Switch Theme:

Do the 40k rules need a complete re-write?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Does 40k need a complete re-write?
Yes total re-write from scratch.
Yes total re write but based on WHFB.
No it just needs some more special rules.
No it has no problems at all as it is.

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!





Holy Terra.

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

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


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


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

   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/13 10:33:36


 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

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


Exactly.

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

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


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

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


Kid_Kyoto wrote:yes.

Tomorrow.

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



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



Wow, great minds think alike.

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

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


WFB didn't need the setting blown up either.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in gb
Deva Functionary





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






Oops...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/29 00:02:01


I'm back! 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




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

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

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/30 18:44:28


"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter




england

Full rewrite. Nothing less than this.
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

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

20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





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

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

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





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


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

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


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

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/31 21:34:29


 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok





Medford Oregon

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

   
Made in ca
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





Why is a thread from 2015 being necro'd? Start a new one if you want to gripe about 8th.
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





Orem, Utah

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

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


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Korinov wrote:
I voted for the complete rewrite.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/03 14:54:57


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






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







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

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


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

Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







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


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

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

Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




United States

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


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

Can't just one of those abilities be changed to rerolling 1s to wound or something?
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





Orem, Utah

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






My £0.02...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2019/05/09 21:44:10


 
   
Made in us
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/10 12:30:54


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





People are still banging the "Build a Better 40k" drum in 2019?
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





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

   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




Berlin

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

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

And less special rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/26 10:32:45


 
   
Made in us
Mad Gyrocopter Pilot





washington state USA

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

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

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

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

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

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



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Why not both? If GW has proven anything in recent years, it's that you can use the same miniatures in different games.
   
Made in se
Fresh-Faced New User




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

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