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.

The rules would be fine if they were actually written to be played instead of something to make a counter rule to work around .

As far as the second edition, How far in depth do you want the rules set to go? I remember the 2d edition, where you listed everything down to the models underwere, and then you took three hours a turn, debating the niceties of the space marine/ eldar gang of death, BS. The real thing to seriously ask is, WHAT made 2nd Edition fun? What made 3d edition fun, what is currently working and hooks people, and then combine the ideas into something that people would actually want to play.

The 4th Edition $50.00 rulebook has about Jack and squats in it for rules to begin with, then with the addition of the stupidity that came about with the "New and Improved" codexs, pretty much giving the work of others lip service. GET RID OF THE CODEX's, come up with a solid seriously written army book, with downloadable addentums from the websight. Put everything from the commanders underwear size, to the intricies of a lascannon in it, then new units can be added to the mix with downloads in conjunction with new units put out.

Basic rulebook needs basic rules, written for the target audience so that they can get a few squads together, learn the game in about an hour, then go at it. NOT just have it as a "Qick fix" sales device to sell jerkyboy units. Worst thing about it is that about six months after the fact, the so called new unit is made obsolite by the next big thing.

-Hand to hand- needs to be better thought out then just one lucky some of a gun closing in on a unit, wiping it out.

-Vehicle rules blow, they need to be better thought out and simplified so that a tank is actually worth the trouble to buy and model up, instead of just using a couple of coke c-
ans and calling it a day.

-Morale has no use at the preasent time, fix it or dich it.

-A weapons data card with the stats for ALL of the weapons needs to be added to the basic rule book.

-Basic rulebook should be about the whole game, not just one or two factons and one should be able to get it, two units, and play a game. from squad to battalion, it shouldn't matter the size. If a basic flow for the action was more defined, the need for the BS would cease. Of course the little rules lawyers would be out of business, but then you'd be able to play more then one or two games a day with a few more tricks that might actually make playing fun.

Grot 6 wrote:The rules would be fine if they were actually written to be played instead of something to make a counter rule to work around .

The 4th Edition $50.00 rulebook has about Jack and squats in it for rules to begin with, then with the addition of the stupidity that came about with the "New and Improved" codexs, pretty much giving the work of others lip service.... Put everything from the commanders underwear size, to the intricies of a lascannon in it, then new units can be added to the mix with downloads in conjunction with new units put out.

NOT just have it as a "Qick fix" sales device to sell jerkyboy units.

from squad to battalion, it shouldn't matter the size. If a basic flow for the action was more defined, the need for the BS would cease.

What the hell are you talking about?!?

4th edition is a heap of crap. I love the 40k fluff and play other sci-fi wargames using citadel minies. But there are two things I really hate about GW. 1/ they charge massive amounts of money for crappy plastic toys and 2/ they seem totally unable to write a decent wargame without breaking it!

Tetchy wrote:4th edition is a heap of crap. I love the 40k fluff and play other sci-fi wargames using citadel minies. But there are two things I really hate about GW. 1/ they charge massive amounts of money for crappy plastic toys and 2/ they seem totally unable to write a decent wargame without breaking it!

However you must feel they are capable of redemption, or why are you here?

Anyway, I think there are three ways 40K could be improved.

1. Just clean up the existing rules. Proof read them, get rid of the contradictions and inconsistancies. Make the examples clear and unambiguous. Provide a proper glossary and index. This could all be done in a new edition without changing any of the rules at all. It would be easy, quick and profitable and would satisfy a lot of players.

2. Do no.1 and also rewrite some sections of the rules like vehicles. The problem here is where you stop making changes, and that brings me to...

3. Burn everything and start again. A complete rewrite.

Change the dice system to D10s to allow a finer grained probability and wider range of characteristics.

Change the combat system from individual shots to a fire factor per squad based on the number of each weapon and range. Make a fire factor table giving the number/strength of hits per attack strength. Bring back modifiers where appropriate for cover or skill.

Get rid of the "off the cliff" S vs T and Armour Sv system. Make it a modifier in the fire factor chart. Reduce the number of dice rolls.

Draw a proper distinction between AT and AP Weapons. Make Monstrous Creatures partially vulnerable to both.

Change movement rates and weapon ranges if you want to open up the game or close it down more.

Let defenders in H2H have either a last-ditch defensive fire or an evade move.

Get rid of UgoIgo and have a leadership based activation system.

Make Morale do something.

Balance points values properly. Let every army have a strength and a vulnerability. Don't let the strengths or the vulnerabilities be too extreme.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Draw a proper distinction between AT and AP Weapons. Make Monstrous Creatures partially vulnerable to both.

I like that. Close combat weapons should be included as well, there is a wide variety of close combat weapons: Chain swords, non-chain swords, power weapons, power fists, chain fists, lightning claws, tyranid rending, monstrous creature, monstrous creature PLUS rending, monstrous creature PLUS rending PLUS weird forge world rules, big choppas, etc etc.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Get rid of UgoIgo and have a leadership based activation system.

I was thinking along these lines, (I've played the new Epic a couple times) but I think they would hurt certain armies more than others, but I suppose it would also add additional complexity via Improved Coms, Vox-casters, Rites of Battle, Chaos Demogogues, etc etc. I really don't think there's anything wrong with IGOUGO, but then I've never had the opportunity to play at tournaments.

Kilkrazy wrote:However you must feel they are capable of redemption, or why are you here?

As I said, love the fluff and many of the models (particularly what keen converters and modellers have done with them - I love looking at all that stuff.)

Love the concept of a wargame involving them Hate the tergid pile of puke that 4th ed. has become. Never much liked RT, 1st, 2nd or 3rd either to be frank. I think GW couldn't write a decent set of "commercial" rules if their lives depended on it.... oh, professionally they do! Woops!

Kilkrazy wrote:3. Burn everything and start again. A complete rewrite.

You said it.

Don't care about the hows and whys - that's their job. All I want is something worth building an army for at the end of the day.

That GW have some talent hidden deep somewhere in their organisation is not beyond the bounds of possibility - some of their SG show signs of merit. Problem is that they aren't well enough written even if the concepts are worthy (their rules are dotted about in their books with no apparent rhyme nor reason - very hard to follow in a game unless you know them already). And then you have too many people pulling in different ways with (apparently) no coordination or overall control so that Codex X comes out and craps all over Codex Y that was published 6 months earlier.

I appreciate their game is aimed at 14-16 year-olds so what they think is cool is more important than what I think is cool in a game. But that said, surely a game that is simple enough to be enoyable, but complex enough to be inspirational isn't beyond the wit of the largest wargaming company on the planet.

Somehow they've got to get their credibility back othewise they are finished, and writing a game that in and of itself is a worthy game and not just a mechanism to trap kids into buying more models would be the first step on that road.

GW won't ever fix the rules as TK as already made it quite clear that the business of GW is to sell models. If they produce a set of rules that don't ever need to have any major changes in the future, how can they make your current army worthless and get you to buy more models?

I'm for a total rewrite myself, but it would still need proper FAQ support.

My biggest point of evidence is that it seems like a lot of other games get more tactical depth and clarity with much less page count. The basic rules for a lot of games fit in 20-30 pages. I think that the ultra-core rules for 40k are twice that...

I don't think it's going to happen, though. The studio seems to act like writing rules is such a chore these days.

I might aswell have my ten penneth worth.

I don't think the rules need a huge overhaul, just a few issues that have already been mentioned.

The problem I have with the game is the periodic release of codexes after the rules have been out for ages. If everything was written, tested and released together we wouldn't have the situation we have now. The periodic release of codexes always seems to be reactionary, with them tryin to balance things out but failing and releasing another codex the same way. If everything was done together, the rules and game would work far better.

Craig

Death_Master wrote:I might aswell have my ten penneth worth.

...

The problem I have with the game is the periodic release of codexes after the rules have been out for ages. If everything was written, tested and released together we wouldn't have the situation we have now. The periodic release of codexes always seems to be reactionary, with them tryin to balance things out but failing and releasing another codex the same way. If everything was done together, the rules and game would work far better.

Craig

I doubt GW have the desire or even the capability to release everything all at once.

But that is where the real problem arises.
They release the game with 2 codices ready to roll. Both armies are balanced against each other. Then, six months down the road, a wage slave is tasked with creating a new codex for a new enemy. First thing he does is look at the two base armies and says to himself "Oooh! I need to make army X a little bit tougher to take those guys!". And writes rules that give army X an edge.

Six months later, another wage slave is tasked to create Army Y. And he makes it a little better than Army X.

Pretty soon, the core army is the wimpiest on the block. Its called power creep. And, with the way GW releases projects, its inevitable. Same thing happened in 2nd edition as well.

Two things I'd like to see back is the varied movement for different races, and the limitation on vehicle upgrades. Way back when, the rule was that you could not outfit vehicles identically. Just that alone I think would even out some of the discrepancies in the game.

Given the moaning and griping about the weakness of recent Chaos and Templar Marines codexes, Codex Creep seems not to be a constant factor.

My point is that GW maintain excitement in the game and foot traffic in the stores by having a significant release every few months, not by spunking everything out in a frenzy and then no new stuff for 4 years.

The effort and investment to prepare and build the new books and models also needs to be averaged out over several years. Or what will the staff and factories do in the meantime?

Well, you could develop the codices all at once, concurrently with the main rules, and just release them over a period of years (alongside the model releases). The designers would, in the meantime, start developing the next edition.

And a requirement should be that any author of a codex have the flippin rulebook open to the appropriate page, in order to rectify any discrepancies twixt rules and codex.

Pariah Press wrote: Well, you could develop the codices all at once, concurrently with the main rules, and just release them over a period of years (alongside the model releases). The designers would, in the meantime, start developing the next edition.

But people want all the codexes out at the same time as the rules.

That said, if the main rules changes are minor, little or nothing has to change in the codexes, so it could probably be done.

Looking at the Tau Codex, the key change from the 3rd edition version to the 4th was just the rule about shield drones conforming to the armour and toughness of the unit they are attached too. Everything else new was basically tinkering and icing on the cake. A few new bits of wargear, a couple of new units and some points changes here and there. To be frank, everything could have been done through a series of Chapter Approved articles in WD, republished as PDFs via the GW website. But that would not have satisfied GW's need for 10% of the player base to spend £12 on a new codex.

Kilkrazy wrote:Given the moaning and griping about the weakness of recent Chaos and Templar Marines codexes, Codex Creep seems not to be a constant factor.

My point is that GW maintain excitement in the game and foot traffic in the stores by having a significant release every few months, not by spunking everything out in a frenzy and then no new stuff for 4 years.

The effort and investment to prepare and build the new books and models also needs to be averaged out over several years. Or what will the staff and factories do in the meantime?

Are you saying there aren't any sales when something isn't being released?

snooggums wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Given the moaning and griping about the weakness of recent Chaos and Templar Marines codexes, Codex Creep seems not to be a constant factor.

My point is that GW maintain excitement in the game and foot traffic in the stores by having a significant release every few months, not by spunking everything out in a frenzy and then no new stuff for 4 years.

The effort and investment to prepare and build the new books and models also needs to be averaged out over several years. Or what will the staff and factories do in the meantime?

Are you saying there aren't any sales when something isn't being released?

Of course not, but sales rise when new stuff arrives and then tail off.

All major retailers continuously introduce new lines, retire old ones, and move things around to make their shops look different, because it attracts shoppers. You will also find that the sales figures on new lines are generally high at first and then tail off. (I'm talking about fashion and luxury products.)

GW follows the same pattern of behaviour. It seems logical that they have the same reasons.

Are you saying there aren't any sales when something isn't being released?

Some sales sure, but new releases drive sales up for the army in question, the new units change the balance of the army forcing the purchase of still more units, and in many cases drives the purchase of alternate units in other armies to deal with the new threat.

Personally I see nothing wrong with this business model. Not only does it drive up profits thus keeping GW in buisness and our hobby alive but it also gives us something new to look forward to and new codexes to argue/whine/gossip about.

Back on the origional question, I would like to see a pretty complete reset of the core rules, and with that a clean codex slate. That will not happen however, so a cleaned up version of the rules with more frequent FAQ support would be close to that ideal enough for me to be a happy landbased cetacean.

Pariah Press wrote: Well, you could develop the codices all at once, concurrently with the main rules, and just release them over a period of years (alongside the model releases). The designers would, in the meantime, start developing the next edition.

The problem I see with this is leaking. So far just about every codex in 4th edition has leaked out early. Sure this may not affect tournament play much since you can't use something that isn't realeased yet. On the other side, if you know your codex isn't going to be out for 2 and a half years but you can get a pdf of it with ease, who is going to really wait the 2+ years? I know I wouldn't. So they end up with yet another problem here too.

Phoenix wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: Well, you could develop the codices all at once, concurrently with the main rules, and just release them over a period of years (alongside the model releases). The designers would, in the meantime, start developing the next edition.

The problem I see with this is leaking. So far just about every codex in 4th edition has leaked out early. Sure this may not affect tournament play much since you can't use something that isn't realeased yet. On the other side, if you know your codex isn't going to be out for 2 and a half years but you can get a pdf of it with ease, who is going to really wait the 2+ years? I know I wouldn't. So they end up with yet another problem here too.

GW could just choose not to leak it until they're ready to start building up the hype. You know, like they do now.

The basic point is people should not have to wait 2+1/2 years for a a new codex for their army.

Although I touted the slow release theory above, the main sales reason GW do this is because they don't have anything else to sell apart from 40K and WHFB. They could not get away with a new edition every two years, so instead they space editions about 4 years apart and fill the gaps with slow codex releases.

GW need to start publishing something mainstream (that is, not Specialist or Vault or whatever) apart from the two games they have at the moment. Then they would get footfall in the shops and they could more easily release 40K support material in a timely manner.

I think the basic rules are fine. There are only minor things that need fixing. There needs to be an Index in the rule book and the rules need to be written clearer.

The problem right now with 40k isn't the basic ruleset, its the codexes!

It seems as if the codexes are never playtested enough. Everytime a new one comes out, everyone on here as well as me and my group of friends find problems and broken units.

Look right now at the current top tier lists and particular units:

NidZilla - the rules governing monstrous creatures are fine IF your codex allows you to only field say 2 or 3 max. Its the TYRANID CODEX that unbalances the game because it allows so many monstrous creatures to be fielded so easily, NOT the main rulebook.

Eldar Falcon - it is so difficult to destroy because of the wargear upgrades you are allowed to give it. Where are these upgrades? IN THE ELDAR CODEX.

The old IW army - being able to field 4 heavy support along with 9 obliterators is ridiculous and people realized this and exploited it, once again it was in the codex not main rule book.

space marine Droppods - I dare anyone to try and find the rules for droppods in the main rulebook; they aren't there.



The problem is the CODEXes not the main rules, IMHO.

GW needs to do serious work on the codexes to get them right. The play balance in the game is dependant on the rules for the individual armies.

I guess my previous post was a bit OT from Killkrazy's previous post, but i think he may be right about GW doing something more mainstream to increase sales and foot traffic.

Honestly i found out about WHFB and WH40k from playing HeroQuest. It would not be a bad idea for them to try something like that again.

Kilkrazy wrote:The basic point is people should not have to wait 2+1/2 years for a a new codex for their army.

Although I touted the slow release theory above, the main sales reason GW do this is because they don't have anything else to sell apart from 40K and WHFB. They could not get away with a new edition every two years, so instead they space editions about 4 years apart and fill the gaps with slow codex releases.

But what if they didn't flood the market with new minis all at once? What if instead of the Marine Codex with 4-5 units released at that time (and the month following), they released those 4-5 units over the course of 2 years? Wouldn't that revive any flagging interest in Marines? Why not release a variety of units from different armies throughout the year? Is GW afraid that the sculpts wouldn't sell themselves and they need to tweak the Codex to get people to buy new minis?

The goal is to sell new minis. I'm not sure having a player wait up to 2.5 years and a new edition to buy new minis is the best way to go. they could still release their rules set modifications lite CoD, Apocalypse, or 'Bikini Babes with Autocannons' to sell those minis. It also provides a means of tweaking unit rules without requiring a brand new Codex.

Depending on how big the update there is no reason why GW can't release codexes faster than they do.

Take Tau Empire vs original Tau as an example.

The changes were:

1. Fixed shield drones.
2. Added Space Pope and Commander Shadowsun, neither of whom get much use.
3. Added Piranhas, Vespids and Sniper Drones.
4. A few new bits of wargear and some tweaks here and there, like the modified markerlight rules and points changes.
5. Tweaked Farsight a bit.
6. Some minor changes to fluff and pictures.

It doesn't seem like all that would take a couple of years to do. Considering all the playtesting (ha ha) they still somehow managed to get Vespids and Sniper Drones wrong enough that no-one ever uses them. Even Piranhas aren't popular in tournament lists.

The main tactical effects were that Broadsides became popular again because of shield drones being fixed, the ASS, and the points increase for the Railhead. Ionhead got more popular because Broadsides took over from the Railhead for primary AT duty and Ionheads are better at anti-MEq. And the new Farsight rules made an interesting Gundam Wing kind of army possible.

Except for the Shield Drone rules change, nothing that made a big difference to the game was anything except a fairly minor tweak. The major changes made no difference except to justify introducing a lot of new models. And let's face it, the Shield Drone rules got broken by the 4th edition Tau FAQ anyway, and could easily have been fixed by the same means.

In short, the main reason for new codexes is to stimulate sales of new models. But everyone probably knew that already.

Zoned wrote:Now I know GW has stated that they wouldn't rewrite 40k like they did between 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. But many veteran gamers don't seem to be happy with the direction 40k in general is going. If GW did rewrite 40k from the ground up, released a Ravening Horde style book, invalidated current codexes, possibly made current models useless...etc, how would you feel?

New rules wouldn't completely invalidate current models.

Laserbait:

But that is where the real problem arises.
They release the game with 2 codices ready to roll. Both armies are balanced against each other. Then, six months down the road, a wage slave is tasked with creating a new codex for a new enemy. First thing he does is look at the two base armies and says to himself "Oooh! I need to make army X a little bit tougher to take those guys!". And writes rules that give army X an edge.

Six months later, another wage slave is tasked to create Army Y. And he makes it a little better than Army X.

Pretty soon, the core army is the wimpiest on the block. Its called power creep. And, with the way GW releases projects, its inevitable. Same thing happened in 2nd edition as well.

But it certainly hasn't happened in 4th. The standard SM 'dex is still one of the strongest, mort adaptable books in 40k.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Laserbait:

But that is where the real problem arises.
They release the game with 2 codices ready to roll. Both armies are balanced against each other. Then, six months down the road, a wage slave is tasked with creating a new codex for a new enemy. First thing he does is look at the two base armies and says to himself "Oooh! I need to make army X a little bit tougher to take those guys!". And writes rules that give army X an edge.

Six months later, another wage slave is tasked to create Army Y. And he makes it a little better than Army X.

Pretty soon, the core army is the wimpiest on the block. Its called power creep. And, with the way GW releases projects, its inevitable. Same thing happened in 2nd edition as well.

But it certainly hasn't happened in 4th. The standard SM 'dex is still one of the strongest, mort adaptable books in 40k.

That is coz they ar Spase Marienz (Hurr!)

Seriously, there has been a lot of complaining about the later on SM codexes. The vanilla SM codex was one of the earlier releases for 4th edition.

What 40k needs is good rules editing and development. I question how thoroughly they even playtest things, given the amount of question in the Dakka FAQs.

In my fantasy world, they would hire someone like Don Greenwood, from the old Avalon Hill line. He is pretty much the "God of Games Development".

My $.02

ZF-

Asmodai wrote:

To be fair, a lot of the major problems also lie in the mentality, attitude and ineptitude of the slowed monkeys exploiting the rules. Not that it excuses poor writing, but nothing will ever be perfect. Players need to learn to deal with a certain amount of flexibility and ambiguity without being powergaming donkey-caves about it.

I have to agree with you here. but I think it's a combination of both.