Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now I know GW has stated that they wouldn't rewrite 40k like they did between 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. But many veteran gamers don't seem to be happy with the direction 40k in general is going. If GW did rewrite 40k from the ground up, released a Ravening Horde style book, invalidated current codexes, possibly made current models useless...etc, how would you feel?

I think GW should get 40k's rules straightened out once and for all, and then *gasp* look at adding new rules and new units for each army.

I like how they are headed with expansions.

I think a total revamp would be nice. An update and FAQs would probably be sufficient.

The tightest rules GW is in possession of are the LOTR/WAB rules. They should look to them as the basis of 40k and get their house completely in order.

Zoned wrote: If GW did rewrite 40k from the ground up, released a Ravening Horde style book, invalidated current codexes, possibly made current models useless...etc, how would you feel?

If GW did all of the above (again), I think a lot of its long term fans would feel ripped off.
Do the rules need cleaning up?
Yes. As we all know, there are many grey areas, and some are downright loopy.
Do the codexes need to be brought into line with the (theoretical) new rulebook?
Yes. That would also help eliminate dodgy rules interaction
Do the background stories need to be rewritten again?
NO. The background is already there and has already been established years ago. No need to re-invent the wheel.
Should it take 3+ years to bring out new codexes to have a complete game?
NO. Ideally, the only parts needing rewrites would be the aforementioned dodgy rules. The entire series should be available within a year of the release of a new rulebook. I mean, 4th came out in 2004, and we are just getting an updated Ork codex now?
Do current models need to be made redundant?
NO. HELL NO! I still have 2 squads of assault marines all armed with PF's and plasma pistols, and Guardians armed with lasguns from 2nd edition. The only possible reason for eliminating current models would be to push the public into buying 'new & improved' models for the sole purpose of inflating GW sales.

But they won't do this. For GW, it is more profitable to keep re-cycling the old stories with ever decreasing complexity of the rules. But I think that each time they do this, they lose more and more of their long term customer base. I know after the last re-write, a lot of people I know gave up on GW products. But they don't seem to care. They know that the money will keep rolling in from the younger fans out there, especially if they keep marketing the games as "NEW!!!!" edition.

Not much of one. Just a refit in certain areas, mostly vehicles, with a little in shooting and line of sight, plus a few alterations to movement.

Basically everything we've done here:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/revisited_project/
http://www.revisitedproject.org/

That said, the major problems with 40K don't actually lie in the rules themselves, but more the mentality, attitude and ineptitude of the slowed monkey's writing the rules.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:That said, the major problems with 40K don't actually lie in the rules themselves, but more the mentality, attitude and ineptitude of the slowed monkey's writing the rules.

I for one would like to see a total reworking of the rules. Scrap it all and start from ground zero. I keep hearing that the LotR rules are terrific, so I'm going to say "hear hear!" to what Syr said.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Not much of one. Just a refit in certain areas, mostly vehicles, with a little in shooting and line of sight, plus a few alterations to movement.

Basically everything we've done here:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/revisited_project/
http://www.revisitedproject.org/

That said, the major problems with 40K don't actually lie in the rules themselves, but more the mentality, attitude and ineptitude of the slowed monkey's writing the rules.

BYE

To be fair, a lot of the major problems also lie in the mentality, attitude and ineptitude of the slowed monkeys exploiting the rules. Not that it excuses poor writing, but nothing will ever be perfect. Players need to learn to deal with a certain amount of flexibility and ambiguity without being powergaming donkey-caves about it.

Asmodai wrote:To be fair, a lot of the major problems also lie in the mentality, attitude and ineptitude of the slowed monkeys exploiting the rules. Not that it excuses poor writing, but nothing will ever be perfect. Players need to learn to deal with a certain amount of flexibility and ambiguity without being powergaming donkey-caves about it.

See, I don't buy this argument. Magic the Gathering, for example, runs off an extremely open ended gaming engine. (i.e. theres by far more grey area than in 40k) And just like in 40k, you will find tournament players who seek to ruthlessly exploit cards as well as casual players who just want to have fun or screw around. They manage this with a clean, technical ruleset, backed up by a practical, logical system to figure out how a series of events happens, (not something as absurd as 'just D6 it') and fast, responsive errata.

guess what 40k doesn't have...

Zoned wrote:If GW did rewrite 40k from the ground up, released a Ravening Horde style book, invalidated current codexes, possibly made current models useless...etc, how would you feel?

Frankly, I'd feel relieved. I think some well written rules and patching a few holes is all that is needed, but I don't want to see a repeat of 4.0's sloppiness. OTOH, I'd be happy to see the Codexes go away/be invalidated. An across the board change with the USRs applied to every army would solve most of my complaints.

GW can't seem to complete a round of Codexes before a new edition rolls around. I find this less acceptable than invalidating all Codexes. What I would like to see is a return to their old release method. That is to say, splash releases for a variety of army's units. I'm not a fan of waiting for a Codex for new mini releases. In the case of the last several Codexes, the entire army isn't redone, but rather some selected units or a new sprue recut.

If GW went to a base list for everybody and then modified the unit's rules as the minis came out everybody wins. GW can focus on whatever gaps an army has while they continue to sculpt marines year round. I know I'd be more likely to follow GW's games more if I knew every 3-4 months I could have new models rather than the situation where I am now wherein it will be 4-5 more years before my armies get an update. I don't think the rules will need to change much, but it would offer the designers' a chance to do so.

A new edition offers a break with the past. While GW could make a great 5th edition, I am confident the new edition will still be plagued with the worst of 4th edition: poorly edited/written rules, a lack of updates, slow response to experienced customer's concerns, and the current marketing strategy. A clean sweep would be welcome in my book and I've been playing since '89. I've been around long enough to know that whatever happens some of my things will be better, and some will take a hit. Thank goodness I have enough stuff to not let it bother me any more.

IntoTheRain wrote:See, I don't buy this argument.

Neither do I.

GW have consistantly proven not only their inability to write a clear ruleset, but also their unwillingness to even try.

This is why I question whether 5th Ed will be worth it, as nothing will change, or, if anything does, it'll just introduce a new range of opposite problems.

BYE

LOTR is a game based on model-per-model rules. If GW turned 40K back into that I'd have to shoot somebody.


I am perfectly fine with where 40K is, they just need to finish getting the 4th edition codices out (especially SM redux) and actually update their FAQs.


If they were going to do a rulebook update the couple of areas I think really need to be fixed in the game are the transport damage rules (they went overboard with it, especially the part where the unit has to jump out when the vehicle suffers a penetrating hit) and the imbalance between MCs and vehicles (with MCs being too durable).

I'd also like to see them finally move away from some of the model based rules like the casualty removal rules that require you to pull from within range and LOS. I hate having to think about whether I should keep my special weapon model in the front of the unit or not just in case the enemy will be able to range snipe me with their bolters.

[b][u]

H.B.M.C. wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:See, I don't buy this argument.

Neither do I.

GW have consistantly proven not only their inability to write a clear ruleset, but also their unwillingness to even try.

This is why I question whether 5th Ed will be worth it, as nothing will change, or, if anything does, it'll just introduce a new range of opposite problems.

BYE

I will agree with this point to a limited extent. I feel warmaster, BFG, and LotR are all well done systems with consitent rules and even still GW managed to release them. The pproblem lies with thier flagship games. Warhammer Fantasy is a bad system, it's gotten better but the foundation was as of 5th edition, that the game had to get better. Warhammer 40K was based on this weak foundation and has maintained it's flaws to this day.

1. IgoUgo
IgoUgo does not a fluid tactical environment make. Mathammer plays out so well because of the IgoUgo format. After deployment, 40K generally becomes a mass of dice rules. Winning the game is done before the first turn is done. This is relevent to Laserbait if he's reading this since he was wondering why we focus on some units here, it's because the in game variables are largely possible to compute before the first die roll. The game is currently won, not on the battlefield, but in the quatermastery. I do not recall some armies ever having won a GT. A good player will know if he can win the game simply by comparing the two armies and how they have deployed. Luck becomes the sole balancing factor.

2. Complications
The game has a large number of points where the rules are muddy. Most of these are simply the result of poor proofreading and dumb cut and pastes (the reason you should never cut and paste your assignments at school). Are psychic tests a leadership test, or a leadership based test (or is there even a difference?)?

3. Dumb rules

Continuing the psy-hate, why one earth isn't the perils hit a str 10 hit? Was there a reason Eldar and Guard psykers deserved to die in a perils attack and marines do not?

yakface wrote:

LOTR is a game based on model-per-model rules. If GW turned 40K back into that I'd have to shoot somebody.


I am perfectly fine with where 40K is, they just need to finish getting the 4th edition codices out (especially SM redux) and actually update their FAQs.


If they were going to do a rulebook update the couple of areas I think really need to be fixed in the game are the transport damage rules (they went overboard with it, especially the part where the unit has to jump out when the vehicle suffers a penetrating hit) and the imbalance between MCs and vehicles (with MCs being too durable).

I'd also like to see them finally move away from some of the model based rules like the casualty removal rules that require you to pull from within range and LOS. I hate having to think about whether I should keep my special weapon model in the front of the unit or not just in case the enemy will be able to range snipe me with their bolters.

It doesn't have to be that way though. And the turn sequence for LotR would work equally well for 40K and serve to deemphise close combat as well.

I think the most critical thing though as far as I'm concerned is make it so you can play the game out of the rule book, like LotR, even if only in a stunted fashion.

Have minidexs for all the armies featuring a selection of the core units for the army

ie Tyranids
HQ- Tyrant
Elites- Warriors
Troops- Genestealers, guants
Fast- Raveners
Heavy- Carnifex

Marine
HQ-Force commander
Eltes- Terminators
Troops- Tactical Marines
Fast-Assault Marines
Heavy- Devastators, Predators

Orks
HQ- Warboss
Elites- Nobs
Troops- Boys
Fast- Bikers
Heavy- Lootas

and so. Enough so that you can play some games without buying the codex, but not enough so you won't want the codex.

You can be certain that the rules will be rewritten since GW's revenue depends on selling new stuff to players. Their only way to get additional revenue out of veterans is to change the rules so we have to buy the new set.

That said, there is no reason why they could not write a decent set. They managed it for Warmaster and WHAB and from what I hear, WHAB is tighter than 40K. It just takes a bit of organisation and proof-reading.

What bits need to change?

I agree with Yak that the squad based nature of the game needs various bits of rules to be sorted out. Mixed toughness, mixed armour squads containing some multi-wound models are a complete bollix. There must be a better way.

IGOUGO. There are several good ways to change this. It just depends on what players would accept. I would go for a card activation system, or else a command roll but only if the Leadership/Morale rules are also sorted out. At the moment they are nearly worthless.

A card activation system has the benefit to GW that they can sell us a lot of activation cards.

I have come to the conclusion that vehicles need a complete reworking.

Please, please, please do not include the codexes in the main rulebook. It is already too big and heavy and expensive. But do include the basic stat sheets for each army, and take out as much of the fluff as possible. THe fluff is abundantly available in all sorts of other places without inflicting it on those of us who are not interested.

Finally...
>>3. Dumb rules

>>Continuing the psy-hate, why one earth isn't the perils hit a str 10 hit? Was there a reason Eldar and Guard psykers deserved to die in a perils attack and marines do not?

Yes it is becoz they ar Spase Marienz (Hurr!)

I would like to see a complet revamp, with Jervis in charge. His Epic rules are smashing.

IGOUGO needs to, well, go!

The morale rules suck.

I'd love to see suppressive fire rules like in Epic.

Movement: each unit needs an M profile.

Yak's comments about specific models still being too important are well worth considering, as well.

Most of 40k is pretty fine. They really just need to fix the vehicle and LOS rules as that is where most of the rulebook related questions come from, aside from that most of the other troubles come from the codex's and how in some cases things interact poorly with the rules.

GW could really take a leaf out of Sabertooth games (a sister company of sorts) book. One the Sabertooh games forum for each game they have a rules Q+A section. The beauty of this is that once a question is answered or a solution is figured out an official rules arbiter comes round and stamps the thread making that ruling official. and they update the tournement rules when need be. While this doesnt apply itself to Miniature gaming as well as it does to Card games GW could use a simmiliar system on their website. Im sure they've got someone who knows the rules of the game sitting around on one of the web teams. And when ever they get a sufficiant amount of questions answered for a particular army they can compile an FAQ, meaning that they are basically getting the players to write the FAQs for them.

Pirate_joe_666 wrote:Most of 40k is pretty fine. They really just need to fix the vehicle and LOS rules as that is where most of the rulebook related questions come from, aside from that most of the other troubles come from the codex's and how in some cases things interact poorly with the rules.

GW could really take a leaf out of Sabertooth games (a sister company of sorts) book. One the Sabertooh games forum for each game they have a rules Q+A section. The beauty of this is that once a question is answered or a solution is figured out an official rules arbiter comes round and stamps the thread making that ruling official. and they update the tournement rules when need be. While this doesnt apply itself to Miniature gaming as well as it does to Card games GW could use a simmiliar system on their website. Im sure they've got someone who knows the rules of the game sitting around on one of the web teams. And when ever they get a sufficiant amount of questions answered for a particular army they can compile an FAQ, meaning that they are basically getting the players to write the FAQs for them.

Privateer Press has one for Warmachine and Hordes

The downside to this immediate ruling kind of thing is the immediate, forceful feedback
whenever something gets ruled in a controversial fashion.

Although some would say that's half the fun...

efarrer wrote:[b][u]

H.B.M.C. wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:See, I don't buy this argument.

Neither do I.

GW have consistantly proven not only their inability to write a clear ruleset, but also their unwillingness to even try.

This is why I question whether 5th Ed will be worth it, as nothing will change, or, if anything does, it'll just introduce a new range of opposite problems.

BYE

I will agree with this point to a limited extent. I feel warmaster, BFG, and LotR are all well done systems with consitent rules and even still GW managed to release them. The pproblem lies with thier flagship games. Warhammer Fantasy is a bad system, it's gotten better but the foundation was as of 5th edition, that the game had to get better. Warhammer 40K was based on this weak foundation and has maintained it's flaws to this day.

1. IgoUgo
IgoUgo does not a fluid tactical environment make. Mathammer plays out so well because of the IgoUgo format. After deployment, 40K generally becomes a mass of dice rules. Winning the game is done before the first turn is done. This is relevent to Laserbait if he's reading this since he was wondering why we focus on some units here, it's because the in game variables are largely possible to compute before the first die roll. The game is currently won, not on the battlefield, but in the quatermastery. I do not recall some armies ever having won a GT. A good player will know if he can win the game simply by comparing the two armies and how they have deployed. Luck becomes the sole balancing factor.

2. Complications
The game has a large number of points where the rules are muddy. Most of these are simply the result of poor proofreading and dumb cut and pastes (the reason you should never cut and paste your assignments at school). Are psychic tests a leadership test, or a leadership based test (or is there even a difference?)?

3. Dumb rules

Continuing the psy-hate, why one earth isn't the perils hit a str 10 hit? Was there a reason Eldar and Guard psykers deserved to die in a perils attack and marines do not?

Ditto'd for truthiness.
1) tweek these.
2) address codex speciifc issues with timely FAQs

Most of the current misinterpretations and fumbled rules seem to stem from GWs need for 'creative writing' while explaining facts. For example in one part of the rule book it may say 'A is better then B' and later on in the same section it may say 'A is more powerful then B' at the expense that repeating themselves might look odd (stupid example but you get my drift?). Where in actual fact, it just clouds meaning and leads to arguments like PK Nobs in shoota squads.

Basically, theres a good ruleset there, but its just clouded by easy double meanings. A complete rewrite is in order, but to clarify rather then change

The ruleset, while it has it's oddities like montrous creatures being incredibly tougher than comparable vehicles to single shots, is simply so badly written in word choice that it is difficult to follow.

They would do much better by having a competent person who organizes and clarifies their text instead of the gibberish that they spout for rules. They could even just have a text box with the rule at the top in bold and then all the stupid fluff reasons for it below instead of putting it all together in a mash like it is now. It could also be in a better organized way such as all shooting together including vehicles and group it by main rules and then exceptions.

As an example, the few times I have played Reaper Game's Warlord I was able to find and comprehend the rules easily and did not have to argue a thing. I know they have done revisions over time but at least they were clear to start with.

And FAQs will improve any rule set when oddities are found. GW doesn't even currently answer real frequently asked questions, they as really odd and unimportant ones in my opinion.

I'm a little dissapointed that 40k's weakest rule, Morale isn't on the list of changes that have been doing the rounds on the internet. I'd liker to see a movement rate make a comeback and anit tank weapons have a greater effect on monstrous creatures.

Bring back 2nd edition weapon statlines!

To-hit modifiers, Armour save modifiers, wounds, sustained fire, wildly complex vehicle armour penetration!

Main things to fix
1 Vehicals need a total Redo
2 Things need to be more specific
3 Monsterous creatures (how is it possible that if a unit can't hurt they would sit their and get squished)
4 The new codex's are appauling eg(Dark angels, Chaos they killed the variety they once had)
5 more Variety in the games you can play

How to fix
1 give them structure points based on point costs
2 It's pretty simple give explanations Zeal charges a perfect example
3 Can choose weather to take the moral test or Flee (excluding fearless units which must stay)
4 Redo these things and SOON
5 Add senarios in the codexs and more maps in the rule book

These are just a few suggestions If you can fix do so as their pretty broard

I was just thinking about the weapon statlines from 2nd ed. Someone asked me why they were dropped, and my knee-jerk response was "modifiers were slowing the game down." But then I thought about WHFB, how they use tons of modifiers to hit for shooting, yet the pace of the game wasn't particularly slowed there. Here's why, I think:

1) Alot more units in 40k shoot. The shooting phase in WHFB tends to be relatively short. In WHFB, most armies tend to have maybe 2-4 units that shoot. Having a slightly more complex system doesn't slow the game down as a result.

2) The modifiers on weapons in 2nd ed. 40k weren't streamlined. Ranges of weapons were all over the place. Just 'cause you were a pistol didn't mean you had a range of 12". Also, some weapons had close range modifiers, others has long range modifiers. Close range and long range wasn't the same from weapon to weapon. As a result, keeping track of all this truly was a pain in the rear.

In WHFB, the modifiers for weapons are easily understood. For all weapons, long range is more than half the range of a weapon, this confers a -1 to hit...etc. Also, many weapons in WHFB are shared (bows, long bows, crossbows...etc) between races. Variations between races tend to be minor (Dwarf Handguns are regular handguns with +1 to hit, WE longbows are normal longbows with +1Str at short range...etc)

If they did completely redo 40k from the ground up, could they reintroduce modifiers without drastically slowing the game down? I think so. Just some sample ideas (totally unplaytested!) Streamline ranges on weapons. Keep pistols at 12", rifle sized weapons at 24"...etc. Exceptions should be few and far between (Pulse Rifles come to mind.)

Range:

Shots at long range (beyond half range of weapon) are at -1 to hit.

Cover:

Models in soft cover are -1 to hit. Models in hard cover are -2 to hit.

Rapid Fire weapons:

May always shoot once up to maximum range. Rapid Fire weapons may shoot twice at short range (half range or less.)

Targetting:

Units of Infantry and Jump/Jet Infantry that did not move in the movement phase gets +1 to hit.

So a BS 4 Space Marine with a Bolter would have an effective range of 30", but hits on a 4+ if their opponent was at long range. If their opponent was in soft cover, this would be a 5+. If he doesn't move, he would hit a target in the open at long range on a 3+ (+1 for targetting, -1 for long range.) If the Space Marine moves into short range, he would get two shots hitting on 3+ on enemies in the open. If the enemy ends their move in short range of the bolter, the Space Marine could stand still and double tap on a 2+!

All in all, not terrible results. Sorry HBMC, did I steal these from your revisited project?

One of the downsides of reintroducing modifiers for cover is that it would result in Space Marines scrambling for cover, which is very un-Marine like. Thoughts?

Zoned

Also, units in 40k tend to have mixed ranged weapons. Already you're rolling
separate dice to hit or doing something else, with modifiers on top of that you're
going to run into time sinks every turn.

Pariah Press wrote:Movement: each unit needs an M profile.

Above all this is what I would like to see put back in. The current movement options certainly do simplify things but they really take out a lot of the tactical flexibility that I remember from 2nd edition 40k (3" squat movement he he).

...And the people have spoken. Let our voices be heard. Fix the brokeness of 40K

Zoned wrote:All in all, not terrible results. Sorry HBMC, did I steal these from your revisited project?

No, not at all. Our system was far more simplistic. The range the weapon is shot at and the cover involved don't affect the To Hit roll. Our modifiers To Hit peak at -2, and that's for a vehicle type 'Scout' (like a Vyper) moving exactly 24" and with a Holo-Field (a further -1 To Hit).

Most of the time To-Hit modifiers are -1, and we have +1 To Hit when you're within 6" of a vehicle/MC/Walker.

That's really it. Cover save mechanic (which I actually like compared to the light/heavy cover system of 2nd Ed) remains the same.

The only other major change is that basic weapon ranges have been increased, so Bolters are 30", Pulse Rifles 36" and so on. Rapid fire remains as is, but movement doesn't matter (one shot at full range or two at 12" regardless of movement). Makes basic troops so much more effective, especially in units with more exotic weapons like Grey Knights and Noise Marines.

BYE