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.

Hi all.
I was just wondering what parts of the 40k rule set you would change if you were in charge of GW.
(Make the game more intuative by explaining -controling the abstractions ).

I would;-
Re introduce the M stat.

Use an interactive game turn.(EVERY unit gets 2 actions per turn, [moral permitting].)

Focus rules on UNIT interaction.

Focus on mission based(narrative driven) game play.

Get rid of AP system and AV . And replace it with the simpler single 'AR system.'

Introduce a simple moral and comand and control game mechanics.

Introduce a simple Fog Of War game mechanic.

Actualy is there any thing in the rules you want to keep?
It might be easier to do a complete re-write?

Comparing 40k rule sets to other rule sets .40k seems over complicated concidering the very limited game play.

Please let me know what you want to change, or want to keep for 6th ed 40k.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Main thing I want introduced is a more in depth psychology rule.

It's purely from a Fantasy Players perspective, and I do appreciate that units which suddenly gain these rules will need an appropriate points hike.

Although Fear and Terror work well in Fantasy, not quite sure they would work so well in 40k. Perhaps just something akin to The Horror, so that bigger units (Dreadnoughts up essentially) can prove the daunting prospect in HTH they actually are.

Other than that, as I mentioned in the why do you like 5th Ed, I'd also like to see Shooting declared for the army before you commence rolling.

Both of these are purely personal taste however!

I would like to see an interspersed game turn, where both players got to act in each phase, instead of each turn. Preferably with an initiative type system, so say movement phase we roll for initiative, winner can move first or second, then shooting phase roll again, etc. I think it would mix it up nicely, and if nothing else give units a chance to shoot at things that are charging across open ground to assault them...

I would also like to see some better rules for morale. I don't know what exactly, but something more interesting than Fearless, Ld9-10, not Ld9-10.

Terminators need to be tougher, or have more wounds I think.

I have been thinking too that perhaps we don't need as strict a FOC as we have now, given that only troops score. Maybe Boost it to 4 Elite, FA and HS, and 8 Troops?

Really though, the interspersed turn is what I want to see. The rest works pretty well I think.

Lanrak wrote:I was just wondering what parts of the 40k rule set you would change if you were in charge of GW.

If I were in charge of 40k, I'd focus more on Codex and army strategy than the ruleset.

The 5E ruleset is actually pretty darn good, for what it tries to do:
- fast-paced game, with mostly rational results
- balance between randomness and determinism in strategy/tactics
- varied armies and tactics, but some emphasis on Troops, mobility, and objectives
Wholesale changes like interleaved unit actions or d10s simply aren't desirable to me on the scale that 40k plays.

As for your suggestions:
- M stat? No, 40k wants more randomness via Fleet / Run / Difficult Terrain.
- Unit action limits? Already in place via Rapid Fire / Run / Deep Strike.
- Unit interaction? That's by defining the FOC types more clearly - an army / Codex issue.
- Missions? OK, get rid of VPs / KPs entirely.
- AP / AV? Works fine and is fast. Keep it.
- Fog of War? Good idea, but normally requires refereed double-blind play. I would expand Deep Strike instead.

I'd like to see a repeating full-year / multi-year schedule with clear release windows and plans. Something that players can count on and budget for.

I would not fiddle with the basics of the game because any fundamental changes would be difficult to carry out and might drive away more players than they would attract new ones.

I would sort out the morale system and introduce tactical factors such as flanking bonuses that rewarded good manoeuvring.

Hi .
Thanks for the feed back.

Just want to pick up on some points raised so far.

JohnHwangDD.
5th ed 40k is 'pretty darned good' , compared to what exactly?
There are lots of much simpler and easier to understand, (elegant /intiutive) methods of achiving the 'game play' of current 40k.

I agree the current 'Codex Cycle' hampers game development far more than anything else.I would prefer it if the rules development was seperate from minature releases.
Codex------ would just have all the craft art and narrative inspiration for the new minature releases.(NO rules).And the rules are just down loaded from GW web site like the SGs are...(Yes I would pay £10 for a 'source book' and so would others.)

KilKrazy.
The thing is, the game play 40k is moving towards could be a achived alot easier if they got rid of the WH rule set and game mechanics...
And used game mechanics and rules more in synergy with the units invovled in the game.(Based more on Epic than WH perhaps?)

Perhaps lots of 40k players belive that 40k is simple elegant and efficient.
The core rules and game mechanics are prety straight forward, but these do not cover the game play .So GW relies on a miriad of special rules to get the simplest functions into the game.(Eg everthing moves the same rate, then has several special rules so things can move at different rates... ).

Any game that uses 2 conventions (roll high is good, AND roll low is good) and 2 armour/dammage allocation systems , AP AND AV, NO movment rates , has not realy given much thought to intuitiveness and efficiency IMO.

Dont get me wrong , the back ground and art and all the asthetic stuff is great.
But I am sure the actual game play and rules set could be improved massivley if the game devs were alowwed to start from scratch.

A rule set specificaly developed for the current 40k game, rather than a mutated WH clone .

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:JohnHwangDD.
5th ed 40k is 'pretty darned good' , compared to what exactly?

There are lots of much simpler and easier to understand, (elegant /intiutive) methods of achiving the 'game play' of current 40k.

I agree the current 'Codex Cycle' hampers game development far more than anything else.I would prefer it if the rules development was seperate from minature releases.

Codex------ would just have all the craft art and narrative inspiration for the new minature releases.(NO rules).And the rules are just down loaded from GW web site like the SGs are...(Yes I would pay £10 for a 'source book' and so would others.)

GW relies on a miriad of special rules to get the simplest functions into the game.(Eg everthing moves the same rate, then has several special rules so things can move at different rates... ).

Any game that uses 2 conventions (roll high is good, AND roll low is good) and 2 armour/dammage allocation systems , AP AND AV, NO movment rates , has not realy given much thought to intuitiveness and efficiency IMO.

40k5 is a model of rules economy and clarity, compared to any GW 28mm 40k-universe ruleset that has come before.

Of course, there are a number of simpler mechanics out there, but there are also a number of far worse mechanics as well. Most of these "better" mechanics wouldn't integrate smoothly with 40k as an evolutionary rules system.

Rules will always be tied to miniatures releases at some level. Remember, GW is a miniatures company, not a rules company. Expecting the tail to wag the dog is utter foolishness.

Forcing the player to download rules destroys the whole experience of having a book as printed master common reference. You may not recognize it, but GW actually derives most of their game benefit from having printed Codices. It allows players (and opponents) to reference things quickly without needing being online.

Plus, GW publishes books to expand the story without rules.

There isn't anything wrong with Special Rules as long as they're clear and obvious from the models as a trigger. AV vs AP is simple because vehicles are completely different size-wise compared to infantry.

The conventions are "high on one die (to-hit, to-wound, to-save), low on two (Ld)". This is simple and clear, especially as Ld is a rare test. Movement by class fine, it's one of GW's better abstractions, actually.

I don't think 40K is an elegant, well-thought out system. In some ways it's a shockingly bad piece of design. However, it works, and it's popular.

There doesn't seem any point in completely changing the rules to achieve some notion of economy and clarity when there are are already plenty of alternatives which are not as widely played.

For a univeral, 40k v5 is not bad... the weakness in the "blinders-on" approach that seems to creep into codex design. In a vaccume the codex is good but in conjunction with the other codexes and a 2 to 3 year window to cycle through each codex, the codex releases change the nature of the game way too much and don't synergize well as time goes by. Also there always seems to be the killer codex that radically modifies the environment.

3rd Ed
Eldar Craftworlds - Pathfinders armies, Aspect Warriors as troops, 10 guardians and a Seer council of 200...
Eye of Terror - Some broken lists in here also.

4th Ed
Ork Codex- did a lot of good things but 6 points for a boy? Especially when nobs stayed about the same. Bikes came down in price but not enough to really justify taking 1 over 4 boyz. etc. 6 point boys (50% reduction in cost, has made eldar, tau, dark eldar, and IG question the cost of their basic troops.)

DA Codex - return of the 10 man squad and removal of the small squad with a heavy weapon. Return of the battle squad.
Removed Stubborn rule. (High we are the marines in robes with less flexible builds but we are smart and issue grenades to everyone unlike our idiot cousins.)

Tau Empire - (What is that red dot of light flickering on our tank all about?)

CSM Codex - Demons? What are demons? (Sorry generics just don't cut it for me.) Lost flexibility for rigid purpose squads. (Over pressured elite options)

BA Codex(download) - Cleaned up Death Company. Nerfed 6 Dreadnought option. Removed Furious Charge from majority of army as well as Blood Rage.

Demon Codex - New figs (AWESOME!!!!) New Codex (Yawn.) (What do you mean I am an idiot if I field anything but a lot of plaguebearers? You saying that the other troop choices can't deepstrike in and survive one turn of enemy fire? )

5th Edition:

Vehicle charts good but really nerfed eldar vehicles and holofields for their cost especially when compared to tau skimmers.
(You can PEN AC 12 with multi-shot weapons like autocannons and assault cannons and holofields cost 35. 35 was a no-brainer add when we were talking 4th ed. glance charts all the time but less valuable in current environment. Now compare that to a Tau 5 point upgrade that gives them a 4+ cover save for long ranged shots...)

Running and Vehicle Defensive Weapons - (I know you have an engine in that thing but why don't you shut it off, we need you to fire. Besides, we will get there faster if we run.)

Defensive weapons and falcons - GW: You must add a second weapon to the falcon with at least a S6.
Player: But you will never let me fire it now so I don't want it.
GW: We don't care, the turret would look naked without a second thing hanging off it.
Player: Can I just pay to lose the pulse laser and get a twin-linked weapon system that my
drunken citizen soldier has a chance of hitting with?
GW: No.
Player: But you let my poor cousin the Wave Serpent have it and it is only a troop transport.
GW: What do you think you should get for your points. An effective vehicle? Embrace the
flavor of the eldar.
Player: But it is less efficient than a Fire Prism and it costs less points when I put that weapon on.
GW: And your point is? Oh, you can carry troops isn't that worth more points.
Player: I guess so... but why couldn't it be like a Razorback and be an alternate choice for a troop transport?
GW: That would not follow the Eldar fluff sorry no.
Player: So you are telling me I have to take it as a heavy choice, it costs more than a fire prism, can't hit like a fire prism and can't hit like our troop transport and this is the way it is?
GW: Yep.
Player: Why is that?
GW: Well the Eldar area doomed race afterall.
Player: So I suppose I shouldn't ask about Vypers should I.
GW: Let's just say, doomed race, need I say more?

(Feel free to substitute, Lehman Russ, predator, hammerhead, devilfish for what applies.)

DAaddict wrote:Also there always seems to be the killer codex that radically modifies the environment.

With over a dozen active Codices at any given time, this is the norm. And it is a good thing - it keeps things from becoming overly stagnant.

I am not arguing for static. I am arguing that the time delay makes armies alternately be competitive, overpowering or non-competitive as the environment(codexes,core rules) changes.

The issue is more one of $$ than anything else. For those addicts -as I am - who can afford to build multiple armies, paint them up and adjust them quickly this is okay. I am thinking about the target market of teen to twenties that are on a very tight hobby budget.
To play a little old-timer. Remember when list tac squads cost you $20 as did landspeeders and rhinos and the general environment was 1500 point armies. Let's not even talk about what was 1500 points in a 2nd Edition world. Compare that to now and the price creep, lowered point cost of troops and higher point totals prevails. So larger armies makes for army building as being a pretty sizeable investment. I can keep up with the joneses and maintain a fun playable army or table one for two years so it is not a direct issue for me. My dislike is when I see people basically drop the hobby(read 40k) because their army just could not perform anymore and they just couldn't AFFORD to switch to some other army. Then by the time their codex gets updated they have been long gone waiting their 3-year cycle for replacement. So indirectly I will lose opponents/friends who otherwise used to enjoy the game until they got nerfed.

BTW, no smart comments then I should be buying/upgrading armies for others. I bought two for my nephews to get them into the hobby and one really stays with it. (Dark Eldar player still trudging on with his ancient codex... makes me proud he sticks with them.) Socialist 40k is not going to happen at least out of my billfold.

The 40K rules need fixing in a more sublte way.

What I mean by that is that it's no specific rule that needs fixing (although the farcical TLOS, Kill Points, all the vehicle rules and a few other things need to change). Overall it's the fact that 40K forces binary choices.

You move, or you shoot.
You shoot, or you assault.

Units that try to do both either can't (vehicles cannot move and fire with their guns thanks to defensive weapons), Assault Units that Deep Strike had to sit still for a turn. Units can only fire at one thing a turn, so the Lascannon in the squad full of Bolters has to sit out a round when his fellow troops are firing at Orks.

The game is built around each unit doing one thing a turn, with little added beyond that. It leads to a stop/start level of stilted gameplay. This nurtures a way of playing that isn't at all natural.

In our rules, Heavy Weapons can move and fire. Not without penalty, but they can. Vehicles can move and fire most things, and at different targets (defensive weapons are actually deffensive - they don't fire at what the main gun fires at, which is an absurd rule). A unit can fire at two targets - there's a test involved (making a 'Leadership' value represent what it's actually called - Leadership), but it can be done.

Your units still only have 6 turns to make their mark upon the game, but they're not shoe-horned into picking one of their abilities and sticking to it.

BYE

Hi.
I agree HMBC, 40k has far more emphasis on list building and deployment (strategic conciderations ), than on 'in game player choices' (tactical conciderations.)

If any game developer had to work within the constraints placed upon the GW dev team , they would struggle to do any better than the slow progression that the current dev team are making.

The game has to focus on the minatures , even though current game play is primarily about UNIT interaction.(Most grunts are just delux wound markers.)Because GW are a primarily a minatures company NOT a game company .
(Why not call themselves Citadel Minatures to avoid any confusion.)

The game has to be (backward) compatable with codexes spanning over TEN years.(Codexes are not allowed to be published without a minature release.So the longer a race goes without an update , the more work is required to update it, the more expencive it becomes for GW to perform the update, and the less likely GW are to do it. )

The rules have to remain based on a 'Napoleonic rule set derivitive ' developed last century.

All mathematics have been excluded from game play ONLY dice rolls are allowed.

The game has to work at the detailed skirmish level AND ,grand battles level ,be suitable for a childrens relaxed dice rolling game AND a game suitable for competative tournament play.

But ,just supposing , that selling minatures was NOT important to gamers.
But game play WAS far more important than GW PLC sales.

And in this light what would you like to change in the 40k rule set.

Even just makeing the LD test a 'roll over LD value' (to seperate it from WH a bit.)
Eg Ld 10 becomes Ld 4.You have to roll 4 or over to pass on 2 D6.

So rolling high is ALWAYS good.
Simple modifiers .
Good situations /events add to the dice roll .
Bad situations /events add to the score needed.

No need to use subtraction (or 'take away froms' as they have been known .)(Yes, I know ' -1 to hit' means you subtract 1 from the dice roll , but why not say 'add 1 to the score required to hit'.Most folk find addition and multiplication a lot easier than subtraction and division for some reason.)

There you, go a simple change!
No game mechanics radicaly altered or game play changed.But the game just becomes simpler to understand , more intuative and easier to develop.(May be allowed to use modifiers again?)

I understand there are lots of alternative rule sets that can be adapted or used as is with 40k minatures . These are more skirmish scales game though.(Closer to 2nd ed-RT)
Stargrunt II, Infinity, No Limits, Xenicide (28mm version,)AT 43, SST etc.

If 40k is supposed to be a fast paced game focusing on unit interaction using units closest to modern warfare counterparts.
Then the current 40k game mechanics and rule set is not the most suitable IMO.
WH rule set works fine for WH.
Its pants for current 40k.

So folks , what would you like to see in a new rule set developed specificaly for 40k.(Or maybe several rule sets to cover the gamer preferences better?)

TTFN
Lanrak.

I have only 2 fixes I want, and hopefully one comes out in my Tyranid Codex (when ever THAT will be...).

Fearless shouldn't cause additional wounds in close combat. I would really like to know the reasoning for this. "We lost the combat, so we now shoot/stab/fillet ourselves in anger!"

Venom Cannons should be able to get penetrating hits on vehicles.

Mattlov wrote:I have only 2 fixes I want, and hopefully one comes out in my Tyranid Codex (when ever THAT will be...).

Fearless shouldn't cause additional wounds in close combat. I would really like to know the reasoning for this. "We lost the combat, so we now shoot/stab/fillet ourselves in anger!"

Venom Cannons should be able to get penetrating hits on vehicles.

I think the extra wounds taken for fearless units are more representative of a unit holding it's ground at all cost despite getting overwhelmed. It is also a nice counterbalance to never having to worry about the squad running away.

Either way,

I have to agree that 5th ed. is a pretty solid system (compared to previous addition at least). The one thing that I'd change is for area terrain like woods, cover should be granted if LOS passes through the base of the area terrain, not LOS has to pass between some elements (ex. trees) of the area terrain.

I'm sure a ton of people here, for terrain like forests have a base and a few loose trees that you can move around if you want to place a unit in the woods and the current rules don't really work with that practice.

I realize that terrain is a nightmare to make rules for because there are endless variations but I think a few abstractions have to be made to make TLOS work in a game.

i only got a few complaints with 5th.

1. first and formost, SCORING UNITS. all infentry, and jump infentry should be scoring units no matter what slot they are in. some armies got bent over a table for this one because they dont have troops that can live through 6 turns of shooting and assaulting.

2.TLOS needs to be a size based system. I.E. this hill is size 1, this forest is Size 3. the joe is size 1, this big guy is size 2... test played a few games like this, and it was amazingly smooth... no more, "well my guys arm can see your guys big toe, so BLAM"

3. kill points... this is meh. i love the VP system.... guard kinda got it stuck to em with the KP system.

4. GW ought to just make a rule that says if a marine players wishes, on the last turn of the game, he can call exterminatus. no matter how meny models he has left, he wins in all 3 missions, and gets all bonus points... the reason for this is because GW thinks the space marines are a little underpowered.

@Envy:

1. Troops being Scoring is probably the single *best* change 5th Edition made. Kudos to GW for this. But if there really are "some armies", how about you be specific about which armies those are?

2. TLOS is here to stay. Pity, really. I really liked 40k as big tokens. Besides, you get a cover save for that shot.

3. Guard are not the reason to abandon KPs. Guard are going to be redone, so their KPs shouldn't be such an issue anymore.

4. I think GW did a find job of addressing any "underpower" in the recent Codex. Some would say GW went a bit too far...

Yeah, Tyranids got screw by KP, not Guard. At least your Guard can hide and sit in cover, we bug players have to run across open ground getting torn to bits and giving away KPs like they are going out of style...

Unless you're using 'Ard Boyz KP, each unit is worth 1.

So yeah, those 10 gaunts are worth 1 kp.

Then again, the hive tyrant with 3 tyrant guard running across the field with cover from the field of gaunts in front of them is also 1 KP.

Sure, zoanthropes are 1 KP each but if you want synapse, why not take 10 warriors with 2x scything talons? Cheap and with cover a very annoying to kill unit. Take two of those with the aforementioned hive tyrant and your synapse web is safe.

What I'd change is KP back to VP, and keep the objective in Annihilation the same [kill the other guy].

I'd also switch ramming and tank shock to be different things to avoid confusion, and to keep orks from blowing up heavy vehicles with deffrollas left and right. "d6 S10 auto-hits, landraider! Hah!"

Allow everyone a chance to regroup if below half strength, and have only the presense of enemy troops be the limiting factor in if you can or not. Space Marines would still have their rule in that they auto-pass such tests. Nothing hurts more than seeing 9 chaos space marines [a very effective fighting unit, still containing champion and special weapons] running away because they started with 20, doomed to destruction at the board edge despite being still as effective as a purchased 9-man squad. Alternatively, change this limitation to under 25% rather than 50.

Fix defensive weapons, go back to S6 or less or at the very least S5 or less [though that screws eldar]. Also, if one sponson can't see the tank's target allow it to shoot something else, like ranged units in fantasy are able to do. It makes no sense that a sponson gunner of an immobilized tank should spend the rest of the game twiddling their thumbs because the declared target was on the other side.

personall i think that apycolopyse fills in the gaps that a normal 40k game has and overall is great

Agreed. Play Apocalypse, where KPs don't exist.

Respectfully, I'd rather just make "kerpow pow bang" noises with cheap Chinese plastic soldiers then play Apocalypse. Toy soldiers have more rules...

I'd rather play Epic: Armageddon with Apocalypse models.

On a golf course.

If I'm on a golf course for the 6+ hours it takes to play an Apocalypse game, I'm not playing Apocalypse...

I agree in part...I rather play Epic!!!

Lanrak wrote:I agree in part...I rather play Epic!!!

Ditto'd

Armageddon drools Epic rules. Just sayin.

First and foremost:

Bring back Psychology. It was in 2nd Ed, its still in Fantasy, and it adds a real zippy random factor to games

Return Armor saves to the S = Save mod it used to be, then stick Terminators on the 2D6 3+. There's just not enough difference between 2+, 3+, and 4+ on a D6.

Retain an AP1 mechanic vs vehicles, and for the love of all that is holy, finally give Melta Bombs the AP1 they deserve. For 5/10ish points you can: Hit on a 3+, and get AP1 OR hit on a 6, and not get AP1.

Thinkin about it, it would be fun to play Apocalypse with Epic models...

Hi JohnHwangDD.
I know some people that got into playing Epic that way....

Epic models for big Apoc battles, than looked at the FREE E.A. rules on the GW web site, and that was that!

I belive that the Epic rules would be a much more suitable basis for 40k rule set, than WH rules.

Obviously they would need more detail in the weapons and armour interaction, and less in the command and control. But still a lot more suitable rule set than mutated WH we have now.IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Envy:

1. Troops being Scoring is probably the single worst change 5th Edition made.

Fixed your quote for you.

The troops scoring and the vehicle defensive weapon nerf BS are the two worst things about the new edition. These are things that are WAY too gamey and make the game less fun. It is why I quit the game (In addition to all the holier than thou 'One right way to play and if you're playing differently, you're a bad person' a-holes).