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.

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.

I don't think special rules are a problem, it doesn't really matter if they are written in the codices or the main rulebook, as long as they are *special* rules and not *everyone has one* rules.

With more recent editions of 40k I just start forgetting what special rules are, even the core ones in the rulebook because there are just so fething many of them. "Is that the rule that does this, or is it the one that does that?" The special rules section of the rulebook are the most worn out pages

Having a couple of army wide special rules written in to your codex (like, 1 to 3 at most) and maybe elite units having their own special rule (like, 1 at most) would be fine.

Korinov wrote: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.

The removal of the movement stat is one of the most baffling choices GW made. It was so fething simple and to replace it with a universal system just makes it too complicated.

Personally I don't mind having lots of stats on the unit sheets, having 10 or so stats doesn't bother me in the slightest, I don't see it as advantageous in other games that "simplify" by removing stats that could be used to differentiate units.

But I think the removal of the movement stat comes back to GW thinking we're all morons that can't do math. They are scared to give us anything that is a modifier or requires us to calculate something, so instead make up silly rules to try and account for things that would be sooo much better as modifiers. Like movement, God forbid someone has calculate what double or half of their movement might be. Or snap shots, we can't have to poor kids subtracting a modifier from their ballistic skill, better make it an all or nothing so they don't have to think about it. Or cover, calculating a to hit modifier is too complicated, better make it a flat save that is either negated or not. Or armour, can't have armour modifiers, instead we have to invent an all or nothing armour system, because our customers are surely too stupid to figure out if their Spehss Mareen has a 3+ save and gets hit with a -2 modifier what the result will be.

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."

Yeah pretty much every game can be played with counters instead of miniatures. At most you have to modify line of sight rules (and LoS rules are always a compromise anyway so it's hardly a big deal).

It's just KoW the counters will be larger, representing entire units instead of individual models.

@kodos : I agree you need a relative measure, but some absolutes are always interesting.

For example, Power Armour works for any shot that has a worse AP than 3, then stops working as soon as you throw a S1 AP2 shot at it.

Having to roll to penetrate armour, then having an absolute To Wound roll works exactly the same in terms of game statistics

Regarding having different stats for the basic Troops, it's not really that hard and would actually show the difference of doctrines between armies.
But, the game system needs to create niches where each basic Troops has an advantage.

If we had modifiers to BS (+/-) based on range, it would make infantry much more viable due to getting more efficient the closer they are and the harder to hit at long range due to their smaller profile. (I'm sure you're well aware of this, but for the other people who don't understand why range modifiers for BS make sense, spoiler alert : a smaller target is harder to hit, and the further a target is, the smaller it becomes relative to the field of view of the shooter). Same goes for cover.

Then, within that "close range is where infantry shines", different armies would have different strengths based on their basic doctrines. While Space Marines would want to be in melee to capitalize on their better physiology, Tau Firewarriors would instead love to be more defensive.
But, for that, we also need some form of reaction fire.

Glad to see someone is trying http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/04/19/whither-the-future-of-40k-a-suggestion-for-an-alternate-format/

This is nothing new
similar formats are there for more than a year now and all of them have one big issue.

they only are for one specific group of the actual players, oldhammer, hardcore, fluff-points etc there is nothing that brings the community together but just helps to split it up even more

 Crablezworth wrote:
Glad to see someone is trying http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/04/19/whither-the-future-of-40k-a-suggestion-for-an-alternate-format/

People have been trying for the past 2 decades. Probably longer, but that's the extent of my experience.

People all over the world have been using modified rulesets for a long time. It's getting to have widespread use, even in your local area if not the whole world, usually ends up an exercise in futility and a splintered community playing better versions of 40k is arguably worse than everyone just playing the one crap version.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Glad to see someone is trying http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/04/19/whither-the-future-of-40k-a-suggestion-for-an-alternate-format/

People have been trying for the past 2 decades. Probably longer, but that's the extent of my experience.

People all over the world have been using modified rulesets for a long time. It's getting to have widespread use, even in your local area if not the whole world, usually ends up an exercise in futility and a splintered community playing better versions of 40k is arguably worse than everyone just playing the one crap version.

Well the issue is that given the "ideal" situation to play 40k, i.e. a gaming club, having "club rules is a thing. The issue is that they are also positioning 40k as being something you can play against anyone anywhere, while the rules are so poorly balanced that it's impossible to know who interprets what in which way.

Tournament "house rules" are an ideal testing ground: you will never find a more dedicated crew trying to leverage the rules.
Any large gaming group hosting a tournament can become an authoritative body due to experience and trial by fire.
The top two "winners" should be able to submit a "fix" as part of the prize.
Maybe the person voted as the most "fluffy" gets a say too.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The removal of the movement stat is one of the most baffling choices GW made. It was so fething simple and to replace it with a universal system just makes it too complicated.

Personally I don't mind having lots of stats on the unit sheets, having 10 or so stats doesn't bother me in the slightest, I don't see it as advantageous in other games that "simplify" by removing stats that could be used to differentiate units.

But I think the removal of the movement stat comes back to GW thinking we're all morons that can't do math. They are scared to give us anything that is a modifier or requires us to calculate something, so instead make up silly rules to try and account for things that would be sooo much better as modifiers. Like movement, God forbid someone has calculate what double or half of their movement might be. Or snap shots, we can't have to poor kids subtracting a modifier from their ballistic skill, better make it an all or nothing so they don't have to think about it. Or cover, calculating a to hit modifier is too complicated, better make it a flat save that is either negated or not. Or armour, can't have armour modifiers, instead we have to invent an all or nothing armour system, because our customers are surely too stupid to figure out if their Spehss Mareen has a 3+ save and gets hit with a -2 modifier what the result will be.

There's nothing wrong with having many stats if they have a real impact on the game. You'd think Movement would be one of the most important stats, but somehow GW decided that some units moving one inch less or more than others would be too complicated. Piling tons of special rules upon more special rules is clearly the way to go! And on a more serious note, the "special rule to fix anything" design philosophy has ended up poisoning the minds of too many players, just give a look at any proposed rules thread (or at its entire subforum) and you'll find people asking for more, more and more special rules, while the general view of the game is that it already has too many damn special rules to begin with.

The current cover mechanic is also incredibly slowed. The game even forces you to choose between armor/invul or cover save, which is amazingly stupid (I get behind a wall, now I must choose between the wall and my armor to stop the bullet... wtf?). The excuse about "speeding up" the game by not allowing more than one save has got ridiculous at this point, in a game where you're rolling dice on random tables before you even begin to play.

An armor modifiers mechanic would also be preferable to the 'all or nothing', but I fear the D6 system is too limited for it, you'd need D10 at least. Which by the way is a vastly superior dice system if compared to D6, and infinitely more suited for a game with as much gear diversity as 40k.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Glad to see someone is trying http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/04/19/whither-the-future-of-40k-a-suggestion-for-an-alternate-format/

A good read and seems to echo a lot of what people are saying in this thread. I find it interesting that he thinks the Angels of Death supplement might be a tipping point for people leaving the game. Personally, I find the supplement and the psychic powers obnoxious. We know GW loves to sell Space Marines, but the whole idea that they needed more buffs came out of nowhere and just piles more gak on the gakpile.

But his basic premise of simply limiting what can be taken in a tournament setting is not really new (he admits as much), and it doesn't address the more important point that the rules are becoming toxic to the community.

 the_Armyman wrote:
Personally, I find the supplement and the psychic powers obnoxious. We know GW loves to sell Space Marines, but the whole idea that they needed more buffs came out of nowhere and just piles more gak on the gakpile.

Yeah and the constant shakeup of the release format makes it just one more nail in the coffin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:
But his basic premise of simply limiting what can be taken in a tournament setting is not really new (he admits as much), and it doesn't address the more important point that the rules are becoming toxic to the community.

No but it hopefully brings out the like minded people who miss the skirmish game they used to play that's been drowned out by all the apoc sillyness. That doesn't balance the codex's but at least it limits crazy to some degree. It's nice to see an army comprising of just a single faction for once. A combined force of arms is always better than the GI collection of stuff that we see more and more of. I'd play that format in a heartbeat. It doesn't balance the codex's but it can't. No sense making the perect the enemy of the good I say, just getting rid of all the silly army creation nonsense like formations and all the lord of war and knight crap can give everything else room to breath.

 Crablezworth wrote:
No sense making the perect the enemy of the good I say, just getting rid of all the silly army creation nonsense like formations and all the lord of war and knight crap can give everything else room to breath.

This is where I have to disagree. Like it or not formations are now part of the game. Things like alternate detachments and characters with FOC swaps (which were perfectly acceptable in previous editions) have been replaced by formations. And people have built their armies around those alternate options, so it isn't really fair to take them away. Likewise with LoW. There's an obvious argument for nerfing the game-breaking ones, but LoW are here to stay. The focus needs to be on making these things work in a sensible way, not imposing blanket bans and trying to force the game back into an edition that no longer exists.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
No sense making the perect the enemy of the good I say, just getting rid of all the silly army creation nonsense like formations and all the lord of war and knight crap can give everything else room to breath.

This is where I have to disagree. Like it or not formations are now part of the game. Things like alternate detachments and characters with FOC swaps (which were perfectly acceptable in previous editions) have been replaced by formations. And people have built their armies around those alternate options, so it isn't really fair to take them away. Likewise with LoW. There's an obvious argument for nerfing the game-breaking ones, but LoW are here to stay. The focus needs to be on making these things work in a sensible way, not imposing blanket bans and trying to force the game back into an edition that no longer exists.

And those people can play itc and everyone's happy.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
No sense making the perect the enemy of the good I say, just getting rid of all the silly army creation nonsense like formations and all the lord of war and knight crap can give everything else room to breath.

This is where I have to disagree. Like it or not formations are now part of the game. Things like alternate detachments and characters with FOC swaps (which were perfectly acceptable in previous editions) have been replaced by formations. And people have built their armies around those alternate options, so it isn't really fair to take them away. Likewise with LoW. There's an obvious argument for nerfing the game-breaking ones, but LoW are here to stay. The focus needs to be on making these things work in a sensible way, not imposing blanket bans and trying to force the game back into an edition that no longer exists.

And those people can play itc and everyone's happy.

Everyone is somewhat happy, but only at the cost of fragmenting the community. It was a bad situation when FW units were rarely allowed and if you had the wrong army you weren't welcome unless you were able to find one of the few events that had a sensible policy, but then the anti-FW crowd wouldn't go to those events. You're talking about bringing back the same kind of thing, where a person can't just say "hey, a 40k tournament, I'll go play some games", they have to find the right group that hosts events where their army is legal.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're talking about bringing back the same kind of thing, where a person can't just say "hey, a 40k tournament, I'll go play some games", they have to find the right group that hosts events where their army is legal.

We have this situation already, at least here around.

3 different FAQ's and players are just visiting those events that use the FAQ which suits their army more and block the rest
3 different kind of restrictions (old school 40k, FW+30k allowed, everything allowed except FW) and players are blocking the one they don't like

And with Angels of Death it got worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
not imposing blanket bans and trying to force the game back into an edition that no longer exists.

That is the complicated part

Obviously, people don't like bans, just look at the rage when their favourite unit/army gets nurfed

Which is why a "brave new world" approach where none of their investment is wasted because each thing they bought can do something cool is an elegant and sensible approach.

I think that aside from the obivous moneygrab from some rules, most of the detachments/formations were designed to help players in the army design, but it backfired due to some ludicrous requirements and the obivous quirks in the rules as well as the poor pricing of some units and weapons.

Typically, with Marines I spend 50% of the points in "line units" (with Objective Secured, whether it's in the Gladius or CAD), 25% in proper fire support (which can be anything that has long range dakka) and 25% in proper melee capabilities (anything that can punch through a lot in melee). The line unit is then equipped to provide a backup AP2 high strength support at any range (including Power Fists). I found that this was quite a decent set up for the Marines, as long as you realize that the core line units will only be a backup for the damage carried by other units.
The issue with formations like the Gladius is the fact that the requirements for some auxiliaries are quite ludicrous, so people tend to create imbalanced list, which defeats the purpose of the "army template".

 Korinov wrote:

The current cover mechanic is also incredibly slowed. The game even forces you to choose between armor/invul or cover save, which is amazingly stupid (I get behind a wall, now I must choose between the wall and my armor to stop the bullet... wtf?). The excuse about "speeding up" the game by not allowing more than one save has got ridiculous at this point, in a game where you're rolling dice on random tables before you even begin to play.
.

Yeah, the cover system is horrible as it is today and is unfair to high armour saves while providing an amazing boost to units with low saves.

GreyCrow wrote:
Obviously, people don't like bans, just look at the rage when their favourite unit/army gets nurfed

Which is why a "brave new world" approach where none of their investment is wasted because each thing they bought can do something cool is an elegant and sensible approach.

...

This is where a system based on the AoS idea of war scrolls and key words could work very nicely. You want to play without Lords of War? Just don't use any scrolls with the LoW key word. You want to play a real game? Don't use any war scrolls with the Infantry key word. And so on.

Age of Emporer war scrolls will also have a power rating that allows the selection of balanced armies to chosen point limits.

Formations will be used to offer pre-set balanced armies that are fluffy and nicely themed (recon unit, siege unit and the like.)

40K players are used to the idea that all of their books will become obsolete over the course of four years due to a new rules edition (except the poor old Xenos players who often have had to wait 6 to 10 years for a new codex.)

It should be too much of a pain to abandon the whole rulebook and start again with an Age of Emporer system that provides free rules and war scrolls.

 Korinov wrote:
An armor modifiers mechanic would also be preferable to the 'all or nothing', but I fear the D6 system is too limited for it, you'd need D10 at least. Which by the way is a vastly superior dice system if compared to D6, and infinitely more suited for a game with as much gear diversity as 40k.

I think armour modifiers can work with a D6. The problem back in 2nd edition with armour modifiers was damned near everything was at least -1. Even your lowly lasgun or bolter or chainsword was -1, the only things that didn't have a modifier were stuff like autoguns. Do autoguns even exist anymore?

I'd propose an armour modifier system where the vast majority of weapons have a modifier of 0, all you basic infantry weapons would be 0 and only a few special kinds would be -1. It'd have to be something reasonably powerful to get -2 or -3. Some things like Terminators might get a rerollable save.

Obviously a D10 system would allow more granularity. I prefer D6 though, they roll nicer when you have handfuls of them, lol.

Oh yeah, definitely agree with free rules !

Part of the reason 40k manages to keep afloat are the internet leaks that are doing GW's marketing for them. Rules sell models, there is little point in holding them back. Codex can still be sold as a data medium for these rules, but the access shouldn't be exclusive.

It really depends on the value the company wants players to put on the miniatures. In Bolt Action for example, units are usually very survivable until they're put in a situation where decisive action is unavoidable.
In 40k, units are designed as a tool for army building, and army building (metagame) usually defines the chances of success or failure or an army.

So, it makes previous purchases useless and some purchases mandatory, and on top of that the game system and its contents doesn't give players the tools to properly design their armies because the ruleset focuses on the game and not the metagame.

With that Age of Emperor system you talk about, the game system in itself should make the units relevant, rather than their capabilities in the army building phase.

The army building metagame is an important part of it for a lot of people, but thanks to growing imbalance it has gone badly wrong.

That is not an argument for abandoning it, but I do think we ought to see army building as a way of selecting a force that's at least roughly equal to the opponent, rather than a way of selecting a force that is better than the opponent.

In some cases, selections and formations are simply exploits, for example the Tau Piranha formation that lets you drop all your drones, go and pick up another lot, drop them, rinse and repeat, so you get dozens of free gun drones added to your force.

In other words, the variation available for your army selection is for the purpose of fluffy theme (recon, assault, anti-tank, penal battalion, etc) rather than a mechanism which you try to win the game in advance.

AoS addresses this by abandoning points, relying on players to work out balanced forces, and by reducing the amount of options within each war scroll.

I like the reduced options, because I don't think the game needs so many trivial variations of weapons and defences, and the rule system groans with the effort of trying to make these variations do something visible on the tabletop. For example there are about eight different basic infantry weapons (i.e. rifles) in the game and each one has five different factors plus a special rule. That's 48 variations of the basic infantry weapon!

However I think it is a lot easier for people to work out balanced forces with a clear and reasonably reliable metric to do so. Points would not be necessary if each war scroll listed a few defined options and had a power rating that applied to any of them.

I feel the best approach would be to keep formations and detachments (I do like them, I admit, although its not like I have seen them in action) but reel them in a bit. For instance, the Gladius allowing free transports (?!) is outright ridiculous.

LoW can be kept in 2k+ size games or 3k+ or whatever, keep them in the game but make them part of a larger game (without opponent's permission of course) but still then you can use them for specific scenarios (e.g. imagine a game where there is a semi-operational Titan being repaired, and every so often maybe it gets a shot off as its powering up).

I think the overwhelming problem is:

1) The rules themselves are vague and unclear, to where you need group-specific FAQs or various online discussion to figure out just what certain rules mean since they are left up to interpretation.

2) The army lists are all over the place of varying power levels; at that point just don't use points values at all because they literally don't mean anything.

3) GW refuses to update things in a concise manner. Space Marines get a dozen updates a year (roughly speaking), while other factions have to wait years and across entire editions just for an update. That's beyond ridiculous.

It's juts the entire thing is a mess because there's no care. It's like building a house and saying eh this looks like a house, who cares if we used balsa wood for the foundation but installed a golden toilet. It looks good enough, it'll work.

GreyCrow wrote:

Yeah, the cover system is horrible as it is today and is unfair to high armour saves while providing an amazing boost to units with low saves.

Which is ok up to apoint, because a light armoured soldier can easier hide behind a tree and get cover than a terminator
The main issue with the current cover system is that armour is useless as long as it is not 3+.

An easy way to fix it would be to add armour save modifier instead of a flat negation first (instead of AP1 a Melter gets AP6, Plasma weapons AP5, Boltgun AP1 etc).
Than, cover is a bonus for the armour save and "ignore Cover" will also be a modifier instead of a flat removing all cover bonus

A soldier with 4+ armour in 4+ cover has a 0+ save (a natural 1 always fails) and gets hit by plasma gun (AP5) and is left with a 5+ save.

With this solution, light armour is not useless any more, heavy armoured troops have still less boost from cover than light armoured ones (but not that much), you have only one save and must not decide if you use cover or armour and the BS modification is free to be used for other rules
for example fast moving skimmers or bikes, flyers and jink in general gives -X on the BS instead of a cover bonus.

The problem we have is that lots of people like to roll lots of D6 in a 40k game.

And that a D6 has a limited amount of results .So if we use additional modifiers,(Like 2nd ed did.) that stack or get to values greater than 2, its gets very wonky very quickly.

Also 40k has suffered for very 'fudged' development over the years.Cover should adjust the chance to hit not the armour save.

Smoke and long grass etc just make the target harder to see.(We can say hard cover makes the unit harder to see and gives the chance of deflecting some incoming fire,so give +2 to targets Stealth value.)

This applies to all units equally.

EG if we use a Stealth value in opposition to BS,(Like S vs T).We can say models in cover get + 1 to their Stealth value.

This means all units gain a bonus from cover, but it is separate from all armour values.

This concept can be applied to all combat resolution.
Rather than have lots of modifiers to clog up the game.We just used opposed stats, in a universal resolution chart.

How can we expect GW to change if none of us agree on what the change should look like...

For small games you can always look back at Necromunda where each weapon had a modifier.
This is around the similar path that Bolt Action took: the bigger the weapon, the bigger the strength, the greater the armor, the higher the toughness value.
Then you dole-out the number of hits in proportion to how effective an area the weapon can "spray".
I can still remember the outcry when they came up with "AP" in 40k (4th edition? ...will have to check).

 Talizvar wrote:
For small games you can always look back at Necromunda where each weapon had a modifier.
This is around the similar path that Bolt Action took: the bigger the weapon, the bigger the strength, the greater the armor, the higher the toughness value.
Then you dole-out the number of hits in proportion to how effective an area the weapon can "spray".
I can still remember the outcry when they came up with "AP" in 40k (4th edition? ...will have to check).

3rd edition, I would think. The old necron book was released in 3rd, and that had AP values.
Never had the 3rd ed rulebook, but I had the necron book, and that would reference things like terrain generation, which was not present in the 4th ed BRB.

 Talizvar wrote:
For small games you can always look back at Necromunda where each weapon had a modifier.
This is around the similar path that Bolt Action took: the bigger the weapon, the bigger the strength, the greater the armor, the higher the toughness value.
Then you dole-out the number of hits in proportion to how effective an area the weapon can "spray".
I can still remember the outcry when they came up with "AP" in 40k (4th edition? ...will have to check).

3rd edition was when most of those sorts of changes came about. In 2nd edition GW was all about the modifiers, to hit modifiers, to save modifiers, movement modifiers. 3rd edition was when that stuff went away. 40k hasn't had a major rules change since then.

I thought the AP system was terrible in 3rd edition some 18 years ago and I still think it's a terrible system now. It's one of those things that unbalances the game at it's core, the points value of armour becomes entirely dependent on what your opponent chose for their weapons.

 awbbie wrote:
How can we expect GW to change if none of us agree on what the change should look like...

GW will change of their own accord and they will choose the path of change that they believe will maximise sales, whatever we all disagree on, so in a sense the important thing is to offer a variety of opinions and let GW choose between them.

Lanrak wrote:
The problem we have is that lots of people like to roll lots of D6 in a 40k game.

And that a D6 has a limited amount of results .So if we use additional modifiers,(Like 2nd ed did.) that stack or get to values greater than 2, its gets very wonky very quickly.

Having lots of rolls can somewhat counter the lack of granularity of the D6, but GW doesn't leverage it.

And the main problem with modifiers in 2nd is they were applied to readily so you far too often had things stacking OR your base value was meaningless because almost everything had a built in modifier (eg, Space Marines were effectively a 4+ save because most stuff had a -1 save modifier).

In 2nd ed, power armor was virtually useless. It's why loyalist marines were unplayable.

 awbbie wrote:
How can we expect GW to change if none of us agree on what the change should look like...

We don't have to agree on what the best solution is.... we just have to mostly agree that what we currently have is terrible. GW could pick one of half a dozen solutions to fix certain rules or certain units, even though it might not be the choice I *personally* would have made, I will accept it as being vastly superior to no solution at all.

This is why GW needs to take community input, but still have a small cohesive team of writers who decide "Ok, these are our options, which one is going to work best and how will we implement it". It's also why community systems rarely get off the ground, you can't usually assemble a small dedicated team to put in the effort and once too much of the community gets involved it turns in to a mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
In 2nd ed, power armor was virtually useless. It's why loyalist marines were unplayable.

Yep, but it was entirely the fault of weapon stats being too powerful, not the modifier system being flawed.

It's similar to why a saves are less important now than they were back in 3rd edition, the core rules haven't changed all that much, but the availability of powerful low AP weapons has increased.