mastery levels act like wizard levels and provide a bonus to casting/defending and determine the number of powers you can take.
Beyond that the shooting phase really needs some work. Cover save? pah replace them with a to hit modifier, add others for long range, point blank, snap firing etc That would get rid of most issues in addition I would also take the armour modifiers from fantasy and ditch the AP system. So a strength 4 weapon would make a 4+ save into a 5+ etc. Of course the armour piercing rule could also be brought over for an additional -1 to a save. Against vehicles AP would simply give you +1 on the damage chart.
Assault also needs work. Overwatch currently makes assault almost worthless. I would get round that by simply making it so that shooting from overwatch at an assaulting unit is using that units activation for that turn and a unit that has already been activated can't do it.
Now onto special rules, dear god these need some work, most of them should go as quite frankly they add little to the game. I've not got a definitive list but yeah these need to be thinned down quite drastically. In addition no codex would be filled with it's own rules either. It's bad enough having to memorise the huge number in the book without additional ones in every codex. Sure add a couple for particularly unique units and maybe an army wide one but the rulebook stuff should really cover most things.
Flyers, I know they're not popular amongst a lot of players but honestly I think an aerial element is a good thing even in a squad sized game it's just got to be appropriate, no fighter jets or dogfights. Instead dropships and gunships should be the order of the day. The current rules are ok but need a bit of tweaking, for one thing infantry should have easier or rather cheaper access to AA weapons beyond taking a piece of scenery in your army (seriously who takes flak missile at their current cost?).
So that's some of my opinions of rules out of the way now for armies. There needs to be a huge reduction in the number of codexes available. Currently pretty much half of the armies out there are bloody space marines. I would consolidate all the SM rules into one book, if its possible to go from the Ultrasmurfs to the Black Templars in one book it's certainly possible to integrate all the others (except maybe GKs). I would also combine the CSM and CD books, Legion rules would also be introduced. For the rest of the codexes rules similar to the SM chapter traits would be introduced. Small pointless armies like the Storm Troopers (sorry Militarum Tempetus) would be rolled into the suitable parent codex. One final thing I would bring back the 3rd ed style basic army lists in the rulebook thing simply to make getting into the game easier/cheaper for beginners
So there's some of my ideas for fixing 40k some are huge changes others are small. Feel free to rip my ideas to shreds.
Radically change the force org. 1 HQ and 2 troops are mandatory. For each 2 troops choices in the army you may take 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, and 1 Elites choice.
Two pretty awful ideas right there.
40% cut would mean they are cheaper than half-assed Kickstarter models or Chinese recasters. Given their financial problems, they would shut their doors within a year.
Troop quality and point cost varies quite a bit between armies, so it can't be something as blanket as 2 troops = 1 special thing. Guard have a much easier time getting two cheap troops on the table to justify more battle tanks than say, Space Marines. You'd be better off going back to percentages, like 1+ HQ up to 25% of the battle value, 25%+ troop units, the rest can be whatever you want.
ImAGeek wrote: I think really they need to pick a scale, so that's where I'd start. Is it a Skirmish game, or a mass battle game? At the moment it has the rules of a skirmish game but the model count of a much bigger game, which means there's tonnes of rules bloat and turns take ages.
I don't know which I'd pick, but I think making a decision would be a good place to start.
This almost exactly sums up my feelings about 40k. Despite having some outdated elements, at it's heart, it's a fine set of rules for up to about small platoon (Kill team) level that at unfortunately have been bogged down by loads of special rules. Additionally, for some reason, it's been stretched up to company level (standard size games of 40k) of play and even Battalion level if you count Apocalypse, without the appropriate increased level of abstraction that a larger scope game requires. Rolling different dice for different sets of weapons in a squad when you're playing at the company or battalion level is just sillyness, and if we weren't all rasied on 40k, we'd see it as such.
I'd actually like to see 3 separate rulesets with varying degrees of abstraction for Platoon, Company and Battalion level of play. The units could keep the same statlines, and play at the platoon level would be virtually the same as it is now, though with some reorganization and simplification of the mound of special rules. However at the higher levels of play certain stats and special rules wouldn't be used and a squad's firepower would be increasingly abstracted.
Unfortunately this is never going to happen because in order to sell a new codex, there has to be something "New" about it. All the factions and nearly all the units in 40k have already been done multiple times, so besides adding units, the only way to make a faction "new" is to give it a new layer of special rules that only exacerbates an already over-burndened ruleset. GW players have contributed to this trend themselves and have developed something of an obsession in wanting their units fluff to be replicated in-detail in their unit's game stats, but that's a whole other issue.
I also have alot of gripes about the number of codicies, price, etc, but a fundamental change to the game in terms of determining the levels of abstraction and detail in different levels of play is a much better place to start.
An explicit aim of mine would be to make the game easy and not too costly to properly get into. I'd want people to be able to pick up a battleforce box of 750 points and have that be a genuinely good core for tournament play and preferably a respectable 750 points list in its own right (or whatever points total, it's arbitrary anyway).
I think something could seriously be done with snap-together models that came moulded in a specific colour for each army so you could at least immediately differentiate yours from another faction. The Gundam model kits that Bandai does are completely insane and don't just come moulded in mostly the colours they're supposed to be but also make up a fully articulated figure without the need for any glue. To top it off they're remarkably cheap although very low labour costs and sheer scale probably account for a lot of that. Still, it'd be something worth looking into. Showing that someone can easily pick out some details with basically a silver sharpie and maybe a dark wash is a much easier introduction to the modelling hobby than what currently exists.
Some people just want game pieces and having theirs look something other than drab grey out of the box would be a great thing, imho.
Rosebuddy wrote: An explicit aim of mine would be to make the game easy and not too costly to properly get into. I'd want people to be able to pick up a battleforce box of 750 points and have that be a genuinely good core for tournament play and preferably a respectable 750 points list in its own right (or whatever points total, it's arbitrary anyway).
I think something could seriously be done with snap-together models that came moulded in a specific colour for each army so you could at least immediately differentiate yours from another faction. The Gundam model kits that Bandai does are completely insane and don't just come moulded in mostly the colours they're supposed to be but also make up a fully articulated figure without the need for any glue. To top it off they're remarkably cheap although very low labour costs and sheer scale probably account for a lot of that. Still, it'd be something worth looking into. Showing that someone can easily pick out some details with basically a silver sharpie and maybe a dark wash is a much easier introduction to the modelling hobby than what currently exists.
Some people just want game pieces and having theirs look something other than drab grey out of the box would be a great thing, imho.
The Bandai Gundam kits are remarkable feets of engineering, but I've never seen their equal. The Dream Forge Leviathan comes close, but costs way more.
As for the coloring, I can see that. Just don't go pre-painted on me.
Oh a couple more things, less randomness! Maelstrom cards should be a set amount of VP and discard/redraw if you get one you can't complete. Run distance should be your initiative, charge distance should be WS + initiative. I'm tired of running 1 inch or charging 2-3 inches with what are supposed to be units that charge headlong into battle. Warlord traits should be handled like SW sagas from their old codex, you pay points for 1 specific trait that you can build your army around or have the option to roll for rulebook traits without spending any points on them. Psykers should be able to exchange their primaris power for the ability to choose 1 power from the table. If everyone is choosing invisibility or iron arm, those powers need to be nerfed a little bit and the other powers in the table buffed a little bit so there isn't an auto take from every table. They're already paying the points for psychic levels, let them choose a power but have less overall powers.
All of these steps would lead to better casual games, better narrative games, better tournament games and less house rules. Nobody loses. However, GW is either too stupid, lazy or incompetent to pull this off, take your pic (my money is on all of the above).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Finally, why is purge the alien a rulebook mission?! We don't need a rulebook to tell us to go out there and kill each other. We can just agree before a game "I don't feel like focusing on objectives today, let's just blast each other to bits." Purge was written for little Timmy with his unbound army of 3 riptides, 3 wraithknights and 3 Flyrants so he doesn't have to bother to actually play the game, he can just throw dice as he goes "pewpewpew I WIN!!!"
If the game's fundamental rules were better, tau and eldar wouldn't be so overpowered. Why can you kill a walker or cripple its best weapon with 1 shot but a MC takes the full brunt of your entire army and keeps coming at you at full strength? Why is a gunline far and away superior to a quick hitting assault force? That's why tau and eldar are so powerful, because gun lines and monstrous creatures are so much better than anything else in the basic rules of the game. Sure the wave serpent is powerful, but if the wraithknights backing them up were more on the level of dreads, they wouldn't be so scary. It's the same thing with riptides. If you could drop a melta next to them and 1 shot them or assault them with a set charge distance and no overwatch (from the entire freaking army in this case), they would just be considered strong units instead of OP cheese whiz.
TL; DR Fix the core rules and the "broken" codexes won't be so broken any more.
I'd reduce attacks to one dice roll, hitting is a function of WS or BS, STR and the dice roll. In melee this needs to beat the WS, armor, toughness and cover of the defender, in shooting it's BS, STR and roll vs Armor/Cover/Toughness. A hit is a wound. Doubling out STR vs Toughness still is an insta kill. Dodgy characters get bonuses to cover, bulky characters get penalties to cover as bigger things are easier to hit. Have a rule for outnumbering someone that reduces defensive WS when getting swarmed, which lets combat monsters actually get wounded by hoards of little guys. Invul saves could still exist, but would have to be rare and expensive. One can eschew attacking in melee to instead add their roll to defense.
My initial thought was to just flip armor values, 2+ becomes armor 5, 3+ = 4 etc. So for a guardman to kill a space marine, he adds his BS 3 to his lasgun's STR 3 and rolls a dice vs Armor 4 (previously 3+) toughness 4, and, at point blank, no cover, no movement penalties, he needs a 2+ wound the Space Marine. But if the Marine has +1 cover from running flat out, and another from partial concealment, and the guardsman moved, then he's suddenly getting wounded on a 5+. Decoupling armor from armor saves lets you play with armor values though, if point blank shots to power armor or terminator armor shouldn't have such a high chance of penetrating, it's a lot easier to play with the odds here, than to filter based on hits/wounds/saves (where you can have something like a 5% chance of getting a wound with a shot). Concentrating fire could let you opt to reduce the number of hits to increase the STR of the attack. This lets you have a Terminator with armor that no single lasgun can penetrate, but say a squad of ten might be able to (each extra guy adds +1 STR). This would mean that a melta gun really would be worth as much or more than the squad it's in. This also lets movie marines be a thing, if we want them to be.
Turns have move misc, and attack phases. In each phase units take turns doing their thing based off of initiative and leadership. If init is tied, the player who has the unit with the highest leadership on the table chooses which goes first (better commanders are better). In movement, lowest initiative starts, and higher initiative units get to react. In Misc and attack, the reverse is true. Misc phase is for running or taking cover or psychic powers or what not. Init test to do more things (run and take cover for instance). Attack phase is when attacks happen. Charges, shooting, psychic attacks (which are different from powers, as they are trying to kill rather than buff/debuff). If a unit has already shot, they don't get to overwatch. On a leadership check, a unit can deliberately lower their Init so that they act after someone else, it's risky and requires battlefield awareness beyond I kill the thing', hence the check.
Rather than snap firing, doing things other than aiming and shooting gives various BS penalties, these can drop BS below zero. This lets you shoot wildly, but also gives low BS units a reason not to just do every action possible. Moving is one penalty, running an additional one, taking cover another, shooting at flyers or fast moving objects another. Similarly, wargear or abilities would give penalties to opponents defenses, reducing cover, or armor. Again, being a sliding scale means that there aren't any all or nothing powers, just higher or lower bonuses. Skillful play could see penalties on an opponent high enough that no roll is needed, and the doomed unit just removes models based on how many wounds they take. Facing would be a thing, based on what direction they last moved or shot, getting flanked or ambushed gives a penalty to cover and WS if relevant.
Running and charging would be based off of Init, faster units are faster, war gear like jump packs or bikes would add to that range, but not to Init. Hammer of Wrath could still be a thing, maybe get it if the charger charged more than a certain distance. Bonuses to cover based on speed still apply, additional snap fire penalty for overwatch applies. Getting charged from the back stops defender from overwatching. Shooting into melee is allowed, allies grant cover to enemies, and if you miss only by the margin of the cover bonus granted by your teammates, you resolve the hit against them instead.
I like the potential for army model count disparities, guard should be a swarm of guys against some monstrous giant thing from beyond that should not be. 'Nids should be able to be a wave of flesh that just swarms over you, or a bunch of giant monsters that cannot be stopped. A bunch of cultists starting as a swarm army, but completing a blood ritual that summons a giant daemon by sacrificing themselves is awesome.
TL;DR: Remove a lot of the randomness, make the game more about maneuvering for advantage, fix IgoUgo.
I would keep it simple with one major task and a philosophical shift.
Create a Skirmish supplement that does not require the main rulebook to play (but still requires a Codex). The format needs to support multiplayer. Support for a reduced size format will make the game MUCH easier to get into at entry level. The current edition rules will still be needed for the full game.
Recognize that the epitaph "Xenos" is a racial slur made up by the human cockroaches.
As has been stated by many people, the issue is they tore down the wall between apoc and 40k and are trying very hard to pretend it's not a bloated and contentious mess.
The honest to god easiest fix is just formatting the scale of game in terms of points and have that correspond with a greater and greater availability of silly crap.
What's hurting 40k is there's no bare bones simple starting point anymore, everyone's just making up their own game. It's hard to believe that this was a game that once required opponent's consent just to use a special character.
If I was king of 40k, this is what I'd do. I'd recognize that people play at varying scales and do a better job of facilitating better communication between strangers IE potential new opponents. So, simply put, I'd index point level to what is allowed into the core game. I'd also ease restriction of foc as point level increased.
0-1500pts single codex, one foc (cad or whatever)
1500-1850pts - allow an allied detachment, basic fortifications (bastion, aegis, nothing too crazy)
1850pts-2000 - hello lords of war, super heavies and formations
2000 and beyond, welcome to apocalypse, do whatever you want, forge that narrative you nasy thang you!
The details can be debated, the point I'm getting at is if we can get to a point where all that needs to be agreed upon by both parties is a point level and everything else will fall in place. Right now we've got culture instead of rules largely dictating things and it's incredibly subjective what may be considered a "faux pas" in any given flgs or gaming group.
Toofast wrote: Finally, why is purge the alien a rulebook mission?!
To balance the game. Seriously, this is a leftover thing from the old days when GW at least tried to make a game instead of saying "play with your toys however you like and FORGE A NARRATIVE". If the game is nothing but objective missions MSU armies have a huge advantage because they can cover the entire table in scoring units, often scoring units that have fast movement rules and/or transports to allow them to quickly reposition to claim a different objective. And that's on top of the general flexibility of having two independent units vs. a single powerful unit in a game where you can't break up squads/split fire between targets/etc. Kill point missions exist to add a drawback to this strategy. Your MSU army might have a big advantage in objective missions, but if you roll kill points you're screwed. Suddenly all those wonderful three-model Eldar jetbike units are just free VPs for your opponent to harvest, and you have way more potential VPs on the table than your opponent. Now building a MSU army gains a risk vs. reward element instead of being a default choice.
Unfortunately, most competitive players in 5th didn't understand this balancing factor and whined endlessly when their MSU transport spam armies sucked at kill point missions. So third-party tournaments pretty much removed them, and GW followed that trend.
Toofast wrote: Finally, why is purge the alien a rulebook mission?!
To balance the game. Seriously, this is a leftover thing from the old days when GW at least tried to make a game instead of saying "play with your toys however you like and FORGE A NARRATIVE". If the game is nothing but objective missions MSU armies have a huge advantage because they can cover the entire table in scoring units, often scoring units that have fast movement rules and/or transports to allow them to quickly reposition to claim a different objective. And that's on top of the general flexibility of having two independent units vs. a single powerful unit in a game where you can't break up squads/split fire between targets/etc. Kill point missions exist to add a drawback to this strategy. Your MSU army might have a big advantage in objective missions, but if you roll kill points you're screwed. Suddenly all those wonderful three-model Eldar jetbike units are just free VPs for your opponent to harvest, and you have way more potential VPs on the table than your opponent. Now building a MSU army gains a risk vs. reward element instead of being a default choice.
Unfortunately, most competitive players in 5th didn't understand this balancing factor and whined endlessly when their MSU transport spam armies sucked at kill point missions. So third-party tournaments pretty much removed them, and GW followed that trend.
Peregrine, I don't disagree with the intent for kp, but you must admit it handles that pretty terribly, even more so when relegated to once every 6 games lol. Plenty have events have forced kp into almost every mission and all it did was make the game less enjoyable IMO.
But again this is the flaw of 40k we agree on, they don't even bother making the attempt anymore, it's all "only positive people can talk, if you have a problem with the game it's not the games fault or those who make it, it's you for having a poor attitude, didn't you know 40k was a role playing game with combat elements all along? I sure did, you just need to forge that narrative" .
Crablezworth wrote: Peregrine, I don't disagree with the intent for kp, but you must admit it handles that pretty terribly, even more so when relegated to once every 6 games lol.
I do agree that it shouldn't have been reduced to 1/6 of the missions. The 5th edition mission table was much better IMO, and kill point missions were a much bigger factor. But I suspect GW listened to the whining and crying from "competitive" players who didn't like the fact that their "competitive" army automatically lost kill point missions and changed the rules to accommodate them.
HandofMars wrote:
Troop quality and point cost varies quite a bit between armies, so it can't be something as blanket as 2 troops = 1 special thing. Guard have a much easier time getting two cheap troops on the table to justify more battle tanks than say, Space Marines.
Get rid of maelstrom. The last game I played with them was so unbalanced (player got easily fulfilled cards while I got cards like "travel to the moon" or "solve Climate Change) that it really is just beyond even salvaging. The game is already random enough!
On a separate note all wave serpents must be buried in the Nevada desert and never spoken of again and the Eldar codex must be nerfed to being the most average thing ever to exist (not bad though) as punishment for the Codex that might have single handedly ruined warhammer 40k (for me at least.)
Without getting into much detail and staying away from the clusterfeth that is the Eldar codex, I would do this to 40k...
Make a blanket rule that any 2+ being rerolled must be resolved at a 4+.
Give jump infantry jink.
Make invisible units targetable by template and blast weapons, but without a bs modifier on the latter.
Remove malefic daemonology as an available psychic school for anything but chaos and daemons. Make summoning drastically more expensive in terms of WD cost.
Crablezworth wrote: Peregrine, I don't disagree with the intent for kp, but you must admit it handles that pretty terribly, even more so when relegated to once every 6 games lol.
I do agree that it shouldn't have been reduced to 1/6 of the missions. The 5th edition mission table was much better IMO, and kill point missions were a much bigger factor. But I suspect GW listened to the whining and crying from "competitive" players who didn't like the fact that their "competitive" army automatically lost kill point missions and changed the rules to accommodate them.
I much prefer objective games, if kp worked like vp I'd be ok with it, but I still find it makes for a less enjoyable game. I'm not really a fan of anything other than crusade for the most part. Now that objective placement is a bit less cynical I'm enjoying the fact that gunlining is less viable if you're playing with a good amount of los blocking terrain.
Is it just me , or has anyone else noticed lots of posts listing the symptoms of poor game play results ,caused by serious issues with the core rules?
But rather than look at the core issues in the core rules,(including F.O.,C.)
People seem to want to add even more layers of extra rules on top to try and fix the game play.Which is exactly what has caused the bloated clusterfeth of 40k rules in the first place!
Analogy alert!
Imagine a car with one wheel missing.(40k battle game.)
Rather than replace the missing wheel to restore integrity and balance to the car's performance to make it enjoyable to drive.
Some one 'bodges it' by adding a huge counter weight on the opposite side to the missing wheel.
So now the car drives in a straight line quite well but 'pulls to one side while accelerating and braking', and steering is 'heavier' in one direction than the other...
So the 'bodger', tries to correct this imbalance by adding even more counter weights around the car.
This just reduces performance even more, and still can not correct the core issue of the missing wheel....
.
So now the car drives in a straight line quite well but 'pulls to one side while accelerating and braking', and steering is 'heavier' in one direction than the other...
So the 'bodger', tries to correct this imbalance by adding even more counter weights around the car.
This just reduces performance even more, and still can not correct the core issue of the missing wheel....
.
Cause the car is on the move allready and if you stop it to change a wheel all the passengers will leave. And as it goes now...it's still moving, right.
Get rid of maelstrom. The last game I played with them was so unbalanced (player got easily fulfilled cards while I got cards like "travel to the moon" or "solve Climate Change) that it really is just beyond even salvaging. The game is already random enough!
On a separate note all wave serpents must be buried in the Nevada desert and never spoken of again and the Eldar codex must be nerfed to being the most average thing ever to exist (not bad though) as punishment for the Codex that might have single handedly ruined warhammer 40k (for me at least.)
Do you realize the codex eldar was top dog for all of 13 months ?
How do you feel about all the other codexes that were top tier for a much longer time or top dog for more than 13 months ?
Lanrak wrote: Is it just me , or has anyone else noticed lots of posts listing the symptoms of poor game play results ,caused by serious issues with the core rules?
I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.
Good point.
I go / you go. Needs some activation method rather than an entire army at a time.
Force the player to activate critical units first and the opponent to activate in response.
Really need to make the game more tactical in this manner.
<edit> The "I get to shoot first" first turn is a little too important unless you are good at hiding.
AP I would really like to see a "shift" applied to defeating armor based on the weapon rather than a full ignore.
The Necromunda shifts could act as a guide.
wound / hit pools / closest model I want to go back to squads acting more like hit points for the juicy stuff and the odd aimed shot getting a chance to hit those.
The varying weapon ranges and only closest model allocation has bogged the game like nobody's business.
If any weapon can hit any part of a unit at the start of that attack phase: all shots can be allocated.
Special Rules I happen to like the "modular" use of special rules and they should expand / improve on this.
It gives a central means of control of how these abilities work and can bring sweeping change.
Trying to come up with a "points allocation guide" for cost depending on unit type would be helpful for codex design and unit values.
Less random more choice! You know, psycher abilities, warlord traits: assign limited things they can choose and a points value.
Done.
More characterful and removes the appearance of mental issues when their "character" is not determined until just before the game.
No variable charge ranges unless some special ability / item adds / subtracts creating the variation.
Anyway, those are some things off the top of my head.
The game can be fast, fun and challenging and easy enough to do.
IGO/UGO: Either something like Bolt Action with order dice, or something like many historical games do where you can only use a limited number of units per turn (although to be fair this doesn't really fit a sci-fi setting where you have vox-comms or the like to communicate). Also I personally liked 2nd edition Overwatch where you could choose to forgo your movement at that point. Maybe something kind of like D&D had with Initiative, where you can delay until later (to set up combos) but that might end up like 2nd edition where nobody did anything.
Wounds: Bolt Action does this already. Pinning tests + lucky shots to pick a model to remove (basically give everything the ability where if you roll like a 6 or something you can pick the guy who gets hit rather than it just being allocated)
Objectives/Missions: No more random, you pick your own objectives (discard and rechoose ones you can't do) and that's what gives you bonus points. Similar to the old 2nd edition Mission Cards.
There, nothing hard about any of that and it would IMHO make the game more balanced and enjoyable.
Get rid of maelstrom. The last game I played with them was so unbalanced (player got easily fulfilled cards while I got cards like "travel to the moon" or "solve Climate Change) that it really is just beyond even salvaging. The game is already random enough!
On a separate note all wave serpents must be buried in the Nevada desert and never spoken of again and the Eldar codex must be nerfed to being the most average thing ever to exist (not bad though) as punishment for the Codex that might have single handedly ruined warhammer 40k (for me at least.)
Do you realize the codex eldar was top dog for all of 13 months ?
How do you feel about all the other codexes that were top tier for a much longer time or top dog for more than 13 months ?
I actually like the last few codices, where none of them are top dog. I hate the whole top dog concept -- and of buff-then-nerf cycle. I would prefer if all factions were at the power levels of the newer codices -- dark eldar, orks, space wolves, blood angels, etc. I don't want my favorite faction to be the "best", and I would prefer if there were no units that were so obviously awesome that they are a must-take.
At this particular juncture, I think Necron, Eldar, and Tau are the only "top dog" factions, and I suspect Necron will soon be getting a nerf.
Lanrak wrote: Is it just me , or has anyone else noticed lots of posts listing the symptoms of poor game play results ,caused by serious issues with the core rules?
I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.
I've got lots of issues with the core rules, but every time they're brought up and I mention making them clearer someone says they're fine the way they are and that I'm WAAC and a rules lawyer for demonstrating otherwise.
I have a side project of rewriting them completely, blending 5th, 6th, and 7th edition into one and making the rules clear overall. Not that it'll ever see the light of day, but it's fun.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.
Good point.
[SNIP!]
The game can be fast, fun and challenging and easy enough to do.
I don't disagree with your suggestions in a vacuum, although I don't believe that we're necessarily still playing "40k" with those changes.
To me, 40k is characterized by Igo-Ugo turn structure with sequenced d6 rolls against fixed target numbers that do not change, and a small number of tables for HtH combat and vehicle damage. Breaking Igo-Ugo, modifying to-hit rolls, etc. makes for a different game that isn't really 40k. Furthermore, the granularity of a d6 is helpful in demonstrating units to be clearly better/worse than other units.
The only real issue with Igo-Ugo is the first turn. While Sieze helps mitigate, Night Fight is also good. Moving an entire army helps ensure that the game moves along in a consistent way, especially for large games - playing Infinity at Apocalypse scale wouldn't work. IMO, it is more important to 1st turn prior to deployment, and the 1st turn effect largely goes away.
I rather like AP - either you get it, or you don't. Same as how Templates now work - either you're hit, or you're not. If you get your Armor, you get all of it.
"Closest first" is a terrible change, and needs to go back to Defender must always remove the maximum number of models possible for any result, but Defender may remove their choice of model from the unit, regardless of range / LOS. Someone picks up the Plasma Gun; someone grabs the Chainsword.
Special Rules are fine, just too many of them, and too complex. Simpler and fewer would be better. The combination of Penetrating & Glancing to a single table was a good change.
Random is designed as a balancer. I think players being allowed to roll an extra&discard or re-roll powers whatever would probably be a good change overall.
40k can change, and over 5 broadly-compatible editions from 3E to 7E, we have pieces to pick and choose what we like best.
At this particular juncture, I think Necron, Eldar, and Tau are the only "top dog" factions, and I suspect Necron will soon be getting a nerf.
I would also like my army not to be top dog.
But the list includes Imperial Knights, SM and Chaos Daemons, that's my gripe with the blanket "Eldar Tau OP". At least, that's what the statistics say. Maybe you don't have any good IK, CD or SM players around.
SM are not top-dog. They are, at best, middle of the road. IK are powerful units, but really lack synergy with much else. Chaos Daemons are good in certain very specific builds against certain very specific foes. Otherwise, they're not all that.
Eldar? Eldar are pretty damn good to jaw-droppingly powerful, against... everything.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Armies go up, armies go down. That's the nature of 40k.
Not sure if that is an argument for or against army "balance" If any easy win with an auto-include unit or two is your idea of fun I guess it needs no change.
I like close games, nail biters, the destroying of either party from turn one is a bit of a bore.
I didn't talk much about the rules because there is a gakload of different ways you could do them. Deciding stuff like turn order or how exactly to resolve hits or w/e is certainly important but it's what you do after you've decided what the overarching vision of the game is.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Armies go up, armies go down. That's the nature of 40k.
Not sure if that is an argument for or against army "balance"
If any easy win with an auto-include unit or two is your idea of fun I guess it needs no change.
I like close games, nail biters, the destroying of either party from turn one is a bit of a bore.
It's neither, merely a commentary on the state of 40k since the very beginning. 40k has had "balance" complaints since before I even started playing (I started playing in 2E). Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.
I have had easy wins, tough wins, and my share of losses. In the current environment, it is tough to destroy an entire army on Turn 1 short of spectacular die rolling - Turn 1 tabling in 7E occurs less often than in 3E, and that was down from 2E. I do wonder how much of those unbalanced matchups are a function of army selection, player skill and player tactics versus Codex design.
Psienesis wrote: SM are not top-dog. They are, at best, middle of the road. IK are powerful units, but really lack synergy with much else. Chaos Daemons are good in certain very specific builds against certain very specific foes. Otherwise, they're not all that.
Eldar? Eldar are pretty damn good to jaw-droppingly powerful, against... everything.
I wholeheartedly agree. What makes an army top-dog is an ability to take highly versatile units that are generally superior in most situations, which do not require a sacrifice. If Wave Serpent were an elite, nobody would complain. But, it's a basic transport, and you still can load up your FA and Elite slots.
Even excluding Serpent abuse, Eldar are damn solid. I wish their models were as good :(
JohnHwangDD wrote: Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.
Only if you assume that the "nature" of the game is "this game sucks". Poor balance is always a bad thing, and the fact that 40k has had balance issues for so long just means that GW is run by incompetent morons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Breaking Igo-Ugo, modifying to-hit rolls, etc. makes for a different game that isn't really 40k.
Well yes, but making the game different would be a good thing. Right now 40k is a 1980s fantasy game with a bunch of rules bloat added on top of the inappropriate foundation. The best thing for the IP would be a completely new game that is designed to work well for modern squad-based combat, and that means throwing out obsolete mechanics like IGOUGO and the melee-focused stat line.
The only real issue with Igo-Ugo is the first turn.
No, it's an issue every turn. It creates boring situations where you spend 15-30 minutes doing nothing but watching your opponent play the game (no, rolling saves does not count as "playing"), and it destroys any sense of realism whenever units fail to react to each other like the "real" units would.
While Sieze helps mitigate, Night Fight is also good.
Night fight is irrelevant in 7th. A +1 cover bonus is often irrelevant (against cover-ignoring shooting, any time you get your armor/invulnerable save instead) and even when you get the bonus it's not a very significant one. The old night fighting rules from 5th edition at least made a significant difference in the outcome of the first turn, but even then it often just delayed the alpha strike until the second turn.
playing Infinity at Apocalypse scale wouldn't work.
Nor does playing 40k at Apocalypse scale.
I rather like AP - either you get it, or you don't. Same as how Templates now work - either you're hit, or you're not. If you get your Armor, you get all of it.
This is something that's kind of personal preference, but IMO it's a very bad rule. An all-or-nothing save creates awkward situations where a tough unit is almost invulnerable to weapons of a certain power, but a gun that's just slightly more powerful wipes them off the table effortlessly. A system where improving AP gradually reduces armor effectiveness allows you to create a middle ground where a weapon is more effective than basic guns, but not an auto-win. For example, you could have AP 4 anti-MEQ weapons that take marines down to a 5+ save as a substitute for giving everyone plasma spam and significantly devaluing the MEQ stat line.
Random is designed as a balancer.
No, it's bad design. You don't need randomness as a balancing factor unless you're too lazy and/or incompetent to make all of the options balanced. Random rolls are only necessary if you know that some of the options are blatantly overpowered and nobody would ever take the others unless the dice force them to.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.
Only if you assume that the "nature" of the game is "this game sucks".
We disagree at a fundamental level. I believe 40k (3E) to be a perfectly fine game for what it is. Trying to make 40k into Warmachine, Infinity, Bolt Action or the current game du jour is a fool's errand.
Quite frankly, you should go back to playing Chess, despite White having the obvious advantage of Always Goes First.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.
Only if you assume that the "nature" of the game is "this game sucks".
We disagree at a fundamental level. I believe 40k (3E) to be a perfectly fine game for what it is. Trying to make 40k into Warmachine, Infinity, Bolt Action or the current game du jour is a fool's errand.
Quite frankly, you should go back to playing Chess, despite White having the obvious advantage of Always Goes First.
LOL. Add Seize the Initiative to chess!! I think the Queen should have Fear, too.
Seriously, though, I agree with JohnHwangDD's thesis that imperfect internal and external balance is integral to the design and nature of the game.
The nature of this game is such that army selection is equally important to turn by turn strategy -- by design. The design of the game is such that some combinations are powerful, or provide force magnification. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that some units are worse or weaker.
Of course, that doesn't mean that balance cant be better to increase the number of playable choices. However, that doesn't change the fact that many players want to start with an advantage, or perceived advantage by building what they think is a superior list.
IME, imperfect balance is a better reflection of reality. The only "balanced" and non-random war we've seen in the past hundred years was WW1, and as expected, it continuously stalemated short of massive localized resource expenditure.
And quite frankly, the imperfect balance offers far more playing opportunity and challenge. If you really are good, can you still win with sub-optimal units and choices? Or do you need the crutch of stronger units?
The real problem with 40k is the notion that anyone should attempt to play competitively, because that sort of play strongly limits the game in ways that GW never intended.
I have also made the argument that in real life, 1+1 does not always equal 2, because of many factors such as force magnifiers, and unit capabilities (or lack thereof). For instance, having infantry, artillery, armor, and air is far superior to having thirty times more infantry and nothing else. Having no navy means having the largest army in the world is ineffective if there is even a small boys of water separating the forces. Therefore, just because points add up should not mean that lists should be equally powerful.
As a simple example, the US forces can't hold jack all in western Iraq regardless of spending a bazillion times more than ISIS. One tank brigade would be worth more than half of all the air units, if the goal is to retake a city.
The last time I made this argument, the counter was that this is a game, and it shouldn't work that way.
Mechanics-wise I would like to see a turn that allows me to act as well.
I have several possible solutions in mind:
1. Overwatch, right now it's a bit simple and isn't true overwatch but more like reaction fire.
2.. Alternating activation in phases, i.e. Movement, shooting, assaulting etc.
3. Command and control rolls. Your troops have a quality number that you have to roll at the beginning of the turn, units that fail the roll cannot be activated or may only make reaction or overwatch actions. Some commanders may have rules to adjust this roll, or allow re-rolls as well as banners or other inspiring items.
4. Target numbers and kill numbers. A target number is what you need to roll to hit that troop (it is on the trooper's statline) if you roll that number it forces an armor save. Similarly a kill number not only allows a hit on that trooper but also inflicts a wound.
5. No more random movement silliness. Difficult terrain cuts movement by a third, dangerous by half (for infantry at least), a unit moving into terrain stops when it crosses the edge of that terrain, only moving forward on the next turn.
6. Casualty removal for both sides is at the end of the turn. Everything is simultaneous (hence the use of phases) that means that dudes get to shoot and or fight back. Refinement: remove casualties (both sides) at the end of the shooting phase then at the end of the assault/close combat phase.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I believe 40k (3E) to be a perfectly fine game for what it is.
You're wrong.
Trying to make 40k into Warmachine, Infinity, Bolt Action or the current game du jour is a fool's errand.
Nobody is asking for this. 40k doesn't have to be a copy of some other game to be a much better game.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And quite frankly, the imperfect balance offers far more playing opportunity and challenge. If you really are good, can you still win with sub-optimal units and choices? Or do you need the crutch of stronger units?
This is just wrong. Making weak units so people can cripple their own lists is a really bad way to design a game, especially if you care about "fluffy" armies and games. Why? Because it turns large parts of each army into "don't use this unless you want to lose" garbage and effectively removes those units/options from the game. For example, if I love the fluff of IG rough riders why should I have to choose between playing a weak army (which I may or may not have the skill advantage to win with) or playing an army that doesn't have the unit I love? The correct way to accommodate people who want this kind of challenge is to use the point system and simply give the "stronger" player fewer points to build their army. This accomplishes their goal of having a more challenging game without ruining the game for anyone else.
The real problem with 40k is the notion that anyone should attempt to play competitively, because that sort of play strongly limits the game in ways that GW never intended.
And this is also wrong. 40k doesn't have problems with competitive play because it makes sacrifices in competitive balance to be the perfect casual/narrative game, it has problems with competitive play because GW sucks at game design. None of the things that make it a bad competitive game improve the game for non-competitive players, and if those problems were fixed the game would be better for everyone.
Talys wrote: Seriously, though, I agree with JohnHwangDD's thesis that imperfect internal and external balance is integral to the design and nature of the game.
It isn't. 40k's balance issues have nothing to do with careful design, they're simply the inevitable result of GW not giving a about the quality of their product. Assigning appropriate point totals to units does not in any way interfere with playing a fun game of 40k.
The nature of this game is such that army selection is equally important to turn by turn strategy -- by design. The design of the game is such that some combinations are powerful, or provide force magnification.
And your point is? All of this can be accounted for in balancing the game, just like various combinations in MTG are accounted for. Remember, balance does not mean that you can throw any random combination of stuff on the table without thinking about strategy and expect to win. What balance actually means is that every unit has a purpose and the major strategy archetypes are all well balanced. IOW, if you like unit/strategy X you can do well with it as long as you make good strategy choices.
Talys wrote: The last time I made this argument, the counter was that this is a game, and it shouldn't work that way.
And that argument is indisputably correct. 40k is a game, not a realistic war simulation. Having a playable (and fun!) game is way more important than perfect realism.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Turn 1 tabling in 7E occurs less often than in 3E, and that was down from 2E. I do wonder how much of those unbalanced matchups are a function of army selection, player skill and player tactics versus Codex design.
A lot more than people will admit.
I believe a game of 40K is decided by the following things in the following order of importance:
1. Strategy: synergy, battle plan, cover strategy,..
2. Deployment
3. Movement
4. Dice
5. List strength
The competitive reality of 40K can only be understood through statistics, the only ones we have are Torrent of Fire, and those statistics say that Eldar, Tau, Chaos Daemons, Necrons and Space Marines had 50% win average between them (i.e. balanced) and were pack leaders in v6.
The same statistics tell us that IK are the big winners of 7, followed by the same 5 armies that won v6, again within a tight group.
The conclusion is that if you're playing Eldar, Tau, Chaos Daemons, Necron, Space Marines or IK, you shouldn't be complaining about any other army because your army is top tier.
What this also tells us is that anyone whining because they get less than 43.49% win ratio against Eldar (who have 56.51% right now), is actually whining because they don't want to acknowledge their codex's limitations or their own failures.
In my opinion and by comparison with the extremely competitive SC1 Brood War scene in Korea (that died), 56.51% is still fine in terms of balance (it was about 62% raw in v6, 50% within the top 5) - for a game with three factions and asymmetrical balance.
64% for Imperial Knights in v7, or 62.5% for Eldar in v6 is a bit too far, although Eldar clearly had a fair record against the top 5 and outright smashed lower power codexes - I haven't seen the details about the IK's 64% yet.
This is just wrong. Making weak units so people can cripple their own lists is a really bad way to design a game, especially if you care about "fluffy" armies and games. Why? Because it turns large parts of each army into "don't use this unless you want to lose" garbage and effectively removes those units/options from the game. For example, if I love the fluff of IG rough riders why should I have to choose between playing a weak army (which I may or may not have the skill advantage to win with) or playing an army that doesn't have the unit I love? The correct way to accommodate people who want this kind of challenge is to use the point system and simply give the "stronger" player fewer points to build their army. This accomplishes their goal of having a more challenging game without ruining the game for anyone else.
1. Design 300 units
2. Some are better some are worse
3. Adapt, return to 2
The result is that balance has continually improved from v2 to v7 and the game as well.
I agree that cycles of improvement should be faster, but short of that, what do you expect ?
The people who write your cellphone software do it wrong, why should GW who spends a fraction of a percent of that on making rules do infinitely better (i.e. perfect balance) ?
In my opinion, the balance in 40K is only getting better, GW has increased the improvement speed a lot.
They could do a lot better, but compared to the general mediocrity of this world, they're doing just fine.
The nature of this game is such that army selection is equally important to turn by turn strategy -- by design. The design of the game is such that some combinations are powerful, or provide force magnification.
And your point is? All of this can be accounted for in balancing the game, just like various combinations in MTG are accounted for. Remember, balance does not mean that you can throw any random combination of stuff on the table without thinking about strategy and expect to win. What balance actually means is that every unit has a purpose and the major strategy archetypes are all well balanced. IOW, if you like unit/strategy X you can do well with it as long as you make good strategy choices.
Well, Peregrine, I can make it pretty simple for you.
If you want a game in which every one of hundreds of available models have a purpose in a game of "my points versus your points -- FIGHT!", then you should look elsewhere, because Warhammer 40k has never been that game, and will never be. It hasn't even ever claimed or pretended to be such.
Warhammer 40k is a game where cool models get produced every week. Rules come out for them, over years, they get written and refined, with some models and combinations floating to the top as being optimal, and others drifting to the bottom. Eventually, during a rewrite, some of the great combinations are nerfed, and some of the weak units are buffed. Once in a great many years, something game-changing will be added (like LoW's or fortifications) that everyone will scramble to figure out how to integrate.
This is the past, current, and future evolution of 40k. Ten years from now, there will be hundreds more models, and many hundreds of models will have no place in an optimal army. But, they might be great for a scenario or campaign, they might just be cool to build and paint, or maybe, in a future edition, they suddenly become really good.
I happen to not mind that hundreds of models are not useful. To illustrate, look at the new BA terminators -- I've preordered two boxes (and certainly not because I need more terminators of any kind lol).
3rd edition 40k IS a perfectly fine game for what it was.
A rushed 11th hour conversion/mash up of a WWII game Rick Priestly was working on.
(After the cleaned up skirmish game the dev team had been working on for months was rejected by senior management.)
So as a ' rushed compromise to please the sales department ' 3rd ed 40k is the best game the GWdevs could have made at that time.
(With the limited time and resources available.)
And since 4th edition the dev team at GW towers have been wanting to replace the 'stop gap rules ' with rules written specifically for the battle game of 40k.
But as the choice the devs have is 'sell more models short term or find another employment '.
We end up with poor rules for 40k, and lots of game developers moving on to create great games elsewhere.
'Imperfect balance' is finely crafted to gently and organically grow the strategic spectrum of player choices, to stop the game getting stale.
40k 'gross imbalance' , causes major rifts in the player base and major upheaval every time a new book is released.
So rather than a gentle guiding hand to a higher level of gaming fun, (perfect imbalance.)
We get a GW sledgehammer to our knees and told to 'buy GW crutches or get left behind'.(40k sales inspired gross imbalance.)
Yes it is THAT[/i] different!
Anyhow, issues with 40k core rules .(Game mechanics and resolution methods .)
This is purely from a perspective of game design/development .And I will try to be objective.
The game turn.
The 'Alternating game turn' , where one player takes ALL actions with ALL models/units in a set sequence , then the other player does the same.
This is a basic game turn that has been around for ages, and is perfectly fine if the rest of the rules are written for this type of game turn.[i].
Games that work well with this type of game turn mechanic are games where models unit have to move into weapons range.
EG game where ranged attacks are only used in a supporting role.(WHFB, KoW, etc.)
So the main tactical focus in manouvering into favorable close combat match ups.
Or games with a low model count or large spaces between smaller scale minatues ,where ranged weapons are as effective as close combat, but models/units still have to manouver into weapons range.
The fact that 40k has so many models a side now , most units start the game within weapons range of each other, there is hardly enough room to move,(Ork hoard vs Nid hoard is painful to watch.)
So other than make 40k a 15mm scale game, or use unrealistic amounts of terrain, or massively reduce the model count.
All of which would be unpopular.
There is a simple choice ,use a different game turn mechanic.
One that allows an equal balance of mobility fire power and assault.
Out of the thee basic options only alternating player actions(phases) would fit the current 40k game without having to impose serious restrictions or additional rules.
Mobility.Fire power and Assault.
In all good war game design there is a holy trilogy of mobility fire power and assault .How you load the importance of each of these features determines the game play delivered.
EG
Ancient to Napoleonic, mobility and assault are higher than firepower.
Naval, warfare mobility fire power, are higher than assault (boarding actions.)
I think 40k should have an equal balance of mobility fire power and assault .
Each should be equally important in the game and covered in a similar amount of detail, but have separate and clearly defined effects.
Currently the rules for mobility in 40k are an afterthought (cluster feth of additional rules) after 'everything moves 6"' was found to be too restrictive.
And the rules for assault and fire power make them compete directly for a the same limited function of 'killing stuff'.
This is why the game has such serious balance issues, the core functions for assault and fire power should be different but equally important. [i]
EG mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.
@Lanrak -- the "everyone starts within shooting range" is absolutely true as a problem, exacerbated by the stuff that has "infinite" range (which usually also has enormous destructive power).
However, one solution that you didn't mention is to go to a larger table. 8x8 is a very nice size, and you can still reach the center of the table. We build such a table simply by combining two 4x4 tables.
Talys wrote: @Lanrak -- the "everyone starts within shooting range" is absolutely true as a problem, exacerbated by the stuff that has "infinite" range (which usually also has enormous destructive power).
However, one solution that you didn't mention is to go to a larger table. 8x8 is a very nice size, and you can still reach the center of the table. We build such a table simply by combining two 4x4 tables.
I don't think I'll ever be capable of such a feat.
Gut the entire game and model 40K instead as a skirmish game based on the crossfire turn system instead of you-go-I-go. Make MEQ's actually unique in gameplay by severely limiting the amount of models in akin for something like using terminator entirely infantry in a game of Kill Team. Remove flyers completely and shove them into their own game- keep only some FMC's for armies like Nids, otherwise they'll get their own dogfight game or function like airstrikes.
Also like Crossfire, escalation and apocalypse can bugger off to their own game systems while 40k becomes focused on infantry with small deployments of armor.
Nuke the tau and every other nobody buys this make it op so it sells. Limits of units that are op.
Saturday lost a game to a ba player with 40 sanguinary guard shudder so many power weapons 2+ armour save, jump packs, feel no pain, oh and dante why?
Talys wrote: If you want a game in which every one of hundreds of available models have a purpose in a game of "my points versus your points -- FIGHT!", then you should look elsewhere, because Warhammer 40k has never been that game, and will never be. It hasn't even ever claimed or pretended to be such.
And so a thread titled "If you were to redesign 40k..." can't presume to change that?
There Isn't actually much that needs to be done, but there are definitely some areas that need fixing.
1. Instant Death from shooting and melee weapons should be D3 wounds Inflicted instead of, well, Instant Death. Force can stay as is though since the Warp is a pretty cool dude.
2. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to charge out of stationary Transports. Open Topped and Assault Vehicles are fine though.
3. An entire gutting of the current CSM codex. Seeing how awesome the loyalist one is and seeing how the Necron rumors are shaping up, it's needed. As it stands, outside of Eldar and badly priced Dark Angels and CSM's, the internal balance of the game is really good at the moment.
Talys wrote: If you want a game in which every one of hundreds of available models have a purpose in a game of "my points versus your points -- FIGHT!", then you should look elsewhere, because Warhammer 40k has never been that game, and will never be. It hasn't even ever claimed or pretended to be such.
You're right, I never said it has been that game, and I don't expect it to become that game until GW finally goes bankrupt and sells the IP to a company that isn't run by incompetent morons. The issue here is whether 40k is a good game, not whether or not GW will continue to fail to make a good game. Pointing out that 40k has always sucked doesn't do anything to address the fact that the game right now is broken in ways that simply can not be excused.
Warhammer 40k is a game where cool models get produced every week. Rules come out for them, over years, they get written and refined, with some models and combinations floating to the top as being optimal, and others drifting to the bottom. Eventually, during a rewrite, some of the great combinations are nerfed, and some of the weak units are buffed. Once in a great many years, something game-changing will be added (like LoW's or fortifications) that everyone will scramble to figure out how to integrate.
Yes, I know how it works. But it shouldn't work like this. The only people who benefit from this approach are GW's shareholders, who get a slightly larger check every year because GW doesn't have to waste valuable profit on making a better product. Every 40k player, both casual and competitive, loses.
Ten years from now, there will be hundreds more models, and many hundreds of models will have no place in an optimal army.
I really don't see why you think this is anything other than a nightmare scenario. How exactly is it fun to spend a lot of money on a new model and realize that you'll never be able to use it unless you want to lose every game you play? How is this better than the alternative where GW miraculously stops sucking at game design and produces a game where everything is balanced and every model has its place?
Talys wrote: Ten years from now, there will be hundreds more models, and many hundreds of models will have no place in an optimal army.
I really don't see why you think this is anything other than a nightmare scenario. How exactly is it fun to spend a lot of money on a new model and realize that you'll never be able to use it unless you want to lose every game you play? How is this better than the alternative where GW miraculously stops sucking at game design and produces a game where everything is balanced and every model has its place?
This feels like trolling by Talys.
I have played many kinds of historical battles and every unit would (typically) have a balance of strength and weaknesses: everything has it's proper application. Cavalry against troops (except when boxed), Cannons against troops and buildings (but no melee) etc.
A passing attempt at point value equaling comparative worth of the unit would be a nice start.
I have been playing since second edition and it is funny dusting off models that get rotated back in as a "good" unit they hope no-one has anymore.
The main "change" I would wish to make in the spirit of this thread is "no bad models".
They want to sell them all, so give us a reason rather than a select few or does a markup of the new "hotness" have to be the on-going ploy?
At least Peregrine thinks they are incompetent at what they do.
He has some hope that someone with some brains may go in and "fix" things.
I think everything is done by design to sell stuff and fun game mechanics is really the last thought when creating them (other than to make the latest models cool!).
So this thread of redesign is a pipe-dream until a management "paradigm-shift" happens.
I'm mostly fine with 40K as it stands, the only things I'd really change are bringing some of the rules in line with WFB, since they tend to make sense
Saving Throws: Armour OR cover OR Invun? What, my Space Marine decides his power armour isn't worth it so gets naked instead? Reduce the availability of Invuns, Allow us to take both Armour then Invun like in WFB, and let the cover system modify rolls to hit, again like WFB. (I don't even understand how that works, my guy gets -hit-, but what, the wall rises up to coat his body? WHAT?!).
Race-Specific Objectives: What Tyranid swarm actually forgoes eating things to secure a location? Seriously. Same with Orks and Daemons, why? Make it so each codex has its own deck of objective cards unique to them. My Space Marines will want to secure the high ground or recover relics, I don't see Tyranids doing this since y'know, they are the "Great Devourer".
Pyskers: From what i've heard (Haven't played alot of the current Ed), dispelling Psykers is near impossible. Why not just use the WFB system? You roll to manifest, I attempt to dispell by rolling higher, instead of just, "I hope you have Adamantium Will or a Psyker or else you're gonna have a bad time".
First Blood: Seriously, F this rule. I play SM's, and between my small squad sizes and the insane range of most weapons in 40K, if I don't have first turn, I always end up 1 VP behind.
Sisters of Battle: Plastic Minis and a shiny new codex please.
Sisters of Battle: Seriously! Where is my codex and plastic minis!
Tanks: Can we please get an Armour save on these? You're telling me that my monstrous Land Raider can't have a small AS? All that plating is for giggles I'm guessing.
Flyers: Being practically immune to small arms fire makes sense, but giant death lazors? (Read: Lascannons and Melta-Guns), you could give us a rough stab at hitting them instead of snap shots (Yes, I would have no reason to buy GW anti-flier models, which lets face it, only exist to shift boxes).
That's all I can think of for now. I'm basing my knowledge of Psykers on the immense bitching I hear from people who face GK/Eldar.
Izural wrote: Saving Throws: Armour OR cover OR Invun? What, my Space Marine decides his power armour isn't worth it so gets naked instead? Reduce the availability of Invuns, Allow us to take both Armour then Invun like in WFB, and let the cover system modify rolls to hit, again like WFB.
The problem with this is that you have to completely rebalance the game to make it work. Otherwise units with multiple saves become way too durable. For example, imagine a terminator in cover: you get a to-hit penalty, a 2+ armor save, and a 3+ invulnerable save. So ~95% of the wounds the terminator takes are negated (unless they're AP 2 or better), on top of whatever to-hit penalty you decide is appropriate. Remember how frustrating re-rollable 2++ saves were? If you make cover a 50% to-hit penalty you've just created a re-rollable 2++.
(I don't even understand how that works, my guy gets -hit-, but what, the wall rises up to coat his body? WHAT?!).
It's an abstraction. A 4+ cover save (when you don't get an armor/invulnerable save) is exactly the same as a 50% to-hit penalty. Just like how it's an abstraction when you roll to wound and to save separately, when in reality there should just be one toughness roll to see if the shot does any damage.
What Tyranid swarm actually forgoes eating things to secure a location?
One that has found a particularly interesting bit of genetic material that it wants to hold until specialist devouring organisms can arrive? One that has identified an important strategic location that needs to be held so that the next wave of devouring organisms can move through the area? It's quite easy to come up with reasons why any army would want to hold a specific objective.
First Blood: Seriously, F this rule. I play SM's, and between my small squad sizes and the insane range of most weapons in 40K, if I don't have first turn, I always end up 1 VP behind.
Now think about how you could make up for this lost VP in future turns.
(Hint: if you have the second turn you always get the last opportunity to claim objectives and the game can end before your opponent can remove your single tactical marine from that nice 3 VP objective.)
Flyers: Being practically immune to small arms fire makes sense, but giant death lazors? (Read: Lascannons and Melta-Guns), you could give us a rough stab at hitting them instead of snap shots (Yes, I would have no reason to buy GW anti-flier models, which lets face it, only exist to shift boxes).
Actually, fluff-wise having 6s to hit a flyer is incredibly generous. If you want to be realistic it should be 6s to hit, and you have to re-roll all successes ten times before it counts. And then the flyer should still have a re-rollable 2+ cover save.
The irony is that Bolt Action is basically a revised 40k 3rd edition, done with time and care and an eye towards balance not selling more figures. I've looked at the beta of Beyond the Gates of Antares and it's roughly the same thing: 40k done right.
Izural wrote: Saving Throws: Armour OR cover OR Invun? What, my Space Marine decides his power armour isn't worth it so gets naked instead? Reduce the availability of Invuns, Allow us to take both Armour then Invun like in WFB, and let the cover system modify rolls to hit, again like WFB.
The problem with this is that you have to completely rebalance the game to make it work. Otherwise units with multiple saves become way too durable. For example, imagine a terminator in cover: you get a to-hit penalty, a 2+ armor save, and a 3+ invulnerable save. So ~95% of the wounds the terminator takes are negated (unless they're AP 2 or better), on top of whatever to-hit penalty you decide is appropriate. Remember how frustrating re-rollable 2++ saves were? If you make cover a 50% to-hit penalty you've just created a re-rollable 2++.
Shouldn't a terminator be nigh-impossible to kill? I mean, fluff wise they are -the- best armoured and armed infantry unit the Imperium can offer, they should inspire fear, not "Sweet, that's 200+ pts of easy kills". There is a huge abundance of AP 2 in 40K these days, and failing that, you have so much fire power they drown in saves. It's the same principle as MoT Chaos Warriors in WFB. 3+/5++ saves, they should be hard to shift. Remove AP from the game and use the S modifier from WFB. Also, eliminate re-rolls. Barring special chars, there's 3 items I can name in WFB that allow re-rolls, (Dawnstone, MoT demons and the one use Dawnstone) and even then, they rarely decide a battle.
The cover system is simple, -1 light cover, -2 hard cover. Done. A MEQ is highly trained enough to pop a few well placed shots into entrenched models. The Average guardsman and Ork just sprays and hopes (as fits the fluff)
As far as Invun goes, yes, Storm Shields are a bit nuts, just make them 4++ instead of 3++, and the base armour 5++ (as it stands) and reduce the amount of available invuns across the board. They should be reserved for TEQ's and your big Lord.
Yes, this would require a massive overhaul of Codices, but WFB has these rules in place, and alot of players would argue it's better balanced for this reason (Unkillable MoT Disc Lord aside ¬¬).
Izural wrote: Shouldn't a terminator be nigh-impossible to kill?
No, because gameplay is more important than fluff. Shooting your entire army at a single squad and being happy that you were lucky enough to kill one model is incredibly frustrating and makes you wonder why you even bother playing the game.
I mean, fluff wise they are -the- best armoured and armed infantry unit the Imperium can offer, they should inspire fear, not "Sweet, that's 200+ pts of easy kills".
And fluff-wise they're also almost nonexistent. If you want to play a 100% fluff-accurate game then marine players should be forced to bring an IG/ork/etc army and roll a D100 before each game. On a 100 (with no re-rolls or dice modification allowed) they get to play a single squad of terminators against a 2000 point army, on any other result they have to play their "common" army instead of their marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Izural wrote: Yes, this would require a massive overhaul of Codices
But if you're going to do a massive overhaul of everything then why not redesign the entire game? Changing this one thing might be better than nothing, but you still have the horrible foundation of a 1980s fantasy game. And now you've spent almost as much effort as a full redesign on something that is nowhere near a complete solution to 40k's problems.
I wish 40k would adopt WHFB's compound saves and magic phase.
Compound saves would probably require a substantial rebalancing, but SS termies being hard to shift *should* be the case!
Unfortunately, it looks like WHFB is getting the 40k Psyker treatment, after reading the Khaine rules. Which sucks.
Switching from ignore-armor AP to modifier AP would be a lot of fun, but I think I like weapons having different modifiers (Autocannons hit as hard as Plasma, but don't pierce armor as well). Perhaps something like:
AP5 -1
AP4 -2
AP3 -3
AP2 -4
AP1 -5
Would make ap3 not completely worthless against a 2+.
Bharring wrote: I wish 40k would adopt WHFB's compound saves and magic phase.
Compound saves would probably require a substantial rebalancing, but SS termies being hard to shift *should* be the case!
Unfortunately, it looks like WHFB is getting the 40k Psyker treatment, after reading the Khaine rules. Which sucks.
Switching from ignore-armor AP to modifier AP would be a lot of fun, but I think I like weapons having different modifiers (Autocannons hit as hard as Plasma, but don't pierce armor as well). Perhaps something like:
AP5 -1
AP4 -2
AP3 -3
AP2 -4
AP1 -5
Would make ap3 not completely worthless against a 2+.
They used to have that in 2nd edition (and Termi armor was IIRC 3+ on 2D6 base). Problem was that pushed things too far in the opposite direction.
Izural wrote: Shouldn't a terminator be nigh-impossible to kill?
No, because gameplay is more important than fluff. Shooting your entire army at a single squad and being happy that you were lucky enough to kill one model is incredibly frustrating and makes you wonder why you even bother playing the game.
I mean, fluff wise they are -the- best armoured and armed infantry unit the Imperium can offer, they should inspire fear, not "Sweet, that's 200+ pts of easy kills".
And fluff-wise they're also almost nonexistent. If you want to play a 100% fluff-accurate game then marine players should be forced to bring an IG/ork/etc army and roll a D100 before each game. On a 100 (with no re-rolls or dice modification allowed) they get to play a single squad of terminators against a 2000 point army, on any other result they have to play their "common" army instead of their marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Izural wrote: Yes, this would require a massive overhaul of Codices
But if you're going to do a massive overhaul of everything then why not redesign the entire game? Changing this one thing might be better than nothing, but you still have the horrible foundation of a 1980s fantasy game. And now you've spent almost as much effort as a full redesign on something that is nowhere near a complete solution to 40k's problems.
Well firstly, this thread is called "If you were to redesign 40K", and these aspects I would re-design.
I agree Terminators are rare, so for certain armies they should be a Unique unit. Some SM chapters do have more access then most (DA for one) but they always form small Elite strike forces.
And fluff accurate? Ultramarines, Black Templars and alot more often engage in full battles across worlds on their strength alone. Certain chapters are massive and have the ability to bring a massive force to bear, your D100 comment is a bit over the top when there's fluff supporting massive SM armies.
And lets be honest, for gaming purposes you should be able to field a massive SM force, otherwise GW loses alot of their fanbase. I'm not asking for 100% fluff adherence (which would be nuts).
UM's by themselves aren't any bigger than 1000 marines, and even the BT's are only 5 or 6 thousand strong, the idea of them actually battling across worlds on their own when they can only ever really hold a battlefront a few kilometers wide is a bit absurd and one of the weak points of 40k fluff, particularly when they're really supposed to be commando strike forces.
I like some of the ideas in here. These are a few which I suggest.
A new/better cover mechanic. Cover being a hit modifier is a great idea.
While this isn't a rule, more terrain in games to counteract the...
Increased range for weapons. With increased terrain/new cover mechanics I don't see why bolters (and comparable weapons) can't have a much, much longer range.
Space Marines (Loyalist and Traitor) should be a little bit harder/deadlier, this would come with an appropriate cost boost.
Monthly/Weekly creature feature- Every so often GW releases a new alien/environment/scenario for games of kill team or a game similar to Necromunda. Cool stuff that would be appropriately themed such as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypTKpvMObqo
Have some new people come in and try to balance the game. I say try because it seems like a monumental task.
Maybe make a template that would represent Rogue Trader armies. I could see this getting out of hand but if done properly it'd be pretty cool. The same could be done for Inquisitorial warbands/Chaos Warbands. I'm sure most of us can houserule/use allies to do this but it'd still be cool.
Also, revive and incorporate BFG.
I honestly don't think the game should be changed that much. It has plenty of issues that I hope are ironed out in time. If Bolt Action, or another game, are clearly superior then maybe GW can learn a couple things. There doesn't need to be more terrain but it looks better in my opinion, and aesthetics are a decent portion of this hobby. The increased terrain could be a counter to increased range for weapons. Bolters/lasguns should be able to touch people pretty far out. The Warband template/Rogue Trader armies could be a better way to represent unbound/allies. These small disparate forces could also be used in games of kill team or a new version of Necromunda. The Creature Feature would just be another way to engage the current and older players. While I want Space Marines to be better and more expensive I can see the inherent risks in doing so. Bringing back BFG, maybe in a limited test run at first, does a lot to enrich our 40K campaigns. How did Waaaggh Gromkrokr get to planet Orebon? Oh his Kroozer was shot down. Also, Traitor Legions.
2. Units, not models, for most things. A unit can be a single model. however (like a Land Raider).
3. Units have an Initiative stat, the game is played in turns of Initiative. Also, higher I means faster going (it's a count-down), so all I10+ units go before I10 units that go before I9 units, etc. down to I1. Why? Because the math should be counted in one direction. High numbers good, low numbers bad.
4. Most weapon ranges doubled.
5. Ignores Cover no longer exists. LOS-blocking terrain/units/etc become more of a thing. Tactical movement and tactical use of the terrain will be a thing.
6. There are not 50,000 rules to grant the same damned effect. One rule, one effect.
7. Rules should be written with an editor (who doesn't play the game) who looks at it to ask "what the hell does this mean?". The text needs to clearly explain how the rule works in relation to other rules.
8.Lots more weapons have the ability to stand in as an anti-aircraft weapon. Lascannons don't care that you're flying if you have the ability to strafe units on the ground... if you're that close, you can get shot.
9. Extensive playtesting.
10. More playtesting than has happened in step 9. More testing! Test, then publish. Public testing events, including NDAs and watermarked rulesets. Find your watermarked copy on the internet? Welcome to a lawsuit.
So much would be solved if they playtested with players outside the GW staff as it has been pointed out fairly often, the GW staff don't play the same game we do (Just look at old White Dwarf battle reps).
There was an article a while ago that talked about this very thing, I can't remember where I found it but I'm sure google will help ya out
@Talys.
I agree that if you have the space playing 40k on a minimum table size of 8x8 allows an increased level of tactical manouver.(That is 4 4x4 tables by the way. )
However, this may not be practical for several reasons.
So re-writing the game focusing on game play experience, rather than short term minature sales , benefits everyone.
@WayneTheGame
Gates of Antares is developed from the 'proposed 3rd edition 40k' that the game devs were not allowed to publish by GW corporate management.
(Its the game Rick wanted 40k to be.)
But it is a 'large skirmish game' like Bolt Action, and 2nd edition.And this is great for those who want a 40k type game at this scale.
However, current 7th edition 40k has the model count of a battle game.(Very close to Epic SM size armies! )
And so for those players who want a 40k battle game , it may not be suitable.
And as there are loads of great skirmish games out there , we can convert to use 40k with.Skirmish game players are spoiled for choice !
Perhaps we could look at a redesign of the 40k battle game (in 28mm heroic scale)?
Define the scale and scope of the game play , and write rules inclusively for all the current units?
And as it will be complex game , if we want to bring the background to life.I think looking at simple simulation would allow greater complexity in the rules without so much WTF abstraction.
Does everyone think simple simulation ,is better than complicated abstraction ?
I don't think the game realy needs a huge overhaul as long as stuff was done with care and thaght.
Missions would be the starting point for me, writing missions with the idea of using all off the force organizations slots.
People could vary em up as they build, but most games over a certen point should encourage use of them all. (HQ, troops, elites, fast attack and heavy support. Lord of war and super heavys for specal missions and apocalypse)
Redesign all the codexs to go with these missions, all the army's should be designed to play the game to the best of there ability.
This also part of the army fluff, army's shouldn't be stuck into bad design since that's fluffy. It should be fluffy since the race themselves would consider it as a tactic and put into the rules with thaghts.
The only rules that I would simply change would be the AP system, probably going with
-1
-2
-3
And rarely at most a single item per codex/army with a no saves at all.
This would mean a terminator never has a worse save than 5.
But I would also tone down how many weapons have access to it, or put them on similar but more costly items.
Evrything otherwise I think would come from that, balance in the design of each army as well as in its relative power.
I think players should never be wanting to go I want a all terminator army, but should be going how can I support a terminator army.
For those who don't know what Crossfire and its game mechanics are, here's an informative video.
That video doesn't actually tell me much about the game mechanics other than if a unit moves it can be interrupted by an enemy shooting at it, which can and does happen in many igougo systems as well.
WayneTheGame wrote: The irony is that Bolt Action is basically a revised 40k 3rd edition, done with time and care and an eye towards balance not selling more figures. I've looked at the beta of Beyond the Gates of Antares and it's roughly the same thing: 40k done right.
Just read the rules on this one, looks like a lot of fun.
Another Rick Priestley design... I used to like playing "Black Powder" and forgot he wrote that as well.
I have to say, if anyone liked "classic" 40k, Warlord Games is letting Rick do his thing.
So 40k is being redesigned as we speak, just not within the GW IP.
Thanks Wayne.
* Sensible product release & update cycles
* Coherent game engine, with well defined terminology.
* Active & Engaged community management staff.
* Faction & Unit-Entry Consolidation.
* Unified & Balanced squad-level powers system.
* Alternating unit scheme.
* Majority of actions (90%+) resolved in less than 3 steps.
* Centralized randomization mechanic.
2. Units, not models, for most things. A unit can be a single model. however (like a Land Raider).
3. Units have an Initiative stat, the game is played in turns of Initiative. Also, higher I means faster going (it's a count-down), so all I10+ units go before I10 units that go before I9 units, etc. down to I1. Why? Because the math should be counted in one direction. High numbers good, low numbers bad.
4. Most weapon ranges doubled.
5. Ignores Cover no longer exists. LOS-blocking terrain/units/etc become more of a thing. Tactical movement and tactical use of the terrain will be a thing.
6. There are not 50,000 rules to grant the same damned effect. One rule, one effect.
7. Rules should be written with an editor (who doesn't play the game) who looks at it to ask "what the hell does this mean?". The text needs to clearly explain how the rule works in relation to other rules.
8.Lots more weapons have the ability to stand in as an anti-aircraft weapon. Lascannons don't care that you're flying if you have the ability to strafe units on the ground... if you're that close, you can get shot.
9. Extensive playtesting.
10. More playtesting than has happened in step 9. More testing! Test, then publish. Public testing events, including NDAs and watermarked rulesets. Find your watermarked copy on the internet? Welcome to a lawsuit.
I'm trying really, really hard to find something to disagree with here, but I'm coming up empty. I think you've hit on some of the biggest issues with 40k with #s 3 - 10. 1 and 2 aren't vitally needed fixes, but I don't see how they would be objectively worse than what we have now.
10 in itself isn't the problem. The problem is when playtesting is just a formality and not a means of error checking. Playtesting needs to be followed up with revisions to fix the problems that emerge. Games workshop could recruit the entire world to playtest, it won't be of any help if they ignore the results.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I wouldn't change it, I like it how it is, and if you're some whiny little b who keeps complaining about how X, Y and Z are wrong, then go f off and find a game where you get X, Y and Z.
dementedwombat wrote: I'd ask the people who wrote Infinity to write the rules, then send it to the people who wrote Warmachine and have them playtest it.
End of discussion?
That or put the Forge World people who made the Heresy stuff in charge.
I would strip out the USR's and use a system like KoW where you reference what the effect is (ie +n strength). As it is you have multiple usrs which all do very similar things. I would have the effects clearly stated on every unit profile that the applied to, and the usr description would then not link to 8 other usrs...
By all means include a fluffy explanation "the McCrusher has big crushers powered by rockets and the tears of children" but dont then reference some named rule "it grants super crushing special rule" which you then have to look up and it tells you that "super crushing functions as an axe but with an additional +1 str" so you then have to look up what modifiers an axe grants.
Instead it is summarised in the entry; +n str, -n int, AP n, etc.
WayneTheGame wrote: The irony is that Bolt Action is basically a revised 40k 3rd edition, done with time and care and an eye towards balance not selling more figures. I've looked at the beta of Beyond the Gates of Antares and it's roughly the same thing: 40k done right.
I'm sure it won't be long before 40k lists appear for Antares:-)
about the quality of their product. Assigning appropriate point totals to units does not in any way interfere with playing a fun game of 
