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.

I think they need to make a fundamental change to the game in 5th Edition. I think they need to scrap the "you go / I go" turn sequence. This will be a major change, but would eliminate the two biggest issues I find in 4th Edition:
-Going First is a Huge Advantage (shooting at skimmers, etc.)
-Going Last is a Huge Advantage (objectives)

Some people would say these advantages equal out, but they don't, (they simple unbalance an otherwise fine set of rules).

I would love an Epic-style phase sequence. I don't even think you would need to change codex rules that much....

Thoughts?

Mez

Mezmaron wrote:
I don't even think you would need to change codex rules that much....

Thoughts?

Mez

Assuming that the last few codices have been written with whatever changes are coming in 5th edition in mind, I expect GW will not make any changes that require any significant changes to 4th edition codexes, with the exception of Vanilla SM. There are far more subtle fixes to skimmers, first turn/last turn, objectives that will allow the 4th edition codexes to remain unchanged.

I've played/ collected since Rogue Trader. I've seen the ups and downs of every edition. The only thing I really want is GW to acknowledge FW as its own and make FW rules official without opponents consent. This, to me, must be in the front of the official rule book.

I own all of the books and I know the FW books say they are official, but it would help immensely if GW would say they were official too.

All I want for 5th Edition is FW products to be fully sanctioned.

Flagg07 wrote:I've played/ collected since Rogue Trader. I've seen the ups and downs of every edition. The only thing I really want is GW to acknowledge FW as its own and make FW rules official without opponents consent. This, to me, must be in the front of the official rule book.

I own all of the books and I know the FW books say they are official, but it would help immensely if GW would say they were official too.

All I want for 5th Edition is FW products to be fully sanctioned.

No way. That would make the game much more rock-paper-scissors than it already it.

The last thing people want is to fight the T8 W8 A8 flying Chaos monstrosities in a regular game. Sure some armies might be equipped to beat it, but most wouldn't be - especially in tournaments. It would result in dull and unbalanced games on either side.

FW and things like Armoured Company should be limited to friendly games where both players know what's coming.

I am not to sure about such a huge change to SM. I have heard a call for a Redux, just not from any official sources.

If the cry is to make SM just like the dark Angels, what happens to the Black Templars who will still have 5 man lascannon squads and 2 assault cannons in Termie squads?

If you make the vanilla SM codex just like the Dark Angels, what makes the DA unique?

How bad have the Dark Angels sales been since the release of that codex? Does GW want the SM sales to sink as well?

I'd really like the SM changes to be minimal at worst.

Fix the traits so that there are no "easy outs" in terms of disadvantages.

Fix/clarify the psychic powers so that they're balanced and clear, but for the love of the Emperor, do NOT limit/reduce/etc. it!

I'm sure there's more...

Do away with Nidzilla. End fo story.

GG

Mezmaron wrote:I think they need to make a fundamental change to the game in 5th Edition. I think they need to scrap the "you go / I go" turn sequence. This will be a major change, but would eliminate the two biggest issues I find in 4th Edition:
-Going First is a Huge Advantage (shooting at skimmers, etc.)
-Going Last is a Huge Advantage (objectives)
I would love an Epic-style phase sequence. I don't even think you would need to change codex rules that much....

Thoughts?
Mez

Instead of a major overhaul to Epic-sytle phase sequence, how about this?

Proposed Rule:
"Skimmers *can* count as having moved over 6" for turn one, if the owning player declares it before the game starts."

That'd take care of the one first turn issue. As for going last and securing objectives? I'm still trying to work out a better way of dealing with.

-BE

I'd like to see heavy weapons being able to fire independantly from the unit, maybe including a leadership check.

You could say that the 8/9 lasguns are supporting troops taking defensive positions against nearby enemy infantry while the anti armour guy takes aim. Makes sense.

I have my share of games in, and to be honest I don't think the first turn issue is much of an issue. I also think I heard a rumour regarding toning down skimmers, I think they are going to be hull down now so you can get pens on them.

Tacobake,

The idea of split firing is something that we do in our revisited rule set.

It completely changes the game.

We made it so that vehicles can fire at any number of targets (for individual guns - IE non coaxial) and that units can fire at 2 targets (a primary and secondary) if they pass a leadership test.

It really is a huge improvement!!

Having vehicles being able to shoot at multiple targets would certainly give them a much needed boost. Also, squads having the ability to split fire like Long Fangs would greatly help as well. Something should be done about the difference between vehicles and MCs though. A Carnifex taking 2 rail cannon shots too the face and being able to fight at 100% effectiveness while a Predator that got glanced by a lucky krak missile and is completely unable to do anything is just dumb. I'd like to see a little more depth to the rules. 40k has gotten almost too simplistic. I'm not talking Rogue Trader style complications, but I'd like something a little more involved than Hero Clix as well.

For 5th edition, all I would really want to see is a clear and concise, non-contradictory rules set.
Before releasing ANY codex, I would love for GW to actually make sure that there isn't any glaring or subtle loopholes.

Maybe give it to a gruop of Dakkaite rules-lawyers to see how they can twist things up, and then correct it.

just my two ducats.

I'd like to see a throw-away rip off of DBA,* some 3"x5" sculpted movement trays, a big book of fluff and a link to a fanrules posting site...I'd love to see GW turn into a 28mm/8mm of GEQ + a sci-fi/fantasy version Osprey. Throw-away rules in reasonably-priced basic boxes, maybe throwaway Codexes printed on the insides of army boxes, beautifully bound and illustrated FLUFF ONLY reference books and the same gorgeous sculpts we all know and love. 40k should become MORE and MORE simplistic - it will widen the range of interest in the game and make it easier to balance. People who want more complications can make them up with their own gaming groups, or play earlier editions of 40k. Maybe they could print a "battle box" book consisting of fully errata'd reprints of all their earlier 28mm systems as a nod to older players.

*This system can be learned completely by normally-developed children as young as 8, and is the only set of wargames rules that is tolerable to play with the developmentally delayed, as I know from personal experience. Normal twelve-element Battles can be played in as few as thirty minutes, and they could do a re-release of Apocalypse as a De Bella Multitudinous knock-off. We can a game that's more child-friendly and less childISH. Maybe they could throw in some YAHTZEE dice for people who like that sort of thing...

...of course, I'd be equally happy just to watch GW go bankrupt and laugh.

wight_widow wrote:I'd like to see a throw-away rip off of DBA,* some 3"x5" sculpted movement trays, a big book of fluff and a link to a fanrules posting site...I'd love to see GW turn into a 28mm/8mm of GEQ + a sci-fi/fantasy version Osprey. Throw-away rules in reasonably-priced basic boxes, maybe throwaway Codexes printed on the insides of army boxes, beautifully bound and illustrated FLUFF ONLY reference books and the same gorgeous sculpts we all know and love. 40k should become MORE and MORE simplistic - it will widen the range of interest in the game and make it easier to balance. People who want more complications can make them up with their own gaming groups, or play earlier editions of 40k. Maybe they could print a "battle box" book consisting of fully errata'd reprints of all their earlier 28mm systems as a nod to older players.

*This system can be learned completely by normally-developed children as young as 8, and is the only set of wargames rules that is tolerable to play with the developmentally delayed, as I know from personal experience. Normal twelve-element Battles can be played in as few as thirty minutes, and they could do a re-release of Apocalypse as a De Bella Multitudinous knock-off. We can a game that's more child-friendly and less childISH. Maybe they could throw in some YAHTZEE dice for people who like that sort of thing...

...of course, I'd be equally happy just to watch GW go bankrupt and laugh.

Is this facetious? I'm not always good on picking up on sarcasm. If not, I really would like to see more fluff and illustrations, and fluff consistent rules, I'll give you that. What I really do not want to do is to make the game playable by mentally challenged people...I think I'd get bored with that fairly quickly.

It is also bad enough as is....where I play, the vast majority of the guys there are under 21. Make the fluff mature enough and the rules complex enough to get the children and the teeny boppers out. My opinion is that if a minor wants to play miniatures, then they should have to conform to adult standards of behaviour, not the other way around.

Hmmm... A GW version of Osprey.... mulling over...

I like it. I thuink that htey have tried to do that in their own fashion and style with some of the FW books that are out, and some of the old Chapter Approved books. But, from this comment that wight_widow made, I am now envisioning Osprey books on the Wars for Armageddeon, combatting the different Hive Fleets, and I would actually like to see what exactly happened after the Kryptman Cordon turned he Tyranid hive fleet away from the heart of the Imperium and directly into Ork space, with those two races thriving on each other now.

I don't see it happeneiong. Not enough possibility of boosting model sales. I dunno, MAYBE they could make a hell of a project out of it for Black Library. However, that's really what Black library does, isn't it? Fill in the fluff chinks, and try to make a profit at it. Just not in the Osprey format, which is what really grabbed me about hte idea. Pity.

As far as dumbing down the game, I think it MAY be possible to dumb down the game enough to get the kids and speds in (thereby increasing market share), however keep the interest of the older crowd. You can't really do it by differentiating the rules, as you would effectively make 2 versions of 40k out, in rotation, and regulation at the same time (I call them 40k Standard and 40k Sped). Differentiating the codexes would be the only other option. You could have "standard" rules for the kiddies, and then more "conniseur" armies with more complicated rules for the older crowd. Let the "kids" play vanilla eldar, and then when they get enough games or enough brains under their belts, let them play a "craftworld".

Of course, the glaring flaw in this plan is that it would require a level of codex balancing that, for whatever reason, we have never seen from GW and, IMNSHO, WILL never see. I think this plan is far too complex to ever get serious attention.

Another option to get the kids into the competitive end would be to install streaming into the GT's. You could have 3 levels of play, beginner, standard, and Cut -Throat Break the Codex. THat way, people could play at whatever level they enjoy the most. The beginners have a venue to start out and still "compete" against other beginners. The guys who like to build "fluffy" armies have a place where they can sharpen their claws against other like minded souls. And the Ultra-competitive guys who bring lists that push the definition of the word "is" in a Clinton-esque manner can bash each others brains in and see how many people they can send home crying. In this last level, I would do away with "comp". Personally, I would do away with "comp" completely, but THAT won't happen until GW gets off their ass and decides to balance everything. Yeah, not holding my breathe.

Eh, well. Only time will tell.

Grignard wrote:[ My opinion is that if a minor wants to play miniatures, then they should have to conform to adult standards of behaviour, not the other way around.

Agreed. It's annoying when non-minors regress to child standards of behavior when playing miniatures.

FWIW, I've had some of my most pleasant games against a impeccably well-behaved pre-teen kid. Really nice kid, great to see around the store. I wish that more of the adults were like he was.

There is a note of facetiousness in there based on my own lack of fantasism (if that's a word) in terms of optimistic performance from GW, but I am pretty sincere about flattening the rules out. If the main design department of GW can't write decent rules for wargamers, as they have proved over the past fifteen years, they should write fast and simple rules for children and let Specialist Games handle older customers.

Little kids are the lifeblood of bricks-and-mortar GW stores and the GW recruitment plan. Because GW is one of the few miniatures company going after little kids, and because wargaming, like any social hobby, needs new recruits to stay alive, I would like to see this explicitly acknowledged. It should be like Hasbro's marketting of Pokemon and Magic: the Gathering. Every Magic player above the age of 12 thinks Pokemon is stupid, but every Magic player also knows that some Pokemon players will eventually turn into the next generation of Magic players. Magic players, regardless of their play status, WILL eventually get "new set itch" and buy the odd booster. We all know there's no way that you're going to get the ten year olds with the C'tan and two monoliths daddy superglued together for them to play like long-term hobbyists with a certain commitment to, if not the product, game, or company, then WHAT the game COULD be and/or the hobby in general. Simple solution: graham crackers and burgers for the kids; steak for the grown-ups.

...as for that bit about the developmentally delayed, that is not facetious in the least. My kid sister has Down's Syndrome, and at 17 has a tough time with division and subtraction, let alone probability and the kinds of simple maths someone with a grade 8 grasp of arithmetic can do to analyse their tactics. Math is not fun for the average little kid. DBA/HOTT is simple and fast-playing enough, while still being balanced, that we can have a fun game without getting bogged down trying to explain largely superfluous sub-rules. There is a distinction between simple (DBA) and simple-minded (40k) rule sets.

It is entirely possible that putting out "40k Lite" would be a good step to bringing in new players. I know D&D has done that in a few different manners over the years, and there is no reason not to make a simpler "gate way" game for younger players to get into the hobby with, particularly if you use the same rules. Shrew plays 40k with his daughter with simple tyranids and marines without the fancy weapons etc. She also routinely smears him across the table. Why GW doesn't make a basic game to let the youngin's get used to the ideas before being over whelmed with detail is a good question.

That said, 40k should remain an adult game. It should have the detail and depth that older, veteran players demand. There is little point to getting gamers when they are young if they decide the game is boring by the time they are old enough to have their own disposable income/family relationships to cash in.


In terms of 5th changes, I really would like to see a move towards "Ok, move phase. Roll for Initiative. Ok, Shooting phase, roll for initiative" etc. as mentioned by the OP. That would have no direct rules conflict for the Codex's as written, but would really change the dynamic of the game, for instance allowing units to shoot at the enemies moving at them before they get to charge. I think that a lot of the "problems" and wierdness in the rules would be solved by not knowing that next turn you are going to send your jump troops from behind cover to charge 18" into the enemy without being shot.

wight_widow wrote:There is a note of facetiousness in there based on my own lack of fantasism (if that's a word) in terms of optimistic performance from GW, but I am pretty sincere about flattening the rules out. If the main design department of GW can't write decent rules for wargamers, as they have proved over the past fifteen years, they should write fast and simple rules for children and let Specialist Games handle older customers.

Little kids are the lifeblood of bricks-and-mortar GW stores and the GW recruitment plan. Because GW is one of the few miniatures company going after little kids, and because wargaming, like any social hobby, needs new recruits to stay alive, I would like to see this explicitly acknowledged. It should be like Hasbro's marketting of Pokemon and Magic: the Gathering. Every Magic player above the age of 12 thinks Pokemon is stupid, but every Magic player also knows that some Pokemon players will eventually turn into the next generation of Magic players. Magic players, regardless of their play status, WILL eventually get "new set itch" and buy the odd booster. We all know there's no way that you're going to get the ten year olds with the C'tan and two monoliths daddy superglued together for them to play like long-term hobbyists with a certain commitment to, if not the product, game, or company, then WHAT the game COULD be and/or the hobby in general. Simple solution: graham crackers and burgers for the kids; steak for the grown-ups.

...as for that bit about the developmentally delayed, that is not facetious in the least. My kid sister has Down's Syndrome, and at 17 has a tough time with division and subtraction, let alone probability and the kinds of simple maths someone with a grade 8 grasp of arithmetic can do to analyse their tactics. Math is not fun for the average little kid. DBA/HOTT is simple and fast-playing enough, while still being balanced, that we can have a fun game without getting bogged down trying to explain largely superfluous sub-rules. There is a distinction between simple (DBA) and simple-minded (40k) rule sets.

Ok, I can see that. I think to some degree GW does this already. I'm pretty sure that is how they train their salespeople, because Ive seen them give a pitch to adults that sounds as if it is tailored for the young teen set, which ends up just being embarassing for all involved. But I definitely agree that bringing new ( young ) players into the game is the only way to keep it alive. That is how I got in to it. That said, I really hope that 40k can maintain its mature flavour, particularly where the fluff is concerned.

1) Clear up most if not all the rule questions in the Yak FAQ. (probability of it happening: virtually none)

2) Balance out skimmers. (probability of it happening: high)

3) Do not “balance out skimmers” into near uselessness. (probability of it happening: medium)

4) Balance out monstrous creatures. (probability of it happening: low)

5) Move away from last turn objective grabbing towards a system that rewards players for holding objectives throughout the game. (probability of it happening: low)

6) Fix the “I go, you go” system. (probability of it happening: virtually none)

7) Fix rending so that it’s not insane when it shows up on ranged weapons. (probability of it happening: high)

8) Balance transport rules so that non skimming transports are viable. (probability of it happening: low)

9) Make the land raider worth its points (preferably by just reducing its point cost). (probability of it happening: virtually none)

5th EDITION WISH LIST


I'm not a really accomplished player but this is the stuff I'd like to see in the next edition. Some of it's my idea, some of it's been cribbed from people who seem to know what they're talking about & caught my eye.


Monstrous creatures get no (or -2) cover save.

Maybe, just maybe, have melta weapons and any weapon whose S is greater than the T of a monstrous creature add an extra wound on a roll of 6? I came up with this a few days ago and then saw a thread about the same idea in proposed rules. Sick minds think alike.

Skimmers must move 12" to benefit from "skimmers moving fast" rule. Also, I'd love to see the glance only rule apply to ranged atacks but not close combat attacks. That ought to tone the 36" tank shocking down a tad. The rumor is that all HTH attacks against vehicles hit rear armor, which would do pretty much the same thing.

No more IGOUGO...maybe alternate turn phases (player 1 moves, player 2 moves, player 1 shoots, player 2 shoots, etc.) or roll for initiative every single game turn to see who goes first?

Make escalation less ridiculous. I don't really know how. Half the reserve units, rounding up, can arrive on turn 2 and then you roll for the rest? Make escalation games 8 turns minimum?

Some variant of the force march rule (rumored to be in the works). Units that don't shoot or charge can run 3" or d6" or something in their shooting phase. Fleet of foot units can run 6" or roll 2d6 and pick whichever result they'd like.

Charge reaction: when being charged, a unit take a Ld test. If they pass, they can fire their weapons once (and only once, no matter how many shots it usually gets per turn) at Initiative 10 instead of using their close combat attacks that turn.

Shooting and close combat casualties are taken from the entire unit rather than whoever's in line of sight or in the kill zone. Range sniping annoys me a lot more than CC, so the assault version probably doesn't matter. This is just a pet peeve of mine, most other stuff is done by unit so why is this done by model? Maybe not an important change, just something that bugs me.

No more forced disembark when transports suffer a pen but aren't destroyed. I could actually live without this, but just seems to encourage boring stand & shoot armies and make vehicles even less desirable.

No more dedicated transport rule. Keep 'em unable to hold table quarters, sure, but anybody who needs to can pile into bravo squad's chimera if they've got to get out of a hot zone.

One vehicle damage table. Have penetrating hits add +1. Have it go to from 1 (no effect) to 6 (kaboom).

Scoring units need to spend an entire game turn on objectives in order to count as holding them.

To make the game appealing to younger players and developmentally delayed you need simple, clear rules that don’t require a lot of referencing during games.

This isn’t necessarily exclusive to developing tactical play that experienced gamers would enjoy. Simple, elegant rules design can facilitate more strategic play… Chess and Go have tremendous depth, but the rules can be explained in a couple of minutes. I’d argue that with Bloodbowl and Epic GW managed a couple of simple rules sets that allow for fairly deep tactical play.

However, there’s a third kind of priority, simulation. It’s the desire for things to be ‘realistic’, so that even if a rule adds complexity without improving strategic, it will have appeal if it helps represent the background of 40K. Most of the complaints about 40K’s ‘dumbing down’ actually has nothing to do with tactical depth, and everything to do with simulation. The calls for grenade rules, overwatch, to hit modifiers, charge reactions and similar rules aren’t often argued for on grounds of greater tactical play, but because you ‘should’ be able to kill someone with a grenade, it ‘should’ be tougher to hit to someone standing further away, or a unit ‘should’ be able to shoot at someone as he’s running in to assault them.

All three design goals are legitimate, but achieving all three is near impossible. Like dining out, you can have it cheap, fast or good, pick two of the three. Chess and Go can be simple and tactical because they’re completely abstract, there’s no need to represent an actual battlefield. But in miniatures games a large part of the appeal is in actually representing a battlefield, so a certain level of simulation has to be included in the rules system.

A large part of the problems with the current rules come from a failure to take a consistent line in choosing between the three priorities. The current shooting mechanics aren’t particularly realistic, a rapid fire gun is as dangerous at 22” as it is at 14”, but twice as deadly at 12”, but it’s a simple system that gives a strong incentive to strategic maneuver. On the other hand, you’re required to move each model individually rather than just move a single model 6” and move everything else in line with that one marker model – sacrificing simplicity for no real tactical depth, but gaining a little more simulation. Other rules sit strangely between all three options, cover saves are a combination of all three priorities, starting with a LOS assumption (simulation focus), and then adding a list of exceptions (predetermined cover save bonuses, area terrain) to produce more streamlined play – but unfortunately ending up with a system that’s confusing to many players.

Ultimately, GW could produce a system that’s simple enough to appeal to young gamers and to veterans, but they’d probably have to gut the current system of a lot of its simulation. If you ignored the actual position of models on the field, ignored the specific models can just gave whole units abilities and special weapons you’d have a much simpler system and the cleaner rules would probably add tactical depth.

But I doubt I’d like that game, and given the nature of rules complaints and suggested new rules I’ve read on-line, I’m fairly certain a lot of other gamers would dislike it as well. Simply put, miniatures games need to have a strong element of play being based around the miniatures and the battlefield they represent, and a lot of high abstraction will hurt that.

I think GW needs to decide exactly where the design priorities lie with 40K. It’s a reasonable system, but is let down by inconsistent treatment of different game elements.

There’s also an issue with 40K having $200 or $300 bare minimum price tag, and such a developed modeling aspect, so I doubt there will be a great deal of appeal to gamers young enough to need a rules system significantly simpler than the current system. For my mind, while a simpler system could maintain tactical depth, that doesn’t mean such a system is necessarily a good idea.

Tacobake wrote:I'd like to see heavy weapons being able to fire independantly from the unit, maybe including a leadership check.

As Malaketh mentioned, that's something we do in our rules. In fact, it was one of the first things we added and it has remained unchanged for over 3 years. We call it 'Fire Control'. Basically a unit picks a Primary and a Secondary target, takes a Leadership test, and if successful can fire at both, and if failed fires at the Primary.

Works wonders.

BYE

Wehrkind wrote:That said, 40k should remain an adult game. It should have the detail and depth that older, veteran players demand.

As an older, veteran player, I would greatly welcome reduced detail but greater depth of strategy. Lots of us have jobs, SOs / wives / families, etc and cannot devote so much time to memorizing a dozen Codices worth of minutiae and trying to worry about complications in interactions. Something that can be played among friends for a pleasant afternoon with a break for snacks is a real treat.

The idea that "adult" = "complicated" would be a mistake, IMO, and doesn't speak for everyone, nor all veterans.

sebster wrote:To make the game appealing to younger players and developmentally delayed you need simple, clear rules that don’t require a lot of referencing during games.

This isn’t necessarily exclusive to developing tactical play that experienced gamers would enjoy. Simple, elegant rules design can facilitate more strategic play… Chess and Go have tremendous depth, but the rules can be explained in a couple of minutes. I’d argue that with Bloodbowl and Epic GW managed a couple of simple rules sets that allow for fairly deep tactical play.

However, there’s a third kind of priority, simulation. It’s the desire for things to be ‘realistic’,

What a lot of people seem to miss is that simulation / realism doesn't have to be high detail, and that every rule has 2 costs: time and energy. There is time to design (balance & test) the rule, along with time to use the rule in a game. There is also the mental energy of remembering that the rule exists and is significant. With 40k so heavily exception-based with special rule overrides, it's a huge problem with you have overrides to overrides (I'm talking about the Monolith here). How many games occur in which a rule is forgotten or mis-remembered, and then finished, only to be recalled in hindsight as a game changing omission?

With respect to simulation, if I'm having a game of artillery battles, I can have a perfectly good game that ignores air resistance and the curvature of the earth, along with the coriolis effect of any rifling / fin-stabilization. In fact there are a *lot* of simplifications that I can make that won't affect the game or it's overall accuracy - provided I use good judgement of what to include, and what to exclude. It is my opinion that GW often fails to exercise good judgement on what to exclude, leading to unnecessary rules bloat. If GW is moving towards an actual understanding what is de minimis, they should be appaluded for avoiding trivialities that don't greatly affect the overall game.

So this is why I have no interest in moving away from Igo-Ugo, for example. Unit assignment to cards, tracking cards, shuffling cards, etc. just slows the game without materially affecting the result.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tacobake wrote:I'd like to see heavy weapons being able to fire independantly from the unit, maybe including a leadership check.

As Malaketh mentioned, that's something we do in our rules. In fact, it was one of the first things we added and it has remained unchanged for over 3 years. We call it 'Fire Control'. Basically a unit picks a Primary and a Secondary target, takes a Leadership test, and if successful can fire at both, and if failed fires at the Primary.

Works wonders.

BYE

I like.

As for tournament vs adult vs hero clix gamers is concerned, 40k could do with multiple rulesets of varying complexity. Sort of like Alpha, Gamma, Omega missions only ... good. So say Fire Control and ballistic skill modifiers for move and shoot heavy weapons are only for advanced players and annual "just for fun" campaign army lists are non-tournament legal.

JohnHwangDD wrote:What a lot of people seem to miss is that simulation / realism doesn't have to be high detail, and that every rule has 2 costs: time and energy. There is time to design (balance & test) the rule, along with time to use the rule in a game. There is also the mental energy of remembering that the rule exists and is significant. With 40k so heavily exception-based with special rule overrides, it's a huge problem with you have overrides to overrides (I'm talking about the Monolith here). How many games occur in which a rule is forgotten or mis-remembered, and then finished, only to be recalled in hindsight as a game changing omission?

With respect to simulation, if I'm having a game of artillery battles, I can have a perfectly good game that ignores air resistance and the curvature of the earth, along with the coriolis effect of any rifling / fin-stabilization. In fact there are a *lot* of simplifications that I can make that won't affect the game or it's overall accuracy - provided I use good judgement of what to include, and what to exclude. It is my opinion that GW often fails to exercise good judgement on what to exclude, leading to unnecessary rules bloat. If GW is moving towards an actual understanding what is de minimis, they should be appaluded for avoiding trivialities that don't greatly affect the overall game.

So this is why I have no interest in moving away from Igo-Ugo, for example. Unit assignment to cards, tracking cards, shuffling cards, etc. just slows the game without materially affecting the result.

But realism isn’t just having a plausible end result for an action. For a lot of people it’s about the process… for instance firing at a tank it is reasonably simple and plausible to roll to hit, roll to penetrate side armour and roll damage. But a lot of people like the extra 2ed detail of getting +1 for a large target but -1 for a target moving fast, then rolling for specific hit locations with their own armour values, then rolling on specific damage tables. At the end of the day the probabilities in the final result might come out the same, but all that extra detail is desirable for some people, it’s a fun little game in itself.

You mentioned a game of artillery battles, and you’re right that different types of shell and the differences between a spotter using a laser targetter and a spotter manually estimating the range to target may not substantially affect game strategy . But even though chess is cheaper and far more in-depth people have bought their artillery models and built their game board for a reason… they think artillery is cool and they like playing pretend artillery battles. Extra levels of detail, even if they’re superfluous, can add to people’s enjoyment of the game.

I’m not crazy about adding extra rules, but there is a reason I’m playing a miniatures game, and part of that is to play pretend space battles. While a completely abstract system of cover would be easier to resolve and just as strategically deep, I like having LOS between models mean something, it helps the 'pretend' element of the whole thing.

Look at the number of people who make posts wanting rules for to-hit modifiers, rules to model throwing grenades, rules for charge reactions, rules for new melee to hit charts etc. These are rarely, if ever, wanted out of a desire to add greater strategic depth, what people want is a less abstract game, one where the individual actions of models are directly simulated.

Building a game with elegant rules with strategic depth is quite achievable. Building a game with elegant rules with strategic depth that gives a strong level of simulation is a much harder design goal.

That GW seems to have no particular design policy on what level of streamlining and what level of simulation they want is one of the problems with the game. Witness the abstraction in the current to-hit system and compare it with the detail of who can and who can’t be removed from combat, or who is an who isn’t involved in a melee. The system is really all over the shop in terms of detail levels.

I agree with you about keeping the IGOUGO system, by the way. A simultaneous turn system would be solving problems 40k doesn’t have, and doing nothing to solve the game’s limitations. The basic system that’s there is sound, it just needs tinkering to give various unit types genuinely unique strategic value (and there’s also some points balance issues, but that’s a whole other thing).

Brother Erekose wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:I think they need to make a fundamental change to the game in 5th Edition. I think they need to scrap the "you go / I go" turn sequence. This will be a major change, but would eliminate the two biggest issues I find in 4th Edition:
-Going First is a Huge Advantage (shooting at skimmers, etc.)
-Going Last is a Huge Advantage (objectives)
I would love an Epic-style phase sequence. I don't even think you would need to change codex rules that much....

Thoughts?
Mez

Instead of a major overhaul to Epic-sytle phase sequence, how about this?

Proposed Rule:
"Skimmers *can* count as having moved over 6" for turn one, if the owning player declares it before the game starts."

That'd take care of the one first turn issue. As for going last and securing objectives? I'm still trying to work out a better way of dealing with.

-BE

Let's also add "Bikes can count as having turbo-boosted if the owning player declares it before the game starts."
I mean, after all, bikes die on turn 1 easily, too. I'd love a chance to Boost my bikes before the game starts.

Eric

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:What a lot of people seem to miss is that simulation / realism doesn't have to be high detail,

It is my opinion that GW often fails to exercise good judgement on what to exclude, leading to unnecessary rules bloat. If GW is moving towards an actual understanding what is de minimis, they should be appaluded for avoiding trivialities that don't greatly affect the overall game.

But realism isn’t just having a plausible end result for an action.

At the end of the day the probabilities in the final result might come out the same, but all that extra detail is desirable for some people, it’s a fun little game in itself.

Extra levels of detail, even if they’re superfluous, can add to people’s enjoyment of the game.

I’m not crazy about adding extra rules, but there is a reason I’m playing a miniatures game, and part of that is to play pretend space battles. While a completely abstract system of cover would be easier to resolve and just as strategically deep, I like having LOS between models mean something, it helps the 'pretend' element of the whole thing.

Look at the number of people who make posts wanting rules for to-hit modifiers, rules to model throwing grenades, rules for charge reactions, rules for new melee to hit charts etc. These are rarely, if ever, wanted out of a desire to add greater strategic depth, what people want is a less abstract game, one where the individual actions of models are directly simulated.

Building a game with elegant rules with strategic depth is quite achievable. Building a game with elegant rules with strategic depth that gives a strong level of simulation is a much harder design goal.

Realism should be about achieving a plausible end result.

If you have the choice of spending 8 hours in 2 trips over 5 days at the DMV to renew your driver's license, or 5 minutes, which do you prefer? Does your license make you feel better simply because it took longer? If you had to talk to a dozen clerks to answer various questions and pay various fees, to watch clerks carrying folders and making little piles of papers would you really appreciate the process? Or do you just want your license renewed?

If you look at FoW vs the high detail WW2 games, it's no accident the streamlined game with the nicer, more expensive minis is winning.

I see most of those proposals and shake my head. If they want to play that, RT and 2E rules are easily available. Necromunda is a download, for pity's sake.


Building a game with elegant rules with strategic depth that gives a strong level of simulation is a an easy thing if you know what you want to simulate.

If you view your games as a chore (like getting your driver's license renewed) then you're in the wrong hobby.

A better analogy is would you like a 3 hour drive along a scenic coastal highway visiting all the little small towns and overlooks along the way, or would you rather get there in an hour sandwiched between transport trucks on the freeway?