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.

Crom wrote:

Nightwalker wrote:

Crom wrote:If they brought back multiple saves they would also have to bring back to hit modifiers, and save modifiers to make it balanced. So, a STR 8 hit has a -5 to your save, so unless you had a 1+ you cannot save against it. It then makes the system complicated and the more complication you have the more cheese develops from people bending the rules to their own personal advantage. Also, back in that day Terminator armor rolled 2D6 for armor saves.

I think the current system can be redone to make it way better and in fact in my opinion GW needs to drop the whole phase system, and rebuild the game with action points and strategy points. Then use a damage versus armor ratio to determine your saving throw. Since some weapons will be better and armor piercing. Of course some restructure would have to be done across the board, and some people would fear/hate the change immediately with out giving it a chance, but I think action point based game play for skirmish sci fi gaming is the best and most balanced method for a gaming system. That way, going first doesn't give you a major advantage.

What your "proposeing" will cost them alot of money and not garuateen them alot of money back

They are already losing money. They raise their prices to cover the cost of non expanding sales. Plus with the used market the way it is, a ton of gamers don't buy from GW as is. I just bought an Ogre Kingdoms army, all used and second hand, saved me $200 and the models came to me near mint condition and with more than enough extra bits to fix anything that is not pristine.

There is no guarantee with anything retail at all. What I am saying, as a veteran war gamer, is that there are tons of better systems out there. GW may have some of the best fluff and background stories and some of the prettiest models, but I have played far better games. The problem is, GW got a hold of the market first. You can sort of in an off the wall sense compare them to Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't really make a superior product on paper compared to other OS/Software, they just cornered the market first.

What are some of the biggest gripes in 40K in 5th edition?

1 - player who goes first has advantage usually
2 - 2+ and 3+ saves are pretty much over powered. I cannot tell you how many times my Marines will withstand over 40 wounds and only fail to save a few times in a turn
3 - cover saves are way over powered
4 - vehicle damage needs to be expanded, and vehicle rules need to be revamped. 2D6 damage table, and better engineering and repair options
5 - assaults are off balance. You get to shoot then assault, with little to no counter from the other player


You change it to an action point system and you can fix a lot of this. I have played several systems based on action points and have been playing around with my own system, but like you said, the change would be one that a lot of people would be afraid of. Personally, I would welcome the change.

I know personally if the game ever did switch over to a AP system i would quit warhammer 40k

Nightwalker wrote:
I know personally if the game ever did switch over to a AP system i would quit warhammer 40k

I hear yeah man. I just think an AP system could take care of a lot of balance issues. My favorite games were action point based, and sadly no longer around. Mainly because the developer made bad choices after releasing a really strong first edition. I know there is Infinity, and I am looking into that, but I already own a ton of GW models and armies.

back on topic:

I think if you are going to layer saves there would need to be to hit modifiers and armor save modifiers to make it balanced. This is what 40K used to be back in the day.

Just as a quick discussion of some of those issues:

For player goes first = advantage, it's not nearly as bad as it was before, and I can still say that it's not that unbalanced (some people argue it isn't).
For 2+ 3+ saves, you are, as we all do, remembering a special occasion. Overall probability favors the saves to save 2/3 / 5/6 of the time. If they don't end up doing that, you may be lucky, but that math isn't that op, given point costs.

Cover saves are not entirely overpowered, though I will admit that the cover system may have 'inflated' cover's saving potential. If anything, it makes armor saves weaker, and mostly is a major issue depending on your cover meta.

I like the vehicle table, at least, in that 33% chance to destroy is at least something against the mech meta. Perhaps the tossing around of armor is too liberal (lots of AV 14s) but I don't think the vehicle damage table needs to be majorly expanded.

People may think assaults are overpowered. Personally, the issue may be that the weapon shot is just too potent. That doesn't mean you have to give a straight change to assault. The assualt units usually can't fire at distance. If anything, that would mean slowing movement speed (which would return balance in your scenario) vs. a complete overhaul of shoot/assault without response.

Personally I don't like AP, and I like the 40k system. Aside from GK, I don't find it too unbalanced. Maybe GW is slow on updating its codices, but the system isn't inherently unbalanced, imo. It has issues, but I don't think they warrant an entire overhaul to an AP system.

As to 'cornering the market' maybe they have. But I find their system is fun, not too difficult to learn, competitive, and has, over-all, cool fluff/vibe. And a cool/fluff vibe that is more attractive than competitors = a superior product, even if certain aspects of the mechanics aren't perfect.

Back on topic:
I am willing to sacrifice modifiers for straight-simplicity. It is better for new hobbyists entering the system. May not be perfect, but perfection can't be reached. I think, practically, the current system is fine. If anything, reduce the cover save somewhat, if at all.

Adopt fantasy's armor save mod system, adopt fantasy's regeneration and ward save interaction, -1 to all invul saves everywhere, and change cover save to hit modification.

No more complicated than fantasy.

I can tell you as a: Space Wolf, Tyranid, IG, Ork, & Eldar player, going first most definitely has it's advantages. I can name off countless games where my horde armies suffered greatly from being pelted with gun fire on the first turn before I could do anything. Also, if you are deep striking, you get to drop all your good stuff first, which yes, is an advantage and there is zero reaction at all from your opponent until your turn is over and it is theirs. Sure, dice rolls come into play, but in an AP system, going first means you only get first activation, and it means your opponent can directly react upon each move you make. In a phase base you cannot play 3 player games efficiently, and you can alternate back and forth before the turn is over. It is an all or nothing system. Which mean the dynamics of the game are limited to that. I have played almost every game out there, with some exceptions and changing things up and trying something different may open your views. I know people will hate it because it is different, but how many people have actually played with the AP framework?


Cover saves are ridiculous in this game. You don't know the terrain until after you build your list, since you and your opponent agree upon it, or like we do a lot have a third party set it up, then roll for mission and sides, etc. My orks and Nids can sit in woods and get a 4+ save. For being in the woods, which doesn't slow me down, unless deemed difficult terrain before the game starts. The only army cover saves really don't benefit is marines. Layering saves would make marines ultra powerful.

As for STR modifiers, that would mean going back to the 2nd edition system. Which is the same for fantasy currently. You take the STR of the attack and subtract 3 from it, and that is the negative modifier to the save. GW got rid of that system in 40 and went with AP. Now, there are very little guns in the game that give AP3 shots, since Marine power armor is suppose to be so awesome, that means they can save against pretty much everything. If they bring back this system marine players will get mad. Because STR 6 guns would require them to roll 6s to save, and also back then cover saves didn't exist. Instead, there were just to hit modifiers, so if you were in soft cover you were - 1 to hit. Now add in the fact you can screen units with cheap squads of vehicles and give them a 4+ cover save by just being behind something also kind of off balances the game.

I think 40K should keep the current save system but nerf cover saves and perhaps give more options for some AP3 weapons.

I think Crom has a pretty valid point and effective argument. And I agree that layering the saves won't fix what's broken. Instead it will only through it more out of whack. As other people have stated in other threads, the issue at hand is the limitations inherent in a d6 based game and a hard 10 point scale. Neither of those things will change however, as to do so will take away what GW provides to the wargaming community: speed of play and simplicity. I've read that 6th ED will both make things more streamlined and more complex at the same time depending on what aspect you're discussing. This won't fix things. But if the overall result remains a game that young people can pick up and enjoy, then GW has done it's job. And burrowed their way straight into your wallet.

Pick up a rule book for period wargaming and take a look at things in the 15mm and 6mm range. A lot more complexity and a lot less suited to the "gateway" market that GW has cornered.

Warhammer is the marijuana of wargaming. Everything else has a...harder edge.

EDIT - I'd just like to say that I miss old Battletech! DFA!!!

ForgottenRealm wrote:I think Crom has a pretty valid point and effective argument. And I agree that layering the saves won't fix what's broken. Instead it will only through it more out of whack. As other people have stated in other threads, the issue at hand is the limitations inherent in a d6 based game and a hard 10 point scale. Neither of those things will change however, as to do so will take away what GW provides to the wargaming community: speed of play and simplicity. I've read that 6th ED will both make things more streamlined and more complex at the same time depending on what aspect you're discussing. This won't fix things. But if the overall result remains a game that young people can pick up and enjoy, then GW has done it's job. And burrowed their way straight into your wallet.

Pick up a rule book for period wargaming and take a look at things in the 15mm and 6mm range. A lot more complexity and a lot less suited to the "gateway" market that GW has cornered.

Warhammer is the marijuana of wargaming. Everything else has a...harder edge.

EDIT - I'd just like to say that I miss old Battletech! DFA!!!

As someone who plays Orks....yeah my boyz now have a 4+ fixed cover save for being behind cover. It can be devastating since they have no armor really otherwise, and since most guns are at least AP 6 they insta-die most of the time anyway. Many times I will drive my trukks to the edge of a wooded area that is on the way to assault the enemy, drop the boyz off, let them run through the woods and they now have a cover save. This really irks shooting armies who are trying to mitigate my numbers before I can bring forth the WAAAAGH! Cover saves are ridiculously over powered. However, GW wants to keep it simple, which is opposite of their fantasy counterpart, it is very much more layered and complicated.


As for action point systems, have any of you ever played one? Back in the day Warzone was one of the best table top games out there. It had decent models, really awesome rules, and decent enough story to go along with. Each player took turns activating a squad, character, or vehicle and when you activated them you used all their action points to perform actions. Moving, shooting, close combat, psychic abilities, and so forth. Once you had activated one thing your opponent responded, and you rolled for initiative every turn. This way playing multiple player games wasn't so bad. I remember playing 8 army free for alls on large tables. Each person got to active one thing at a time, like chess, and once everything was activated turn 2 started and everyone rolled for initiative again. Game play like this is not possible in 40K, and it allows for much larger dynamics.

Unfortunately the developers or warzone made some really bad decisions, and I think GW also sued them and they ended up calling it quits. I am all for simplicity and efficiency, but I am also all for dynamic and fun gameplay and the ability to do things outside the box and constraints of a simple phase-based framework. I like 40K don't get me wrong, but it isn't the best gaming system I have ever played, in fact it may not even be top 5.

Crom wrote:I can tell you as a: Space Wolf, Tyranid, IG, Ork, & Eldar player, going first most definitely has it's advantages. I can name off countless games where my horde armies suffered greatly from being pelted with gun fire on the first turn before I could do anything. Also, if you are deep striking, you get to drop all your good stuff first, which yes, is an advantage and there is zero reaction at all from your opponent until your turn is over and it is theirs. Sure, dice rolls come into play, but in an AP system, going first means you only get first activation, and it means your opponent can directly react upon each move you make. In a phase base you cannot play 3 player games efficiently, and you can alternate back and forth before the turn is over. It is an all or nothing system. Which mean the dynamics of the game are limited to that. I have played almost every game out there, with some exceptions and changing things up and trying something different may open your views. I know people will hate it because it is different, but how many people have actually played with the AP framework?

I have played in an AP system and it also has it's fair share of flaws. Depending on how it is structured, some players get more turns than others due to unit composition, price, etc. In my last experience playing an AP game, I had 5 units or so and my opponent's faction was cheaper and thus had 11. Once my last turn was over, he got to take 5 or so turns back to back and just mopped the floor with me due to not worrying about what I would do on my next turn since I had to wait 5 or so activations.

On the whole, I think each game system has areas where it does really well and areas of opportunity. The key is just finding a game that has more positives or the positives outweigh the negatives. To be honest, I hope GW does not overhaul 40K The way the game plays is unique from every other mini game I have played. Once they start stealing best practices from other games, they stop being a unique, albeit flawed, system.

Just my $0.02

Havok210 wrote:

Crom wrote:I can tell you as a: Space Wolf, Tyranid, IG, Ork, & Eldar player, going first most definitely has it's advantages. I can name off countless games where my horde armies suffered greatly from being pelted with gun fire on the first turn before I could do anything. Also, if you are deep striking, you get to drop all your good stuff first, which yes, is an advantage and there is zero reaction at all from your opponent until your turn is over and it is theirs. Sure, dice rolls come into play, but in an AP system, going first means you only get first activation, and it means your opponent can directly react upon each move you make. In a phase base you cannot play 3 player games efficiently, and you can alternate back and forth before the turn is over. It is an all or nothing system. Which mean the dynamics of the game are limited to that. I have played almost every game out there, with some exceptions and changing things up and trying something different may open your views. I know people will hate it because it is different, but how many people have actually played with the AP framework?

I have played in an AP system and it also has it's fair share of flaws. Depending on how it is structured, some players get more turns than others due to unit composition, price, etc. In my last experience playing an AP game, I had 5 units or so and my opponent's faction was cheaper and thus had 11. Once my last turn was over, he got to take 5 or so turns back to back and just mopped the floor with me due to not worrying about what I would do on my next turn since I had to wait 5 or so activations.

On the whole, I think each game system has areas where it does really well and areas of opportunity. The key is just finding a game that has more positives or the positives outweigh the negatives. To be honest, I hope GW does not overhaul 40K The way the game plays is unique from every other mini game I have played. Once they start stealing best practices from other games, they stop being a unique, albeit flawed, system.

Just my $0.02

That is not a game imbalance with the AP system, but rather the army lists, which 40K has a ton of army list issues. So does fantasy. One army scales perfect at 1500 points while others don't. There is no solid framework really with GW, it is most likely created using trial and error and process of elimination. No matter what GW has had balance issues since Rogue Trader. Some armies are hardly worth their points. Fantasy is by far worse, I mean look at the dark elves. They are ridiculously riddled with cheesiness compared to other armies. That is why they win tournaments. Skaven are over powered as well.

The same imbalance happens in 40K as well. Horde armies can have tons of more attacks, assaults, and so forth. One of my Ork armies rolls well over 100 shooting dice a turn and if they can all assault, I am not sure what the dice number is, but I am sure it is near 300 or more attacks if they can all assault. So, really that point is moot since that is how it works out. The more elite armies will have better armor and equipment and will be tougher to kill but will be outnumbered by the weaker lesser armies.

If you are referring to infinity I haven't played that yet. I am basing most of my experience off of warzone and L5R, and some old star fleet war games that used action points. So yeah, your results may vary, but typically any flaw with the game isn't always due to the core rule set, a lot of time developers cannot balance army composition. Which is sadly , what happened to warzone. They put out a very strong first edition game set, loved the rules and the game play, but then they decided to branch out in 2nd edition and give each army their own book, and in came the huge amount of army balance issues like you speak of.

So, you make a good point, but the AP system isn't flawed if you can create an army list framework as well. Which I have a work in progress system written up, I just need more testing.

40k has simple resolution,(roll a dice ) and simple game play.

But the rules are overcomplicated .(Too many pages of rules.)
Simply because they use inapropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.

Cover simply makes seeing and hitting the target harder to do.
Most games simply add 1 to the to hit roll score required.
They dont need to add another 'save roll'.

Similarly using comparative values , most games cover the wide range of armour and weapon interaction in a simple and PROPORIONAL way.Giving ONE resolution method that covers everything.(Eg damage - armour value = save roll required.)

Fixing a save on a D6 gives you limited values.So you need to add more to this limited range .(Inv and Fnp.)

So if the rules were written properly you would only have ONE proportional save, and a modifier to hit.

But it too hard for the kiddies to add numbers up, unless its disguised as a special rule....

So subtracting one value from another seems like calculus to them...

Just like that one example of that game tournament held in the 80's? I think it was, this guy programmed a computer to create the most competitive and efficient army list possible, and what it came away with was thousands of tiny space fighters all mostly armed with the most power weapon they could fit.

The other players' forces all had gargantuan battleships and cruisers that just couldn't deal with the weight of numbers and cheap high strength weaponry.

Moral, guard, orks, high strength guns on puny or cheap models is usually a better choice than an elite style army.

Crom wrote:That is not a game imbalance with the AP system, but rather the army lists, which 40K has a ton of army list issues. So does fantasy. One army scales perfect at 1500 points while others don't. There is no solid framework really with GW, it is most likely created using trial and error and process of elimination. No matter what GW has had balance issues since Rogue Trader. Some armies are hardly worth their points. Fantasy is by far worse, I mean look at the dark elves. They are ridiculously riddled with cheesiness compared to other armies. That is why they win tournaments. Skaven are over powered as well.

The same imbalance happens in 40K as well. Horde armies can have tons of more attacks, assaults, and so forth. One of my Ork armies rolls well over 100 shooting dice a turn and if they can all assault, I am not sure what the dice number is, but I am sure it is near 300 or more attacks if they can all assault. So, really that point is moot since that is how it works out. The more elite armies will have better armor and equipment and will be tougher to kill but will be outnumbered by the weaker lesser armies.

If you are referring to infinity I haven't played that yet. I am basing most of my experience off of warzone and L5R, and some old star fleet war games that used action points. So yeah, your results may vary, but typically any flaw with the game isn't always due to the core rule set, a lot of time developers cannot balance army composition. Which is sadly , what happened to warzone. They put out a very strong first edition game set, loved the rules and the game play, but then they decided to branch out in 2nd edition and give each army their own book, and in came the huge amount of army balance issues like you speak of.

So, you make a good point, but the AP system isn't flawed if you can create an army list framework as well. Which I have a work in progress system written up, I just need more testing.

True. Part of the issue was army lists and unit costs. The other part was that the game allowed you to take certain actions (aside from move, shoot, etc) with action points and it heavily favored certain factions due to their inherent abilities, independent characters, equipment taken, etc. Everything started to become massively unbalanced after a certain point.

Regarding Infinity, it has been the best game I have seen that uses a form of AP system. Rules for using APs (or orders based on their rules system) are uniform and dont appear to give any one faction a massive advantage or disadvantage. It gets a from me!

I think that to hit should be rolled on a d10 and then in cover there should be a modifier on the to hit and if it lands in between the unit fireings normal need to roll in order to hit then it reduces the strength of the shot assumeing it went through the cover, and then if it hits with the normal roll needed to hit it is assumed you hit the unit and he is hit by the full strength of the shot.

Havok210 wrote:

Crom wrote:That is not a game imbalance with the AP system, but rather the army lists, which 40K has a ton of army list issues. So does fantasy. One army scales perfect at 1500 points while others don't. There is no solid framework really with GW, it is most likely created using trial and error and process of elimination. No matter what GW has had balance issues since Rogue Trader. Some armies are hardly worth their points. Fantasy is by far worse, I mean look at the dark elves. They are ridiculously riddled with cheesiness compared to other armies. That is why they win tournaments. Skaven are over powered as well.

The same imbalance happens in 40K as well. Horde armies can have tons of more attacks, assaults, and so forth. One of my Ork armies rolls well over 100 shooting dice a turn and if they can all assault, I am not sure what the dice number is, but I am sure it is near 300 or more attacks if they can all assault. So, really that point is moot since that is how it works out. The more elite armies will have better armor and equipment and will be tougher to kill but will be outnumbered by the weaker lesser armies.

If you are referring to infinity I haven't played that yet. I am basing most of my experience off of warzone and L5R, and some old star fleet war games that used action points. So yeah, your results may vary, but typically any flaw with the game isn't always due to the core rule set, a lot of time developers cannot balance army composition. Which is sadly , what happened to warzone. They put out a very strong first edition game set, loved the rules and the game play, but then they decided to branch out in 2nd edition and give each army their own book, and in came the huge amount of army balance issues like you speak of.

So, you make a good point, but the AP system isn't flawed if you can create an army list framework as well. Which I have a work in progress system written up, I just need more testing.

True. Part of the issue was army lists and unit costs. The other part was that the game allowed you to take certain actions (aside from move, shoot, etc) with action points and it heavily favored certain factions due to their inherent abilities, independent characters, equipment taken, etc. Everything started to become massively unbalanced after a certain point.

Regarding Infinity, it has been the best game I have seen that uses a form of AP system. Rules for using APs (or orders based on their rules system) are uniform and dont appear to give any one faction a massive advantage or disadvantage. It gets a from me!

Man if you get a chance check out Warzone first edition. It is a D20 system and it has been one of my favorite AP based systems. It was by far the most balanced as well, as everything was pretty generic with some small specialization in different corporations. It also fell pray to the developers screwing it up. When the later editions came out they tried to branch out and create army books for each army and there was balance issues, and then 3rd ed 40K came out and pretty much nailed their coffin shut. I still have all my first edition books from that system.

It also did damage versus armor for saves, and cover just added bonuses to armor. You activate squads they all had access to the same actions pretty much. Some of them may have had special equipment or skills that add to the actions but it wasn't drastically different, it just made them better at certain aspects of the game.

I have been meaning to give infinity a try.