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.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well they constantly point out that they are a miniatures company that you can play a game with rather than a gaming company that makes miniatures. And it shows in their ability to write rules for their games.
Which is why having other companies that write rules that can use GW's models is a ncessity
Exactly. GW doesn't provide base restrictions in their rules to avoid being forced to restrict their model designers to specific base sizes. The modelers put them on whatever they think works best and the rules don't care what that is.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
That's a PITA, so you rarely bother. Which then bites you in the arse during the game when both players assumed slightly differently and now that difference is a big deal (eg you have LoS to slaughter me or you don't).
... or you limit size (or type) keywords to models and define how a short list of terrain types affects them.
So you can have light cover that affects infantry but not tanks or monsters, heavy cover that affects both, ruins that adds impassable to certain unit types (though no magical-move-through walls for anything), maybe a few others. You don't need a lot of terrain rules (or hyper-detailed ones), just something to increase survivability/mitigate shooting and affect speed sometimes.
Part of the trouble with the current terrain rules is they're specifically for certain GW kits rather than terrain categories, and get too specific (or just plain weird where defensive terrains hurts you but is ignored by chargers), or are completely meaningless with things like hills (which currently isn't terrain for some insane reason)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/26 15:33:59
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well they constantly point out that they are a miniatures company that you can play a game with rather than a gaming company that makes miniatures. And it shows in their ability to write rules for their games.
Which is why having other companies that write rules that can use GW's models is a ncessity
with people rather buying 3rd party miniatures to play 40k, than going to use 40k minis to play something else, it looks like cheaper minis are more important than other rules
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Company: I'd fire almost everyone. I'd hire more artistic talent and real rules writers/editors.
Models would become the focus. Rules are insignificant. The models make money.
The Game: Reduce all squad sizes. This in turn increases the value of kits to the gaming customer. Terminators are now 3 models, meaning you now get two "extra" models per kit. All ten man units instantly double their value.
Matched play is complicated chess. A troop is a troop, a monster is a monster, a tank is a tank. Let people buy models they like, not the models with the superior rules. Let a random kid use his new models instead of telling him they're equiped wrong and are from a different faction.
Ranged Weapon is 12 inches cause a single wound.
Special weapon is 24 and allows no save.
Heavy weapon is 36 deals 3 wounds and allows no save.
A squad of 5 marines is 4 ranged and one special or heavy.
Same applies to every single infantry model in the game. Let people paint what they want how they want.
Leave all the special rules and unique faction stuff for the Narrative Play.
I've never played Ad Mech. I've never seen a full army. I've never touched the codex. I have no interest in Ad Mech... But if I want to play 40k these days I'm gonna need a general knowledge of them or have an hour discussion about them before even agreeing to play, or have a few dozen things explained every turn.
The fact that there are more than one Bolt Gun profile is enough to keep me out of the game. I don't care enough to learn all that nonsense. I'll just paint a random squad every few years instead.
The Models: Dioramas. Non-game related models. Imperial citizens. A 40k car. A train. A boat ... You know ... Standard model kits for model hobbyists.
Xenos factions never before made in model form. No rules needed, just fun to build and paint... But they're on infantry bases so they can be a troop squad.
Just the tip of the iceberg but a decent summery of my ideal changes.
'Rules are insignificant' and 'fire everyone and hire 'real' rules writers' are incompatible statements and make no sense.
Same for 'models make money' and 'make squads smaller.'
The specific rule suggestions would, basically, hack people off and drive them completely away from the game. I can't see many, if any, seriously entertain those ideas, regardless of if they're inside GW or players
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/26 18:02:43
Uptonius wrote: Models would become the focus. Rules are insignificant. The models make money.
That's essentially how GW operates now. The model makers make a model, the fluff writers work out where it fits into the story, then the rules writers have to fit it into the game.
Rules come last at GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/27 00:32:03
The Predator/Prey system is proof that GW looks around what other games are doing, copy&paste it without understanding why those games are using it and change it a little bit so it is not a 1:1 copy
Same with the movement tools in KT, or yearly balance updates, or tournament seasons
GW Design Team not understanding why something is used and thinking you just can take something put it on top and it will work like the original, with the proof that people like it because more and more people play 40k
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Uptonius wrote: Models would become the focus. Rules are insignificant. The models make money.
That's essentially how GW operates now. The model makers make a model, the fluff writers work out where it fits into the story, then the rules writers have to fit it into the game.
Rules come last at GW.
Yes and it is for the love of the model that GK player bought 5 NDK, and now have one to spare. And all stormcasts scrambled to buy the dragon ridder boys. Sales are litterally driven by rules last. Specially if one looks at the GW site and the strange corelation between models being good or very good, and being out.
But rather than rules I think whats most important is the massive 40k community.
I think most people will play whatever as long as everyone else is too.
I think people would be okey with being big stuff, even at a higher price, if all they needed was one of it. One NDK, one Land Raider etc The moment and army requires 3 KoS or 4-5 NDKs the price of entry becomes painful. And the cost of infantry is just crazy, 6-7 boxs needed but the mark up on them has to be super high. But I guess it makes sense for GW. Bigger armies, means bigger investment, harder to quit, longer stay in game, more time spend painting. If w40k regular games were 20-30 infantry models and 1-3 big things for the avarge army, people would be dropping much faster and the secondary market would be too efficient to enter the game, comparing to buying from GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/27 08:32:59
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Core rules:
- Remove the matched play restriction for Aircraft models instead limit Flyer slots in detachments.
- Dedicated Transports gain obsec if they’re carrying Troop units inside.
- Blast. Make it work on every D3 and D6 for units between 6 - 10. Reduce D3 blast to 2 shots against 6 - 10 model units.
Detachments:
- Reduce the amount of Flyer slots in Patrol, Outrider, Vanguard, Battalion, and Spearhead detachments to 1.
- Brigade detachments gain 0-1 Fortification slots and 0-1 Lord of War slots.
- Auxiliary Support, Super-heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Detachments gain Detachment abilities if they’re the same faction as the Warlord.
Points:
- Stop making vehicles pay more for heavy weapons than infantry. If a heavy bolter is 10 points on an infantry model it should be 10 points on a vehicle. The fact it can shoot into close combat shouldn’t be charged on every individual weapon, it should be factored into the vehicles initial cost.
- We need another major point rebalance at the start of the next edition. If a Gretchin is supposed to represent the 5 point floor and an Intercssor is supposed to represent a 20 point model then we need a massive rebalance of point costs around them. Sure, this will probably reduce the overall army size but boards did get smaller and it’ll help new players build an army faster.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/27 11:13:24
kirotheavenger wrote: In Horus Heresy only Troops can score, at all. Other units can deny the enemy scoring, but they cannot score that objective.
Some units - namely Terminators and Veterans, have a special rule allowing them to score anyway.
That really encourages people to take a core of scoring units, otherwise it's easy to go all-in on Dreadnoughts and fancy bodyguards and such.
I still think it's important that even troops represent a useful battlefield component though - they need to be more than objective scorers there to die.
Such a rule was present in 40K too back in the day. It encouraged fielding well- rounded armies and not atrocities like jetbike spam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: For me, as usual, Auticus HBMC, Insectum and Mezmorki say what need said. Regularguy, I agree about that post too…
As for vehicles, yeah, I remember coming back into third and getting rhino rushed by a game tester cited in the front of the rulebook actually, frogging dooosh imho for playing that way, after years earlier being super into second and I remember using turn templates to move vehicles at some point, losing forward movement for every 45degrees or something like that. Far superior game play compared with third imho…
Apart from bikes and tanks Dreadnoughts were also restricted in their movement as they were only allowed to pivot once up to 90° in their turn. But honestly GW thinks that you can´t expect today´s gamers to adhere to such mechanics anymore. See also the problem with bikers being treated as cavalry in close combat.
It also is considered "a barrier to entry" because it makes the game more fiddly and harder for some players, who enjoy just being able to basically shoot whatever they want.
Barrier to entry? I would call it having standards. People who can´t or are unwilling to learn proper rules shouldn´t be in the tabletop hobby in the first place. GW just wants to have potential access to the wallets of a wider demographic by dumbing down the rules. So greed is the driving factor here.
I experienced this myself back in the day when I taught people Blood Bowl. Some of them couldn´t grasp the tackle zone rules EVEN after I had explained it to them for the tenth time with examples.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/27 11:41:20
Voss wrote: 'Rules are insignificant' and 'fire everyone and hire 'real' rules writers' are incompatible statements and make no sense.
Same for 'models make money' and 'make squads smaller.'
The specific rule suggestions would, basically, hack people off and drive them completely away from the game. I can't see many, if any, seriously entertain those ideas, regardless of if they're inside GW or players
You missed a lot of my points. But to be fair I didn't go into much detail. It wouldn't be worth the time anyway. I mean, the topic was what would you like to see for 10th edition and it became pages of grenade discussion.
That's probably the reason I come to this site so rarely now. I was away so long I forgot my password and made this new account specifically to respond to this thread. My first draft was lost.
Btw, I have noticed the dumbing down of society generally from the front of lecture halls on three continents, with the USA a tragic dumpster fire, South Korea brilliant but selling itself out for greed US style, and Europe, well, the people I met here so far, being in the Netherlands for three years, better in the way of game play but way so proud to be normal and going with the flow… critical thinking in every environment was rare even and perhaps especially at the highest levels, as, not surprisingly, going along to get along gets people along, but taking for one’s self at the expense of others gets people ahead, and hardly ever is thinking three moves ahead about what is fair and best for all rewarded with anything but headaches. Yeah, call me jaded, but I do appreciate your observation re trying to teach Blood Bowl. Absolutely…
kirotheavenger wrote: In Horus Heresy only Troops can score, at all. Other units can deny the enemy scoring, but they cannot score that objective.
Some units - namely Terminators and Veterans, have a special rule allowing them to score anyway.
That really encourages people to take a core of scoring units, otherwise it's easy to go all-in on Dreadnoughts and fancy bodyguards and such.
I still think it's important that even troops represent a useful battlefield component though - they need to be more than objective scorers there to die.
Such a rule was present in 40K too back in the day. It encouraged fielding well- rounded armies and not atrocities like jetbike spam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: For me, as usual, Auticus HBMC, Insectum and Mezmorki say what need said. Regularguy, I agree about that post too…
As for vehicles, yeah, I remember coming back into third and getting rhino rushed by a game tester cited in the front of the rulebook actually, frogging dooosh imho for playing that way, after years earlier being super into second and I remember using turn templates to move vehicles at some point, losing forward movement for every 45degrees or something like that. Far superior game play compared with third imho…
Apart from bikes and tanks Dreadnoughts were also restricted in their movement as they were only allowed to pivot once up to 90° in their turn. But honestly GW thinks that you can´t expect today´s gamers to adhere to such mechanics anymore. See also the problem with bikers being treated as cavalry in close combat.
It also is considered "a barrier to entry" because it makes the game more fiddly and harder for some players, who enjoy just being able to basically shoot whatever they want.
Barrier to entry? I would call it having standards. People who can´t or are unwilling to learn proper rules shouldn´t be in the tabletop hobby in the first place. GW just wants to have potential access to the wallets of a wider demographic by dumbing down the rules. So greed is the driving factor here.
I experienced this myself back in the day when I taught people Blood Bowl. Some of them couldn´t grasp the tackle zone rules EVEN after I had explained it to them for the tenth time with examples.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/27 21:14:11
Jarms48 wrote: - Stop making vehicles pay more for heavy weapons than infantry. If a heavy bolter is 10 points on an infantry model it should be 10 points on a vehicle. The fact it can shoot into close combat shouldn’t be charged on every individual weapon, it should be factored into the vehicles initial cost.
I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
You know the moving and shooting with Heavy Weapons is another example of unit differentiation being squashed along various axis, come to think of it.
Back in the day an infantry unit couldn't assault after firing a heavy weapon, and before that they couldn't move and fire a heavy weapon at all, either. Ork "Heavy Weapons" were all Assault, meaning they could move, fire, and charge, making them very different to, say, Marines or Guard.
Nowadays that's all gone and Ork Big Shootas aren't even Assault anymore.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
You know the moving and shooting with Heavy Weapons is another example of unit differentiation being squashed along various axis, come to think of it.
Back in the day an infantry unit couldn't assault after firing a heavy weapon, and before that they couldn't move and fire a heavy weapon at all, either. Ork "Heavy Weapons" were all Assault, meaning they could move, fire, and charge, making them very different to, say, Marines or Guard.
Nowadays that's all gone and Ork Big Shootas aren't even Assault anymore.
^^^^^^ Yes
When old-timers talk about increased lethality in the game, in my mind that isn't just because of increased damage output and numbers of shots. It's also stuff like the above that lets you still crank out lots of fire even while staying mobile, able to assault, etc. Older editions used to require you make tougher choices about what you actually did with your units. Now, you can just "do it all" and that plays a big part of increased lethality in my mind.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
You know the moving and shooting with Heavy Weapons is another example of unit differentiation being squashed along various axis, come to think of it.
Back in the day an infantry unit couldn't assault after firing a heavy weapon, and before that they couldn't move and fire a heavy weapon at all, either. Ork "Heavy Weapons" were all Assault, meaning they could move, fire, and charge, making them very different to, say, Marines or Guard.
Nowadays that's all gone and Ork Big Shootas aren't even Assault anymore.
^^^^^^ Yes
When old-timers talk about increased lethality in the game, in my mind that isn't just because of increased damage output and numbers of shots. It's also stuff like the above that lets you still crank out lots of fire even while staying mobile, able to assault, etc. Older editions used to require you make tougher choices about what you actually did with your units. Now, you can just "do it all" and that plays a big part of increased lethality in my mind.
I'd personally be fine with a regression of weapon ranges. In my ideal world with a consolidated Marine trooper, Assault Bolters would be 18", Rapid Fire 24", and Stalker 30"
