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.

If I had a magic wand and could change anything I wanted regarding W40K...

I'd change this tornado of negativity called Dakka Dakka... this whine-fest of a community.

Breton wrote:
Everything has room for improvement, and 40K is no different.

Right now the biggest drawback in 40K is the lackluster appeal of most basic troops for most armies compared to the ones with bells and whistles-

Do you want 10 space marines with bolters, or do you want 10 space marines with bolters AND special ammunition?

To some extent that's the point where anything breaks down. Unless they give a tactical marine new equipment, any change to them should carry over to the fluffy more experienced tactical marine- i.e. they'd have to create Mark IX Power Armor with a riot-shield type bullet blocker too bulky for spec-ops units like sternguard that lets tac marines reroll their armor save.

Then make a bolter (and corresponding other basic weapons like lasguns) improved i.e. bolter is salvo 4/6, unless you use special ammunition in which case it's fewer but better shots (because it's not the basic weapon anymore)

The choice between a Tactical squad and a Sternguard squad (or any other but for example-) should be a choice not a tax, and it should be a HARD choice that requires more thought than how many points per model do I have to spend?

Gah, the LAST thing that Space marines need is buffing. Seriously, they are one of the most powerful codexes right now. Whilst I agree that the call for some basic troops is not as high as that for the specialists they are still used. Unless your playing Unbound though. If your playing Unbound then tough titties as they say, its your own fault.

 oni wrote:
If I had a magic wand and could change anything I wanted regarding W40K...

I'd change this tornado of negativity called Dakka Dakka... this whine-fest of a community.

You're more than welcome to leave.

Because its not like you're a fountain of positivity coming in here and whining about the whining.

I mean, god forbid someone ever criticize or say anything negative ever about anything.

 oni wrote:
If I had a magic wand and could change anything I wanted regarding W40K...

I'd change this tornado of negativity called Dakka Dakka... this whine-fest of a community.

Maybe go to Warseer or one of the other forums that like to fap to images of GW's logo and Space Marines. They are just brimming with the 'Everything GW does is amazing and good, GW is magic sparkley and makes ot pee-pee's feel good'

Here at Dakka we prefer the cold, hard, truth and facts. If you cannot handle it feel free to leave.

I would prefer to address the problem of seeing 'Troops ' as a tax you have to pay to get the model you want.

By simply scrapping the current F.O.C based on function.
Which makes players think of taking three of the best Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy support options .

And use a F,o,C based on unit rarity instead...

Each faction can have 6 to 12 themed lists.

Each themed list denotes which units are HQ option, Common options, Specialized , and Restricted options for that particular list.

The new F.O.C. could looks like this.

Select 1 HQ.

Select 4 to 8 Common units.

Select 1 Specialized unit , for every 2 Common units taken.

Select 1 Restricted unit , for every 2 Specialist units taken.

So there are no 'troops chioces you have to take , just on theme units for your list...
(I may need to explain that better?)

 oni wrote:
If I had a magic wand and could change anything I wanted regarding W40K...
I'd change this tornado of negativity called Dakka Dakka... this whine-fest of a community.

Invalid "garbage".
Suggestions are actually being given on improvement.
Pickup games are pretty much not possible without any game being unbalanced purely by army list selection.

An equal "observation" is the tornado of condescension those like to heap on us who are silly enough to express that they care about their hobby.
You are not being superior, just a need to try to feel better at another's expense, a rather parasitic behavior threads like this can do without.
Sorry, I think I just fed the troll, my bad.

I am to assume it is all "perfect" or did you have something to add to the topic at hand?
As pointed out, there may be better venues to demonstrate you disdain where it is "appreciated".

Some streamlining may be in order or GW may decide on an AoS style reboot.
Interesting times.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd rather do away with the distinction between MCs and vehicles as they are now and have a unified system of toughness and saves. Then, you assign either the 'Vehicle' type, or 'MC' type to the unit which would then tell you what weapons are more effective against them (example being a vehicle type would be prone to haywire, but not MCs, likewise poison would be the opposite).

Boom. Simpler for all, easier to balance, and if done correctly, would allow the blending of the 'mechanical' MCs better with the crunch vs. fluff thing they have going on now.

Yeah, I totally agree with this!!

Gah, the LAST thing that Space marines need is buffing.

What part of using Space Marines as an example, while describing a philosophical adjustment to the troop type as a whole vs "specials" did you not understand? The part where I also mentioned those lasguns?

Units should be judged by a few different characteristics- durabiltiy, LowT (i.e. kills low toughness)shooting output, HighT(high toughness and vehicles) shooting output, CC output, and probably a few others like mobility. The basic troop type should be at least tied for second best in most of those categories (Whatever they actually are) They should be the jack of all trades not-quite-master of none by actual value, not by FOC role.

Balance.

As a plumber in occupation I realize that there becomes a point where something can no longer be fixed. The line has too aamany patches, dead ends, resoldered joints, etc. The only thing left to do is cut out everything and start over. There is just no more good original pipe left.

And that is what 40k has become. It started in third and has since had four revisions. But those revisions were not just fixing the bad spots. They changed the flow, they added new branchs, to compensate rather than actually fix the prooblem in the first place.

So I agree with those that believe 40k as it is should be nuked and started over from scratch. Sometimes its the only way to get water flowing again.

I would remove glancing hits.

Perhaps we should list the things that need fixing , starting with the core rules?

1)The game turn mechanic.
Alternating game turns , is fine for games where units have to maneuver into weapons range.
But as units start more or less in effective weapons range in 40k, terrain permitting.(Alpha Strike)

A more interactive game turn would improve tactical game play.

2 )The stat line.
IMO 40k game play should be an equal blend of fire power, mobility and assault.
So having no stat for mobility, ONE stat for shooing and FOUR for assault is where the imbalance starts IMO.
Having 4 stats for assault and one for shooting is fine for WHFB where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
But in 40k where nearly evety unit has ranged capability it skews focus and game balance.

A revised stat line that reflects the in game ability directly, would be a better way forward.

3)The resolution methods.
40k uses far to many ,(8) and still has to rely on special rules to cover all the game play.This is simply down to legacy issues combined with expanding the scope of the game.

I would propose using stat values directly , and single chart for opposed vales for all 3 stages of combat resolution.(To hit, to save , to damage.)
And keeping special rules to JUST cover actual special abilities.

IMO a re-write could reduce the amount of rules to about 40 pages.
Yet deliver far more tactically complex game play, if that is the direction the rules should be headed in.

Shows how used to the mechanics I am.

Alternating unit activation (I pick a unit, then you do) would help with the "I got first turn, I win", issue.

D10's would also smooth out a lot of "power creep" in bonuses and stats (plus easier odds figuring).

AP was the most controversial thing when it was introduced, should be a modifier not ignore the save, like in Necromunda.

It is a system that has been patched for years, I appreciate the detail to it, it just needs to be integrated that bit better.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Breton wrote:
Everything has room for improvement, and 40K is no different.

Right now the biggest drawback in 40K is the lackluster appeal of most basic troops for most armies compared to the ones with bells and whistles-

Do you want 10 space marines with bolters, or do you want 10 space marines with bolters AND special ammunition?

To some extent that's the point where anything breaks down. Unless they give a tactical marine new equipment, any change to them should carry over to the fluffy more experienced tactical marine- i.e. they'd have to create Mark IX Power Armor with a riot-shield type bullet blocker too bulky for spec-ops units like sternguard that lets tac marines reroll their armor save.

Then make a bolter (and corresponding other basic weapons like lasguns) improved i.e. bolter is salvo 4/6, unless you use special ammunition in which case it's fewer but better shots (because it's not the basic weapon anymore)

The choice between a Tactical squad and a Sternguard squad (or any other but for example-) should be a choice not a tax, and it should be a HARD choice that requires more thought than how many points per model do I have to spend?

Gah, the LAST thing that Space marines need is buffing. Seriously, they are one of the most powerful codexes right now. Whilst I agree that the call for some basic troops is not as high as that for the specialists they are still used. Unless your playing Unbound though. If your playing Unbound then tough titties as they say, its your own fault.

Those tactical marines, man, I'll tell you: they are killers! Seriously, C:SM is a book with a few magic bullet units and a bunch of sub par crap.

Imho go back to 5th edition style rules with 4th edition level of power creep. Then start balancing the factions internally and against each other so all have roughly equal chance to win and each faction can have multiple viable builds.

No allies. Ever. No unbound. Lords of war restricted to apoc.

Make imperial knights simply part of adept mechanicus codex, not their own army.

Put assassins, sob, inquisitors, death watch and grey knights into one codex called the inquisition.

Put bloody storm troopers back in guard codex

Get rid of sm sub codexes and make them into doctrines for each chapter from vanilla marines

Play test. Play test, play test. PLAY TEEEEEST!

What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???

 Blacksails wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Nuke it from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

With Peregrine gone, someone needs to take up the mantle in these threads.

What happened to Peregrine?

 Verviedi wrote:

What happened to Peregrine?

Goodnight sweet prince

Get rid of as much randomness as you can.
Expand on the flavors of the armies while adding in balance so no one army is vastly superior to the others or one becomes a joke.
Completely re-do the pychic phase so it flows with the rest of the game better and isn't a huge game changer. (because some armies dont have pychics.
Fix the entire method of doing allies. "My Eldar, Necron, IK alliance will stomp you!" stuff has got to go.

 Draco wrote:
I would remove glancing hits.

I wouldn't remove them, but I would make it so they don't strip Hull Points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Fix the entire method of doing allies. "My Eldar, Necron, IK alliance will stomp you!" stuff has got to go.

Stiffer penalties for going outside of your allies matrix, I am all for.
Removing the ability to go outside of your allies matrix, I am not for.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

What happened to Peregrine?

Goodnight sweet prince

Good riddance!

 Blacksails wrote:
Get rid of all the unnecessary random nonsense.

This! Oh, so very much this!

GW needs to hire an individual whose entire job description is;

"Every time you see a list that randomly determines a game-relevant effect, aside from mission determination, you find the games designer(s) responsible for said list and hit him/them on the head. Then randomly determine one other games designer (a list will be made available) and hit that person as an object lesson. A suitable stick (with a nail in it) will be provided."

A big plaque will be hung in the Studio sporting the words; "The stick and random lists goes hand-in-hand, and are applied proportionally!".

Lanrak wrote:
Perhaps we should list the things that need fixing , starting with the core rules?

1)The game turn mechanic.
Alternating game turns , is fine for games where units have to maneuver into weapons range.
But as units start more or less in effective weapons range in 40k, terrain permitting.(Alpha Strike)

A more interactive game turn would improve tactical game play.

2 )The stat line.
IMO 40k game play should be an equal blend of fire power, mobility and assault.
So having no stat for mobility, ONE stat for shooing and FOUR for assault is where the imbalance starts IMO.
Having 4 stats for assault and one for shooting is fine for WHFB where shooting is only used in a supporting role.
But in 40k where nearly evety unit has ranged capability it skews focus and game balance.

A revised stat line that reflects the in game ability directly, would be a better way forward.

3)The resolution methods.
40k uses far to many ,(8) and still has to rely on special rules to cover all the game play.This is simply down to legacy issues combined with expanding the scope of the game.

I would propose using stat values directly , and single chart for opposed vales for all 3 stages of combat resolution.(To hit, to save , to damage.)
And keeping special rules to JUST cover actual special abilities.

IMO a re-write could reduce the amount of rules to about 40 pages.
Yet deliver far more tactically complex game play, if that is the direction the rules should be headed in.

This is probably the soloution I favor, as well as the following post. Cutting down on the number of special rules would be great. Combine Poison and Fleshbane, Melta and Armourbane (nerf Melta ranges to stop any rage.) No more random charts of random, they're annoying slow the game down, and can frustrate both players. D weapons do 2 HP per pen hit, was that to hard GW? Alternating game activation is needed, and will actually incentivize multiples unit strategies. Leave game turns to Warmahordes, where alpha strikes aren't everywhere. Not sure what to do about that Stats issue.

1. Get rid of the 15 minutes randomness that must be determined before the match. Random psychic abilities is just strange.

2. Change the I go You go system into, letting each player first from his Fast attack, then his HQ and Elite, then his Troops and finally his Heavy support.

3. Remove glancing hits.

4. Less rules.

5. Less equipment options, and just more squads as they are, kind of like WarmaHordes has it. Would make the game much much easier to balance.
I.E. Assault terminators vs Regular Terminators.

Would reduce abuse, RPS lists and also the game time, not having to deal with every little equipment pice that someone has etc. Why not just make a separate scout model with sniper rifle and camo cloacks, instead of letting you pick whatever you want, when the outcome on the board is almost never influenced if your sergeant has a boltgun or a shotgun.

It needs a total rewrite from the core. Can't keep adding on to third edition

 Zewrath wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

What happened to Peregrine?

Goodnight sweet prince

Good riddance!

Hear! Hear! Never added anything except negativity anyhow. You reap what you sow I guess.

Loborocket wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

What happened to Peregrine?

Goodnight sweet prince

Good riddance!

Hear! Hear! Never added anything except negativity anyhow. You reap what you sow I guess.

He was no troll and appeared to care enough.
He usually offered his two cents rather than shoot everything down.
I would label him as being more critical of BS than most, rather than Mr negativity.

For starters I'd make tom kirby dole out all his shares via randumb chart rolls to all 40k players across the planet. He wouldn't need to confirm their qualifications as playas as long as he felt they were 'good people'.

Then when I got around to thinking more realistically I would put cruddace in a closet with every single fuking nid model I owned and lock the door.

Then since authors have now been removed I'd just guess at whoever secretly wrote the last 3 codices and put them plus whoever came up with the brilliant idea for age of suckmore and I'd put them to work writing age of calgar (shamelessly stolen and brilliant btw).

And finally once all this failed I'd probably just get my friends together and agree to change a few things and throw some dice.. L8

I would improve it by making it more fun, go back to something more like RT.

So my suggestion would be to make it similar to AoS, without the crappy fluff revisions. The 40K fluff is fine.

Mez

 Mezmaron wrote:

I would improve it by making it more fun, go back to something more like RT.

So my suggestion would be to make it similar to AoS, without the crappy fluff revisions. The 40K fluff is fine.

Mez

AoS and RT are about as far apart as games can get, the only similarities they have is they don't really have points values (but for different reasons).