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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are two possibvle approaches. One is to modify or refine 40K from the existing rules. For the same of this project, that can include taking 5th edition and modifying it. After all, 6th and 7th editions are only modified versions of 5th, so clearly it's possible. It's also possible to turn 40K into Age of Emporer.

However if you believe all of 40K ever is irretrievably crocked, it would be best to start again from scratch.

This second course is unlikely as it would run a high risk of losing a lot of current players.

The first option I could see taking as many as two to three "Editions" of the game to get right, because I feel like you'd have to bring up all the codeces to the same edition (i.e. bring codeces like CSM up to 7th Edition), then play test and listen to the community about what's wrong, fix the existing problems (at least the big ones) and then repeat. Though I feel like this sort of thing would take an unrealistic amount of time and would also involve the fact that GW and FW can't add much (if anything), which isn't going to happen. So this option could work (and is still the more likely option), but I feel it would be a big risk in a business sense (because you're spending a lot of time trying to fix something and not adding anything to really entice new customers).

As for the second option, I only see that happening if at least GW withdraws completely from the industry for whatever reason. In other words, somebody else would have to pick up W40K for this to happen.

Allies need to go.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are two possibvle approaches. One is to modify or refine 40K from the existing rules. For the same of this project, that can include taking 5th edition and modifying it. After all, 6th and 7th editions are only modified versions of 5th, so clearly it's possible. It's also possible to turn 40K into Age of Emporer.

However if you believe all of 40K ever is irretrievably crocked, it would be best to start again from scratch.

This second course is unlikely as it would run a high risk of losing a lot of current players.

Age of the Emperor, with square bases.

I like the hexagonal bases that GW used to do.

Personally I think Age of Emperor is the way forwards.

Also, what do you guys think about the vast amount of special rules and USR in general ?

I feel like they give flavour to the unit, but they are a pain to manage

___

@Kilkrazy : I still think it would be a lot easier to start from scratch for a new edition, because 40k is just so all over the place that it really lacks consistency. With a few steps :
1) Define a set of core mechanics for the rules with a clear goal in mind (right now the goal is to sell and allow players to put models on the table, which I see many people being vocal about). It can be anything really : a strategy game, a RPG-like game where unit stats are more important than how you play them. As long as all the mechanics make sense within the goals they're trying to achieve, the game designers will be praised.
2) Appropriately price the units in terms of points based on how what they can do within the current ruleset. For example, if Power Armour provides a 3+ save, then a model with a 3+ save could be priced 66.7% higher than a model with the same stats without Power Armour. Similarily, an AP3 weapon should be priced 66.7% higher than the same gear without AP3. Alternatively, an exponential pricing model can be designed based on the probability to fail saves : a 2+ model would technically fail twice as less saves as a 3+ save model, so it could be prived twice as much. Proper points pricing is not hard to do, if a baseline for the cost is clearly established.
3) Playtest and release several armies for the first wave. Complete a second wave of releases within a couple of months.
4) Profit.

GreyCrow wrote:
Also, what do you guys think about the vast amount of special rules and USR in general ?

They are out of control.
GW cut of a lot of rules just to bring it back with the new unit release.

At the moment there are more units in the game which ignore most of the core rules than following them (and those that do are considered bad)

GW say they are a model company, I think they should stick to that and stop writing rules all together.

Get a 3rd party to write the rules.

After the death of WHFB I started playing a lot of other companies games. Mantic's approach with KoW was a great change from GW's. Their recent expansion book was written by a 3rd party and it works really well. The armies are extremely well balanced.

5th had issues but it was more fun than 6 and 6.5.

Get rid of wound shenanigans add hull points but make it so only 4-6 on glances remove a hull point.

It wouldn't take much to turn 5th into a much better version.

 kodos wrote:

GreyCrow wrote:
Also, what do you guys think about the vast amount of special rules and USR in general ?

They are out of control.
GW cut of a lot of rules just to bring it back with the new unit release.

At the moment there are more units in the game which ignore most of the core rules than following them (and those that do are considered bad)

Yeah, I agree as much. Like you said, I think that the core (aka shared) rules should be as expansive as possible, and special rules being several exceptions.
For example, "Interceptor" is a cool rule. But rather than having it limited to several models, I would have it that a unit can forfeit its shooting to shoot at something that enters into its line of sight in their opponent's activation (with penalties). It would make playing defensively quite a bit more effective for people who choose to do so.
Then, the ability for the player to strategize will be more important than the Codexes having access to special rules.

@grendel : Interesting info, I'll check these out !

GreyCrow wrote:
Also, what do you guys think about the vast amount of special rules and USR in general ?

I feel like they give flavour to the unit, but they are a pain to manage

I have a HUGE problem with the way they work.

It's something that's easier to compare with ye ol' Warhammer fantasy and Kings of War than 40k, but the concept is exactly the same.
In WHFB, just like 40k, there where a lot of special rules in the core book, then each army book (codex) would add a few more more special rules, and then on top of that a TON of units would each have their own rules. The worst part is so many of those rules are just wordy ways to express the same thing. Kings of War had all it's special rules in the core book. Every single one of them. Unit entries would then just say 'Pathfinder' 'Brutal' and 'Elite' and you'd know EXACTLY what that unit does.

How many different units in 40k currently have fluffy names for rules that could replaced with 'reroll X' USRs?
AoS is a horrible offender of this, with no USRs at all and EVERY unit in the game having it's own special rules written in full on it's unit entry, and seemingly every unit has some sort of unique ability. GW's design philosophy seems to be leaning towards this more and more, everything is unique, making it seem fluffy and cool, but it bogs the game down so much and, imo, doesn't add much that couldn't be added with a cleaner, clearer system.

Agree
The Kings of War style is the way it should be done and they are more like unit and weapon traits than real special rules

 kodos wrote:
Agree
The Kings of War style is the way it should be done and they are more like unit and weapon traits than real special rules

So, I checked KOW and Mantic Games, and I'm not sure how well they are doing from a financial standpoint or a sales perspective (I just have no info). Do you guys know how well they are recieved ?

GreyCrow wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Agree
The Kings of War style is the way it should be done and they are more like unit and weapon traits than real special rules

So, I checked KOW and Mantic Games, and I'm not sure how well they are doing from a financial standpoint or a sales perspective (I just have no info). Do you guys know how well they are recieved ?

Growing consistently, got huge numbers for their Kickstarters, and when AoS hit they rushed their already about to be released KoW 2nd ed out the door and became the go to place for warhammer fantasy players who didn't want what AoS was offering. Like a lot of other companies they seem to be doing very well in the current climate, and while people will complain about the quality of the models, they are dirt cheap. It is run by a lot of the old timers who built up and then left or were driven out of GW, so not surprisingly it feels much like GW did back in the.. I wanna say it was the early-mid 90s?

They are doing at least good enough to survive but I don't have more Infos.

But they focus on gaming (and rules) instead of models and therefore have the better games.

Warpth & Deadzone will be my SciFi game in the future of 40k get not fixed (either from GW or the community).

Reflecting back to the OP, this is an example of GW's modus operandi for "fixing" things:

1. Back in 2nd edition, there was a Movement stat. It told you how far any unit could move, run or charge.
2. Clearly this was too complicated, it needed fixing, so first we remove the Movement stat...
3... then we add a gakload of special rules dealing with how each unit moves, runs, charges, flees, pursues, moves on difficult terrain, etc.
4. ?????
5. PROFIT!

Good luck having 40k fixed, folks.

The best thing that could happen would be 40k End Times -> Age of Whatever -> Community takes over -> a "ninth edition" style ruleset. Won't be perfect, not everybody will like it, still it will be a thousand times better than what we currently have.

Isn't part of the big issue that the rules have basically been unchanged since 3rd? This isn't really "7th" edition, it's basically 3.4th edition.

The biggest issue for me is that I remember 3rd edition, and it was still roughly a platoon-type game. You had a bunch of units, a couple of vehicles (although this was the age of Rhino Rush) and that was it. The rules were fine at that point. The issue now is the game has grown, the rules have not. So you have platoon level rules in a battalion-level game. But if you look at virtually every other larger-scale game, the rules are more abstract. 40k focuses on minutiae: This model has a plasma gun, this other model has a lascannon, all these models have boltguns. At battalion level, that should be largely irrelevant.

What there needs to be I think is two scales of 40k, using the same models. Your skirmish/platoon level that focuses on the minutiae, and then an abstracted version that uses movement trays (those weirdly shaped round pegged trays you see in games like SAGA I think) so you can easily handle units, and lots of them. That might have the effect that third party people make Not-40k 15mm or 20mm or 6mm or whatever scale figures that people start using, but GW needs to ignore that. An abstracted "apocalypse" 40k that allows all the big toys but streamlines unit combat would make things a lot better. Basically true 28mm Epic, since that's what the game seems to want to be. Epic (and I mean the last version, I'm not familiar with the old one) had abstracted rules but it was fun, it didn't care about the specific heavy weapon a unit had, just that it had one, so an abstracted large-scale 40k game should be the same way. GW could easily make movement trays (I imagine something like 5-model trays that snap together) and sell those (overpriced, but IMHO maybe worth it). And then you have the added benefit of being able to play abstracted 40k for a large battle, and drop down to low-level 40k for specific chunks of battles or skirmish-type scenarios, and play out campaigns that way.

Win-win.

OMG Please don't use the Kings of War model.

Watching that game is like people mashing two bricks together and rolling dice, until an arbitrary number of successful dice have been rolled by one side and one brick mysteriously disappears.

The game play of 40k has been compromised from the beginning.

Rick and Brian wrote Rogue Trader to help sell Citadels (GWs) 28mm scifi minatures.
As WHFB was the biggest non historical game back them they used the WHFB rule set as a base for the new skirmish/RPG hybrid game.

This cross over , allowed lots of WHFB players to switch to scifi minatures without having to learn a new rule set.

2nd ed was simply an attempt to increase the game size slightly to large skirmish , and make it more suited to pick up and play games then R.T. was.
Most 40k players were happy with the changes from RT to 2nd ed.(No need for a GM any more!)

The rushed 3rd ed rules were a rushed hatchet job of WHFB rules,the devs made mistakes under pressure from the sales department, and admitted later that they had 'thrown the baby out with the bath water.'

In the 11th hour rush they cut the level of complication, but also cut the game play complexity far more.

3rd ed soon got the title 'bland hammer', and the devs tried to fix this by adding in variety back in by adding in USRs, special rules, and faction specific special rules in the codex books.

4th an 5th edition tried to carry on tweeking the game play .But the complete lack of fine adjustment in the hatcheted WHFB core rules , only allowed heavy handed swings in meta. The only way open for the devs was to use more special rules to try to off set the imbalance between shooting and assault. causing the meta swing.

I think we can say the game size of 4th and 5th ed was the most popular.

As the larger Apoc/7th ed games using all the big toys takes far more negotiation to arrive at a mutually agreeable fun game, and is therefore not suited to random pick up games.

As players have ALWAYS had the ability to make up cool scenarios campaigns and special rules for any units, when they want to ARRANGE NARRATIVE GAMES WITH LIKE MINDED PLAYERS.

Why the feth do they need to have official permission in the rule book to support this type of game ?I know GW sales department want to push as many big kits as far as they can.But come on dudes think of the newbs !
If experienced 40k players coming back to the game after a break are confused by the amount of information they have to wade through, what chance have the potential new players got?

If we look at the units in the 4th and 5th ed of 40k.And then look at the sort of rules inclusive rules writing would use.(EG cover as much of the game play as possible.)

They would look very different to WHFB based rues that have been modified with exclusive rues writing to promote short term sales interest.(Special snowflake special rules.)

But oddly enough simpler rules could deliver much more tactical depth.As proved by lots of other games written by games companies!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
OMG Please don't use the Kings of War model.

Watching that game is like people mashing two bricks together and rolling dice, until an arbitrary number of successful dice have been rolled by one side and one brick mysteriously disappears.

You mean how virtually all historical games work? Sorry, I happen to think the KOW model is great. Abstract enough to not take all day to play, but flexible enough to make things up if needed to fit the "narrative".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
The game play of 40k has been compromised from the beginning.

Rick and Brian wrote Rogue Trader to help sell Citadels (GWs) 28mm scifi minatures.
As WHFB was the biggest non historical game back them they used the WHFB rule set as a base for the new skirmish/RPG hybrid game.

This cross over , allowed lots of WHFB players to switch to scifi minatures without having to learn a new rule set.

2nd ed was simply an attempt to increase the game size slightly to large skirmish , and make it more suited to pick up and play games then R.T. was.
Most 40k players were happy with the changes from RT to 2nd ed.(No need for a GM any more!)

The rushed 3rd ed rules were a rushed hatchet job of WHFB rules,the devs made mistakes under pressure from the sales department, and admitted later that they had 'thrown the baby out with the bath water.'

In the 11th hour rush they cut the level of complication, but also cut the game play complexity far more.

3rd ed soon got the title 'bland hammer', and the devs tried to fix this by adding in variety back in by adding in USRs, special rules, and faction specific special rules in the codex books.

4th an 5th edition tried to carry on tweeking the game play .But the complete lack of fine adjustment in the hatcheted WHFB core rules , only allowed heavy handed swings in meta. The only way open for the devs was to use more special rules to try to off set the imbalance between shooting and assault. causing the meta swing.

I think we can say the game size of 4th and 5th ed was the most popular.

As the larger Apoc/7th ed games using all the big toys takes far more negotiation to arrive at a mutually agreeable fun game, and is therefore not suited to random pick up games.

As players have ALWAYS had the ability to make up cool scenarios campaigns and special rules for any units, when they want to ARRANGE NARRATIVE GAMES WITH LIKE MINDED PLAYERS.

Why the feth do they need to have official permission in the rule book to support this type of game ?I know GW sales department want to push as many big kits as far as they can.But come on dudes think of the newbs !
If experienced 40k players coming back to the game after a break are confused by the amount of information they have to wade through, what chance have the potential new players got?

If we look at the units in the 4th and 5th ed of 40k.And then look at the sort of rules inclusive rules writing would use.(EG cover as much of the game play as possible.)

They would look very different to WHFB based rues that have been modified with exclusive rues writing to promote short term sales interest.(Special snowflake special rules.)

But oddly enough simpler rules could deliver much more tactical depth.As proved by lots of other games written by games companies!

This is the thing. The rules themselves should be as tightly-focused, clear and concise as possible. That way there's no rule ambiguity (e.g. does power x work in situation y, because the wording is vague), no rules arguments, no having to decide beforehand with house rules or the like how to interpret X rule. This also lends itself to balanced competitive play when forces are balanced. The narrative/fluff/casual/whatever gamers have never needed approval to change things up for the scenario or campaign, ever. I do not get why GW feels the need to shoehorn everything in. I get they want you to be able to buy whatever and use it in a game, but even with their "blessing" your opponent can choose to not play you if you field something they don't want to play against. So GW has in effect done nothing but make the game gakky as a whole because it's an unbalanced mess, and the logic behind including everything doesn't work because your opponent isn't forced to play you.

A balanced set of rules could appeal to everybody, casual and competitive alike. GW doesn't want to understand that, for whatever reason and want to focus on not only the extreme least likely to care about the rules at all (since they would change things depending on the scenario) and does such a poor job at it that they actually hurt casual/narrative/fluff players more than competitive players anyways.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
OMG Please don't use the Kings of War model.

Watching that game is like people mashing two bricks together and rolling dice, until an arbitrary number of successful dice have been rolled by one side and one brick mysteriously disappears.

You mean how virtually all historical games work? Sorry, I happen to think the KOW model is great. Abstract enough to not take all day to play, but flexible enough to make things up if needed to fit the "narrative".

Well, I've played Field of Glory and Flames of War, which are both historicals, and there's more distinction than "here are two bricks" including complex interactions between pike walls and shield walls, or IS-2 tanks and Puma armoured cars...

... In my experience, you could replace the square bases of Kings of War regiments with cardboard, or actual bricks and have no miniatures at all and the game would function just fine.

I had an old friend who used to say that "if you can play the game without miniatures, it isn't a miniatures game."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I had an old friend who used to say that "if you can play the game without miniatures, it isn't a miniatures game."

Guess what, I can play 40k without models and a table at all, just need 2 army lists and some dice.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
OMG Please don't use the Kings of War model.
Watching that game is like people mashing two bricks together and rolling dice, until an arbitrary number of successful dice have been rolled by one side and one brick mysteriously disappears.

So because you have seen regiments on the table you know how the rules-model work?

And 40k works completely like you describe it (roll some dice and by magic the other one lost the game)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
OMG Please don't use the Kings of War model.

Watching that game is like people mashing two bricks together and rolling dice, until an arbitrary number of successful dice have been rolled by one side and one brick mysteriously disappears.

You mean how virtually all historical games work? Sorry, I happen to think the KOW model is great. Abstract enough to not take all day to play, but flexible enough to make things up if needed to fit the "narrative".

Well, I've played Field of Glory and Flames of War, which are both historicals, and there's more distinction than "here are two bricks" including complex interactions between pike walls and shield walls, or IS-2 tanks and Puma armoured cars...

... In my experience, you could replace the square bases of Kings of War regiments with cardboard, or actual bricks and have no miniatures at all and the game would function just fine.

I had an old friend who used to say that "if you can play the game without miniatures, it isn't a miniatures game."

Granted I am ignorant of many historical games, but doesn't the same thing apply there due to basing? Can't you use rectangles with "Pikemen" or "Infantry" written on them for FOG since it's still, IIRC from what I've read, based on a certain width (i.e. DBx basing)? I was under the impression that KoW used a similar concept to where it's the depth/size of the entire unit, not the individual models that mattered, which to me makes it a great prospect because you can do "diorama basing" and spread your money even further, buying a single box of models can give you several units worth if you do quasi-DBx style basing (albeit larger scale) with like 4 figures on a scenic base as one unit of infantry instead of 20 individual figures ranked up.

YMMV though.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
OMG Please don't use the Kings of War model.

Watching that game is like people mashing two bricks together and rolling dice, until an arbitrary number of successful dice have been rolled by one side and one brick mysteriously disappears.

You mean how virtually all historical games work? Sorry, I happen to think the KOW model is great. Abstract enough to not take all day to play, but flexible enough to make things up if needed to fit the "narrative".

Well, I've played Field of Glory and Flames of War, which are both historicals, and there's more distinction than "here are two bricks" including complex interactions between pike walls and shield walls, or IS-2 tanks and Puma armoured cars...

... In my experience, you could replace the square bases of Kings of War regiments with cardboard, or actual bricks and have no miniatures at all and the game would function just fine.

I had an old friend who used to say that "if you can play the game without miniatures, it isn't a miniatures game."

Granted I am ignorant of many historical games, but doesn't the same thing apply there due to basing? Can't you use rectangles with "Pikemen" or "Infantry" written on them for FOG since it's still, IIRC from what I've read, based on a certain width (i.e. DBx basing)? I was under the impression that KoW used a similar concept to where it's the depth/size of the entire unit, not the individual models that mattered, which to me makes it a great prospect because you can do "diorama basing" and spread your money even further, buying a single box of models can give you several units worth if you do quasi-DBx style basing (albeit larger scale) with like 4 figures on a scenic base as one unit of infantry instead of 20 individual figures ranked up.

YMMV though.

In Field of Glory the base of a given battlegroup changes size, so you have to have miniatures (or at least base segments) to remove. But strictly speaking, no, minis are not required for that game either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I had an old friend who used to say that "if you can play the game without miniatures, it isn't a miniatures game."

Guess what, I can play 40k without models and a table at all, just need 2 army lists and some dice.

Last time I checked line of sight I needed a model. Unless you're just being snarky and missed my point.

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
OMG Please don't use the Kings of War model.
Watching that game is like people mashing two bricks together and rolling dice, until an arbitrary number of successful dice have been rolled by one side and one brick mysteriously disappears.

So because you have seen regiments on the table you know how the rules-model work?

And 40k works completely like you describe it (roll some dice and by magic the other one lost the game)

Well, there's usually more to it than that, including models being killed and removed, others entering the table from reserves, still more suffering damage like tanks with their main guns pulled off...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, there's usually more to it than that.

Same for Kings of War.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Last time I checked line of sight I needed a model. Unless you're just being snarky and missed my point.

With the current state of the game, for some pairings it is enough to roll for psionic powers, draw mission cards and who goes first to know who will win.
Not even worth to put the minis on the table any more.

 jonolikespie wrote:

GreyCrow wrote:
Also, what do you guys think about the vast amount of special rules and USR in general ?

I feel like they give flavour to the unit, but they are a pain to manage

I have a HUGE problem with the way they work.

It's something that's easier to compare with ye ol' Warhammer fantasy and Kings of War than 40k, but the concept is exactly the same.
In WHFB, just like 40k, there where a lot of special rules in the core book, then each army book (codex) would add a few more more special rules, and then on top of that a TON of units would each have their own rules. The worst part is so many of those rules are just wordy ways to express the same thing. Kings of War had all it's special rules in the core book. Every single one of them. Unit entries would then just say 'Pathfinder' 'Brutal' and 'Elite' and you'd know EXACTLY what that unit does.

How many different units in 40k currently have fluffy names for rules that could replaced with 'reroll X' USRs?
AoS is a horrible offender of this, with no USRs at all and EVERY unit in the game having it's own special rules written in full on it's unit entry, and seemingly every unit has some sort of unique ability. GW's design philosophy seems to be leaning towards this more and more, everything is unique, making it seem fluffy and cool, but it bogs the game down so much and, imo, doesn't add much that couldn't be added with a cleaner, clearer system.

There was an honest attempt in 6th Edition to reign-in special rules, and move all USRs to the BRB. Unfortunately, it was short-lived, and the codexes that tried to adhere to this design model ended up being the ones that got left behind when later books abandoned this concept. But, the idea that ALL codexes would have to adhere to a consistent USR model of design would be necessary in any talk of a fan edition to 40K. Every army might have a handful of rules which are unque to itself, but no more special rules on EACH fething unit.

Which brings me to a question: how would people feel if the basic Troop armament was relegated to a generic "assault weapon" profile? No more boltguns, lasguns, shuriken catapults, spinefists, shootas, or gauss rifles. Every unit from every codex would have a Troop unit with basic assault rifles that always wound on a 4+. There would be options for upgrades to specials and heavies like normal, but there would be no more comparing Strength to Toughness and there would be no special rules attached to the weapons of basic Troops.

 the_Armyman wrote:

Which brings me to a question: how would people feel if the basic Troop armament was relegated to a generic "assault weapon" profile? No more boltguns, lasguns, shuriken catapults, spinefists, shootas, or gauss rifles. Every unit from every codex would have a Troop unit with basic assault rifles that always wound on a 4+. There would be options for upgrades to specials and heavies like normal, but there would be no more comparing Strength to Toughness and there would be no special rules attached to the weapons of basic Troops.

While I like the streamlining it brings, it will be difficult to keep the troop differences in some factions with that system.

It will work fine for units with pretty big stat differences, so your space marine will be fundamentally different to your guardsman, even with identical guns.

But how would a Tau Fire Warrior be different in game to a Guardsman in that scenario? Their statline is basically the same. Without having a superior gun you can't really justify the increased cost of the Fire Warrior and so you end up with Fire Warriors basically becoming alien clones of guardsmen.

Which, again, from a streamlining point of view is great but it does erode some of the character of the armies.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

But how would a Tau Fire Warrior be different in game to a Guardsman in that scenario? Their statline is basically the same. Without having a superior gun you can't really justify the increased cost of the Fire Warrior and so you end up with Fire Warriors basically becoming alien clones of guardsmen.

Is it necessary for the basic weapon of every race to be different? Some races will be better marksmen, and some races will have better armor. Do we really need the added complexity of different ranges, power, and special rules for the basic building block of all armies?

Which, again, from a streamlining point of view is great but it does erode some of the character of the armies.

Can you really avoid losing some flavor when the goals are to avoid IP infringement and to make a simpler, more intuitive game? If you don't start at the basic level of the game (Troops), how can you hope to balance Elites and more diversely equipped units in the game?

BTW, these are legitimate questions. I'm not claiming a flat, 4+ to wound assault rifle is the (only) way to go.

"how can you hope to balance Elites and more diversely equipped units in the game? "

By playtesting. And doing some math.

But while it might sounds good for streamlining, it is not necessary and may end up bad.

Because removing strength vs toughness and replace it by a to wound roll of the acting model is the worst you can do.
Thats one reason why AoS is a bad design.

You would always roll against the "toughness" of the target if a comparing table is removed.
My weapon always wounds on a 3+, no matte if I shot at guardsman, Carnifex or Baneblades just do not work for a wide range of different models like 40k


The "to wound" table is of the basic rules of 40k and also one thing that is an advantage because it allows an open scale.

as long as there is a hardcap of +/-2 or 3 you are not limited in profiles etc.
(as an example: no need for special rules that make a Titan unkillable by standard weapons and special rules for TK weapons, just give him T20 and the Titankiller weapon S20. Now the titan can only be killed by special weapons and the TK weapons instant kills everything with T10 or less. No special rules needed, it uses the same core rules like everything etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:

Can you really avoid losing some flavor when the goals are to avoid IP infringement and to make a simpler, more intuitive game? If you don't start at the basic level of the game (Troops), how can you hope to balance Elites and more diversely equipped units in the game?

BTW, these are legitimate questions. I'm not claiming a flat, 4+ to wound assault rifle is the (only) way to go.

The IP is not the problem, it is just about names and not rules (as long as they are not copy paste)

And it is a basic Design question. Give all the same weapon and make elite just be a better profile, or give elite better weapons.
And are Marines an Elite compared to guard, or are they the same and a basic marine is just a better protected guardsman

Look. Determining point values for units is not that hard, it just takes a lot of practice games. Get 8-12 players and increase the point value on a unit until most of the players are on the fence about taking the unit. If players never take a unit, it needs to be cheaper. If something is being spammed, it needs to be more expensive. You don't need to be dead on.But you need to be close A 15 pt model that costs 17 or 13 isn't game breaking. A 290 pt WK that should be 450 is.