Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 07:21:13


Post by: Lanrak


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

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

I think a complete re-write is necessary.

What are you views of the 40k rules.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 07:39:45


Post by: Filch


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

EXTERMINITUS!!!


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 07:43:02


Post by: Peregrine


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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 08:17:35


Post by: eskimo


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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 08:21:07


Post by: lord_blackfang


Yup. Fire everyone. Redo everything from scratch.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 18:23:51


Post by: Mallich


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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 18:28:00


Post by: Squidmanlolz


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 18:49:14


Post by: ConanMan


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 20:36:27


Post by: chrisrawr


I wouldn't say Fire Everyone.

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

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

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

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



What I would like to see out of 40K:

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

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

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

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

Morale Overhauled

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

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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 20:45:09


Post by: Korinov


I voted for the complete rewrite.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 20:46:37


Post by: Finlandiaperkele


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

This.

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 20:55:10


Post by: Filch


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

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

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

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

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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 20:55:35


Post by: krodarklorr


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 21:07:47


Post by: megatrons2nd


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

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

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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 21:24:26


Post by: Squidmanlolz


 Filch wrote:


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


Ward left GW in 2014...


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 21:31:05


Post by: niv-mizzet


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 22:43:47


Post by: KaptinBadrukk


Its good the way it is. Just sayin'


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 22:55:08


Post by: Vespid


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 23:09:30


Post by: TheSilo


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 23:17:40


Post by: Grimskul


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


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/21 23:42:35


Post by: Lanrak


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 00:17:11


Post by: Zewrath


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 00:32:45


Post by: MrFlutterPie


I've been saying this for years now.

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 00:46:32


Post by: ConanMan


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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 01:05:22


Post by: thegreatchimp


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

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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 01:29:15


Post by: amanita


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 03:35:18


Post by: leerm02



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

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

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

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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 07:13:24


Post by: AnomanderRake


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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 08:28:57


Post by: Lanrak


Just a few notes on comments so far...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 08:45:08


Post by: Elemental


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


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


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 09:06:20


Post by: SRSFACE


If GW actually responded in a visible way to customer questions like their sister company Forgeworld does, 99% of the rules questions would evaporate.

Every time I've ever had a rules questions about how to play a Forgeworld thing and shot them an e-mail, it's been responded to within 2 days. Issue resolved.

GW could hire some intern for minimum wage and have him respond to customers, for like 2 weeks, and have it all posted up somewhere official, and their game and community would benefit so much from it.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 11:04:52


Post by: lord_blackfang


 SRSFACE wrote:
GW could hire some intern for minimum wage and have him respond to customers, for like 2 weeks, and have it all posted up somewhere official, and their game and community would benefit so much from it.


They used to have a rules hotline at it was terrible.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 13:12:08


Post by: megatrons2nd


 lord_blackfang wrote:
 SRSFACE wrote:
GW could hire some intern for minimum wage and have him respond to customers, for like 2 weeks, and have it all posted up somewhere official, and their game and community would benefit so much from it.


They used to have a rules hotline at it was terrible.


Yeah, I remember that. You could call 3 times, and ask the same question, and if you got a different guy each time, you got a different answer. Didn't really help.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 16:44:16


Post by: Lance845


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


A balanced and competitive game can be played friendly as beer and chips.

Even when just playing a friendly game the best and most fun games are the ones with fairly balanced sides that include interesting tactical twists. close games are the best games. The rules should help support that happening as often as possible.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 18:56:44


Post by: Delicate Swarm


The rules don't necessarily need to be rewritten from scratch. They need to peel back the layers back to 5th Edition, and then rebuild on that again, with the intention of improving the game each time instead of piling on randomness.

Also, IIRC Wizards of the Coast has an FAQ Twitter page the answers people's rules questions. Seems like a more modern way of the whole "FAQ hotline" thing.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/22 20:47:34


Post by: Cothonian


Newbie here:

While a complete re-write does not seem necessarily, streamlining (cutting out somewhat redundant rules, some simplification,) would help a lot. Getting rid of the many ambiguities would also be a nice change of pace (like in what ways are units allowed to get out of the way of Tank Shock, that is never described specifically.)

Frankly I like some of the complexity of it, such as the sheer variety of weapon options, units, abilities, and large scale battles. However streamlining and ambiguity hunting seems beneficial.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/24 10:26:42


Post by: TheManWithNoPlan


I'd say current rules need adjusting, rather than adding more special rules, but that was closest to my belief, so hey, there you have it.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/24 12:49:30


Post by: ciaotym


I personally like 7th edition. Yeah, there are a ton of special rules (I made four laminated sheets of
special rules summaries so I wouldn't be constantly fishing thru the book), and I forget to use some
here and there. But it's the only table top game I would play. Models are the right size and generally
beautiful, the fluff is huge and when the models are painted it is a gorgeous experience.
I'm not thrilled by the foot tall models - bad fit.
I tend to eat what I'm served (Imperial Knights are brussel sprouts - yuk). I'm not familiar with other
table top games other than FOW, mainly because I don't see then being played too much at hobby stores.
Know they're out there, but where are they?
Also figure if you like 5th edition etc, play games with it. If GW ever goes tits up, we still have all the books
they've published. I don't play Forge World as to me it's an expensive side trip, but people do like it so it
appeals to a market out there.
GW is much more together than many give it credit. They aren't perfect, but there is enough choice in their system
to have a good time with what you choose. And it is being run by humans - Brits no less...
Frankly, I ain't going to buy a whole new set of books from a re-write - I get enough of that as is.
And don't fire them all. Just what we need - a fresh set of geeks in a committee trying to figure out what to change.
If you don't like the game, vote with your feet. Lots do apparently. I'm staying and rolling with the changes.
Yes, I have to re-learn my Dark Eldar, but a good challenge and actually somewhat simpler.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/24 17:32:40


Post by: Corporal_Chaos


I voted total re wright but maybe what I really think is a skirmish scale set. For large battles the current is acceptable. That being said I feel they need to present something in the vein of the Rogue Trader style with a focus on smaller unit clashes and a more precise rule set. My $0.02.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/24 19:08:29


Post by: CREEEEEEEEED


TBH, I actually enjoy the game (shocking, I know) and I enjoy how the rules work, although I'll admit it isn't perfect, nothing is.

Do I get banned by mods for saying that? Seem like I would be given all the hate.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/24 20:20:38


Post by: Flame-Rage


As always, alterations need to be made. Regardless of that, im not found of needing to drop another $100+ to get a new rule set, and am totally fine playing with the current rules for that reason


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/25 20:29:48


Post by: Lanrak


Hi Folks,
Some people seem to be confusing game play with rules as written .
The game play of 40k is fine as is.(Perhaps slightly more complexity would be beneficial as it would allow players to grow with the game play.)

But the 7th ed 40k rules are over complicated, poorly written , badly edited and proof read.

If the new rules were in a free to down load PDF format.Along with free to down load PDF Codex army organisation books .(No fluff just rules.)
So they can be updated every 6 months or so as required.

And the art background and craft hobby related stuff would be sold in a Resource book.(Current codex minus the rules.)
So collectors could still buy them if they wanted to.

Would more people play 40k?

If the re write covered the current game play, (or expanded it, ) but only took 50 pages of rules ,would this be seen as an improvement?

I often think some people confuse complication in the rules with game complexity.

Some people say they like rules complication in 40k.
The more complicated some thing is the harder it is to understand, And the more likely it is to break down and cause confusion.

So wanting 40k to be needlessly over complicated is actually saying...
I like having to learn 100s of pages of poorly worded rules before I try to play a game, and end up arguing what the rules actually mean.
I like to let rules lawyers win, by them exploiting over complicated and poorly worded rules.
I think any one should be able to cheat on a D6 roll of 4+.
I want to spend more time reading rules than playing games.

Wanting more game complexity,(more in game choices,) is probably what most players want.
However, good rules writing can give more game complexity than 40k has , without using as many pages of written rules.
This means a complete re -write to cover the current game play, not a skirmish game like RT/2nd ed.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/03/29 15:06:26


Post by: Mr Morden


I now exclusively play "casual" 40k with an amended rules set - basically 6.5. its not perfect but we do enjoy it - a lot.

We find RAW discussions both tiresome and circular so we usually work them out based on what sounds right - so what we feel is RAI.

40k has problems - all systems do, but 40k does seem to have more than most with regards to internal balance.

I have watched it evolved from the RT edition and like some of it and equally not others so

Pre-measuring - thank the gods - speeds up the game, makes it more tactical rather random / guesswork - ie you make informed decisions rather than guessing ranges or using other medthods

The randomness of recent "innovations" in the codex's and rules has not helped the game - "Random" Warlord traits are a stupid idea IMO.

Going back to a "magic" phase is a big step backwards from 6th Ed Psychic rules.

Monsterous Creature/ Vehicle rules need to be closer / merged.




Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/06/22 13:40:20


Post by: Kavish


The rules just need a tweak. Assaults from stationary transports need to come back. Assaults from reserves (but not deep strike) too. Most of all though, they need to stop changing units each codex, just to sell more models. Internal and external codex balance. That's what the game needs. Then everyone will love the game and buy heaps of armies and GW wins.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/06/22 14:02:47


Post by: Mr Morden


 Kavish wrote:
The rules just need a tweak. Assaults from stationary transports need to come back. Assaults from reserves (but not deep strike) too. Most of all though, they need to stop changing units each codex, just to sell more models. Internal and external codex balance. That's what the game needs. Then everyone will love the game and buy heaps of armies and GW wins.


I would tend to agree - if they gave all armies a general update when new editions hit it would help - then release new codexes later.

What hurts is that the game shifts and changes dramatically as various codexes are updated - seemingly with no sense of balancing them against each other or often even internally - see Dark Eldar Codex and the compare it to the Eldar - so much disconnect....


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/07/06 01:45:02


Post by: LeCacty


I'm uneasy about complete rewrites after AOS...


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/07/22 10:34:26


Post by: ChazSexington


None of the above.

The ruleset should be tighter and more streamlined.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/07/23 00:59:02


Post by: Roknar


I don't really want to game to change an awful lot. I see a lot of people here complaining about how bloated the game is. Whereas I enjoy a rich rule set. I really don't see how the game would suffer from more rules. TCG's have a like a billion special abilities and nobody complains about that either.

The rules are horribly written and ambiguous and with seemingly little thought about what impact they will have on the game. Additionally it almost feels like every unit was designed by a different company for a different game. Very little support is given too.

In that sense the game does need a total rewrite, but not in these sense of changing it. Rather a rewrite to would be closer to RAI. And as far as I can tell GW is physically incapable of writing a proper rules set, let alone consider the actual game as a proper product in it's own right.

So if GW could outsource their rules and let somebody competent handle the game then everybody would win.
So I kin of want a reboot but most certainly not along the lines of Age of Sigmar.

That said, I would very much enjoy a separate game on a smaller scale. with rules that reflect that. I think kill team plays horribly but I like the idea. And if such a game existed I might even accept a more simplified rules set with less complexity spend on individual heroes for 40k. And then move some of that customization to the smaller scale game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I would enjoy it if they released products in campaign cycles which tell a story and all. I don't need the setting as a whole to move on an awful lot, but there are a lot of plots and battles happening on a universal scale that are integral to the whole setting. Yet each individual battle is only a small part so it would take a long time for the setting to advance. Even if it took a small retcon to set this kind of thing up.

Sell campaign books with unique rules for each campaign, and unique terrain. the terrain they make is just as amazing as the rest of their range. I hate how it consists entirely of IoM stuff though. Sell some unique models for a limited time, or upgrade sets only. There are many more alien races out there that could be made for certain campaigns.

It makes for long term sales while at the same time keeping things fresh for the players.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/08/23 10:19:26


Post by: Brennonjw


No, but it could do with some good tweaks. Take the game out of the tournament setting, it's suddenly a lot less broken. Unless you actively try to play to abuse the rules, or only play against that guy, the rule-set really isn't to bad for fun, casual game play. I hate to actually quote BoLS, but: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/08/40k-the-bottle-not-broken-until-you-drop-it.html Yeah, there are broken codexes and bad rules, but unless you play a person who abuses the rules, or constantly play situations where you need to play a net list/only the best units, then you are not going to enjoy the game even if they do change it.

Secondly, now that I've pissed off most of the people who have read this far, take off the damn rose-tinted glasses. You all say go back to 5th, go back to 2nd, but really, when was the last time most of you looked at 2nd with fresh eyes? When your wearing rose-tinted glasses, the red flags just look like flags.

Though, judging by the options open in the poll, this is just another GW hate-on thread pretending to be about something other than "GW sure is bad, right?"


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/08/23 10:24:16


Post by: Elric of Grans


None of the options really fit my opinion. There is a lot that can be improved, but I do not agree that the whole thing needs to be scrapped either. Many of the game's core rules are fine either as-is or with very minimal tweaking. The core gameplay is fine, but the balance is completely shot. I am not convinced GW has or can ever get the talent it needs to balance the game, but I do believe they could do better with a little more consistency in their design strategies.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/08/23 12:35:51


Post by: Big Bad Squig


All they need is to streamline. Take note Games Workshop, streamlining does NOT mean butchering the game system, putting the wonderful background to the torch, destroying all hope of using the already overpriced models by replacing them with worse, even more expensive models with ridiculous names, spitting in the faces of the established fanbase and laughing all the while.

*takes sedative*

Ah, that's better.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/08/23 13:08:57


Post by: rowboatjellyfanxiii


I agree that a D10 system would work better because D10.
Give each Psyker Character an "Amount" of powers they can choose from the list not including primaris powers.

everything else has already been said.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/08/23 17:45:51


Post by: GraywarTS


I don’t really write on dakka dakka to much, I do enjoy reading a lot and viewing all the wonder art people post on the site.
With that said I would like to express my opinion a bit....

I started 40k in 3rd ed.
I loved the 4th edition alot (still have the book on my shelf).
I had mixed feelings on 5th, but grew into it.
6th edition, I returned the book (What a load of )
7th I was very shy about getting into, but now I enjoy 7th as much as I enjoyed 4th. I am very happy to have been talked into buying the rules for 7th.

with all that said though, I find I have to express my opinion of how a complete write up sounds amazing, but knowing GW and their past release style, a new write up will never be enough.
I have played long enough, and im sure many others have noticed the cycle of GW. New rules, new codex, new models, sounds great but i am so worn out on this month my army or models are working and in a few months a new rule book messes all that up, because GW is a model company. They dont want balance, they dont want fair, they want to sell sell sell....
I dont want to go on and on with examples from past edition, but i would rather offer an alternative.
Me and my friends, and most stores I play at have house rules, solves all problems. Unless you are playing with complete holes people will listen to logic. I think a new write up of rules from scratch is a terrible idea, every person’s army would become obsolete, just like with the new Age of Sigmar (God i hate GW for this POS game)

All I am saying is GW sells models, they want you to buy models, they will never, ever, ever write a set of rules that will work for a long period, they will just keep pumping out their flavor of the month and try to get players pumped into playing the 'Newest' and the 'Best'.

My advice, if you liked a certain codex or rule book, stick with it. tournament are over rated, I have had so much more fun playing with people at my home or at the store who bring what they like and use rules that are within reason.
No rules like house rules.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/08/29 05:57:37


Post by: Jimsolo


No. Minor rewrite to the basic rules. (Major fixes to most codexes.)

Most importantly: clear, relevant, frequent FAQs.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/24 10:05:09


Post by: EmberlordofFire8


I think the rules need a slight rewrite, but not the fluff. If GW does the same as with AOS, I WILL QUIT WARGAMING!!!!!!
Not just 40k, nor WHFB, but WARGAMING in general. I swear.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/24 10:17:42


Post by: Orlanth


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

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


Look a sign of the End Times, I agree with Peregrine.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/24 10:47:01


Post by: LeCacty


First get rid of the rules team. Like really, come on guys. Then adapt epic to 28mm. Oh, and take Matt Ward to the dungeons.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/24 11:42:07


Post by: Tactical_Spam


 LeCacty wrote:
First get rid of the rules team. Like really, come on guys. Then adapt epic to 28mm. Oh, and take Matt Ward to the dungeons.


I thought ward wrote decent rules... Any way, even with the games half baked rules, if you amend (heavily) with house rules outside of a game then it will lead to less confusion in a game in theory


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/24 15:26:20


Post by: Freakazoitt


System too bulky for its tactical abilities. Many stupid rules.
Armies too large, bad for bying, painting, transporting, playing.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/24 17:07:40


Post by: KharnsRightHand


Rewriting to remove ambiguity is the biggest thing. RAW and RAI should, ideally, be one and the same. I rather like the complexity of all the special rules, but toning it down a bit couldn't hurt, and finding a good balance for things like vehicle damage.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/24 20:38:34


Post by: LeCacty


 Freakazoitt wrote:
System too bulky for its tactical abilities. Many stupid rules.
Armies too large, bad for bying, painting, transporting, playing.

This is my issue, it's just rules memorization, not much in the way of real tactics.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/25 02:53:09


Post by: Psienesis


What I would do:

1) Get rid of the d6 system. This is a game for gamers. d10s exist. Use those, *especially* when your stat-lines are rated 1-10.

2) Establish what kind of game it is intended to be. Is it a skirmish game, reflecting a fight between a few small squads involved in a much-larger battle? Or is it an army game, meant to represent hundreds of soldiers on a side in a mass battle? Which ever is decided, everything about army rules, game design, battle-map design... *everything*... needs to be written with that in mind.

3) For sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the choice made in Step 2 is "skirmish game". This will lead to a few basic ground rules: No more than 100 models to a side, no more than 5 of which can be vehicles, no more than 1 of which can be any kind of Super-Heavy or Lord of War (one or the other, not both).

4) Armies will have "themes". Whatever their "theme" is, they will be very good at it. Whatever is not their "theme", they will be mediocre-to-terrible at it. So, for example, if we decide that the IG's "theme" is going to be massed ranks of infantry and weight of fire supported by armored vehicles, they're going to be "meh" to "craptastic" at things like CQC, Psychic Abilities, Rapid Movement and such.

5) Phases will go back and forth. So, for example, in the first turn, Player 1 will take his Move actions, then Player 2 will take their Move actions. Player 1 will then see if any of his units are within Assault range and, if so, now moves units into CC. Then Player 2 does the same thing, assaulting any units of Player 1 they decide to. Once all units have been moved into CC, then the players roll dice to determine the results of the combats on a fight-by-fight basis (CC happens at the same time, there is no "Initiative", these are units brawling, not masses of individuals). And so on through the Phases, with each player taking their turn in that phase until the end of the turn. At the end of the turn, then the effects of casualties and such are accounted for (models removed, Ld tests made to see who is swept, who is routed, who falls back, etc.). Once all that's done, then you start over in Turn 2.

5a) Partial side-note, things like artillery, orbital bombardment, Deathstrike Missiles, generally anything with a Large Blast marker, all that sort of thing, are going to be delivered by off-table sources *and* each shot is going to carry a price-tag in points. It should also be fairly devastating (Artillery is as Artillery does), but, using the Phase-by-Phase order given above, there's a very real chance that your own units will run into the targeting zone of the artillery (Murphy's Law of Combat: When you are forward of your position, the artillery will fall short.) and a shot may scatter onto your own units. Be careful with that shizz! Alternately, hang back and let the artillery fall, but remember that your opponent may do the same thing, or may move their units forward where you'll end up calling fire down on your own DZ.

6) FOCs will exist, but be fairly fluid (following the guidelines mentioned above). Most units will be bought as "teams". A platoon of Guardsmen, for example, will be like 50 points for 10 guys. They all have the same weapons, the same armor, same statline, with options to buy Heavy Weapons or Special Weapons that are applied to the unit.

The unit, as well, is a pool of Wounds. It doesn't matter which guy in the unit is packing the lascannon or missile launcher, as long as the unit has at least 1W remaining, someone can operate that weapon. However, following the End-of-Turn resolution of combats, a unit may be less-effective going into the next turn. If, for example, our unit of 10 Guardsmen (a 10W unit) is allowed 20 shots in the Shooting Phase, but suffered 5W this turn, next turn it will only have 10 shots. Other units, like, say, Ogryn, will have more Wounds than regular Guardsmen, to reflect the fact that they are just plain tougher than regular Humans, and so will be able to absorb more punishment, but will have something like a reduced LD or higher points-cost to balance.

... and that's just a few basic ideas. I could write pages of changes, but really cba at the moment.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/25 05:57:55


Post by: Knockagh


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


Agree, completely.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/09/25 07:27:52


Post by: Butterqwist


Seems like what most of you are suggesting is what mantic did with the WHFB rules. Narrowed them down, clarified everything rule wise (really have played 10 games now and have never had a rules discussion, unheard of in the world of GW), tock away the focus on making the best list instead of being the best general etc.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/11/26 14:34:10


Post by: KingmanHighborn


I like a d6 system, it's super easy for anyone to get d6s by the bunches needed.

That said, a consolidated rulebook, like the 3rd ed. One is what's needed, and a return to the 3rd ed. Rules. There is too many rules, units, and bs that needs the fat trimmed. They also need to bring back the concept of only being able to play special characters, with opponents permission, and if the army is x amount of points. Flyers just need to be skimmers, unbound outlawed, and the ability to take buildings done away with. ADLs and the like should have never been a thing.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/11/26 16:03:06


Post by: Carlson793


For me, the big issue is multiple rules identical with the exception of one clause. Relentless and Slow and Purposeful, for example. Or Melta and Armourbane - why not remove Melta entirely, and just give current Melta weapons Armourbane (6") or Armourbane (12") - whatever the weapons current Melta bonus die range is.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/11/29 17:03:32


Post by: GraywarTS


I don’t want to say it needs a complete rewrite, only from the fear of how terrible a move Warhammer Fantasy into Age of Sigmar was....

But, if it were to be re written, a d10 system would make much more sense, and it should be based off of Fantasy Flights Deathwatch Pen and Paper game (Or also Dark Heresy)
Even though Deathwatch is a complicated system, if you were to take its basic game rules and simplify them to use d10's i bet it would be awesome.

Me and a few friends have played small kill teams using Deathwatch rules except we subbed out using a %dice and applied the rules the same only using d10's to represent the 10th place for simplicity.
Plus the weapon/armory list in the Deathwatch Core book is just amazing, the Heavy Bolter actually fires the way it was expected in all the fluff, not this 3 heavy shot bull


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/11/29 19:53:24


Post by: Tainted


I'm not sure a full rewrite is necessary. They just need to undo some of the nonsense of recent editions. Heck, 5th was pretty solid compared to 7th, so they could just strip back to that and focuss on making a smoother version of 5th.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/11/29 20:49:14


Post by: KingmanHighborn


Step back to 3rd. I liked its assault rules better.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/11/30 13:37:59


Post by: EmberlordofFire8


Use the stats from 6th, the Assault from 3rd and the rst from 7th


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/11/30 21:19:04


Post by: 455_PWR


There needs to be another option in the poll...

40k was fine in its past two editions. This edition has ruined it with power creep, imbalance, and formations. If we wanted to play apocalypse, we would. They can keep it as is but without super heavies, gargantuan creatures, formations, etc.

Most of the balance issues would be fixed with axing formations and op large scale models.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/12/28 22:48:43


Post by: Kavish


Be careful what you wish for. The last thing we need is Age of Sigmar to happen to 40k.

It does need some serious tweaks though. Especially in vehicle damage rules. And close combat units should be able to charge from stationary transports and all reserves except deep strike.

Oh and the psychic phase needs reworking so psykers are more reliable.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/12/28 23:16:47


Post by: spiralingcadaver


Voted for complete rewrite.

I think a stripping down would probably be ideal, but that wasn't an option. I thought that AoS was pretty good regarding simplifying most things, but the lack of balancing mechanic and absurd role-play special rules were idiotic.

Turning 40k into a well-balanced, light-weight game would be great. Alternatively, stripping things down to a lesser degree would certainly be better than adding more rules. Games with that many pieces certainly don't need more things to slow them down.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/12/29 09:41:04


Post by: Kid_Kyoto


yes.

Tomorrow.

Eliminate at least half the special rules and wargear, go for the level of detail 3rd edition had (a power weapon is a power weapon is a power weapon).



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/12/30 10:55:25


Post by: Shandara


It would help if they would design all the codices together with the rulebook (at least to balance them). Rather than 'trying' to update them as they go.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/12/30 13:49:35


Post by: scarletsquig


The game needs more d100 tables and a DM.

Also, armour penetration modifiers from 2nd edition, nothing like trying to remember 2d12 +3d4 + d8 + 3 during the middle of a game to sort the men from the boys!


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2015/12/30 14:06:18


Post by: oldzoggy


This poll is missing a lot of options.

Like Yes there are bugs and they need to be fixed, no we don't want to risk losing the game we love in a total rewrite. It could become AoS in space for sigmars sake.

Things I would like to see fixed.
- multi wound model crit tables and dropped
- Cover is a to hit modifier that stacks with you guess it cover.
- the unfair formation advantages. All upgrades and bonuses need to be paid for in points.
- Ban pre measure and get rid of random charge range
- Readied actions ( same as in DnD) But drop
- Fix psykers -> Bring them at the lv of Wfb wizards, make rules so that if you have 1, 2 or 3 psyker you can actually cast spells and that if you spamm wizards your advantage isn't that high as it is now.
- Bring back decent terrain rules ( 6th where kinda ok)
- make ramming and tan shocking deadly again
- Restrict vehicle movement again -> Max pivot degrees if moving just like fliers


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/01/29 10:31:21


Post by: Sledgio


None of the above. I think it needs a serious look, lots of special rules to be taken out, but not from scratch. I also like it being different from AoS or WHFB. Certainly don't add more rules, and it's not perfect.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/01/29 10:37:17


Post by: oldzoggy


[edit] I suffer from memory loss

But it is still a horrible poll that lacks good options.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/01/29 19:30:31


Post by: Grumblewartz


 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
TBH, I actually enjoy the game (shocking, I know) and I enjoy how the rules work, although I'll admit it isn't perfect, nothing is.

Do I get banned by mods for saying that? Seem like I would be given all the hate.


Haha, yeah me too. I understand that GW has an economic motive behind it, but I am glad they rewrite editions that shake up the game. I would be bored if we had a single core rule set that never changed with units that never changed.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/01/29 22:45:16


Post by: r_squared


I'd just like to play the game without having to look up the rules for one thing or another, every, single, game.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/01/30 10:33:09


Post by: kodos


A complete re-write from scratch is necessary
not only because it is easier, but also to get the codex rules back in line.
If you try to just change the existing rules you will run into the same problems GW had with 4th-7th edition

For the rules, take the best from 2nd-7th and try do not get into power creep for the fraction rules.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/03/01 16:43:28


Post by: mrhappyface


A complete rewrite implies the game is completely unplayable or biased to one faction, which is inherently wrong. In the last tournament game I played our team was Imperial guard, Ork, chaos space marine and tau. According to some sites these are 'underpowered' armies requiring buffs in this and that, however our team flattened the other team (who were tau, DA, skitarri and Imperial knights, the last one not being underpowered... APPARENTLY!). Every army claims to be underpowered but really it is just how you build and play your army.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/02 21:35:44


Post by: Quarterdime


40k doesn't need an overhaul, just some choice touch-ups to make it more consistent.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/04 02:05:49


Post by: TedNugent


So people are begging for simplified gameplay, free codexes, and house rules...

Sounds like Age of Sigmar to me


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/04 04:23:58


Post by: Vaktathi


 TedNugent wrote:
So people are begging for simplified gameplay, free codexes, and house rules...

Sounds like Age of Sigmar to me
It also sounds like many other wargames out there on the market that don't have the issues AoS does.

That said, 40k really could use a total, from-scratch, reboot.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/04 07:33:14


Post by: kodos


 mrhappyface wrote:
A complete rewrite implies the game is completely unplayable or biased to one faction,

That would be only one reason for a re-write and biased to one faction would only call for a new codex and not for new rules.

Basic problem is that GW always got only half of their armies written for the actual edition.
Some are written for the previous others for the following one.

The other problem is that a new edition is done to change the game and not to fix broken or unclear rules.
We do not have 1 40k game with the improved 7th Rulebook, but 7 completely different games.

And the rules are complicated without being complex.

That is also a reason why people call for simpler rules. The 40k rules are already simple but written complicated.
A complete re-write with keeping stuff streamlined and simple would get the whole rules on 25 pages, including Warlord Traits, Psionic Powers and Fortifications.

But of course GW would misunderstand and just but easy rules to 4 pages but keeping it as complicated as possible and miss important clarifications (which is why AoS is a bad game compared to other ones with simple rules like X-Wing)


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/05 16:53:44


Post by: Nomeny


I have yet to try any homebrew that plays better than off-the-shelf 40k.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/06 15:33:31


Post by: kodos


It should not be a big problem to find something which is better

The Questions would be to find something that fits your kind of gameplay (eg prefering Skirmish, mass-skirmish, or mass-battle games)


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/15 17:20:33


Post by: Nomeny


And yet in pretty much all cases 40k fits me better, particularly if we're talking commercial product rather than someone's late night fit of untested inspiration.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/18 00:39:26


Post by: Phydox


For everyone wanting to scrap the rules and fire everyone, be careful of what you wish for. You might end up with a simple "beer and pretzels" game, and the entire 40k universe blown up.

In their effort to sell models, I think Gdub has painted themself in a corner letting models create the game rules. There are such extreme differences in power level between the armies, Id say thats the main issue is make a serious effort to balance out the armies through point adjustments or special rules.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/04/20 11:48:39


Post by: Herzlos


It needs a complete re-write by a proper editor and games writer, backed up by a play-testing team. The current guys just can't do it.

It's been essentially the same game from the past 4 editions, with extra bloat slapped on.

They should make an effort to improve clarity (by proofreading and editing), and streamline the game by dropping as many special rules as possible (I reckon you could drop at least half of them without any rules refactoring) and put the abilities back in the stats.

Leave the core game system mechanics the same, but give it a fresh, clean writeup.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/05/07 09:44:27


Post by: Shadow Walker


Something between current mess and AoS would be welcome.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/06/04 20:33:27


Post by: ionusx


it needs weight watchers thats all it needs, gut the special rules available and points balances and youd go a long way to fixing the game. add to that locking up super heavies and gmc's into apoc (with the exception of imperial knights but you can lock them into there codex with the allies matrix) and you will take this even further.

and if you can cut down on the ration of special rules thrown around so bloody recklessly and you will see 40k become a lot better. a unit of bikers have something like 20 rules surrounding them at any given point after optionals (before ic's) and thats before another unit gets thrown into the mix for them to interact with. and then we have some units starved of them like the rhino which hasnt evolved since 4th bloody edition beyond costs (a testament to its brilliant simplicity). if we can cut those down and gut them especially on shooting centric units and you will see 40k do much better


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/07/05 11:23:46


Post by: Huron black heart


When a game can be decided by which army you pick and come up against, there are serious problems.
When you can be wiped out in a couple of turns there are problems.
When the latest codex is always more powerful than the last there are problems.
When you no longer monopolize the wargame community there are problems.
When you charge extortianate prices for your models there are problems.

Games workshop, let alone 40k needs a complete rewrite


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/07/05 12:17:25


Post by: TheMostWize


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


I agree with this 100 percent. The game seems fine to me. However that being said I play with buddies at home in a completely non serious setting. I mean sometimes a game will take 3 or 4 hours just because of all the extra talking and whatnot that goes on during the game.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/07/05 13:19:18


Post by: Durandal


They need to go back to the old Necromunda/40k/Apoc style, where there are 3 related games that share most of the rules, but work on different levels of detail and scale up from somewhere around 5 models to the old apoc scale huge sets.

So people can go in, and get essentially a warband that they can name and customize each of their guys, and perhaps expand it with a specialist or Inquisitor or Hive node or whatever, and can play quick skirmish matches against an opponent using all the nice tiles GW has put out for Space Hulk, Deathwatch, Assassins, etc.

They could then start expanding this into a classic 40k style army with some additional troops, terrain and such. Indeed, as their collection grows, it would be like an escalation league as they flesh out units, add transports, and things like tanks that are the "boss monsters" of the skirmish game.

Finally, you can get to the apoc level where knights, superheavies and formations start showing up.

The big thing though is formations. GW has gone crazy and the formations are so hit or miss that it really eliminates any attempt at good unit design at the codex level. Everyone just looks for broken formation combinations to cheese the game. Formations are so hit or miss, (or missing in the case of some armies) that they now dictate what people play instead of the look and feel of the units themselves.

I'm hesitant to go AoS style with no points, because even with units arranged in tier systems it doesn't seem to work out well. Even if there is no longer a force org chart, there needs to be a points style measure of unit effectiveness out there.

Of course, GW could invest in some simulation software that iterates units through 1000s of randomly generated fights and uses a ELO style algorithm to converge on a points cost, but that is really outside the box thinking for them.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/07/05 16:39:59


Post by: DoorframeLizard


IMO it needs way less special rules. Some of them should just be listed as traits at the models' codex page, I see no reason to have to open the rulebook and find the rule just to realize that "alright, it makes them walk through difficult terrain" or "alright, they cant fit in a transport". All the special rules on top of exceptions to special rules are silly too. There is way too much stuff to memorize. Why have a mostly empty codex page when you can just list traits on it?

They also need to decrease the price of codices and the rulebook (WHY IS THE RULEBOOK 3 BOOKS IN ONE???), my currently 500 point army of Necrons cost me as much as a rulebook + codex + templates + dice would cost me. Ive been through 3 different 500 point armies in total and I havent bought a codex or the rulebook once because it's just a HORRIBLE price.

The fanbase CLEARLY wants a game that can be competitive and/or casual, I see absolutely NO reason for the rules to not be free and digitally available on the internet where they can be updated and fixed at any time. Errata is confusing, FAQs are dumb, and honestly the only thing having codices and rules in the form of stupidly overpriced books does is showing that GW ARE greedy and dont care about the playerbase.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/07/05 16:40:11


Post by: odinsgrandson


Game Theory is a thing- and if GW used it, they could calculate the value of their units. They probably can't afford a proper game theorist (they often gain employment as military specialists, because Game Theory has applications there).


I don't think there's a chance GW will drop 40k for pointless anarchy like they did WFB. The General's Handbook is basically an apology without admitting to wrongdoing.

They might take other things from AoS, since it is basically a streamlined version of their core rules set.


I honestly think that 40k could go the other way. Start using stat cards for your troops like other games do, then we can check rules interactions without flipping through books. It is amazing how much the interface can fix complexity issues.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/07/06 02:32:02


Post by: Azazelx


I'd strip it back to something much more like 3rd edition, but with universal special rules added in to cover contingencies and unique units - in the same way that Kings of War has them. Rather than piles of unique special rules scattered across many, many codices and other Datafax/dataslate/formation/etc sources. Not sure if that counts as a "complete rewrite" since it'd much more be stripping back the bloat to the core that worked very well, and then carefully adding the more fluffy layers back in an (ideally) balanced and measured way.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/07/06 15:03:57


Post by: odinsgrandson


4th was my favorite.

The core rules are probably not as much a problem as are the codexes. They've suffered from power creep and rules creep.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 10:09:47


Post by: Rolsheen


Needs to be rewritten to Deathwatch / AoS style rules. Easier rules would bring more people to the game.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 15:35:24


Post by: Manchu


 Phydox wrote:
You might end up with a simple "beer and pretzels" game
As opposed to ... ?

There is a lot of AoSphobia among 40k players - but it really seems like AoS is based on 6E and 7E 40k. Although I don't currently play it myself, AoS currently gets a ton of play in my group. It's not a perfect game but it is fast and fun, two fronts where 40k could stand to improve. I think 40k will be "AoS-ified," except this will really just mean that 40k will continue down the path it is already on and has been on for a number of years now. Unlike with WHFB, there is no reason to "blow up" the setting to accomplish this.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 15:53:40


Post by: Aipoch


You really don't want an AoS'ing to 40k. Why do we need two pizza and pop games? At least one of their main lines should be more beer and pretzels, and it sure as hell isn't going to be AoS. Re-write the whole damn thing, Exterminatus, with extreme prejudice.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 15:55:24


Post by: Manchu


If 40k is not beer & pretzels/pizza & pop/bubblegum & juiceboxes or whatever you want to call it, then I really don't know what is.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 15:58:05


Post by: Aipoch


Oh, 40k wishes it was beer and pretzels. It WANTS to be beer and pretzels. It's trying SO HARD to be beer and pretzels. But it has zero alcohol content.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 16:09:54


Post by: kodos


40k wants to be beer&pretzel but is something like compost

and now after they 40kied Warhammer everyone thinks compost with a sugar toping would be a huge improvement for 40k


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 16:10:36


Post by: wuestenfux


Total rewrite. The core ruleset should be rather tight, like that of WMH. Otherwise, it would not be worth the effort.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 16:51:46


Post by: JohnHwangDD


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

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


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


Agreed!

Roll back the clock to a 5E baseline, and streamline things from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Aipoch wrote:
You really don't want an AoS'ing to 40k.


It depends on what you mean by AoSing...

If you mean:
- radically streamline the core rules to their bare minimum
- do away with the plethora of "Special Rules" and any rules that reference other rules
- break up the Igo-Ugo system with game round initiative
- place ALL relevant unit rules on the unit datasheet
- give away all of the rules for FREE

That's a recipe for success.

If you mean:
- actually advance the story timeline in a meaningful way
- remove points, only to bring them back

Then I think GW has learned that's not desirable.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 17:24:14


Post by: kodos


 JohnHwangDD wrote:

If you mean:
- radically streamline the core rules to their bare minimum
- do away with the plethora of "Special Rules" and any rules that reference other rules
- break up the Igo-Ugo system with game round initiative
- place ALL relevant unit rules on the unit datasheet
- give away all of the rules for FREE
That's a recipe for success.


No, this alone does not do anything to improve the game or make it more fun.
It is just shifting around the problem and it makes no difference if the rules are in the rulebook or on the datasheet

But it is ok, some people like it that way with every single unit comes with its own set of core and special rules

I would prefer a clear and compact set of rules with a minimum of faction specific rules so that I just need a core rulebook and the unit entry to know everything (und not hundreds of self printed sheets of papers just to know my own army)


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 17:43:17


Post by: JohnHwangDD


It makes the game far less tedious of having to look things up to determine how each special snowflake acts on the tabletop. Reduction of tedium results in less un-fun time being wasted, and more time for the actual fun bits of playing the game.

Or, go back to 3E's minimal special rules, that would be fine, too.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 18:04:10


Post by: kodos


But this has nothing to do with AoS

or to give an example, there are 2 similar games out there
same setting, same amount of models, same "target" and all your points aply to both
but there is a huge difference in quality and gameplay expirience

Age of Sigmar and A Fantastic Saga

they only advantage of AoS is that GW put money into advertising and players are using it because it is the replacement for Warhammer.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 18:24:18


Post by: JohnHwangDD


I am not at all sure what you're getting at. I believe that GW can take the lessons of AoS and effectively apply them to 40k to provide a far better playing experience than what we have today.

I do not believe that AoS, as it is currently available from GW (with the General's Handbook) is a bad game in any form. I think it is categorically superior to WFB as a game and a system.

I further believe that the AoS game engine is categorically superior to 40k 6E / 7E.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 18:53:27


Post by: kodos


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I I think it is categorically superior to WFB as a game and a system.

I don’t see how a Mass-Skirmish game focused on big monster can be the superior version of a rank&file game focused on regiments

and compared to other skirmish games (GW and not GW) AoS is mediocre at best

I further believe that the AoS game engine is categorically superior to 40k 6E / 7E.

the game engine of both is the same
AoS in its current form is just a view months old and therefore misses the powercreep and bloated rules of 40k, but if GW continue with Aos without regulary restarting it it will be similar to 40k in 4 years.

I believe that GW can take the lessons of AoS and effectively apply them to 40k to provide a far better playing experience than what we have today.

GW already prove that the only lesson the learned is that completely killing the background is a bad idea
regarding rules they did not get anything from the change of AoS except that removing points does not work out well
writing clear rules and getting complex without being complicated and add balanced factions rules is nothing we will see in the near future (neither from AoS nor from 40k)


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/07 19:24:34


Post by: Aipoch


The whole "you don't have to look things up now" is a fair point, but that isn't the main problem. Having a datacard for each unit just makes sense, with a master rulebook holding all of them for reference and ideas. One you use during the course of the game, one you use during your freetime to plan new combos and strategies from units you might not have.

AoS and 40K both suffer from the same problem; they are neither a skirmish game nor a massed army game, yet they try to do both at the same time. 28mm scale does not lend well to massed army conflict; it's just too big to have the scale of a battle be confined to a 4' x 6' table.

AoS does have speed of play going for it, but it would get a 9/10 for speed of play and a 2/10 for depth of strategy. 40k is suffering from the opposite, plays very slow from the number of rules, but has an immense depth of strategy. Unfortunately, that depth is heavily offset by the power creep of the game, which is currently 11/10.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/09/08 02:04:18


Post by: PrayingSeraph


Considering how other newer competing miniature wargames are doing in terms of balanced gameplay, GW seriously need to scrap what they are doing and start fresh. The system they have now is seriously outdated from the quality standard put forth by competitors.

AoS, despite it's rough launch, is now on the right path I think.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/10/08 17:56:17


Post by: Just Tony


Can't vote, as my answer would be "Go back to 3rd, with some codex rewrites."


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2016/10/09 20:31:12


Post by: Flood


Total re-write.
Hell, if they just copy-pasted the *OPR ruleset I'd be happy (at least as a starting off point).

*In case you haven't seen it



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2017/01/11 10:53:24


Post by: FrozenDwarf


many hate it, but the 40k needs to do an AoS.
simpler rules = more fun!

when you need to drag a rulebook that is bigger then ikea cataloge, something is fundamently wrong!


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2017/01/11 12:02:18


Post by: Blackie


FrozenDwarf wrote:
many hate it, but the 40k needs to do an AoS.
simpler rules = more fun!

when you need to drag a rulebook that is bigger then ikea cataloge, something is fundamently wrong!


I strongly disagree, the rules are fine and AOS is garbage. 40k is not complicated, its only issue is that there are some armies that are overpowered. Drop grav, D weapons and decurions, decrease the efficiency of some psychic phases (for example: you can never have more than 10+1d6 dice for casting psychic powers, regardless of the number of psykers involved), increase the cost of some big tau shooty robots and the game would be way better. In general if you play not competitively at any cost but organize balanced games with friends then 40k is still awesome.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2017/01/11 14:29:48


Post by: EmberlordofFire8


 Blackie wrote:
FrozenDwarf wrote:
many hate it, but the 40k needs to do an AoS.
simpler rules = more fun!

when you need to drag a rulebook that is bigger then ikea cataloge, something is fundamently wrong!


I strongly disagree, the rules are fine and AOS is garbage. 40k is not complicated, its only issue is that there are some armies that are overpowered. Drop grav, D weapons and decurions, decrease the efficiency of some psychic phases (for example: you can never have more than 10+1d6 dice for casting psychic powers, regardless of the number of psykers involved), increase the cost of some big tau shooty robots and the game would be way better. In general if you play not competitively at any cost but organize balanced games with friends then 40k is still awesome.


And make the rules free, with an optional printed edition like with AoS. That will make it easer to have multiple armies.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2017/03/13 10:32:59


Post by: Blackie


Only one issue in the core rules IMHO, the poor dice range in the close combat phase. Hittin on 2s and 6s would be appreciated if two units/models fight with very different WS.

A lot of stuff included in many codexes needs a total rewrite though.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2017/07/18 19:18:16


Post by: Just Tony


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


Exactly.

MrFlutterPie wrote:I've been saying this for years now.

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


KingmanHighborn wrote:I like a d6 system, it's super easy for anyone to get d6s by the bunches needed.

That said, a consolidated rulebook, like the 3rd ed. One is what's needed, and a return to the 3rd ed. Rules. There is too many rules, units, and bs that needs the fat trimmed. They also need to bring back the concept of only being able to play special characters, with opponents permission, and if the army is x amount of points. Flyers just need to be skimmers, unbound outlawed, and the ability to take buildings done away with. ADLs and the like should have never been a thing.


Kid_Kyoto wrote:yes.

Tomorrow.

Eliminate at least half the special rules and wargear, go for the level of detail 3rd edition had (a power weapon is a power weapon is a power weapon).



Azazelx wrote:I'd strip it back to something much more like 3rd edition, but with universal special rules added in to cover contingencies and unique units - in the same way that Kings of War has them. Rather than piles of unique special rules scattered across many, many codices and other Datafax/dataslate/formation/etc sources. Not sure if that counts as a "complete rewrite" since it'd much more be stripping back the bloat to the core that worked very well, and then carefully adding the more fluffy layers back in an (ideally) balanced and measured way.



Wow, great minds think alike.

Manchu wrote:
 Phydox wrote:
You might end up with a simple "beer and pretzels" game
As opposed to ... ?

There is a lot of AoSphobia among 40k players - but it really seems like AoS is based on 6E and 7E 40k. Although I don't currently play it myself, AoS currently gets a ton of play in my group. It's not a perfect game but it is fast and fun, two fronts where 40k could stand to improve. I think 40k will be "AoS-ified," except this will really just mean that 40k will continue down the path it is already on and has been on for a number of years now. Unlike with WHFB, there is no reason to "blow up" the setting to accomplish this.


WFB didn't need the setting blown up either.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/05/28 22:09:00


Post by: Aben Zin


I think it needs a re-write based on the WHFB rules. Specifically 8th Edition WHFB. Ranked up Ork Boyz! Space Marines on movement trays! All that good stuff!


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/05/28 23:05:31


Post by: ProtoClone


Oops...


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/06/30 03:04:25


Post by: ERJAK


What a stupid poll. Nothing between 'It's perfect' or 'it's terrible' except the authors pet "solution". Pointless.

And the thing the game needs is to get rid of the rule of 3.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/06/30 13:02:33


Post by: Turnip Jedi


there's all sorts of niggles that could be fixed but whilst its selling why bother

Shifting to d10 / d12 would be a massive step forward, d6 was fine (mostly) when it was just footsloggers / monsters / medium tanks, but now the range runs from grot with stick to city flattening god-engines the poor old cube seems lacking


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/06/30 16:22:30


Post by: ValentineGames


Full rewrite. Nothing less than this.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/07/04 06:02:14


Post by: niv-mizzet


Uh... when this thread was current we were in 7e xD


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/07/04 17:20:50


Post by: Nurglitch


I'm pretty sure Lanrak's been beating this drum since 4th edition.

It's like that XKCD joke about unifying standards when there's 15 different ones available, and all you end up doing is adding another. Except the "re-write 40k from the ground up" crowd is typically missing the practicalities of production and business that makes 40k what it is.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great exercise in game design, but eventually you need to move on and create your own thing.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/07/31 21:31:54


Post by: Danny slag


Yes. They need to stop being too afraid and just go to an alternative activation system. The turn structure is the source of almost every balance conundrum, and causes the game to be far less tactical than it could be. There's literally no reason any wargame should use the outdated turn structure they use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:
What a stupid poll. Nothing between 'It's perfect' or 'it's terrible' except the authors pet "solution". Pointless.

And the thing the game needs is to get rid of the rule of 3.


That's quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard. But then again I like playing wargames instead of playing everyone spam one unit : the game.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/08/31 10:38:35


Post by: Vasarto


Can't we just go back to 5th edition rules when things were fething god like? Just add in flying rules that are actually good and put all that armageddon gak back in the 10K + points games where it belongs and reboot the entire story.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/10/02 13:54:14


Post by: SirWeeble


Why is a thread from 2015 being necro'd? Start a new one if you want to gripe about 8th.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/10/02 15:51:20


Post by: odinsgrandson


Wow- this thread has had several 'raise dead' spells cast on it over the years.

As for the now- 40k got the complete re-write that the largest segment here wanted.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/11/03 14:53:16


Post by: Toofast


 Korinov wrote:
I voted for the complete rewrite.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


I think their group of rules writers has confused rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice with fun. Random run distance, random charge distance, rolling on a random table to determine effects that happen to random units. Rolling to see what your warlord can do this game because he magically forgot what he was good at last game. Random numbers of shots on weapons, because the weapon technology 38,000 years in the future is apparently inferior to the weapon technology in use all over the world today. Run should be double movement value. Charge should be movement value plus 6" or 9". All weapons should have a set number of shots and a set damage number. No more of this D6 shots to do D3 damage. It adds random elements where they are not needed, slows the game down, and does absolutely nothing to make the game deeper, more complex, or more fun.


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


You can play a game with a tight, balanced ruleset as a beer and pretzels game. You can't turn a clusterfeth of a beer and pretzels game into a tight, competitive ruleset that everyone can agree on because everyone will have different ideas of how things should be fixed.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/11/03 22:44:52


Post by: BaconCatBug


As James Joyce said, "Beware of what you wish for in youth, because you will get it in middle life."


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/11/04 23:25:58


Post by: lord_blackfang


 odinsgrandson wrote:
Wow- this thread has had several 'raise dead' spells cast on it over the years.

As for the now- 40k got the complete re-write that the largest segment here wanted.


But unfortunately the complete rewrite was not preceded by replacing the entire crew of incompetent fools in the studio, so the new game is just as bad.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/11/05 09:56:26


Post by: H.B.M.C.


But don't you like every special rule being some variation of the same three special rules in auras of various size combined with 600 different ways of wording a method of inflicting Mortal Wounds?


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2018/11/05 10:31:53


Post by: lord_blackfang


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But don't you like every special rule being some variation of the same three special rules in auras of various size combined with 600 different ways of wording a method of inflicting Mortal Wounds?


I can't decide which is my favorite. Roll a d6 and on 2+ you deal d3 MW. Or roll 6d6 and every 5+ causes a MW. Or roll 2d6 and on a 2 to 9 it causes 1 MW and on a 10+ it causes d3 MW. So many options.

But at least it runs so smoothly that you can almost get halfway through turn 3 in a 3-hour tournament round.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2019/05/09 12:06:42


Post by: balmong7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But don't you like every special rule being some variation of the same three special rules in auras of various size combined with 600 different ways of wording a method of inflicting Mortal Wounds?


Personally, I'm a big fan of choosing whether or not I want my Tau to reroll to-hit rolls of 1 from markerlights, ethereals, or the master of war ability, (or multi-tracker but that one took a pretty heavy nerf). Or if I should take the sa'cea sept instead for my reroll.

Can't just one of those abilities be changed to rerolling 1s to wound or something?


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2019/05/09 16:19:59


Post by: odinsgrandson


I kind of feel like 8th ed did what 3rd ed did back in the day.


I started playing in 2nd ed, and while I loved the game, I can see how it had become kind of a complex mess.

In going to 3rd ed, they cleaned up a lot of stuff. A good bunch of it was stuff that added math or added a layer of complexity that didn't add much to the strategy.

But they also got rid of a LOT of special rules, and a LOT of the things that made each unit or character unique. A chainsword used to be very different from an axe, sword, or combat knife, and it is kind of crazy how different power weapons used to be from one another.

When 3rd edition started, it didn't feel right how simple everything was, and how few options I had. Especially the characters- who went from being extremely unique to feeling very generic.


If history repeats itself, then GW will slowly add more and more unique options until we're back to having a sprawling mess once more.

(It is hard to say where the sweet spot is. I think my favorite era was just around the release of 4th ed- when we had rules for every chaos legion, and rules for making each type of Marine chapter or Imperial Guard regiment).


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2019/05/09 21:30:53


Post by: Rob Lee


My £0.02...

Don't know about a complete re-write but 40k, if not the whole GW hobby, needs something doing.

Putting aside the cost of putting together everything for just a casual game...

It might just be the bubble/echo chamber of the internet but as soon as any new rules come out, even if they're beta, every 40k related site puts up articles with "how this faction got nerfed, how this faction got buffed, how mighty x y or z faction is in the meta now"! Having gone away from the hobby for a few years I cannot believe how some people seem to have become 40k "journalists" and have forged a career from it...

And it seems to be quite frequent these days that x y or z faction has rules adjustments. Just get the rules right first time, release one set of codices, and be done with it!?! I don't want to have to refer to 1001 FAQs or pay again for v2.0 codices (Chaos anyone?!)!

Then there's the strategems. There's too many. And too many seem to be used as exploits to unbalance a game in your favour. You have to read very carefully all the strategems, yours and your opponents, and weedle out the information for exploits. And if you haven't done so prior to the game it seriously slows the game down!!

Soup, as it's called. Again, exploits.

The whole thing just seems one of extreme beardyness these days, full of nerds with whiteboards using complex mathematical formulae just to write down the composition of a single unit. The hobby, sitting here as I am, seems to have lost the aspect of playing to have fun. Now it all seems to be play to win at all costs!

And I'm sorry but I blame the US tournament scene and US internet media, because that seems to be GW's focus, and seems to be the most squeaky wheel.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2019/06/10 12:28:55


Post by: Fan67


My only problem with 8ed is that they haven't fixed source-creeping.

You need Core Rules plus Index.
Then you need core rules, index and FAQ for Core Rules and separete FAQ for Index.
Then you need codex.
Then they add codex faq as a separete document.
Then you need Campaign Book, faq on the campaign book, big faq, designer's commentary...

And new dimension of sourcing is added every time you include another allied faction into your army.

Either they have to reprint Codexes annualy to include changes from various sources, or they have to assemble every FAQ and commentary in a singular document with workable table of contents.

But I already can forsee that next campaign will not exclude Vigilus from the tournaments, and in a couple years we will have 7ed style clusterduck, where it is literally impossible to know the rules.

I am highly against army rules in a sourcers other than codex.
Campaign books should add mission, deploment zones, universal stratagems, terrain rules may be.

You want to add special detachments and black legion rules? Just repring the god-damn codexes for every army.

And frankly buying campaign books felt weird even in 7ed - especcially Rise of Primarch, which became obsolete in couple monthes. Worst money spent.

Lack of imagination for faction rules is also big issue. But it isn't directly a rules problem.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2019/09/13 13:59:51


Post by: Nurglitch


People are still banging the "Build a Better 40k" drum in 2019?


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2019/11/15 12:27:35


Post by: Just Tony


 odinsgrandson wrote:
I kind of feel like 8th ed did what 3rd ed did back in the day.


I started playing in 2nd ed, and while I loved the game, I can see how it had become kind of a complex mess.

In going to 3rd ed, they cleaned up a lot of stuff. A good bunch of it was stuff that added math or added a layer of complexity that didn't add much to the strategy.

But they also got rid of a LOT of special rules, and a LOT of the things that made each unit or character unique. A chainsword used to be very different from an axe, sword, or combat knife, and it is kind of crazy how different power weapons used to be from one another.

When 3rd edition started, it didn't feel right how simple everything was, and how few options I had. Especially the characters- who went from being extremely unique to feeling very generic.


If history repeats itself, then GW will slowly add more and more unique options until we're back to having a sprawling mess once more.

(It is hard to say where the sweet spot is. I think my favorite era was just around the release of 4th ed- when we had rules for every chaos legion, and rules for making each type of Marine chapter or Imperial Guard regiment).


With all due respect, Mutable Genus was a bad idea when it was just Tyranids. Adding Mutable Genus to every damn faction pretty much destroyed the game. I'm also of the opinion that all the Chapters/Legions don't need special snowflake rules to set them apart. It'd be like every single Cadian offshoot getting its own rules. Lunacy.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2019/12/16 21:28:50


Post by: Red_Five


GW needs to embrace a digital list builder like all the other major miniature games (Warmachine/Hordes, AoS, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.). That would fix the problems they have with releasing new units after a codex comes out, errata-ing units and adjusting the points total.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2020/10/26 10:31:51


Post by: brumbaer


I‘m missing the option
It needs some changes, but not a total rewrite.

I.e. Address the going first issue by tuning down the power and/or speed of all units
and/or using alternative activation.
But keep the iconic mechanisms like the toHit-toWound-Save sequence.

And less special rules.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2020/10/26 11:29:39


Post by: aphyon


Andy chambers was involved (as in lead game designer with a 14 year stint with GW from 1990-2004) in writing second edition, 3rd edition and most of 4th edition 40K along with WHFB (4th ed), gorka morka, space hulk, necromunda, and one of my favorite specialist games battlefleet gothic to name a few during his time at GW.

He left in 2004 and went on to continue to do freelance game design work for starship troopers, drop fleet commander, bolt action, DUST, blood red skies, and even starcraft II-wings of liberty(story writer) to name a few.

I think GW loosing talent like that sent the game spinning off in the wrong direction. in many interviews Andy has had over the years he talks about the conflicting desire to move the universe forward while still keeping it "grim dark" and fights with management about game design for the game play VS game design to sell miniatures. his absence is notably missed by those of us who have been in the hobby for a long time.

At this point 40K no longer feels like 40K, it is loosing a bit of it's "grim dark" and with game play it is a different game than the 40K i learned and loved.

After seeing what they have done with 9th i would say burn it all down and start over. GW needs to decide what they want 40K the main game to be. is it a skirmish level game? a squad based game? or is it a full army game? each type requires a different depth of rules. the smaller the game the more complex rules you can get away with without bogging things down. conversely the larger the less that works. the amount of record keeping in 9th lends itself to a much smaller game akin to 2nd edition than it is being promoted as now.

Do they want this to be like an E-sport catering to tournament minded players? or a fun story driven "mess around with your friends and talk smack" while rolling dice kind of game?


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2020/10/26 11:52:24


Post by: Nurglitch


Why not both? If GW has proven anything in recent years, it's that you can use the same miniatures in different games.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2020/10/26 13:39:17


Post by: dream archipelago


I was reading my Middle-Earth SBG rulebook the other day, what a rulebook! Has just enough pics in it, rules are clear and concise, isn't overloaded with fluff and full-page spreads of someone else's army - GW are certainly capable of producing a decent set of rules.

I find myself gravitating towards Age of Sigmar these days anyhow, really like the minis (a lot actually, would say they're my favorite) and the rules aren't as bloated as 40k.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2020/10/26 21:45:58


Post by: NH Gunsmith


Interesting to see the results of this poll over a 5 year period, but is it time for a restart?

Much of the people playing from when this poll dropped initially in 2015 likely have different ideas about the 40k of now (good, bad, ect.).


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2020/10/27 11:01:48


Post by: Shadow Walker


 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Interesting to see the results of this poll over a 5 year period, but is it time for a restart?

Much of the people playing from when this poll dropped initially in 2015 likely have different ideas about the 40k of now (good, bad, ect.).

I think that restarting this poll is a very good idea.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2020/10/27 11:59:11


Post by: Nurglitch


Interesting for comparison purposes.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/01/29 13:52:06


Post by: Finn83


Rob Lee wrote:
My £0.02...

Don't know about a complete re-write but 40k, if not the whole GW hobby, needs something doing...


I must say that you put it out how I feel too. I returned to hobby 2020 May and had a break from 2002. Don't have that much experience about playing now. I feel also that you need too many books and different sources to play. I have a bit mixed feeling about stratagems too. Agree that there's way too much of them. I'm not playing that seriously and shouldn't care that much about them. It feels also that there is un-necessary amount of special rules for the units which are really hard to remember. Actually in the first 9th codexes some are gone, but some are changed to stratagems.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/01/29 14:26:35


Post by: MagicJuggler


I think the poll is incomplete. I wouldn't say a 'total rewrite', so much as figuring out how to streamline something based off 4th-5th ed, with tournament-unambiguous writing, and a removal of TLOS in exchange for models having a "Height" statistic.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/01/29 14:38:32


Post by: BaconCatBug


 MagicJuggler wrote:
I think the poll is incomplete. I wouldn't say a 'total rewrite', so much as figuring out how to streamline something based off 4th-5th ed, with tournament-unambiguous writing, and a removal of TLOS in exchange for models having a "Height" statistic.
In fairness, the Poll was made in 2015, when GW were only 99.9% as bad as they are now.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/01/29 15:09:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I think it's more interesting that over 5 years 733 people genuinely thought that there was nothing wrong with GW rules.



Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/01/29 15:51:07


Post by: PieInTheSky


I'd say the options in your poll are very limited.

I am not qualified to have an opinion having not played the game.

However, from what I can gather, 5th Edition was considered the best, broadly speaking.

How about an option, "Use 5th Edition base rules and spend time cleaning everything and balancing it all out and then stop releasing a new edition and new codexes every three years!!.

The rules are always going to be messy and not quite right while they're doing that. But I guess money talks and bulls--t walks, right?


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/01/29 16:45:07


Post by: BaconCatBug


I personally liked 4th better than 5th, but I am a weird one.

5th with some of the more heinous abuses pruned out (Nob Bikers, the entire Grey Knights Codex, etc) would be my preferred way to play barring some sort of working Alt-Action ruleset.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/01/30 01:12:31


Post by: ERJAK


What a stupidly biased poll. It assumes that the game is either irreparably broken or completely perfect. The OP is bad at polls and should feel bad.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/05/05 18:34:43


Post by: JinxDragon


Think I have a favourite Thread!
Oh the hatred for the Authors here....


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/05/08 04:21:47


Post by: brumbaer


How about "some changes only" ?
or "reset the stats, get rid of all those, invulnerable saves, fnops and super models"
in short "It's not the rules, but the codices"


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/07/07 16:46:07


Post by: Tawnis


I think the biggest issue is that GW is trying to have their cake and eat it too with a single rule set. The problem isn't the people designing the rules, it's the direction they are being told to take them. They are trying to come up with a single system that serves both casual and competitive players, and that's just never going to work. They need to tighten things up much more for competitive play, and relax and simplify things for casual play. What I propose is designing THREE completely different rule sets as follows:

1. Competitive Play: This would be where 90% of game and balance testers would work; tighten the hell out of this. Also, do yearly, or maybe twice a year grand updates rather than constantly rolling out new things, this would allow more time to balance new product. Your shiny new codex may need to wait a little while before seeing tournament play, but at least people with the big wallets and hot new things aren't always blowing everyone out of the water. Also, if multiple new factions became legal at the same time, the meta would shift dramatically enough that there shouldn't really be an obvious frontrunner, and by the time the meta is "solved" it's been about six months and another change is right around the corner.

2. Casual Play: This would be an expansion on the current Crusade system which I think is a step in the right direction, but could be so much more than it is. With it's own rule set you could get a lot more creative with what everything does because it doesn't need to be so tightly balanced, some things are okay to be a little OP here because it won't ruin competitive play. Give the world more flavor, design campaigns for people, or give us much more expansive systems in which to build our own. This would be where new codices could be used right away as balance isn't as big a deal, it would also enable players to give feedback on new units to help the teams balance the next competitive rule set. The general design philosophy for this would be to enable people to make structured army based campaigns.

3. Narrative Play: This could cross over with casual, or could also be it's own thing. It could even be branded as 40k Classic or whatever. This would be a more RPG style take on 40k, similar to what you'd find in 1st edition. The sky's the limit, go bonkers with anything that sounds cool, balance be damned. You want giant Venus fly trap monsters that can eat your troops? Done! You want to pack some anti-plant grenades for jungle missions? Done! Did someone say Hrud? Get them the hell in here, they don't need competitive rules, just give us some bad ass model for us to mess around with. Multiple D100 upgrade options to units? Sounds like a blast. Units scavenging weapons and tech from other factions? Sure! 40k is such an expansive universe, give us a system where we can do literally ANYTHING we can think of.

Not only would this solve GW's rules issue, but it would expand their business considerably as while most models would be usable in all three modes, you could have various specialty kits only for things like Casual or Narrative. They already do things like this with the board games like Blackstone Fortress, they just need to double down. Kill Team and Apoc could possibly benefit from this as well, but I play them less, so I can't say for certain.

There are a few other things that I think overall would be a huge benefit to the game:
1. Move away from D6 dice. Something like D10 or D12 would give GW a lot more options to scale the power level of their units and tweak things lightly instead of giving massive buffs or nerfs. Moving something up by 1 in anything is a pretty big deal, but by 0.5, that's not so bad.
2. Have a separate points allotment for units and upgrades. This would allow more model crossover as we have so many cool decked out models that just aren't practical to play in competitive. Also, it's just another way to add more variation and strategy to competitive play, not just, minimum amount of base unit required 95% of the time.
3. More games that aren't as objective focused. Objective games are great and all, but not every game needs to be like that. Take a page out of the old Battle Missions book and get creative with win conditions.

Well that's my thought's on the matter, love to hear if anything thinks this is a good idea, or if there's more to be improved on what I've said. Or if you think I'm just out to lunch. XD


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/07/15 11:23:08


Post by: Jarms48


I always felt that the game was the most balanced around 5th edition. Just tweak some of the universal special rules, rebalance some point costs and there we go.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/09/09 12:39:49


Post by: The Warp Forge


Jarms48 wrote:
I always felt that the game was the most balanced around 5th edition. Just tweak some of the universal special rules, rebalance some point costs and there we go.


The core rules for 5th were fine.

The issue 5th edition had was no strong giude to keep the designers in check to stick to 5th edtions core philosophy. At first it was meant to streamline and take out all the fanciful things but they disbanded that idea as was seen in the 5th ed. Loyalist codex. When this occured the codex power levels were divided and not great. Add in some odd innapropriatly costed units (like long fang spam) and people were getting sick of the edition.

5th also suffered from the fact that we only ever got half an edition, externally speaking. In this edition only half the armies got updated which were most Imperium schmucks. Only three, tehcnically 4, other armies were updated for that edition which were Necrons, Tyranids, Dark Eldar and technically Orks.

Then 6th appeared and everything started going really downhill.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2021/09/09 20:06:27


Post by: Durandal


40k is a bit crazy at the moment, just like the eras of 7th with the crazy detachment rules. The designers can't help themselves but amp things up all the time, and so whatever rule set we seem to start with, they just end up so crazy that it becomes a game few people want to play.

There needs to be some levels, where level 1 is a handful of troops and perhaps one tank or dread. This is where you can get your auras and strategims and such.
Level 2 is larger, with lots of troops and vehicles where rules need to be on a squad by squad basis. Perhaps a handful of ICs.
Level 3 starts to add superheavies, aircraft and the infantry units tend to be more abstract from a rules perspective, much like what they tried to do with Apocalypse. Infantry ICs are now squad upgrades rather then individual units.
Level 4 is anything can go bring your titans/gargants whatever and throw it on the table. At this level tanks and infantry have really abstract rules and ICs don't matter outside something like a Primarch or command baneblade.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/10 17:52:42


Post by: ProtoClone


Not voting.

A complete rewrite won't go over well. It did not go over well for WHFB into AoS.
Not changing anything isn't the answer, either.

The solution is more complex than simple firings can accomplish.

I have always seen the rules aspect of 40k very reflective of the actual concept of war. Something on the scale as war in the 40k universe isn't going to be static. There is an ever changing tide of battle that exist in the 40k universe. The ebbs and flows, the dominators and the dominated. Without this constant change everything would end as one force dominates the galaxy, and the meta.

I think some things do need to be cleaned up and maybe they are on their way to doing that, who knows? Changes don't happen overnight.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/10 18:22:34


Post by: lord_blackfang


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

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


Bird man called it in 2015


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/10 18:57:47


Post by: Tawnis


 ProtoClone wrote:
Not voting.

A complete rewrite won't go over well. It did not go over well for WHFB into AoS.
Not changing anything isn't the answer, either.

The solution is more complex than simple firings can accomplish.

I have always seen the rules aspect of 40k very reflective of the actual concept of war. Something on the scale as war in the 40k universe isn't going to be static. There is an ever changing tide of battle that exist in the 40k universe. The ebbs and flows, the dominators and the dominated. Without this constant change everything would end as one force dominates the galaxy, and the meta.

I think some things do need to be cleaned up and maybe they are on their way to doing that, who knows? Changes don't happen overnight.


For the most part I agree. What I think really hampers the game now is the constant scale up of power level, where you add special offensive rules to make people more powerful, then more special defensive rules to combat them, then more offensive rules to combat that, and so on and so on. See a bunch of units getting multiple wounds, to a bunch of weapons getting + damage, to a bunch of units getting -1 to damage taken. A few units getting extra wounds isn't a bad thing, but it's getting pretty out of hand, and you can see this with lots of other rules too.

A constant state of flux is good for the game, but that flux always scaling up is not.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/10 19:19:17


Post by: ProtoClone


 Tawnis wrote:
 ProtoClone wrote:
Not voting.

A complete rewrite won't go over well. It did not go over well for WHFB into AoS.
Not changing anything isn't the answer, either.

The solution is more complex than simple firings can accomplish.

I have always seen the rules aspect of 40k very reflective of the actual concept of war. Something on the scale as war in the 40k universe isn't going to be static. There is an ever changing tide of battle that exist in the 40k universe. The ebbs and flows, the dominators and the dominated. Without this constant change everything would end as one force dominates the galaxy, and the meta.

I think some things do need to be cleaned up and maybe they are on their way to doing that, who knows? Changes don't happen overnight.


For the most part I agree. What I think really hampers the game now is the constant scale up of power level, where you add special offensive rules to make people more powerful, then more special defensive rules to combat them, then more offensive rules to combat that, and so on and so on. See a bunch of units getting multiple wounds, to a bunch of weapons getting + damage, to a bunch of units getting -1 to damage taken. A few units getting extra wounds isn't a bad thing, but it's getting pretty out of hand, and you can see this with lots of other rules too.

A constant state of flux is good for the game, but that flux always scaling up is not.


Good point. The constant power creep will only end up crushing the game.
No matter what GW does, people will bitch. So maybe they just need to scale back the creep and see what happens?


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/13 17:54:21


Post by: Cyel


Casual or competitive, a game shouldn't consist mostly of upkeep. It's just awfully boring, waiting for this looooong resolution to end so that I, player, can do something again (and this something is usually far from exciting).

I can live with a game being dumb, if it's funny. But boring is an instant pass.

Voted for a complete re-write.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/13 18:06:02


Post by: nou


Cyel wrote:
Casual or competitive, a game shouldn't consist mostly of upkeep. It's just awfully boring, waiting for this looooong resolution to end so that I, player, can do something again (and this something is usually far from exciting).

I can live with a game being dumb, if it's funny. But boring is an instant pass.

Voted for a complete re-write.


The main problem with 40K being boring is and always was per-model attacks and hit-reroll-wound-reroll-save-reroll-fnp-reroll sequence. That is way, way too many dice rolls for what is a simple damage resolution. >50% of time at the table is dice rolling, 40% is moving minis and only 10% is actually playing a game.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/13 18:17:29


Post by: Cyel


Nou, well said, this is exactly my experience (and my problem) with the game. It's like a card game consisting mostly of shuffling the deck.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/14 08:32:37


Post by: lord_blackfang


Cyel wrote:
Nou, well said, this is exactly my experience (and my problem) with the game. It's like a card game consisting mostly of shuffling the deck.


WotC called, says to lay off, the Modern format has enough problems without your savage burns


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/16 18:57:48


Post by: AnomanderRake


I'd go for "no, it needs about one fewer complete re-write than it's had" if that was an option.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/17 09:09:42


Post by: Sunno


If the rules were re-written from scratch then It wouldn’t come out the other side still being 40K. 40K rules have always been “good enough” to make battles with your cool models happen. And that is not a bad thing. It has made GW a lot of money. But it is never going to be a technical, detailed or firm rule set. If it was GW would loose a very large proportion of its appeal and customer base.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/17 10:41:35


Post by: Blackie


The fun part of this thread is that it was opened during 7th edition. Now we can fairly say that the game was re-written from scratch. And yet there are people demanding for another total re-write.... maybe those people want 40k to be something that it'll never be. It reminds of those who say "football is bad and boring because players don't score enough", while that sport is the most popular one around the world and has billions of (most of the times overly) devoted fans. Football isn't bad, it's simply something different from the idea of entertainment those people has.

40k doesn't need a total re-write, and IMHO it didn't need a total re-write between 7th and 8th either. It can be improved of course and since 7th the game is significantly improved now. But it's still 40k, most of the people complaining about it want it to be some sort of e-sport, something that is purely based on players' skills. Which was never the goal of 40k, and probably any other GW game.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/17 12:12:11


Post by: Kid_Kyoto


Sunno wrote:
If the rules were re-written from scratch then It wouldn’t come out the other side still being 40K. 40K rules have always been “good enough” to make battles with your cool models happen. And that is not a bad thing. It has made GW a lot of money. But it is never going to be a technical, detailed or firm rule set. If it was GW would loose a very large proportion of its appeal and customer base.


The problem for me is they're not good enough. The basic structure of IGOUGO, the familiar stat line, the hit-wound-save mechanic all of those are good enough. But the layers and layers of custom rules for every weapon, every unit, every army, every army but painted a different color etc...

Just kills any enjoyment for me. I could keep up in the days of 3rd-5th but now... If someone tells me they hit on 2s because it's Tuesday and the moon is full I really would not doubt them.

PieInTheSky wrote:
I'd say the options in your poll are very limited.



At this stage the options should be YES, and YES (but in a different color)





[Thumb - 23ahfi.jpg]


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/17 18:12:59


Post by: kodos


 Blackie wrote:
The fun part of this thread is that it was opened during 7th edition. Now we can fairly say that the game was re-written from scratch. And yet there are people demanding for another total re-write.... maybe those people want 40k to be something that it'll never be. It reminds of those who say "football is bad and boring because players don't score enough", while that sport is the most popular one around the world and has billions of (most of the times overly) devoted fans. Football isn't bad, it's simply something different from the idea of entertainment those people has.

40k doesn't need a total re-write, and IMHO it didn't need a total re-write between 7th and 8th either. It can be improved of course and since 7th the game is significantly improved now. But it's still 40k, most of the people complaining about it want it to be some sort of e-sport, something that is purely based on players' skills. Which was never the goal of 40k, and probably any other GW game.


fun fact, 40k did not have a total re-write yet, just some parts were re-written while other parts still wait for their update to match the re-written new rules

8th changed the core from something very different than 3rd Edition, it was re-written
Army rules and model stat lines are still the same and just slowly changing to match the new core (2+ Armour Save was "tanky" with 3rd, but useless in 8th, were "tanky" is defined by the amount of wounds and toughness above the trash hold of the common weapons)

so we still wait for GW to complete the total re-write that started with 8th, and I guess we won't see it until the end of 10th


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/01/23 10:56:15


Post by: balmong7


 kodos wrote:


fun fact, 40k did not have a total re-write yet, just some parts were re-written while other parts still wait for their update to match the re-written new rules


This is the thing that eventually led me to drop 40k in favor of other systems. They can't just update everything at once, and even then stuff that should be updated doesn't get updated because I guess they just couldn't be bothered?

They completely changed the way Strength and Toughness interacted in 8th edition and then just didn't modify any weapon or model statlines to reflect that change. Now they are finally getting around to it in 9th edition, but sorry if your codex is still a year away from release. You gotta keep using the 7th ed stats we didn't bother during 8th.

Sure the core rules received a total rewrite in 8th, I really liked them. I don't totally hate the changes made in 9th except for the fact that the rules are overly wordy and feel like reading a contract. But the fact they can't release everything at the same time just makes the existence of the rewritten core rules not even matter.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/04/13 16:11:43


Post by: popisdead


It needs to move more towards AoS rules. Fewer rules, cleaner and simpler to play. Right now it has a range not as nice as AoS and rule set not as nice as AoS.

40k is the clusterF cousin of Fantasy/AoS where they kluge things to make it seem simpler. I was excited about 8th ed when 40k finally caught up but man, it was still so many rules issues and bloat. And whilst the game is a driving force for sales GW will not significantly change it again.

Anything like WFB has to die a death,.. like it did. And it was successful. Stop thinking about a gaming style popularized 40 years ago. It's okay things change for the better.


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/04/13 16:30:28


Post by: Just Tony


Hahahahahaha



Wait, you're serious?


Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write? @ 2022/11/20 19:22:35


Post by: Durandal


Rules bloat is a huge issue in 40k. They really need to have a defined skirmish level where they can go ham with stuff like the strategy points and such, and then a battle level which is more streamlined and is like 3rd where you can look at a unit and understand what its capable of. Then they can go Apocalypse level where you just care about unit blocks rather then individual models.

In 40k now you need rules to prevent models from being wiped off the table in one turn. That is a clear indication of power bloat and rules boat where Ragnar Blackmane can wipe a Knight Titan off the map in one phase.