As the title says, and only if you think it needs changing. I wouldn't suggest lowering the price because that is unlikely to happen. However, I would like the rulebook and codices to drop a little. I believe that's a reasonable expectation.
So, it can be rules, armies, terrain, fiction, anything.
I'd communicate more. one of the biggest issues IMHO40k has is due to GW not communicting with the fans we're not sure exactly where they're looking at going etc. if I was in charge of GW I'd be regularly communicating with the fans. every WD issue would have an article written by me as I discuss what we've released, what we're releasing in the next few months. why we're doing what we're doing (If codex Space Marines 8th edition nerfed dreadnoughts, I'd explain WHY they where Nerfed, and why I think they're still worth taking) this isn't to say I'd automaticly do what the crowd insists, but I think just knowing the process that goes into decision making would be a biiiig change for the better
I'd reduce the rules to four pages, remove points, make the entire game unbound, kill off the setting and characters and start a new setting, then say we'd release free rules but still release rules in starter boxes and campaign books.
Joking aside, what 40k needs is some good FAQ. They need a guy who talks to the community and releases FAQs on actual frequently asked questions. Resolve some issues.
Perhaps, even go as far as repair point costs by overpriced unit
Sort out the rules. Balance them better, write them well, and FAQ quickly.
I'd also like it if they stopped with the I Go You Go way of playing, to make it more interactive. So you don't have to sit there waiting for your turn, watching your army get wiped off of the table with no way to react.
I'd take 5E, slap in 4E Victory Points instead of Kill Points & 4E wound allocation rules, put in 7E Rapid Fire, Snapshot, vehicle squadron, & transported passenger effects rules, reduce most non-Ruins cover to 5+ cover from 4+, maybe a couple of other tweaks, and you've got a damn near perfect 40k ruleset.
7E at this point is an unplayable mess for anything but small group play with extensive self imposed (explicit or implicit) restrictions.
'I am quite happy with the current ruleset, there are some iffy things that I don't like, for example the push towards superheavies and apocalypse, these should be optional at the discresion of both players, not in the main game, in my opinion.
For balance, I would start with doubling the points for everything, to allow better granularity in point costs. I would also scale back on the power creep and heavily errata the current power house codices back to the scale of AM/BA/Orks/DE.
For communication I would hire a community team who would be in charge of listening to the community, maybe not directly through GW mails and stuff, but read forums and report back to the people writing rules/FAQs.
I'd probably scale back on the release shedual a tiny bit, and try to do more major and memorable releases, long time since an old codex got a new unit.
Overall I quite like the game as it is now, except the push for apocalypse sized units.
Edit: I almost forgot: I would remove battle brothers. An army should be able to stand on it's own, battle brothers just makes it harder to get some kind of balance, especially since the access to BBs are so skewed.
I'd eliminate Allies or at least make it much tighter and restrictive.
I'd have all the codices free online and regularly updated with new models.
I'd create a tournament system you could download and run with purchasable packets of prize support and scenarios.
Vaktathi wrote: I'd take 5E, slap in 4E Victory Points instead of Kill Points & 4E wound allocation rules, put in 7E Rapid Fire, Snapshot, vehicle squadron, & transported passenger effects rules, reduce most non-Ruins cover to 5+ cover from 4+, maybe a couple of other tweaks, and you've got a damn near perfect 40k ruleset.
7E at this point is an unplayable mess for anything but small group play with extensive self imposed (explicit or implicit) restrictions.
Very much agree.
I think I'd still take the 7E Psychic Phase. I've grown to like it. The powers themselves just need to be adjusted, but imbalanced Psychic powers have ALWAYS been a thing with 40k.
I'd welcome getting rid of Hull Points and going back to 5th Edition vehicle rules. That said, I'm enjoying 7th Edition's vehicle rules MUCH better than 6th. I still think all vehicles could use at least 1 or 2 more Hull Points than they have though. There still isn't enough incentive to actually use armor penetrating weapons.
I enjoy 7th Edition, but we use quite a few house rules to make it better.
I'd rather do away with the distinction between MCs and vehicles as they are now and have a unified system of toughness and saves. Then, you assign either the 'Vehicle' type, or 'MC' type to the unit which would then tell you what weapons are more effective against them (example being a vehicle type would be prone to haywire, but not MCs, likewise poison would be the opposite).
Boom. Simpler for all, easier to balance, and if done correctly, would allow the blending of the 'mechanical' MCs better with the crunch vs. fluff thing they have going on now.
I'd also like it if they stopped with the I Go You Go way of playing, to make it more interactive. So you don't have to sit there waiting for your turn, watching your army get wiped off of the table with no way to react.
Nope, it's a perfectly good way of playing. Warmahordes and KOW use a more acute version of IGYG than 40k and no-one rightly consider it as a flaw for those rulesets.
I actually like the 7th edition rule set. I do, however, feel it needs going over with a fine-tooth comb to improve clarity.
More than anything, GW needs to open up and interact more with the community instead of putting it all on the store managers. FAQs and some sort of public discussion on their design philosophy would help as well.
Get rid of the 15 minutes of pre-game ran-dumb-ness. Warlord traits, psychic powers, random gifts, etc. those things should be picked and ready at the list building stage.
Whoever thought random assault range was a good idea needs to die in a fire.
get rid of some of the double standards between shooting and assault. Either allow deep strike/outflank/disembark assaults, or make shooting units that deep strike outflank or disembark unable to effectively shoot that round. Basically either have units being deleted on command by a surprise unit a thing that both can do, or neither can do.
Fix MC rules compared to vehicles. Either have vehicles just have hull points or give MC's a way to lose arms and legs while being hurt, or maybe insta-die from a headshot.
Make cover a simple to hit mod. -1 for stealth/standard cover/jinking, -2 maximum for stealth in cover/shrouded/ruins. No cover saves.
Get rid of summoning. Murder it or make it some temp effect where the summoned models automatically vanish if the summoner casts something else, and they place a drain on your warp charges while they're out.
Fix broken rules. FAQ stuff. Really this shouldn't even need to be said.
The voltron detachments are actually a pretty good army building mechanic. Bring those to all the armies. Preferably like the eldar warhost with multiple core blueprints to choose from.
Beyond that, go head-hunting in codices looking for major offenders in point-efficiency, and start fixing. Watch tournaments to see what "always" and "never" gets taken by upper table lists, like scatbikes, wraithknights, canoptek harvests, or terminators and vespid.
Make some official tournament formats and monitor tournaments as above for points erratas.
niv-mizzet wrote: Get rid of the 15 minutes of pre-game ran-dumb-ness. Warlord traits, psychic powers, random gifts, etc. those things should be picked and ready at the list building stage.
For some armies this makes sense, but yes, it takes too long right now. The randomness feels like sometimes it's just there to screw you over. If my Chaos Force gets Black Crusader, suddenly I'm doing fantastic against Space Marines. Otherwise I'm doing pretty badly.
Whoever thought random assault range was a good idea needs to die in a fire.
I like the random range more than I thought I would. You can usually be pretty sure, but sometimes your opponent fails a critical charge, or succeeds in a highly unexpected one. That allows some interesting game variance that I don't think I'd want to live without. Of course, that begs the question then of why not do it for shooting attacks too... (I do not want to see that, just pointing it out).
Get rid of some of the double standards between shooting and assault. Either allow deep strike/outflank/disembark assaults, or make shooting units that deep strike outflank or disembark unable to effectively shoot that round. Basically either have units being deleted on command by a surprise unit a thing that both can do, or neither can do.
This is a very good idea. I'd love to see all those Drop Pod marines suddenly only hit on 6's because they're dis-orientated from falling through the atmosphere. Deep Striking has gotten less and less dangerous by the edition, and Drop Pods get even more reliable the more enemies there are - which is totally messed up. This would be a welcome change.
Fix MC rules compared to vehicles. Either have vehicles just have hull points or give MC's a way to lose arms and legs while being hurt, or maybe insta-die from a headshot.
Not sure on this one. If vehicles only lose hull points, then what's the point of AP1 guns and anything else having to do with penetrating hits? Meanwhile, if you go the other way, why wouldn't regular multi-wound characters also lose abilities or be subject to the same rules as monstrous creatures? I like the current mix, but I think the biggest issue here are the Super-Heavies.
Make cover a simple to hit mod. -1 for stealth/standard cover/jinking, -2 maximum for stealth in cover/shrouded/ruins. No cover saves.
I'd like to see this for Stealth/Shrouded (to a minimum of BS1 - but still not snap fire), but not for actual Cover. Modifiers to cover should all be gaining Stealth/Shrouded to compensate for this.
Get rid of summoning. Murder it or make it some temp effect where the summoned models automatically vanish if the summoner casts something else, and they place a drain on your warp charges while they're out.
Your suggestion of modifying rather than get ridding of it altogether makes much more sense. Would make a nice daisy-chain effect if the original summoner got killed, then all the rest vanish. Fluffy too.
Fix broken rules. FAQ stuff. Really this shouldn't even need to be said.
It really shouldn't. I honestly am flabbergasted by this one. It's not 1990 any longer.
The voltron detachments are actually a pretty good army building mechanic. Bring those to all the armies. Preferably like the eldar warhost with multiple core blueprints to choose from.
I strongly disagree. I think that the unique rules given by the voltron detachments are fantastic - but that these should just be the core rules intrinsic to the armies themselves. Just give Necrons 4+ Reanimate, let all Eldar run 6", Space Marines get free basic transports, and Dark Angels fire at full ballistic skill. Why need to be a special detachment for that?
Beyond that, go head-hunting in codices looking for major offenders in point-efficiency, and start fixing. Watch tournaments to see what "always" and "never" gets taken by upper table lists, like scatbikes, wraithknights, canoptek harvests, or terminators and vespid.
If things were changed to a "living" codex, you could do that. I'd love this, but it's not going to happen so long as they make money selling codexes. Once that's no longer the case, then things will change. There was a great article about why this was - mostly due to newer codex printings meaning that they lose money on every single unsold codex prior. One day, this may very well be the case (though why not just go to a subscription model is beyond me). Until then, not going to happen.
Make some official tournament formats and monitor tournaments as above for points erratas.
I think this is great. There used to be an 'Ard Boyz format with big prizes. Some people say it was bad for the hobby, but their reasons seemed to be "people get too competitive". News flash, there will always be very competitive people. Unless you're in an area that's 100% casual, this can happen. if you don't like those tournaments, don't attend. If you don't want to run into "tourney practice lists", then just communicate with your opponent prior to the game that you don't want to play tournament-style lists.
I think the most important thing is to define what the game play of the current 40k game is supposed to be.
The scale and scope of the game play and the complexity of the interaction.
Then write rules focusing on that specific game play!
Rather than trying be a bit of everything to cover all bases and ending up a total mess.
If 40k is supposed to be a massed battle game with 28mm minatures fine.if its supposed to be a detailed skirmish game great.
It can not be both at the same time as the current rules try to do!
It can be a massed battle game with detailed unit interaction.This is my preferred game play focus.
I think this 40k game play type could be covered in about 40 pages of rules with just 2 resolution methods and a more interactive game turn.
it is important to keep to D6s and the three stage damage resolution though, IMO.
A rule set written focusing on game play could be far more tactical and straight forward than the current rules set.If the rules were written for game play, rather than pimping the latest releases.
I will second/third/fourth the motion of removing unnecessary randomness.
The mentally disturbed warlords and psykers are the particularly crazy points: what do I specialize in today? Not sure...
Random charge distances: assault is bad enough without this.
I would second that things that make a target harder to hit: Jink, light cover, flyer, invisibility, area terrain, super mirage device 2000... have a to hit modifier applied.
Plus, no, Orks going past 6 do not get to remain at 6, you roll, for all 6's you roll again and need a 2+ or 3+ depending on the modifier.
Closest to closest wounding/removal of models: no.
Opponent selects which models within range of the weapon.
It will make for some truly hard "sniping".
I would like it where each group cannot intermingle in any way other than like two separate forces run by one player.
Further restrictions on "global" abilities for one faction affecting another ally: try to have allies manage abilities within themselves.
Prevent allies to "lend" other groups their vehicles (like drop pods).
Failing the above goal, if the groups do use abilities or vehicles not theirs, it should have a drawback: mishaps or higher chance of some kind of failure.
Firm rule:
No magically appearing next to a unit and shooting/assaulting it before they get a chance to do anything.
No assault can happen in turn 1.
No deep strike in turn one.
No outflank in turn one.
If a unit is allowed to disembark from a transport, they would be allowed to assault but cannot get the extra attack (kind of like a disordered assault) unless it is open topped or has an assault ramp, etc. (designed to dump troops into melee). I would suggest the same for deep-strike.
This is the bad one: points cost "balance".
I wish a formula was made for abilities and stats of the models equaling a base cost.
Then an "overhead" cost for the model due to army inherent abilities or global effects that can be applied.
Hence the above rule on no intermingling of abilities / equipment of different armies lend some stability.
"Overhead cost" would need to be calculated for overall faction rules and availability of abilities a model may use that extends past the unit it joins (like the psykic hood).
Formations should be complete unto themselves: self-contained.
Use the proposed formula for the models and then apply the faction "overhead" cost based on what special rules are included/applied to the formation.
To be clear: to be treated like a separate army, no other abilities or vehicles can be added to the unit for use.
I see formations as an opportunity for a specialty group for "flavor".
Imagine the "13th Penal Legion Last Chancers" as a fine example.
Again a means of trying to prevent abuse but allow for a measureable means of balance without too many outside multipliers.
Vehicles with a # of attacks stat, monstrous creatures or LOW cannot be locked in combat unless with the 3 types listed.
(Preventing a huge machine of destruction being pinned down by Gretchen).
We need a "killing these is pointless" rule to go with "our weapons are useless" rule.
This is about where I would want it to be.
<edit> I think the "complete to itself" allies and formations may have the side benefit of breaking armies into "chunks" so it may scale better due to "global" rules and ally interactions having less effect.
Criticize but please suggest what you would do different.
But a serious note, 5th would probably be the best starting place for balance, throw on hull points, overwatch, change up kill points (don't know how 4e victory points worked) and you're probably 25% of the way there, wouldn't know where to start in the land of codex's and supplements.
5th edition would be a better place to start to try to achieve batter game balance than 6th or 7th ed.
But what a bout the flaws in the core rules that have been there since 3rd ed?
Is anyone interested in addressing the flaws that negatively impact on game play?
Does 40k rule set need to be so damn complicated, when the game play is relatively straight forward.
Do some players think complication in the rules is a good substitute for complexity in the game play?
Does 40k need to use 8 resolution methods and over 80 special rules to deliver the same amount of game play as a most other games manage with 2 resolution methods and a dozen or so special rules.
Too much over complication in the rules means 'special rules' and 'randum rolls' are used to drive the game play .Rather than using more suitable core rules to do the job.
Not much to input here, most of my ideas have already been posted but:
Vehicles. Stop trying to make us functionally Monstrous Creatures that are weaker than other Monstrous Creatures. At least MS's dont havt to worry about being oneshotted by a lucky role on the damage table or being engaged in close combat by basic infantry. Hell, most MC's do not have to bother about basic infantry rapid firing them to death
Vehicles on the other hand do. They now have Hull Points which are essentially wounds for vehicles, and thanks to this most vehicles are vulnerable to basic infantry guns. A squad of Space Marines should not be able to bolter a Leman Russ to death but thanks to GW's slowed system they can quite easily kill a Leman Russ a turn if they are in its rear arc. More so if they have attached weapons.
So, vehicles are currently functioning akin to Monstrous Creatures for damage purposes. But MC's do not risk losing the ability to fight and possibley move next turn. They do not have to worry about weapons and legs being shot off, they have saves (usually very good saves) against all these wounding/damaging hits. And they do not have to worry about a lucky Lascannon shot causing them to spontaneously explode.
Get rid of the HP system. It is crap.
Instead I propose the following solution: When you hit roll to pen as normal. If you score above 10 but equal too or below the facings armour value then you glance it. If you roll above you penetrate. Roll on the appropriate table:
Glancing:
0- No effect: 'That one bounced'
1-3 crew stunned: Minus 1BS next turn
4 crew shaken: Minus 1BS next turn and half move only
5 Weapon destroyed: One randomly determined weapon is destroyed
6 Immobilised: The vehicle is immobilised for the rest of the game, unless is repaired
7+ Heavy damage: Vehicle is immobilised and one randomly determined weapon is destroyed
Penetrating:
0- Light damage: Roll on the glancing hit table with a +1
1 crew shaken: Minus 1BS next turn and half move only
2 Weapon Destroyed: One randomly determined weapon is destroyed
3 Immobilised: The vehicle is immobilised for the rest of the battle, unless it is repaired
4-5 Vehicle wrecked: The vehicle is destroyed. Leave the model on the table, it counts as impassible terrain.
6 Vehicle explodes: Roll a D6. All models within this range take a S4 AP4 hit. Leave the wreck in place, it counts as impassible terrain and blocks all LOS that moves through it
7+ EXPLOSION!!!: Roll 2D6. All models in this range take a S8 AP3 hit. Remove the vehicle model and, if possible, replace it with a crater.
If a result is inflicted that cannot take effect (such as an immobilised result on an already immobilised vehicle or a weapon destroyed result on an unarmed vehicle) then the attacker can add +1 or -1 to the damage roll.
If a vehicle (NOT a fortification) is immobilised and has no weapons then it is considered destroyed.
Modifiers:
AP1: +2 to the damage roll
AP2: +1 to the damage roll
AP6: -1 to the damage roll
AP- -2 to the damage roll
Vaktathi wrote: I'd take 5E, slap in 4E Victory Points instead of Kill Points & 4E wound allocation rules, put in 7E Rapid Fire, Snapshot, vehicle squadron, & transported passenger effects rules, reduce most non-Ruins cover to 5+ cover from 4+, maybe a couple of other tweaks, and you've got a damn near perfect 40k ruleset.
7E at this point is an unplayable mess for anything but small group play with extensive self imposed (explicit or implicit) restrictions.
Flugel Meister wrote: As the title says, and only if you think it needs changing. I wouldn't suggest lowering the price because that is unlikely to happen. However, I would like the rulebook and codices to drop a little. I believe that's a reasonable expectation.
So, it can be rules, armies, terrain, fiction, anything.
Everything.
Proper consistent design philosophy, good balance as a priority and watertight, streamlined, straight forward and intuitive rules. A defined direction and scale too, rather than 'kitchen sink'...
Everything has room for improvement, and 40K is no different.
Right now the biggest drawback in 40K is the lackluster appeal of most basic troops for most armies compared to the ones with bells and whistles-
Do you want 10 space marines with bolters, or do you want 10 space marines with bolters AND special ammunition?
To some extent that's the point where anything breaks down. Unless they give a tactical marine new equipment, any change to them should carry over to the fluffy more experienced tactical marine- i.e. they'd have to create Mark IX Power Armor with a riot-shield type bullet blocker too bulky for spec-ops units like sternguard that lets tac marines reroll their armor save.
Then make a bolter (and corresponding other basic weapons like lasguns) improved i.e. bolter is salvo 4/6, unless you use special ammunition in which case it's fewer but better shots (because it's not the basic weapon anymore)
The choice between a Tactical squad and a Sternguard squad (or any other but for example-) should be a choice not a tax, and it should be a HARD choice that requires more thought than how many points per model do I have to spend?
Breton wrote: Everything has room for improvement, and 40K is no different.
Right now the biggest drawback in 40K is the lackluster appeal of most basic troops for most armies compared to the ones with bells and whistles-
Do you want 10 space marines with bolters, or do you want 10 space marines with bolters AND special ammunition?
To some extent that's the point where anything breaks down. Unless they give a tactical marine new equipment, any change to them should carry over to the fluffy more experienced tactical marine- i.e. they'd have to create Mark IX Power Armor with a riot-shield type bullet blocker too bulky for spec-ops units like sternguard that lets tac marines reroll their armor save.
Then make a bolter (and corresponding other basic weapons like lasguns) improved i.e. bolter is salvo 4/6, unless you use special ammunition in which case it's fewer but better shots (because it's not the basic weapon anymore)
The choice between a Tactical squad and a Sternguard squad (or any other but for example-) should be a choice not a tax, and it should be a HARD choice that requires more thought than how many points per model do I have to spend?
Gah, the LAST thing that Space marines need is buffing. Seriously, they are one of the most powerful codexes right now. Whilst I agree that the call for some basic troops is not as high as that for the specialists they are still used. Unless your playing Unbound though. If your playing Unbound then tough titties as they say, its your own fault.
oni wrote: If I had a magic wand and could change anything I wanted regarding W40K...
I'd change this tornado of negativity called Dakka Dakka... this whine-fest of a community.
Maybe go to Warseer or one of the other forums that like to fap to images of GW's logo and Space Marines. They are just brimming with the 'Everything GW does is amazing and good, GW is magic sparkley and makes ot pee-pee's feel good'
Here at Dakka we prefer the cold, hard, truth and facts. If you cannot handle it feel free to leave.
I would prefer to address the problem of seeing 'Troops ' as a tax you have to pay to get the model you want.
By simply scrapping the current F.O.C based on function.
Which makes players think of taking three of the best Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy support options .
And use a F,o,C based on unit rarity instead...
Each faction can have 6 to 12 themed lists.
Each themed list denotes which units are HQ option, Common options, Specialized , and Restricted options for that particular list.
The new F.O.C. could looks like this.
Select 1 HQ.
Select 4 to 8 Common units.
Select 1 Specialized unit , for every 2 Common units taken.
Select 1 Restricted unit , for every 2 Specialist units taken.
So there are no 'troops chioces you have to take , just on theme units for your list...
(I may need to explain that better?)
oni wrote: If I had a magic wand and could change anything I wanted regarding W40K...
I'd change this tornado of negativity called Dakka Dakka... this whine-fest of a community.
Invalid "garbage".
Suggestions are actually being given on improvement.
Pickup games are pretty much not possible without any game being unbalanced purely by army list selection.
An equal "observation" is the tornado of condescension those like to heap on us who are silly enough to express that they care about their hobby.
You are not being superior, just a need to try to feel better at another's expense, a rather parasitic behavior threads like this can do without.
Sorry, I think I just fed the troll, my bad.
I am to assume it is all "perfect" or did you have something to add to the topic at hand?
As pointed out, there may be better venues to demonstrate you disdain where it is "appreciated".
Some streamlining may be in order or GW may decide on an AoS style reboot.
Interesting times.
Blacksails wrote: I'd rather do away with the distinction between MCs and vehicles as they are now and have a unified system of toughness and saves. Then, you assign either the 'Vehicle' type, or 'MC' type to the unit which would then tell you what weapons are more effective against them (example being a vehicle type would be prone to haywire, but not MCs, likewise poison would be the opposite).
Boom. Simpler for all, easier to balance, and if done correctly, would allow the blending of the 'mechanical' MCs better with the crunch vs. fluff thing they have going on now.
Gah, the LAST thing that Space marines need is buffing.
What part of using Space Marines as an example, while describing a philosophical adjustment to the troop type as a whole vs "specials" did you not understand? The part where I also mentioned those lasguns?
Units should be judged by a few different characteristics- durabiltiy, LowT (i.e. kills low toughness)shooting output, HighT(high toughness and vehicles) shooting output, CC output, and probably a few others like mobility. The basic troop type should be at least tied for second best in most of those categories (Whatever they actually are) They should be the jack of all trades not-quite-master of none by actual value, not by FOC role.
As a plumber in occupation I realize that there becomes a point where something can no longer be fixed. The line has too aamany patches, dead ends, resoldered joints, etc. The only thing left to do is cut out everything and start over. There is just no more good original pipe left.
And that is what 40k has become. It started in third and has since had four revisions. But those revisions were not just fixing the bad spots. They changed the flow, they added new branchs, to compensate rather than actually fix the prooblem in the first place.
So I agree with those that believe 40k as it is should be nuked and started over from scratch. Sometimes its the only way to get water flowing again.
Perhaps we should list the things that need fixing , starting with the core rules?
1)The game turn mechanic.
Alternating game turns , is fine for games where units have to maneuver into weapons range.
But as units start more or less in effective weapons range in 40k, terrain permitting.(Alpha Strike)
A more interactive game turn would improve tactical game play.
2 )The stat line.
IMO40k game play should be an equal blend of fire power, mobility and assault.
So having no stat for mobility, ONE stat for shooing and FOUR for assault is where the imbalance starts IMO.
Having 4 stats for assault and one for shooting is fine for WHFB where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
But in 40k where nearly evety unit has ranged capability it skews focus and game balance.
A revised stat line that reflects the in game ability directly, would be a better way forward.
3)The resolution methods.
40k uses far to many ,(8) and still has to rely on special rules to cover all the game play.This is simply down to legacy issues combined with expanding the scope of the game.
I would propose using stat values directly , and single chart for opposed vales for all 3 stages of combat resolution.(To hit, to save , to damage.)
And keeping special rules to JUST cover actual special abilities.
IMO a re-write could reduce the amount of rules to about 40 pages.
Yet deliver far more tactically complex game play, if that is the direction the rules should be headed in.
Breton wrote: Everything has room for improvement, and 40K is no different.
Right now the biggest drawback in 40K is the lackluster appeal of most basic troops for most armies compared to the ones with bells and whistles-
Do you want 10 space marines with bolters, or do you want 10 space marines with bolters AND special ammunition?
To some extent that's the point where anything breaks down. Unless they give a tactical marine new equipment, any change to them should carry over to the fluffy more experienced tactical marine- i.e. they'd have to create Mark IX Power Armor with a riot-shield type bullet blocker too bulky for spec-ops units like sternguard that lets tac marines reroll their armor save.
Then make a bolter (and corresponding other basic weapons like lasguns) improved i.e. bolter is salvo 4/6, unless you use special ammunition in which case it's fewer but better shots (because it's not the basic weapon anymore)
The choice between a Tactical squad and a Sternguard squad (or any other but for example-) should be a choice not a tax, and it should be a HARD choice that requires more thought than how many points per model do I have to spend?
Gah, the LAST thing that Space marines need is buffing. Seriously, they are one of the most powerful codexes right now. Whilst I agree that the call for some basic troops is not as high as that for the specialists they are still used. Unless your playing Unbound though. If your playing Unbound then tough titties as they say, its your own fault.
Those tactical marines, man, I'll tell you: they are killers! Seriously, C:SM is a book with a few magic bullet units and a bunch of sub par crap.
Imho go back to 5th edition style rules with 4th edition level of power creep. Then start balancing the factions internally and against each other so all have roughly equal chance to win and each faction can have multiple viable builds.
No allies. Ever. No unbound. Lords of war restricted to apoc.
Make imperial knights simply part of adept mechanicus codex, not their own army.
Put assassins, sob, inquisitors, death watch and grey knights into one codex called the inquisition.
Put bloody storm troopers back in guard codex
Get rid of sm sub codexes and make them into doctrines for each chapter from vanilla marines
Get rid of as much randomness as you can.
Expand on the flavors of the armies while adding in balance so no one army is vastly superior to the others or one becomes a joke.
Completely re-do the pychic phase so it flows with the rest of the game better and isn't a huge game changer. (because some armies dont have pychics.
Fix the entire method of doing allies. "My Eldar, Necron, IK alliance will stomp you!" stuff has got to go.
GW needs to hire an individual whose entire job description is;
"Every time you see a list that randomly determines a game-relevant effect, aside from mission determination, you find the games designer(s) responsible for said list and hit him/them on the head. Then randomly determine one other games designer (a list will be made available) and hit that person as an object lesson. A suitable stick (with a nail in it) will be provided."
A big plaque will be hung in the Studio sporting the words; "The stick and random lists goes hand-in-hand, and are applied proportionally!".
Lanrak wrote: Perhaps we should list the things that need fixing , starting with the core rules?
1)The game turn mechanic.
Alternating game turns , is fine for games where units have to maneuver into weapons range.
But as units start more or less in effective weapons range in 40k, terrain permitting.(Alpha Strike)
A more interactive game turn would improve tactical game play.
2 )The stat line.
IMO40k game play should be an equal blend of fire power, mobility and assault.
So having no stat for mobility, ONE stat for shooing and FOUR for assault is where the imbalance starts IMO.
Having 4 stats for assault and one for shooting is fine for WHFB where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
But in 40k where nearly evety unit has ranged capability it skews focus and game balance.
A revised stat line that reflects the in game ability directly, would be a better way forward.
3)The resolution methods.
40k uses far to many ,(8) and still has to rely on special rules to cover all the game play.This is simply down to legacy issues combined with expanding the scope of the game.
I would propose using stat values directly , and single chart for opposed vales for all 3 stages of combat resolution.(To hit, to save , to damage.)
And keeping special rules to JUST cover actual special abilities.
IMO a re-write could reduce the amount of rules to about 40 pages.
Yet deliver far more tactically complex game play, if that is the direction the rules should be headed in.
This is probably the soloution I favor, as well as the following post. Cutting down on the number of special rules would be great. Combine Poison and Fleshbane, Melta and Armourbane (nerf Melta ranges to stop any rage.) No more random charts of random, they're annoying slow the game down, and can frustrate both players. D weapons do 2 HP per pen hit, was that to hard GW? Alternating game activation is needed, and will actually incentivize multiples unit strategies. Leave game turns to Warmahordes, where alpha strikes aren't everywhere. Not sure what to do about that Stats issue.
1. Get rid of the 15 minutes randomness that must be determined before the match. Random psychic abilities is just strange.
2. Change the I go You go system into, letting each player first from his Fast attack, then his HQ and Elite, then his Troops and finally his Heavy support.
3. Remove glancing hits.
4. Less rules.
5. Less equipment options, and just more squads as they are, kind of like WarmaHordes has it. Would make the game much much easier to balance.
I.E. Assault terminators vs Regular Terminators.
Would reduce abuse, RPS lists and also the game time, not having to deal with every little equipment pice that someone has etc. Why not just make a separate scout model with sniper rifle and camo cloacks, instead of letting you pick whatever you want, when the outcome on the board is almost never influenced if your sergeant has a boltgun or a shotgun.
Hear! Hear! Never added anything except negativity anyhow. You reap what you sow I guess.
He was no troll and appeared to care enough.
He usually offered his two cents rather than shoot everything down.
I would label him as being more critical of BS than most, rather than Mr negativity.
For starters I'd make tom kirby dole out all his shares via randumb chart rolls to all 40k players across the planet. He wouldn't need to confirm their qualifications as playas as long as he felt they were 'good people'.
Then when I got around to thinking more realistically I would put cruddace in a closet with every single fuking nid model I owned and lock the door.
Then since authors have now been removed I'd just guess at whoever secretly wrote the last 3 codices and put them plus whoever came up with the brilliant idea for age of suckmore and I'd put them to work writing age of calgar (shamelessly stolen and brilliant btw).
And finally once all this failed I'd probably just get my friends together and agree to change a few things and throw some dice.. L8
I would improve it by making it more fun, go back to something more like RT.
So my suggestion would be to make it similar to AoS, without the crappy fluff revisions. The 40K fluff is fine.
Mez
AoS and RT are about as far apart as games can get, the only similarities they have is they don't really have points values (but for different reasons).
I would improve it by making it more fun, go back to something more like RT.
So my suggestion would be to make it similar to AoS, without the crappy fluff revisions. The 40K fluff is fine.
Mez
AoS and RT are about as far apart as games can get, the only similarities they have is they don't really have points values (but for different reasons).
The game was working fine before the massive proliferation of weapons that could kill their points value (or very close to it) in a single turn. Basically, stuff does too much damage.
When a gun shoots, you have 3 parts where probability "thins out" your damage: roll to hit (ballistic skill), roll to wound (toughness), roll to save (armor). This applies to any damage dealing mode, but shooting makes for a good example. This is how a boltgun goes from one shot to 0.11 dead marines a turn. Probability and uncertainty effectively reduce the average damage of a weapon. More powerful weapons gain effectiveness by reducing the possible failures at a certain stage (hit, wound, or save) to increase the probability of success. Finally, all weapons can boost rate of fire to give more chances, effectively influencing all 3.
The problem we're seeing now is that more and more weapons simply bypass more than one of these "probability gates" by making them near-certainties. Examples:
Grav w/amp: bypass wound, bypass save
Scatter laser (against most infantry): bypass wound
D-scythes: bypass hit, bypass wound, bypass save
Now, these types of weapons have existed before. For example, the lascannon bypasses wound and save. However, the difference with these new weapons is that they also have a high rate of fire, which overwhelms whatever "probability gate" is left. A grav cannon with amp still has to roll to hit, but with 5 shots it's going to get some through...and those that do bypass the wound mechanic and are AP2. The aspect warhost is another good example, where units like warp spiders hit on 2's and wound on 2's; they have bypassed the hit and wound gates, leaving only the save gate to reduce their damage. Re-rolls are another way to negate specific probability gates.
In short, we now have an excess of weapons that approach mathematical certainty to inflict damge. High toughness and good armor saves are traditional ways that units have survived (and they pay for them), and those qualities are increasingly being overwhelmed or flat-out ignored. This is why Necrons are so durable, because they add yet another probability gate to reduce damage via reanimation protocols.
What we need to do is decrease offensive capability. We need to go back to where basic troop weapons killed a tenth of their points cost on average, and more powerful weapons are limited in quantity. Then things like movement, target priority, and assault become a bigger deal, especially in objective games and both sides will finish with a more of their army still alive and fighting to the end.
greyknight12 wrote: The game was working fine before the massive proliferation of weapons that could kill their points value (or very close to it) in a single turn. Basically, stuff does too much damage.
When a gun shoots, you have 3 parts where probability "thins out" your damage: roll to hit (ballistic skill), roll to wound (toughness), roll to save (armor). This applies to any damage dealing mode, but shooting makes for a good example. This is how a boltgun goes from one shot to 0.11 dead marines a turn. Probability and uncertainty effectively reduce the average damage of a weapon. More powerful weapons gain effectiveness by reducing the possible failures at a certain stage (hit, wound, or save) to increase the probability of success. Finally, all weapons can boost rate of fire to give more chances, effectively influencing all 3.
The problem we're seeing now is that more and more weapons simply bypass more than one of these "probability gates" by making them near-certainties. Examples:
Grav w/amp: bypass wound, bypass save
Scatter laser (against most infantry): bypass wound
D-scythes: bypass hit, bypass wound, bypass save
Now, these types of weapons have existed before. For example, the lascannon bypasses wound and save. However, the difference with these new weapons is that they also have a high rate of fire, which overwhelms whatever "probability gate" is left. A grav cannon with amp still has to roll to hit, but with 5 shots it's going to get some through...and those that do bypass the wound mechanic and are AP2. The aspect warhost is another good example, where units like warp spiders hit on 2's and wound on 2's; they have bypassed the hit and wound gates, leaving only the save gate to reduce their damage. Re-rolls are another way to negate specific probability gates.
In short, we now have an excess of weapons that approach mathematical certainty to inflict damge. High toughness and good armor saves are traditional ways that units have survived (and they pay for them), and those qualities are increasingly being overwhelmed or flat-out ignored. This is why Necrons are so durable, because they add yet another probability gate to reduce damage via reanimation protocols.
What we need to do is decrease offensive capability. We need to go back to where basic troop weapons killed a tenth of their points cost on average, and more powerful weapons are limited in quantity. Then things like movement, target priority, and assault become a bigger deal, especially in objective games and both sides will finish with a more of their army still alive and fighting to the end.
Indeed the case.
I can see the "advanced weaponry" viewpoint of "but it shoots lasers/black holes/singularities/shurikens and lightning, guys shouldn't live through that!"
But for a good game to happen, there needs to be some concessions to "supposed" 41st millennium reality. Models like gretchin that are meant to be killed by dozens because they're almost free is fine, but hard boyz should be a lot harder (har har) to sweep off the table.
If the game were designed well, I don't think tabling someone before turn 4 should be possible.
I don't really think I can make any suggestions for this, as I've only been into the game since the tail-end of fifth, and have little practical expierience. So I have no idea how things were back then, but I still have some ideas for how the game should work.
1. Change the scale to a D10. Okay this sounds really nutty, but I actually think it would be a nice change, especially for realizisim in the game. In other threads, the mere suggestion of a BS 4 upgrade for Guard vehicles has upset people who think that Guard should not have the same BS as a Space Marine. I agree, but it's really hard to differentiate vetereans from regulars on a D6 scale, but a D10 would make it easier. This is just a little suggestion, and I understand it probably sounds stupid.
2. Keep HP. I'm sure a lot of IG players are going to be angry about this one, but I actually do like HP. They are a good way of representing the general durability of a tank, and also give us a way to avoid random one-shot kills on a vehicle that we were counting on. Now I have two modifications for HP though. First, make them different in value. A rhino should not have the same HP as a Leman Russ. There should be a bigger range of HP that better represents the scale of the vehicles. Secondly, don't have glances take a HP, instead brig back the fifth edition table for glances, maybe modified a little. This actually makes more sense, as Haywire and Gauss weapons are actually more likely to shake or stun a crew or cause damage to a critical system than actually damage the overa durability. Modify D weapons so that they auto-strip off 1 HP per hit. I think that would be a good compromise.
3. Fortifications. I'm not sure how much of a problem people have with this, but I love them. Okay, they can be abused, but that's something that can be said about many things in the 40k realm. Other ears should have been given their own fortifications so that they don't have to steal Imperium ones. But otherwise I love the idea. Yeah it's feeding gunline armies, and I do play guard, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be fortification that only benefeit Gunlines. Stuff like the landing pad which helps deep strikers is a great idea.
4. Allies. There was a suggestion in another thread to just lower the levels of alliance by one and get rid of Battle Brothers, and that's the best idea in my opinion. It gets rid of most of the abuses while still allowing fluffy players to forge the narrative or come up with unique army ideas.
5. Keep in mind I'm a fifth and later player, so when people talk about going back to second or RT, or about how everything's an extension of third, I don't know what their talking about and will leas those comments alone for now. Except for how everything's an extension of third. I don't know how much of a difference there was between 1st/2nd/3rd, but generally in other wargames often new releases are often continuations of previous editions. There's changes, but the basic stuff is still the same, the big examples being Warmahordes, Battletech, and Infinity, so I don't get where people are coming from with that.
HP's unfortunately are really a terrible method of representing tanks. Tanks keep going until something dramatic happens, usually the armor gets penetrated and something goes BOOM! The way they're done now, they're just wounds like anything else, except vehicles don't get armor/invul saves like MC's do.
HP's might represent something unarmored relatively well, like a large truck, that can actually just fall apart with enough body damage, but not really tanks, where they're much more solidly built and reinforced and a hole typically means something catastrophic has happened.
Just to address the last 2 posts with some alternatives...
Everyone agrees that 40k needs more granularity in the interaction , to reflect the diversity of units in the game.(To cut down on 'special snowflake' special rules.)
However, going to a D10 instead of a D6 is not addresing the core issues in the rules.And D10 are not a practical choice if you are rolling lots of dice together.(eg 20 to 30 dice at a time!)
Here is the universal table we are using ATM in our Apha testing of some new rules .(9 results from a D6 , would you believe!)
(We added a Stealth value to oppose Shooting skill, so ALL combat resolution is now comparing opposed values on ONE table.)
v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
1 4 5 5 6 6 h h n n n
2 3 4 5 5 6 6 h h n n
3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 h h n
4 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 h h
5 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 h
6 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6
7 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6
8 d 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5
9 d d 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5
10 d d d 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
To hit ..(Shooting skill vs Stealth skill, Assault Skill vs Assault skill.)
h = Hard to hit, halve number of successes(6s rolled.) rounding down.
n= No effect.(Automatic miss,)
d= Double hits.(Target is automatically hit twice).
To save (Armour value vs Armour Penetration value.)
h=Hard hit .The target has to roll 6 followed by a 6 to save.
n= No save possible.(Auto penetration .)
d= Deflected hit , automatically saves all hits. including Double hits.
To wound (Damage value of weapon vs resilience value of target.)
h= Hard to kill, Roll 6+ followed by 6+ rolled to cause damage.
n= No effect the target is to resilient to lose wounds structure points.
d=Destroyed, the model suffers massive critical damage, looses all wounds/structure points , and is removed from play.
Conversion to new AV values.
Armour save 6+ = AV 1,to Armour save 2+ = AV 5.
AV 6 = terminator(AS 2+5++) and current AV 10.
AV 7 =terminator (AS 2+4++)and current AV 11.
AV 8=current AV 12
AV 9= current AV 13
AV 10 =current AV 14.
We have found using the same table to work out the chance to hit to wound and to save , speeds the game up and adds in lots more diversity in the interaction.
As far as HP go.
I would prefer to have penetrating hits cause a set type of damage, but done in a way to apply to MC an vehicles in the same way.
Each vehicle or MC has a set number of Mobility hits, and Armament hits it can suffer .
Each armament hit removes a (weapon) attack.
Each mobility hit reduces the speed the model moves.
EG if a model has 2 mobility hits, it can only move half speed when it suffers one mobility hit, and is immobilized when it suffers the second mobility hit.
When a model looses all its (weapon) attacks it has to pass a moral test at the start of the turn or route.
When a model is immobilized , it has to pass a morale test at the start of the turn , or it is destroyed,(The crew bails out , or the M/C bleeds out .)
I think the real problem with 40k rules is they have always been made backwards compatible, and so the amount of stuff added has made the whole thin a holistic mess that is a nightmare to sort out properly.
Where as a new rule set written for the current units and intended game play of 40k, (not those in found in RT.)
Would be the most effective way forward.
I am not too good at explaining my ideas in the written format, but I hope you can see some value /ideas for discussion in this post.
saithor wrote:I don't really think I can make any suggestions for this, as I've only been into the game since the tail-end of fifth, and have little practical expierience. So I have no idea how things were back then, but I still have some ideas for how the game should work.
1. Change the scale to a D10. Okay this sounds really nutty, but I actually think it would be a nice change, especially for realizisim in the game. In other threads, the mere suggestion of a BS 4 upgrade for Guard vehicles has upset people who think that Guard should not have the same BS as a Space Marine. I agree, but it's really hard to differentiate vetereans from regulars on a D6 scale, but a D10 would make it easier. This is just a little suggestion, and I understand it probably sounds stupid.
2. Keep HP. I'm sure a lot of IG players are going to be angry about this one, but I actually do like HP. They are a good way of representing the general durability of a tank, and also give us a way to avoid random one-shot kills on a vehicle that we were counting on. Now I have two modifications for HP though. First, make them different in value. A rhino should not have the same HP as a Leman Russ. There should be a bigger range of HP that better represents the scale of the vehicles. Secondly, don't have glances take a HP, instead brig back the fifth edition table for glances, maybe modified a little. This actually makes more sense, as Haywire and Gauss weapons are actually more likely to shake or stun a crew or cause damage to a critical system than actually damage the overa durability. Modify D weapons so that they auto-strip off 1 HP per hit. I think that would be a good compromise.
3. Fortifications. I'm not sure how much of a problem people have with this, but I love them. Okay, they can be abused, but that's something that can be said about many things in the 40k realm. Other ears should have been given their own fortifications so that they don't have to steal Imperium ones. But otherwise I love the idea. Yeah it's feeding gunline armies, and I do play guard, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be fortification that only benefeit Gunlines. Stuff like the landing pad which helps deep strikers is a great idea.
4. Allies. There was a suggestion in another thread to just lower the levels of alliance by one and get rid of Battle Brothers, and that's the best idea in my opinion. It gets rid of most of the abuses while still allowing fluffy players to forge the narrative or come up with unique army ideas.
5. Keep in mind I'm a fifth and later player, so when people talk about going back to second or RT, or about how everything's an extension of third, I don't know what their talking about and will leas those comments alone for now. Except for how everything's an extension of third. I don't know how much of a difference there was between 1st/2nd/3rd, but generally in other wargames often new releases are often continuations of previous editions. There's changes, but the basic stuff is still the same, the big examples being Warmahordes, Battletech, and Infinity, so I don't get where people are coming from with that.
Obviously you have never actually seen what really happens to tanks in combat. Allow me to enlighten you:
Much as I utterly HATE citing Fury as evidence (the historical innacuracies and crimes against general sense make me scream internally) the way that the tanks function within it is actually correct. They just keep on rolling and shrugging off the shots until someone gets a hit in that penetrates and hits something vital. And in all honesty even then there are records of tanks taking a penetrating hit and continuing to roll and fight. The current system used in 40K is a terrible method that does not represent how tanks truly work. Tanks do not role forwards, take a few glancing blows and then just stop functioning.
Those glancing hits that strip a HP each time should really be represented by a table that allows for the crew to be stunned or shaken and the tank to be immobilised or have a weapon destroyed by the hit.
On the other hand penetrating hits should be devastating and have a 50% chance to knock the vehicle out or even blow it up.
Need some more evidence?
Vaktathi wrote:HP's unfortunately are really a terrible method of representing tanks. Tanks keep going until something dramatic happens, usually the armor gets penetrated and something goes BOOM! The way they're done now, they're just wounds like anything else, except vehicles don't get armor/invul saves like MC's do.
HP's might represent something unarmored relatively well, like a large truck, that can actually just fall apart with enough body damage, but not really tanks, where they're much more solidly built and reinforced and a hole typically means something catastrophic has happened.
Exactly. Right now a Tank is less worth having than an MC.
A truck or light vehicle is where the HP system would make real sense as you said. But for tanks it should be a pen or nothing.
saithor wrote: I don't really think I can make any suggestions for this, as I've only been into the game since the tail-end of fifth, and have little practical expierience. So I have no idea how things were back then, but I still have some ideas for how the game should work.
1. Change the scale to a D10. Okay this sounds really nutty, but I actually think it would be a nice change, especially for realizisim in the game. In other threads, the mere suggestion of a BS 4 upgrade for Guard vehicles has upset people who think that Guard should not have the same BS as a Space Marine. I agree, but it's really hard to differentiate vetereans from regulars on a D6 scale, but a D10 would make it easier. This is just a little suggestion, and I understand it probably sounds stupid.
I think you should never have to ask your opponent about his stat in order to make a roll. This slows down the game and is very clunky. You should just roll on a d10 and if you're WS is 5 everything 5 and under is a hit. And there should only be one toughness value, not both to wound and armor save. it slows down the game.
One should never, ever use fiction to support one's argument. I can create fiction in which a green human pulls a tank apart with his bare hands.
[Been playing IG as my main army since the Eye of Terror Campaign]
HP are a step in the right direction. The AV mechanic should be disposed of, and replaced with MC like rules. High toughness, a saving throw, and no damage table. It's just a hassle mid game.
MC and Vehicles should be a type, differentiating between organic and mechanical. Poison works against organic, as does shred. Haywire works against vehicles, as does armourbane [becomes a re-roll].
At most, there should be a rule when a vehicle / MC is below half HP, their movement is halved, Attacks are halved, and only one weapon may be fired at full BS.
Tanks can "worn down" so to speak. Tracks blown off, weapons jammed, etc, etc. HP represent that much better than a damage table, in the context of the table-top game.
greatbigtree wrote: One should never, ever use fiction to support one's argument. I can create fiction in which a green human pulls a tank apart with his bare hands.
[Been playing IG as my main army since the Eye of Terror Campaign]
HP are a step in the right direction. The AV mechanic should be disposed of, and replaced with MC like rules. High toughness, a saving throw, and no damage table. It's just a hassle mid game.
MC and Vehicles should be a type, differentiating between organic and mechanical. Poison works against organic, as does shred. Haywire works against vehicles, as does armourbane [becomes a re-roll].
At most, there should be a rule when a vehicle / MC is below half HP, their movement is halved, Attacks are halved, and only one weapon may be fired at full BS.
Tanks can "worn down" so to speak. Tracks blown off, weapons jammed, etc, etc. HP represent that much better than a damage table, in the context of the table-top game.
But does it? IRL tanks are very rarely worn down and even then it is over long engagements lasting many hours. In 40K a game is about, well, a minute or so a turn.
Tanks DIE from PENETRATING hits. Not glancy glancy bull like we have at the moment. Right now a tank is ad a disadvantage because thanks to GW and their brainless rules and MC or any other multi wound model can fight on until it is killed. A tank fight on BUT risks losing its weapons, ability to move and fight as it does so. It can also be one shotted by man weapons out there. And it has almost no saves against this.
NB, whilst they may be fictional those videos which I brought in are about as close to reality as you can possibly get. I did try to get actual war time footage but there was the slight issue that IRL cameras are very rare on the battlefield, tend to be of low quality and have the slight issue that even in WW2 tank vs tank combat took place at ranges of 500 metres to 2.5 kilometres. Therefore actual footage is hard to find.
However there are very very few accounts of tanks being worn down in the way that you and GW say happens. Almost all kills are performed by a penetrating hit.
Though movies do make for a very poor reference, the fact is a real tank can take a continuous beating until something actually gives.
Hull Points are ridiculous.
What is needed is a better, more intuitive Damage Table for vehicles, not wounds for tanks. If anything, Monstrous Creatures and multi-wound models need a method for diminished performance. Why exactly is that thing with 4 wounds operating at 100% when 75% dead? Oh yes........because.
I'm not advocating reduced performance for multi-wound models because we tried a fairly simple method and most players either didn't remember to use it or didn't care enough to. But the game has since introduced so many more MC's we may readdress that. In the meantime we altered the damage table for vehicles and made them a bit more stout, but not like 5th Ed. which made them too strong in contrast to 4th Ed which made them rolling death traps. As with so many things, GW swings the pendulum too far when 'adjusting' its rules. The hull point solution was never necessary; now people are married to it.
I think the point trying to be made is all units should be covered the same way.Having separate systems to cover a particular unit type that was added on ,is poor game design .
If an infantry units looses effectiveness as it looses models.
Then to allow better balance , MCs and vehicles should follow the same method of loosing efficiency unless hit by some thing devastating.
OR let all units remain at full efficiency until they sustain enough damage, then remove them.
Because of the scale of the minatures in 40k players expect detailed interaction.
It is possible for tanks to loose efficiency from penetrating hits.(But just get suppressed by 'glancing' hits.)
Any one seen a tank loose a track and become partially immobilized, or have the drive train damaged and move at reduced speed.Or suffer a turret ring jam, or get a MG destroyed .)Or loose a crew member like the tank commander loosing his head!
Because 40k is set in a fictional war , you can pick any single resolution system you want.BUT for the sake of elegant game design you have to be consistent.
Though movies do make for a very poor reference, the fact is a real tank can take a continuous beating until something actually gives.
Hull Points are ridiculous.
What is needed is a better, more intuitive Damage Table for vehicles, not wounds for tanks. If anything, Monstrous Creatures and multi-wound models need a method for diminished performance. Why exactly is that thing with 4 wounds operating at 100% when 75% dead? Oh yes........because.
I'm not advocating reduced performance for multi-wound models because we tried a fairly simple method and most players either didn't remember to use it or didn't care enough to. But the game has since introduced so many more MC's we may readdress that. In the meantime we altered the damage table for vehicles and made them a bit more stout, but not like 5th Ed. which made them too strong in contrast to 4th Ed which made them rolling death traps. As with so many things, GW swings the pendulum too far when 'adjusting' its rules. The hull point solution was never necessary; now people are married to it.
Finally someone gets it!
And if you do not believe this then you can read the historical reports of Tanks withstanding literally hundreds of hits over the course of a battle. Seriously, just google historical tank battles.
Though movies do make for a very poor reference, the fact is a real tank can take a continuous beating until something actually gives.
Hull Points are ridiculous.
What is needed is a better, more intuitive Damage Table for vehicles, not wounds for tanks. If anything, Monstrous Creatures and multi-wound models need a method for diminished performance. Why exactly is that thing with 4 wounds operating at 100% when 75% dead? Oh yes........because.
I'm not advocating reduced performance for multi-wound models because we tried a fairly simple method and most players either didn't remember to use it or didn't care enough to. But the game has since introduced so many more MC's we may readdress that. In the meantime we altered the damage table for vehicles and made them a bit more stout, but not like 5th Ed. which made them too strong in contrast to 4th Ed which made them rolling death traps. As with so many things, GW swings the pendulum too far when 'adjusting' its rules. The hull point solution was never necessary; now people are married to it.
Finally someone gets it!
And if you do not believe this then you can read the historical reports of Tanks withstanding literally hundreds of hits over the course of a battle. Seriously, just google historical tank battles.
Which I agree with. I suggested having Glancing hits just roll on the old chart instead of actually damaging the tank. That seems to be the huge problem everybody has with the HP system, and switching it back to the 5th edition table for glancing hits. I know they're not realistic, but do we really expect that from a wargame set 38,000 years in the future? Also, if almost all penetrating hits caused an auto-wrecks, in real life, shouldn't the table do the same? I'm not for or agaisnt HP, and I didn't realize that people felt they should be removed, but complaining of because of realisim in the 40k universe is a little....weird. Also, which do you think would be more durable of glancing hits didn't strip a HP, vehicles with the 5h damage chart, or with HP and the 7th damage chart?
How many hits do they resist from "penetrating" hits? Maybe 3? If I recall, the purpose of ablative armour is to resist a single penetrating hit. After that, you're cooked.
Sure, they shrug off machine gun fire. Grenades even. 40k Tanks shrug those off too. Perhaps we're taking the literal meaning of a "glancing" hit as meaning something that glances off, rather than something that causes damage. Blows out a piece of armour, for example.
As you guys have pointed out, a penetrating hit usually disables a vehicle. The HP system is a better way of representing the depletion of a Tank's ability to resist damage from weapons that could actually hurt it.
Tanks do not resist being repeatedly hit by weapons capable of penetrating their armour, no matter how lucky they are. You don't have crew get stunned 6 times in a row while ordnance has turned their hull to swiss cheese.
HP is a perfectly reasonable way to represent this on the tabletop.
greatbigtree wrote: How many hits do they resist from "penetrating" hits? Maybe 3? If I recall, the purpose of ablative armour is to resist a single penetrating hit. After that, you're cooked.
Sure, they shrug off machine gun fire. Grenades even. 40k Tanks shrug those off too. Perhaps we're taking the literal meaning of a "glancing" hit as meaning something that glances off, rather than something that causes damage. Blows out a piece of armour, for example.
As you guys have pointed out, a penetrating hit usually disables a vehicle. The HP system is a better way of representing the depletion of a Tank's ability to resist damage from weapons that could actually hurt it.
Tanks do not resist being repeatedly hit by weapons capable of penetrating their armour, no matter how lucky they are. You don't have crew get stunned 6 times in a row while ordnance has turned their hull to swiss cheese.
HP is a perfectly reasonable way to represent this on the tabletop.
There are accounts of Tigers taking 100+ hits from 75mm M3, 75mm OQF, 76mm and 85mm guns at close and even point blank range. Panzer IV's too. Panzer III's could glance a surprising amount of hits. There are accounts of Konigstigers, Churchill VII's and Jagdtigers taking hits from 88mm, 100mm, 90mm and several other high calibre tank killers and just shrugging it off like nothing ever happened. Chuchill I's, II's, III's and IV's in Tunisia and the Desert. Matilda II's which could bounce most shots short of an 88 PAK 36 or a 75 PAK 43.
Hell, every single historical account of tanks in battle state something entirely the opposite to what GW's system depicts and you are trying to tell us happens.
The Glancing hits table represented hits that have struck a particular component such as the running gear or track or gun, or have hit the hull hard enough to shake something loose and/or stun/shock the crew. They are that. Lucky hits that whilst not fatal have truck in a way as to somewhat mitigate the tanks overall performance for the time being. They are not carving huge chunks out of the superstructure, at least not in any way to qualify for the reduction of a HP.
And how many of those penetrated the hull? The glancing hits you refer to the tanks shrugging off literally glanced off with no effect. Those would be represented in game as rolls that failed to Glance / Pen.
How many times does a tank get PENETRATED before the occupants are reduced to mush?
Replace the words "glancing hits" with "minor damage". Minor damage represents drives being damaged but not destroyed. Weapons being jammed in place. Ablative armour being removed. Minor DAMAGE [not resisted / ricocheting off] that doesn't stop a tank, or prevent it from functioning.
Now, replace "penetrating hit" with "major damage". This represents hits that reduced the effectiveness of a tank. Things like tracks being blown off. Weapons being destroyed. Engines being ruined. Gunners being killed.
Now, Hull Points represent that cumulative effects. Sure, hundreds of frag grenades and bullets bounce off. Even the occasional RPG just clinks off the armour. But eventually you get hit square by something powerful. That's what damaging hits are in 40k. Things that don't glance off. A Lascannon that rolls a 2, when attacking AV 12, has been one of the shots you're referring to. A Lascannon that rolls a 3 has inflicted minor damage, hitting a drive wheel square, or activating ablative armour.
A Lascannon that rolls a 4+ has inflicted Major Damage, by scoring a direct hit that either hit the same point that was previously hit [Ablative Armour was already used in that spot, the cog in that gear was cracked and now it's destroyed]. In either case, we're not talking about a shot that bounced off, but something that actually harmed the Tank.
HP are a reasonable way to represent this, in a game where we need to represent cumulative damage.
On top of which, you get to hear the stories of tanks shrugging off hundreds of hits because those tankers were still alive. No crewman tells the story of how the single cannon blast killed him. He's waaay to dead to do that.
greatbigtree wrote: How many hits do they resist from "penetrating" hits? Maybe 3? If I recall, the purpose of ablative armour is to resist a single penetrating hit. After that, you're cooked.
Sure, they shrug off machine gun fire. Grenades even. 40k Tanks shrug those off too. Perhaps we're taking the literal meaning of a "glancing" hit as meaning something that glances off, rather than something that causes damage. Blows out a piece of armour, for example.
As you guys have pointed out, a penetrating hit usually disables a vehicle. The HP system is a better way of representing the depletion of a Tank's ability to resist damage from weapons that could actually hurt it.
Tanks do not resist being repeatedly hit by weapons capable of penetrating their armour, no matter how lucky they are. You don't have crew get stunned 6 times in a row while ordnance has turned their hull to swiss cheese.
HP is a perfectly reasonable way to represent this on the tabletop.
Agreed.
HP might not be an accurate simulation of how tanks work IRL. But what 40k NEEDS, what would improve 40k as a GAME at this point, is simplification. It needs to be a better game, not a better simulation.
Look at the problems with 40k. It is a LONG game with LOTS of rules. Playing the game at the recommended points level (~1500 points) takes around 2 hours. To improve the game, it needs to get quicker and simpler to play. That is less look-up tables, less special rules, less randomness for the sake of representing the infinitesimal chance of failure, less individuality of models.
IMO they're in a relatively good place in 7th... so long as you're fielding true 'Tanks' ie AV13+. Lighter vehicles (AV10-12) get worn down by sustained mid-strength firepower... but they typically represent skimmers, trucks or APCs rather than battle tanks. AV13-14 are the real heavy hitters and in most cases they do require dedicated anti-tank weaponry or maneuvering in to back arcs.
However, we can look back at other editions we can see how various vehicle rules have affected the game. 6th edition had quite weak vehicles - possible to explode from light weapons made S7 spam the best way to counter everything short of a landraider. 5th edition had godly strong vehicles - troops contesting while embarked, assault from stationary vehicles, nearly impossible to kill short of an explodes result, those things just kept on trucking.
Like I've said before, I think the best way to do a quick fix is just make Glancing hits get treated like they did back in fifth edition, or even a modified version of the table. 1-2 Shaken, 3-4 Stunned, 5 Weapon Destroyed, 6 Immobilizied. That would nerf the auto-glance weapons. Have D strength weapons not have to roll for pen, they just automatically strip of a HP.
There are accounts of Tigers taking 100+ hits from 75mm M3, 75mm OQF, 76mm and 85mm guns at close and even point blank range. Panzer IV's too. Panzer III's could glance a surprising amount of hits. There are accounts of Konigstigers, Churchill VII's and Jagdtigers taking hits from 88mm, 100mm, 90mm and several other high calibre tank killers and just shrugging it off like nothing ever happened. Chuchill I's, II's, III's and IV's in Tunisia and the Desert. Matilda II's which could bounce most shots short of an 88 PAK 36 or a 75 PAK 43.
Hell, every single historical account of tanks in battle state something entirely the opposite to what GW's system depicts and you are trying to tell us happens.
The Glancing hits table represented hits that have struck a particular component such as the running gear or track or gun, or have hit the hull hard enough to shake something loose and/or stun/shock the crew. They are that. Lucky hits that whilst not fatal have truck in a way as to somewhat mitigate the tanks overall performance for the time being. They are not carving huge chunks out of the superstructure, at least not in any way to qualify for the reduction of a HP.
One problem with your thing is that I think comparing WW 2 to 40k is not the right way to do something, as we are talking a supposed 38,000 year gap. But I agree with you, glancing should not strip off a Hull Point, it should just cause a roll on the current damage table with no modifiers.
What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???
People who don't know how to design games.
GW have no staff that are actual designers, none of them actually have a degree in it, and none of the original designer staff is left.
I think moving the story forward, and not being bad at writing would help them leagues ahead. I mean the black crusade won in the tournament setting, so I have no idea why they wouldn't push the setting forward.
not like Age of Sigmar, but just enough forward, that leaves room for more possibility.
In terms of rules 4th edition with 5th edition ideas mixed in. Vechile rules from 4th and fifth.
What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???
People who don't know how to design games.
GW have no staff that are actual designers, none of them actually have a degree in it, and none of the original designer staff is left.
And where precisely do you go to "have a degree" in Tabletop Game Design?
Because I'm pretty sure my college doesn't offer such a class.
Tabletop game design does not exist. But Game Design as a field does exist. We are trained in colleges on how to make games, and the first games we make are tabletop games. I made a card game in a few days that was so balanced it was too balanced. I needed to add unfair advantages to the game.
My buddy made a risk esk game, where you select your force from a selection of cards and could do troop deployments with those cards, and then the board was set and boom game.
Tabletop games are incredibly easy to make, especially compared to a video game.
What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???
People who don't know how to design games.
GW have no staff that are actual designers, none of them actually have a degree in it, and none of the original designer staff is left.
And where precisely do you go to "have a degree" in Tabletop Game Design?
Because I'm pretty sure my college doesn't offer such a class.
Tabletop game design does not exist. But Game Design as a field does exist. We are trained in colleges on how to make games, and the first games we make are tabletop games. I made a card game in a few days that was so balanced it was too balanced. I needed to add unfair advantages to the game.
You understand that "Game Design" as a field is not the same as "Tabletop Game Design", yes?
My buddy made a risk esk game, where you select your force from a selection of cards and could do troop deployments with those cards, and then the board was set and boom game.
Risk != Tabletop Game. It's a board game.
Tabletop games are incredibly easy to make, especially compared to a video game.
And yet, there are more people doing independent designed and funded video games than miniature games.
Crazy, right?
I get that you're excited to go into video game design and whatnot, but that doesn't make you anything near the expert your posts smack of attempting to convey.
I wouldn't change much about the game. I like randomness, real life is kind of that way and we are playing war games not drafts. GW invented points and balance for war games. There were no points or talk of balance at Waterloo, Ypres, Somme or for that matter on any of the battle fields described in 30/40k. I like war games because they try to represent large scale conflict. I would argue for more not less but I know I'm in the minority here.
I would change black library or rather just move it back a few years to the great great thing it used to be.
No. Hull points ARE NOT a reasonable or realistic way of showing damage.
Ineffective hit + ineffective hit + ineffective hit does NOT equal a destroyed tank. Period. Too many people started playing during 5th Ed.'s version of vehicles being too stout and were relieved when GW introduced HP's. You can roll gak in glitter but it is still gak.
What should be done for tanks is a vector system. Measure exactly where the shot will go, then consult a chart on the tank's systems. Something simple, nothing to complex, like the engine, ammo, and fuel. Any penetrating hit successfully hits those and your tank dies either from a fast spreading fire or a respectable explosion.
amanita wrote: No. Hull points ARE NOT a reasonable or realistic way of showing damage.
Ineffective hit + ineffective hit + ineffective hit does NOT equal a destroyed tank. Period. Too many people started playing during 5th Ed.'s version of vehicles being too stout and were relieved when GW introduced HP's. You can roll gak in glitter but it is still gak.
Again, I'm not advocating that, changing glances to roll on the 5th edition glance table is an easy way to keep both. Glances are lucky hits that hit systems or scare the crew but don't do any major damage, while pens, which would take off HP, actually do damage to vital parts of the tank and kill crewman/damage the innards of the tank.
Or, and just try to use your imagination, maybe what GW called a "Glancing Hit" is actually representing a hit that caused damage. Say, enough damage that the tank is 1/3 of the way to being destroyed.
People are reading "glancing hit" and thinking that it should be a failed penetration roll. That's not what it is. A "Glancing Hit" in 40k is a hit that harms a vehicle to a noticeable degree, but does not prevent it's further function.
I can't stress this enough. If you hit Ablative Armour, it doesn't stop the tank from functioning. But if you hit that same spot again, the guys inside are toast. Have your ablative armour go off? That's a "Glancing Hit" in 40k. Have an "explodes" result? You either hit that same spot again, or you hit a point that was vulnerable for whatever reason.
If you stop looking at the words "Glancing Hit" and thinking that it means "no significant damage" you'd be fine. Change your mindset to...
1: Fails to roll high enough = No Damage, shot glances off.
2: Rolls equal to a Vehicle's AV = Minor Damage
3: Rolls above a Vehicle's AV = Major Damage, consult Damage Table
Reword it in your head, and HP makes sense as a Game Mechanic. Maybe not real world, but again, we're trying to represent something on the table top, not make a simulation of the real world.
The fact that tanks have both hullpoints with no save AND the damage table is what makes them bad. Get rid of one or the other (I lean towards hullpoints cause that was why the AV system exists in the first place), and then they can fill a role and be costed appropriately. Then get rid of Jink for skimmers, and just leave them as the faster option.
greatbigtree wrote: Or, and just try to use your imagination, maybe what GW called a "Glancing Hit" is actually representing a hit that caused damage. Say, enough damage that the tank is 1/3 of the way to being destroyed.
People are reading "glancing hit" and thinking that it should be a failed penetration roll. That's not what it is. A "Glancing Hit" in 40k is a hit that harms a vehicle to a noticeable degree, but does not prevent it's further function.
I can't stress this enough. If you hit Ablative Armour, it doesn't stop the tank from functioning. But if you hit that same spot again, the guys inside are toast. Have your ablative armour go off? That's a "Glancing Hit" in 40k. Have an "explodes" result? You either hit that same spot again, or you hit a point that was vulnerable for whatever reason.
If you stop looking at the words "Glancing Hit" and thinking that it means "no significant damage" you'd be fine. Change your mindset to...
1: Fails to roll high enough = No Damage, shot glances off.
2: Rolls equal to a Vehicle's AV = Minor Damage
3: Rolls above a Vehicle's AV = Major Damage, consult Damage Table
Reword it in your head, and HP makes sense as a Game Mechanic. Maybe not real world, but again, we're trying to represent something on the table top, not make a simulation of the real world.
Okay, let me explain this another way:
A Hit that fails to do anything is a hit that bounced off or got stuck in the armour. It did nothing period. Its gone. Forget that shot and try again.
A Glancing hit as was referred too in 40K prior to GW's derpaderp HP system, which does NOT represent how tanks work AT ALL, was a hit that failed to penetrate as above but by some miracle managed to hit a vital spot. The shot smacked into the tracks and sheared some links or shattered the sprocket of the final drive. Or maybe it hit the engine and killed it. Maybe it smacked into the gun barrel and broke it - I remember a picture I saw of a Valentine which had taken a hit to its main guns barrel - or smacked into the base of the mounting or damaged it in some way or other. Perhaps the impact of the shell on the armour, or the blast as the shell exploded on the tank, stunned the crew for a short while.
The shot failed to penetrate but managed to adversely affect the vehicle and/or its crew enough to impact on the performance of the vehicle for a short amount of time.
Now a penetrating hit, as was correctly represented by the 4th and 5th edition table, is a hit that through some means, be it by kinetic impact or sheer explosive force, managed to breach the tanks armour. This is a devastating blow and will usually result in the complete destruction or loss of the vehicle as a fighting unit. And even if it does not then the tank is usually severely incapacitated.
Now it actually hurts me to do this but as you have persistently shown a lak of willingness to google some basic information I am going to have to cite a video game as evidence. I hope you feel proud son I really do because right now I am feeling dirty as hell.
War Thunder
There. I did it.
War Thunder, for all of it being a computer game and its noticeable, if very minor, Russian bias (T34's and KV1's wtf? They are bloody difficult to penetrate), is actually as close to tank on tank combat as you are ever going to come. When you shoot the target and your shot bounces it does nothing. Now you can shoot your target again and again and nothing will happen. He wont be magically glanced to death. In fact he will probably just shoot you right back and KO you.
Now take a penetrating hit. You penetrate and the spalling sprays inward. 9/10, unless you are a terrible aim or your opponent is incredibly lucky you kill that tank. THIS is a penetrating hit.
Sometimes you dont penetrate though, but your shell hits a gun, or jams the turret ring, or blows a track, or crits something vital. This reduces the targets performance. This is a GW Glancing hit.
Do you see now or do I have to debase myself further and link in in - game videos?
MoO, you're missing the point. 40k uses game mechanics. They're meant to provide a useful game.
And like I said, if you can't handle using the term "Glancing Hit" replace it with "Minor Damage" and your swelling will go down.
I know, that if I take a bat to a tank, it won't matter how many times I hit that tank, it's not going down. But that's because my Str + d6 does not equal the AV of that tank.
Now, if I take a torch, and cut a hole in the side of the tank, I've inflicted "Minor Damage" that exposes some inner workings. For the giggles, let's say that I expose some drive components. [1 HP] Tank still operates, life is good, but there's a vulnerable spot now.
So, because I'm like that, I keep cutting away with my torch. If you require it for your sense of *realism* we'll say I have a plasma cutter. Now, I've disabled some drive components. Maybe that's a stun, maybe that's immobilized, who knows? For the giggles, let's say it's treated as a penetrating hit. [2 HP]
But my suicidal nature isn't satiated, so I keep cutting. I cut my way into the fuel reservoir. Now, in reality, that's probably running on diesel, so rather than exploding, it just burns with an almighty vengeance. Without fuel, that tank is going to come to a halt. [3 HP] It might take a couple minutes, but after applying 3 rounds of "damage" to that tank, it is disabled. No sudden explosion, no utter devastation. Just a tank that ran outa fuel.
That's 3 HP, from "Glancing Hits / Minor Damage" that deactivated a tank. Honestly. It's a game mechanic that prevents a tank from taking 15 penetrating hits and having the crew be repeatedly shaken. If anything, 40k treats the hits that damage [would normally puncture the hull] as minor damage.
You're stating that you either glance off and do nothing, or you penetrate and annihilate the vehicle. The game mechanics of 40k instead allow some of those "weak" hits that inflict damage to allow the tank to move on all happy happy.
You can do 3 HP of damage to any vehicle in the real world by running out of gas. Or driving without coolant in your engine for a long time. Or having a wheel fall off. Two wheels, say. That's what HP damage represents. If your tank runs out of fuel, but you didn't explode, you ran out of HP. I'm sure you can imagine at least two other situations where a tank can no longer operate, without exploding / having the occupants turned into sausage.
Immediately issue FAQs and Errata for all existing armies.
Then -
Release 8th edition with all armies rolled into the core rulebook, and unit rules included in their box. Codexes released later would be akin to the Warmahordes faction books, rather than an essential purchase.
Ruleswise -
- Vehicles become MCs (Potentially with multi-wound models having degrading stats when wounded)
- Allow Blast weapons to snapfire without area-of-effect
- Make Overwatch fire more effective (Possibly -1 BS, instead of the flat 6-to-hit) but force the unit to forgo shooting in their shooting phase in order to 'ready' Overwatch.
- Return casualty removal to owner-chooses, with wounded multi-wound models having to take new wounds first, Torrent of Fire and Precision Shot to allow the enemy to select a casualty.
- Cover goes back to being based on unit majority rather than individual
- Remove the penalty for refusing a Challenge in close combat, but allow the result of a Challenge to determine the result for the whole combat.
- Allow players to select Psychic Powers and Warlord Traits.
- Change Warlord Traits to have more of an army-wide effect, with different characters having access to different types of traits, so that your choice of army commander is actually important to the functioning of the army.
I think that's most of the big stuff that I would like to see.
Now that I think about it, most of this is likely to make it onto my table anyway. We've already made the change to Snap-firing Blasts...
Ok what I am seeing with part of this thread is an Issue about nomenclature.
Now onto the Fixes, most of with we have been looking into ourselvers and some we are doing right now.
Random Charts: Add the line "Or Choose"
Hull Points: Add 1-3 Hull Points to every Vehicle, 1for Skimmers and Aircraft. 2 to Non-Skimmer Transports. 3 to Dedicated Tanks.
[As a note I hated how Pre-6th Vehicles worked, I saw a single Rhino take 21 Las Cannon shots in one game!]
Rapid Fire: Change Rapid Fire to to +1 Shot if the Model did not move, this includes Over-Watch or be able to 'Double Tap' if no movement.
Walkers: Make Walkers MCs Once Again or double their Hull Points. Give them Rampage as a default along with MCs.
Fliers: If a unit did not move fire as BS2, this includes Blast, but not Template Weapons.
Assault form Reserves: Some Units Yes, Cavalry, Beast, Bikes.
That is about it for the general stuff.
Invisibility: Just make it a BS1 Defense rather than snap Shots.
Update Sisters of Battle. Carefully playtest to make sure that both shooting and assaulting are viable-- they don't have to be perfectly balanced against each other, but at least enough that both types of play are worth trying for most armies. Not sure how to go about that in specifics though. Update immediately a FAQ for each army, including errata as necessary to change things up to and including points costs to make sure armies are internally balanced (IE, all units are worth taking; some may be a little better simply by the nature of the army, but no unit should be "don't take that it sucks" material) and externally (so that the win chance of one army against another, with players of equal skill, doesn't ever get more skewed than 40/60).
Here is something. Advance the 13th Black Crusade a few days after-all Abaddon has been on this 13th Crusade for over 25 years, yes folks it has been Warhammer 40001 for 25 years.
Achaylus72 wrote: Here is something. Advance the 13th Black Crusade a few days after-all Abaddon has been on this 13th Crusade for over 25 years, yes folks it has been Warhammer 40001 for 25 years.
Vaktathi wrote: I'd take 5E, slap in 4E Victory Points instead of Kill Points & 4E wound allocation rules, put in 7E Rapid Fire, Snapshot, vehicle squadron, & transported passenger effects rules, reduce most non-Ruins cover to 5+ cover from 4+, maybe a couple of other tweaks, and you've got a damn near perfect 40k ruleset.
7E at this point is an unplayable mess for anything but small group play with extensive self imposed (explicit or implicit) restrictions.
Very much agree.
I think I'd still take the 7E Psychic Phase. I've grown to like it. The powers themselves just need to be adjusted, but imbalanced Psychic powers have ALWAYS been a thing with 40k.
I'd welcome getting rid of Hull Points and going back to 5th Edition vehicle rules. That said, I'm enjoying 7th Edition's vehicle rules MUCH better than 6th. I still think all vehicles could use at least 1 or 2 more Hull Points than they have though. There still isn't enough incentive to actually use armor penetrating weapons.
I enjoy 7th Edition, but we use quite a few house rules to make it better.
That's a pretty good idea. Say AV10=T6 scaling to AV14 being T10.
A boltgun glances an AV10 vehicle on a 6 and wounds T6 on a 6. A lascannon needs a 5+ to damage AV14, and likewise to wound T10.
greatbigtree wrote: MoO, you're missing the point. 40k uses game mechanics. They're meant to provide a useful game.
And like I said, if you can't handle using the term "Glancing Hit" replace it with "Minor Damage" and your swelling will go down.
I know, that if I take a bat to a tank, it won't matter how many times I hit that tank, it's not going down. But that's because my Str + d6 does not equal the AV of that tank.
Now, if I take a torch, and cut a hole in the side of the tank, I've inflicted "Minor Damage" that exposes some inner workings. For the giggles, let's say that I expose some drive components. [1 HP] Tank still operates, life is good, but there's a vulnerable spot now.
So, because I'm like that, I keep cutting away with my torch. If you require it for your sense of *realism* we'll say I have a plasma cutter. Now, I've disabled some drive components. Maybe that's a stun, maybe that's immobilized, who knows? For the giggles, let's say it's treated as a penetrating hit. [2 HP]
But my suicidal nature isn't satiated, so I keep cutting. I cut my way into the fuel reservoir. Now, in reality, that's probably running on diesel, so rather than exploding, it just burns with an almighty vengeance. Without fuel, that tank is going to come to a halt. [3 HP] It might take a couple minutes, but after applying 3 rounds of "damage" to that tank, it is disabled. No sudden explosion, no utter devastation. Just a tank that ran outa fuel.
But in your description your not doing any real damage to the vehicle itself. What you are doing however is immobilising it. y cutting the drive train you prevent it from moving. Then you drain the fuel tank and the tank is classed as destroyed. The immobilisation is the same as a glancing hit, a minor hit that just managed to do some damage. The fuel tank being drained destroys the tank, but by that point you have cut deep enough to do some real damage.
That's 3 HP, from "Glancing Hits / Minor Damage" that deactivated a tank. Honestly. It's a game mechanic that prevents a tank from taking 15 penetrating hits and having the crew be repeatedly shaken. If anything, 40k treats the hits that damage [would normally puncture the hull] as minor damage.
I would GLADLY drop HP for a pair of separate damage tables, the penetrating one of which has a base 50% or 66.6'% chance to see the vehicle destroyed.
You're stating that you either glance off and do nothing, or you penetrate and annihilate the vehicle. The game mechanics of 40k instead allow some of those "weak" hits that inflict damage to allow the tank to move on all happy happy.
But as history has shown many minor hits do not equate a single powerful hit. Take the Tiger 1's. When they first entered combat in Tunisia they where almost unstoppable. The US M3 'Honey's' went out to face them and their guns did nothing. The puny 37mm shots just bounced off the Tigers hull. Then the M3 'Lee/Grant's' tried it. And even there 75mm guns where unable to hurt the Tigers.
Their shots bounced. Not one Tiger was disabled.
As proven, many ineffective shots do not a dead vehicle make.
You can do 3 HP of damage to any vehicle in the real world by running out of gas. Or driving without coolant in your engine for a long time. Or having a wheel fall off. Two wheels, say. That's what HP damage represents. If your tank runs out of fuel, but you didn't explode, you ran out of HP. I'm sure you can imagine at least two other situations where a tank can no longer operate, without exploding / having the occupants turned into sausage.
Or: You roll to damage. The wheel falls off because you got an immobilised result. The same for the coolant being lost. The fuel tank was hit and destroyed, resulting in the tank being wrecked because you penetrated the hull and got one of the several 'Destroyed' results. Not because your 37mm shells bounced off the armour several times.
Flugel Meister wrote: As the title says, and only if you think it needs changing. I wouldn't suggest lowering the price because that is unlikely to happen. However, I would like the rulebook and codices to drop a little. I believe that's a reasonable expectation.
So, it can be rules, armies, terrain, fiction, anything.
Streamline the rules, too many special fiddly rules. They got smarter with the special rules section in the main rulebook, which is still too big, but then keep adding even more special rules into each new codex. Streamline also does not mean AoS the rules either.
Stop making "split fire" only for special snowflake units and let everyone do it. Totally stupid that a lascannon has to shoot at infantry when a tank is also bearing down on the unit, just because the rest of the unit is shooting at the infantry and vice versa. Also it is dumb for half a unit to not shoot at all because they cannot see the target the other half of the unit is shooting at, but have viable targets to fire at themselves.
Actually bring some balance to the point costs, especially so units in codecies makes sense with each others costs. No more of this better unit being cheaper to field crap. With a new base marine codex it should be uber simple to at least balance all of the marine armies with that base line book. From there they can work on fixing it across the board.
Finally stop completely changing the power level/plan for the game or adding completely new unit types to the game that require special targetting without being ready to bring all armies up to that power level in short order.
Those changes would make me a really happy camper.
Now it actually hurts me to do this but as you have persistently shown a lak of willingness to google some basic information I am going to have to cite a video game as evidence. I hope you feel proud son I really do because right now I am feeling dirty as hell.
War Thunder
There. I did it.
War Thunder, for all of it being a computer game and its noticeable, if very minor, Russian bias (T34's and KV1's wtf? They are bloody difficult to penetrate), is actually as close to tank on tank combat as you are ever going to come. When you shoot the target and your shot bounces it does nothing. Now you can shoot your target again and again and nothing will happen. He wont be magically glanced to death. In fact he will probably just shoot you right back and KO you.
Now take a penetrating hit. You penetrate and the spalling sprays inward. 9/10, unless you are a terrible aim or your opponent is incredibly lucky you kill that tank. THIS is a penetrating hit.
Sometimes you dont penetrate though, but your shell hits a gun, or jams the turret ring, or blows a track, or crits something vital. This reduces the targets performance. This is a GW Glancing hit.
Do you see now or do I have to debase myself further and link in in - game videos?
I actually love that game, it is one of the most realisitc deciptions of tank warfare in video games, and I get your analogy completely, I just think that the one I presented with Glancing hits rolling on a table and pens stripping HP and rolling on another table fit better. But I get where you are coming from.
Ruleswise -
- Vehicles become MCs (Potentially with multi-wound models having degrading stats when wounded)
No, AV works and has worked, no need to fully turn tanks into MC just because Tyrannids can't figure out how to make biological steel yet.
insaniak wrote: - Allow Blast weapons to snapfire without area-of-effect
Better yet, roll d6 per, if it gets a six, fires as blast with normal BS. Do the same for all snap shots
insaniak wrote: - Return casualty removal to owner-chooses, with wounded multi-wound models having to take new wounds first, Torrent of Fire and Precision Shot to allow the enemy to select a casualty.
- Cover goes back to being based on unit majority rather than individual
Immediately issue FAQs and Errata for all existing armies.
Then -
Release 8th edition with all armies rolled into the core rulebook, and unit rules included in their box. Codexes released later would be akin to the Warmahordes faction books, rather than an essential purchase.
- Remove the penalty for refusing a Challenge in close combat, but allow the result of a Challenge to determine the result for the whole combat.
- Allow players to select Psychic Powers and Warlord Traits.
- Change Warlord Traits to have more of an army-wide effect, with different characters having access to different types of traits, so that your choice of army commander is actually important to the functioning of the army.
- Make Overwatch fire more effective (Possibly -1 BS, instead of the flat 6-to-hit) but force the unit to forgo shooting in their shooting phase in order to 'ready' Overwatch.
Streamline the rules, too many special fiddly rules. They got smarter with the special rules section in the main rulebook, which is still too big, but then keep adding even more special rules into each new codex. Streamline also does not mean AoS the rules either.
Stop making "split fire" only for special snowflake units and let everyone do it. Totally stupid that a lascannon has to shoot at infantry when a tank is also bearing down on the unit, just because the rest of the unit is shooting at the infantry and vice versa. Also it is dumb for half a unit to not shoot at all because they cannot see the target the other half of the unit is shooting at, but have viable targets to fire at themselves.
Actually bring some balance to the point costs, especially so units in codecies makes sense with each others costs. No more of this better unit being cheaper to field crap. With a new base marine codex it should be uber simple to at least balance all of the marine armies with that base line book. From there they can work on fixing it across the board.
Finally stop completely changing the power level/plan for the game or adding completely new unit types to the game that require special targetting without being ready to bring all armies up to that power level in short order.
Those changes would make me a really happy camper.
saithor wrote: No, AV works and has worked, no need to fully turn tanks into MC just because Tyrannids can't figure out how to make biological steel yet.
My desire to change the vehicle rules is nothing to do with tyranids. It's simply that I don't see any particular value in having a separate system for vehicles in a game that's aiming for the scale that 40K is. In a smaller skirmish game, sure. But in 40K, those extra rules are uneccessary, and just add an extra place for balance to go awry.
No, the rules for model removal is good as is..
They're really not. Removal from the front is an absurd system, and turns unit movement into an exercise in micromanagement. It's ridiculous that the guy at the front with the storm shield catches every single incoming round until he dies. It's ridiculous that template weapons need to be hidden inside the unit where they're going to be next to useless, because otherwise they become the first casualties. It's ridiculous that the system rewards you for hiding your 'inspirational' characters at the back of the unit... or if you do choose to put them at the front, winds up with you rolling LoS and saves one... at... a... time...
Allowin the owning player to choose the casualties is simpler, faster, and results in less silliness.
By not playing and playing a different game entirely. As much as I love the 40k setting, GW has only sunk my dreams and hopes of the game ever being as good as it was eight or seven years ago. Now it is abhorred mess.
I've seen games by students in game design with more thought put into it.
I can see that their work goes more into the models than the actual game itself. Which is along the lines of "The more prettier it is" the better!
If I wanted to buy models I would buy plastic model kits from sears or the hobby store.
I like that the current casualty removal system rewards clever movement and attack angles.
I dislike that you do wind up with BS micromanagement of which model is where within the unit. Such a waste of time agonizing over whether to put 5 guys to the left and 3 to the right, or 4 and 4.
As awkward and potentially open to abuse as it would be, I'd rather see casualties removed from the front, but give the user the option to swap out the removed model with another. It would allow shooty armies to build space, without requiring the model by model micromanagement that the current system runs you into. Effectively allow anyone to Look Out Sir by swapping position with another model.
Attacker controls the position that models are removed from, defender controls which equipment is lost.
greatbigtree wrote: I like that the current casualty removal system rewards clever movement and attack angles.
It really doesn't. It rewards micro management on the defending player's end. Simply put, the table size, average army size/game size, and weapon ranges means that movement and flanking maneuvers mean very little. There's no morale effect, no bonus to damage, and only vehicles have to worry about facings. All this system does is reward people who spend the extra time to nestle their important models as deep as possible within their unit. Nothing more.
I dislike that you do wind up with BS micromanagement of which model is where within the unit. Such a waste of time agonizing over whether to put 5 guys to the left and 3 to the right, or 4 and 4.
Exactly. The minute advantage of having to spend some sort of incredibly minor and frankly extremely basic tactical thought on considering where your opponent could be generally shooting from next turn isn't a good tradeoff for the waste of time.
As awkward and potentially open to abuse as it would be, I'd rather see casualties removed from the front, but give the user the option to swap out the removed model with another. It would allow shooty armies to build space, without requiring the model by model micromanagement that the current system runs you into. Effectively allow anyone to Look Out Sir by swapping position with another model.
Attacker controls the position that models are removed from, defender controls which equipment is lost.
This sounds exactly like the old 'choose you advent...errr, death' system. Maybe you just didn't fully explain it, but it sounds like it'd have the exact same end result, but still complicated. Just let the player decide. Until 40k is an actual skirmish game that bothers with facings and a better morale system, its just not worth the hassle and isn't any better of a table top abstraction.
Yes, I think it could use it, and some more conservative changes:
Streamline some of the squad level stuff.
Balance things properly, including toning down formations and making superheavies fit properly if they're part of the game (without just making killing smaller single targets even easier).
Get rid of some of the stupid random.
Allow split fire in some way so heavy weapons in squads aren't wasting efficiency.
If anything vehicles should remain mostly the same, it's mc's that should borrow a few rules from vehicles IMO like some way to reduce mc movement/shooting temporarily.
I like the level of details with vehicles, the varying fire arcs, different armour facings. You make them mc's then you lose a lot of the detail.
Now it actually hurts me to do this but as you have persistently shown a lak of willingness to google some basic information I am going to have to cite a video game as evidence. I hope you feel proud son I really do because right now I am feeling dirty as hell.
War Thunder
There. I did it.
War Thunder, for all of it being a computer game and its noticeable, if very minor, Russian bias (T34's and KV1's wtf? They are bloody difficult to penetrate), is actually as close to tank on tank combat as you are ever going to come. When you shoot the target and your shot bounces it does nothing. Now you can shoot your target again and again and nothing will happen. He wont be magically glanced to death. In fact he will probably just shoot you right back and KO you.
I'm going to disagree. War Thunder was actually good at representation near the beginning of the game, but as you level up things got super ridiculous. A Stuart tank deflecting high velocity 105mm rounds off it's flat side? Not like at an angle, but at a flat trajectory that when it hits causes the round to go in another direction. No thank you. Especially since the tanks were not MBT's, but used for Recce'.
The most accurate representation I've seen has been Combat Mission, either the early 2000's or the newest version of the game. About as real as it gets, down to morale and status of the crew.
I guess a moot point in the argument. But I think Combat Mission is by far the best representation out there.
Refocus the TT game on capturing the feel of a 40K battle. If Space Marines are supposed to be humanity's finest warriors, and the boltgun is a feared weapon, make sure that is reflected in the game. If terminators are supposed to be deadly and dangerous, and nearly impossible to kill, then make sure that they are.
Don't make changes to the rules because something is unbalanced; make changes to the points cost in that case. If particular weapons are supposed to be rare and powerful, then make sure that is reflected in their points cost and their availability. If grav guns and plasma pistols are rare artefacts, then they need to be restricted in availability through points costs or other mechanisms.
Armies full of specialist troops and gear should be points costed appropriately. There should be a meaningful game incentive to use basic troops. While some people want to play with all the specialist toys, the person who wants to field the poor bloody infantry (or the poor bloody gaunts) should be able to have an effective army as well.
I love objectives, but the current objectives are simply too abstract. Figure out a way to have objectives that should actually matter to the troops on the tabletop. As an example, in the older Cityfight codex, some games had the highest terrain that you could deploy on as an objective. That's something that troops might actually want, not a random marker, placed on the board, that has a random effect. Objectives should matter before terrain is even on the board.
Only use random charts when you actually want random events. Your psyker trained for years--he knows what he can do. Your warlord has decades of experience--he isn't randomly skilled. The heap of scrap on the battlefield probably isn't a temporal distortion field. Don't allow 'you can't choose the result' to sub in for 'balanced'.
Don't be afraid of uselessness. There is too much effort in the game to make sure everything can do something all the time. It should be fine to have things too tough to wound, and armor too thick to penetrate. I'm thinking of Warmachine, where (when I played, at least), troops might find themselves unable to combat a warjack effectively.
If you are going to retain the use of penetrating hits and hull points, then make them make sense. Things that glance do not penetrate the hull, so they should not remove hull points. There should be a great deal of glancing hits, with most of those hits doing nothing more than scoring the paint, and the occasional glancing hit doing something minor like killing a crewman or passenger, or taking out a pintle-mounted weapon.
Formations and the like should not change the basic rules of the unit, for the most part. Formations that make weapons more reliable, or give away free upgrades, seem 'gamey' and unbalanced. Formations that reflect specialist tactics and training 'feel' right to me. If your formation allows you to field things in a different way than a standard force org, or gives you different deployment options, etc., those things make sense to me.
Increase the value of Weapon Skill. It's ridiculous that, for the most part, no matter how skilled you are, you miss with a third of your attacks, no matter who you are fighting.
Decide specifically when and how players can interrupt the Igo-Ugo sequence. If you are going to disallow first-turn assaults, AND disallow assaulting out of vehicles and from Deep Striking, AND allow Overwatch, AND have random charge distances, you have done too much to inhibit assaults. If it is possible to intervene and discourage assaults (by overwatch and random charge distances--where you fail to reach and they retreat), then it should also be possible to intervene and encourage assaults. Why can the shooty army take actions to discourage assaults when the army that is eager to reach close combat do nothing in these cases?
Come up with some common sense modifications to True Line of Sight. TLOS slows down the game horribly, if you actually apply it consistently, and discourages a lot of dense terrain (which can make the game more interesting) by making that terrain hellaciously difficult to check line of sight in.
Emphasize terrain, deployment, and force organization restrictions as part of the missions. The current ruleset basically assumes that all games, unless previously agreed, will be on terrain sparse enough to allow you to deploy and use flyers, superheavies, vehicles, monstrous creatures, etc. Those games are fine, but I don't think that they should be a default assumption--or at least, there should be ways to specify missions that rule out some of those choices. A 'space hulk' mission, for example, might make it clear that very dense terrain will be the norm, and superheavies, large walkers, flyers, and monstrous creatures will be unable to deploy. A urban warfare mission might have some of the same restrictions. A jungle fight scenario might be different. Those options should be part of the basic ruleset, so that there exists a way to communicate expectations about games at tournaments, pickup games, and clubs.
Not to go back to the 3rd edition WYSIWYG mania (with purity seals and terminator honors, etc.), but for the most part, rules should be associated with models and their stats. It's insane to have the level of 'free-floating' special rules that we have now. You have rules because of your warlord trait, your formation, your detachment, etc. It discourages modeling creativity (since the model's actual rules vary from game to game) and it makes the models seem more like bland tokens than 'wargaming models'.
If I could change one and only thing about 7th, it would be this: Go back to 6th where only Troops were scoring, and then make all units in a CAD scoring units (instead of the Objective Secured benefit). That would give people a meaningful reason to take a CAD, and, I think, level the competition with all these crazy formation reprints they are putting out, and this would give the codex user a reason to consider anything other than the best "Decurion" they have in their book.
Make all models truescale! There's nothing more frustrating than having space marines stand the same height as your average guardsman and fire warrior vehicles included, we wouldn't be able to fit as many on the table but it certainly would look better!
RileyJessup wrote: Make all models truescale! There's nothing more frustrating than having space marines stand the same height as your average guardsman and fire warrior vehicles included, we wouldn't be able to fit as many on the table but it certainly would look better!
That's easy! Just make smaller humans and Tau then everything will be truescale.
1. overwatch happening in opponents turn as reaction fire. as in if a unit enters line of sight you can choose to fire at them.
2. dashing cover. i.e. if running from cover to cover a bonus is conferred
3. vehicle hull down and ammo tracking. Hit locations on vehicles etc.
tenebre wrote: I would love to implement several changes.
1. overwatch happening in opponents turn as reaction fire. as in if a unit enters line of sight you can choose to fire at them.
2. dashing cover. i.e. if running from cover to cover a bonus is conferred
3. vehicle hull down and ammo tracking. Hit locations on vehicles etc.
3 might complicate the game a little to much, and just using Only War as a baseline, vehicles seem to keep enough ammo for a battle in their clips alone. LRBTs for example have 6 shot clips.
Reaction Fire is a good idea that I have written rules for before. It was essentially that a unit must has -1 to the shot default, -1 if it shot last turn, and -1 if the target does not stop in it's weapon range. Might be to prohibitive, but let me know what you think. Also if Reaction Fire is declared, whoever has the highest Initiative resolves their shots first, which might help with an earlier complaint about four stars for CC and only one for shooting.
Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.
Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.
--
Fourth edition terrain rules are huge for me. The basic criticism of the rules is essentially that they were poorly understood by some, so write them with better clarity instead of scrapping them altogether.
I don't like flyers and super heavies and would prefer that they not be part of the standard game, but get that some think they are super cool and want to have them. The rules should allow pickup games without a bunch of haggling. One way to do this could involve rolling at the start of the game (I know I know random everywhere is evil but here it had a real purpose) and depending on result game has no flyers/super heavies, one of the two or both. Players coming to a pickup game should have lists ready for each possibility. Probably have a floor point level where you just play without them and an upper point level beyond which they are automatic.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.
Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.
But still, it does not make any sense and unless you are one of the pants on head idiots whom refused point blank to bring anything other than token AT then whined about how that enemy tank was so OP (as a lot of people did back in 5th) then dealing with tanks should present no problem what soever for you under the old rules. Under the new rules though you dont even have to bring a single dedicated AT gun - in fact you are better off bringing a dozen low middle strength high rate of fire weapons and blitzing the tank to death.
It is stupid and to see your tank die from a hail of HMG fire, or your Chimera APC boltered to death by some tac marines, it just feels stupid.
Fourth edition terrain rules are huge for me. The basic criticism of the rules is essentially that they were poorly understood by some, so write them with better clarity instead of scrapping them altogether.
No arguments here, flyers are poorly represented within 40K at the moment and are way way waaaayyyyyy too powerful.
I don't like flyers and super heavies and would prefer that they not be part of the standard game, but get that some think they are super cool and want to have them. The rules should allow pickup games without a bunch of haggling. One way to do this could involve rolling at the start of the game (I know I know random everywhere is evil but here it had a real purpose) and depending on result game has no flyers/super heavies, one of the two or both. Players coming to a pickup game should have lists ready for each possibility. Probably have a floor point level where you just play without them and an upper point level beyond which they are automatic.
Flyers I utterly hate and I fully agree that they have no place in the game as they are at the moment. Super Heavies I also agree should have no place in any sub apocalypse game. However I, as an IG player - one of the weakest armies right now - am forced to use our slightly over priced Super Heavies just to stay on par with my opponents, and even then I am still behind them.
Scale back damage output.
This... Just this.
With the massively inflated damage output that we have seen within the past couple of editions the game is becoming more and more ridiculous. The average damage output needs toning back. No SM player should be removing most of an IG infantry section in a single turn with only 10 marines.
Thinking about this I first thought right on with this, damage output is crazy, but it might not be so bad if the IGYG nature of the game was altered. High damage output sucks in 40k because in one turn you lose so much capability of your army. If there was some kind of alternate activation scheme where you could not use every unit in your army and hence also not lose every unit in your army each turn, the high damage output might not be so bad. You would get a chance to react to the attack at least before you are wiped out. Actually that change might make the game flow better and make it move faster as well.
First Fast attack should go. Then HQ/Elite, then Troops, then Heavies. For borth players. Would make the game much more playable and interactive. As it is I usually doze off from all the sugar and nicotin I ingest while my opponent moves his pieces in IGYG.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.
Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.
But still, it does not make any sense and unless you are one of the pants on head idiots whom refused point blank to bring anything other than token AT then whined about how that enemy tank was so OP (as a lot of people did back in 5th) then dealing with tanks should present no problem what soever for you under the old rules. Under the new rules though you dont even have to bring a single dedicated AT gun - in fact you are better off bringing a dozen low middle strength high rate of fire weapons and blitzing the tank to death.
It is stupid and to see your tank die from a hail of HMG fire, or your Chimera APC boltered to death by some tac marines, it just feels stupid.
I didn't really fully express my thoughts on hull points. I neither fully endorse nor fully oppose them. Glancing to death especially with lower strength weapons does seem off to me, but so does shrugging off many penetrating hits like in the rhino/las cannon anecdote earlier. The main points were (1) I think you can make a fluff justification for it, and (2) sacrificing realism as a conscious game design decision is ok with me...to a point.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Some thoughts on the debate about Hull Points' accuracy in reflecting real life. Sometimes a game works better if you sacrifice realism and add abstraction. Hull points are doing that and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Same with rolling armor saves after wound rolls. It's backward but the game flows better.
Secondly the weapons are futuristic and won't necessarily effect armor in the same way modern era weapons interact with armor. The glancing melta/lascannon/plasma/gauss hit may damage hull integrity without doing damage to other stuff leaving the vehicle more susceptible to future impacts. The melta may liquidify half the thickness of the armor at the point of impact. Now the armor is six inches thick instead of 12. Next hit spends less energy defeating the armor and more damaging important stuff.
But still, it does not make any sense and unless you are one of the pants on head idiots whom refused point blank to bring anything other than token AT then whined about how that enemy tank was so OP (as a lot of people did back in 5th) then dealing with tanks should present no problem what soever for you under the old rules. Under the new rules though you dont even have to bring a single dedicated AT gun - in fact you are better off bringing a dozen low middle strength high rate of fire weapons and blitzing the tank to death.
It is stupid and to see your tank die from a hail of HMG fire, or your Chimera APC boltered to death by some tac marines, it just feels stupid.
I didn't really fully express my thoughts on hull points. I neither fully endorse nor fully oppose them. Glancing to death especially with lower strength weapons does seem off to me, but so does shrugging off many penetrating hits like in the rhino/las cannon anecdote earlier. The main points were (1) I think you can make a fluff justification for it, and (2) sacrificing realism as a conscious game design decision is ok with me...to a point.
The penetrating hit issue could easily be fixed with a far more brutal penetration table, something like the one from Bolt Action: A 1 stops the vehicle from doing anything next turn, a 2 immobilises it, a three has a massive chance to kill it off and even if it does not reduces its capabilities next turn and a 4+ kills it outright.
The penetrating hit issue could easily be fixed with a far more brutal penetration table, something like the one from Bolt Action: A 1 stops the vehicle from doing anything next turn, a 2 immobilises it, a three has a massive chance to kill it off and even if it does not reduces its capabilities next turn and a 4+ kills it outright.
It really should be that Glance gets you on the table but no hull point, while pens take em away.
while a Pen gets a +1 to the table so its possible for a ap 3+ to pop it.
They also need to fix what glancing does to the guys inside. getting stunned or shaken should feth them up if they try and leave the vehicle and charge something or shoot something.
Suddenly tanks would be the battle bunkers and transports that they are supposed to be without worrying about how many missile pods the enemy is spamming. (or St7 equivalents)
Apart from the fact vehicles should not resolve damage differently to any other unit.
And the whole way shooting is resolved needs complete revision anyway.
And mobility needs to be added back .(Movement rates in the form of stats or unit type.)
And close combat needs to be simultaneous to speed up the game.
And the game turn need to be more interactive.
And damage resolution in general needs defining better.
And as at least 60 special rules need culling, the above is a good starting point IMO.
Lanrak wrote: Apart from the fact vehicles should not resolve damage differently to any other unit.
And the whole way shooting is resolved needs complete revision anyway.
And mobility needs to be added back .(Movement rates in the form of stats or unit type.)
And close combat needs to be simultaneous to speed up the game.
And the game turn need to be more interactive.
And damage resolution in general needs defining better.
And as at least 60 special rules need culling, the above is a good starting point IMO.
Which special rules would you start culling? Other than that, again, just have Glances roll on the current chart with -1 to the die result, best of both arguments.
@saithor.
Any special rules that is not a special ability , that can not be covered by normal game mechanics and resolution methods .
I would just get rid of.
EG
Chemical weapons ignore cover, is a special ability of the way chemical weapons work differently to beam and projectile weapons.
But the special rules for movement could be simply covered by mobility stat.
Why do vehicles have to have different damage resolution to other units?
What exactly is the difference between a walking vehicle and a Monsterous Creature?
What is so wrong with using a system that covers all units in the same way?(But still gives much more diversity of results than the current system!)
@Jinx Dragon.
If GW had professional levels of editing and proof reading,it would improve the clarity of the language used in the presentation.
It would not fix the over complication in the rules, or the massive imbalance at the core of the game between shooting and close combat.
I think the best way forward would be too look at the transition between 2nd ed and 3rd ed.
As this was an '11th hour rush job' to get the 40k battle game finished, after the devs had spent nearly 18 months working on a refined skirmish game, that got canned!
It was here the rules for shooting were over simplified, that effected the rest of the game play, in a negative way.
Make Jink for skimmers/bikes a +1 to your cover save. It's kind of silly that a Jetbike squad out in the open can avoid half the damage of a large explosion that happened in their midst by taking evasive maneuvers.
Remove Fear/fearless. Useless rules are useless.
Cover saves are now by unit majority. The current system is too complicated for a game on the scale of 40k. Make casualty removal the choice of the owning player for the same reason.
On second thought, I would like to see at least 50% of the USRs culled and consolidated into the statblocks.
Allow assault out of deep strike. Make it so that it counts as a disordered charge or something.
Change how multiple barrage works. The way they do it now is tedious as hell. Make it so that the owning player can place the blast markers wherever they want after the initial one is rolled for as long as they overlap.
Vehicles should be able to overwatch. Maybe restrict to hull mounted/pintle weapons only?
Allow blast weapons and template weapons to snap fired. I never quite understood the reasoning about that restriction. Is it so that units with those weapons don't get away with having their BS reduced to 1? I mean, it's not like you needed to be particularly accurate with high explosives and flamers anyway.
Throw a bone to dedicated AT weaponry. Right now they are languishing at performing their assigned roles. We are now living in a design paradigm where it is more effective to fire at a tank from the side with HMGs than high caliber anti-tank guns.
Add a damage chart for MCs or make vehicles more like MCs. The gap in power is very noticeable between the two.
Nerf cover or have mechanics that allows units to reduce a cover save without removing it entirely.
