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.

Lanrak wrote:
Stuff about stuff, with modern warfare refernece (CoD 4 was the only good one btw).

its like trying to make a steam powered airoplane , when everyone else is using jet engines.

But a steam-powered plane has so much more class then a dumb jet engine.

One thing that always bothered me is how movement stays effectively the same, regardless of how much fire is pumped into a unit. I'd love to see morale cause units to cease moving forward instead of causing them to run fleeing. Afterall these are soldiers in a universe filled with war. Turning tail and running isn't the only option for a coward.

loota boy wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
Stuff about stuff, with modern warfare refernece (CoD 4 was the only good one btw).

its like trying to make a steam powered airoplane , when everyone else is using jet engines.

But a steam-powered plane has so much more class then a dumb jet engine.

You must be trollin. Please do not be trollin these threads.

The reason modern warfare doesn't work for 40k.is that modern warfare assaults still compose of point blank shooting. The odd time a guy may have a combat blade but mostly shooting. 40k has at least 3 armies that require CC to be effective. Daemons, Nids, Orks. Others like GK, BA, BT, De excel at it.

If we played Modern Warfare 40,000 the the first 3 would be seriously hampered and the others a lot too.

Another reason is that the rules are written to suit marines. Thet want to sell marines and is perfectly fine for them to do.so.

The final, most important reaaon is that, 40k is NOT Modern Warfare. It is futuristic. The same principles don't apply.

Hmmmm.
So are you saying that Epic Armageddon rules dont work?
And that the latest version of 138 pages, that INCLUDES ALL the army lists,and alot more gameplay .Is some how failing to cover battles in the 41st milenium?
When the majority of gamers belive E.A. has far more synergy with the 40k background that 40k rules do!

Why do you think modern warfare (WWI to present day,) can not deliver the game play of 40k?

I agree the current 40k rules are written making the superhuman Space Marines the 'baseline'.Which distorts the internal logic of the game, which has a negative effect on balance.
And that GW plc IS in the buisness of selling toy soldiers, (mainly Space Marines, )to children.

In comparison to other rule sets designed to make ALL armies equaly viable and fun to play . 40k IS counter intuitive ,and over complicated.

ALL table top minature wargames fall into 2 basic types.

Ancient warfare, where close combat is the primary focus, manouve provides the loins share of tactical considerations, and ranged attacks fall into a suporting role.

Modern warfare which has tactical conciderations EQUALY divided between mobility, fire power and assault.

Concidering the TYPES of unit in 40k.
Skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons, supported by artillery , APCs, MBTs.etc EG units found in modern warfare.
(The fact the units APEARANCE is fancyful /inspiring , doesnt alter the units function on combat.)
Having the units interaction controled by ancient warfare game mechanics causes a lot of disjionts.

Having a rule set based on modern warfare unit interaction , (As E.A. is).Means MORE game play , with LESS pages of rules.Why is this such a bad thing?

I dont mean to stop 40k playing like 40k.Just making the rules less complicated / easier to learn.

Perhaps if you have played some modern wargames you may be more able to undertsand the benifits?

But the simple fact is that IS NOT either ancient warfare OR modern warfare. It does not fall into either category so your arguement is not applicable. It is Furturistic Warfare. The marines are standard, with a mix of shooty and assault, but mostly shooty. Anything outside of Vanilla marines is secondary as GW wants to sell marines, namely ultramarines.

Everything in 40k is designed around selling. Not gaming, not paints, not having fun. Money.

Having modern warfare come into play is called 5th edition problems. If modern warfare, guns are the way to go. Therefor, not getting shot is important. Therefore cover is prevalent. Meaning something that ignores cover (like an explosive tank round) is need. Meaning vehicles. Meaning AT. Whch means they aren't carrying as much Anti-infantry. Meaning infantry. Which goes around to the start again.

For the record, I have played Battlefield and some CoD gamnes from World at War to Black Ops.

chrisrawr wrote:

loota boy wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
Stuff about stuff, with modern warfare refernece (CoD 4 was the only good one btw).

its like trying to make a steam powered airoplane , when everyone else is using jet engines.

But a steam-powered plane has so much more class then a dumb jet engine.

You must be trollin. Please do not be trollin these threads.

Excuse me? I'm not trolling, buddy, i'm putting in a harmless comment saying that steam-powered planes are classier than jet planes, which, imho, they are. Please try to restrain yourself from making wild accusitions without any basis. I mean really, i didn't expect the spanish inquisition.

...

Wait for it....

Modern warfare reference was reference to modern warfare, not modern warfare. As in, tactics developed for guns, tanks, missiles, etc. Easy enough to assume people are trolling when they ignore 90% of a post and then misconstrue the rest.

chrisrawr wrote:Modern warfare reference was reference to modern warfare, not modern warfare. As in, tactics developed for guns, tanks, missiles, etc. Easy enough to assume people are trolling when they ignore 90% of a post and then misconstrue the rest.

And perhaps you'll notice that the point of my post was not to talk about any sort of modern warfare, games or otherwise, but to simple make a slight jest about his analogy. Calling me a troll for cracking a joke is out in left field. The little note about CoD was just some off-topic rambling, and clearly not the center of what i was saying. Please don't jump to such extreme conclusions next time someone makes a light-hearted joke.

Your post follows classical trolling tactics. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and has a DNA structure 99.99% identical to a duck...

It is not a duck a it is 0.01% different to a duck.. Seriously, drop it and move on. You too Loota Boy.

Lanrak wrote:
its like trying to make a steam powered airoplane , when everyone else is using jet engines.

This was an incredibly bad simile.

40k contains steam powered aircraft.

Hi again.
I can see how the strong ashtetic of 40k which is very inspiring , can have such a heavy influence.(It even leads the game developers astray somtimes!)

When I said ALL table top minature wargames fall into 2 basic types.I was refering to the basic game play .
When modern warfare is used as the basis of battles in the 40k universe.
As used in Epic Armageddon.(GW specialist game).And Net Epic.(Fan development of Epic Spacemarine.)
The rule set covers far more game play with far less pages of written rules.(Including an elegant and efficient game mechanics for morale.)

When ancient warfare is used as the basis of battles in the 40k univese.(Current 40k rules using WHFB game mechanics.)
The core rules only cover standard infantry.ALL other units need special rules!
So adding any new features to the current rule set for 40k enevitably just adds more levels of complication.


So the current rules set for 40k is fine for inspiring purchases of new releases, and letting collectors push thier minatures around the table, with restricted interaction.
And this is fine for GW plc target demoghraphic.

However, gamers wanting a more 'realistic wargame' eg more tactical than strategic focus. Would be better served with a rule set written specificaly for the game play of 40k.(EG as EA is.)

My point is its would be easier to write a new rule set for 'real 40k' using modern game mechanics and resolution methods.Than to try to shoehorn a new concept into the mutated WHFB rule set it currently uses.And end up with less pages of rules as a result.

If you think that is better, write one yourself and see.how it works.

Deadshot wrote:If you think that is better, write one yourself and see.how it works.

That IS the purpose of the Proposed Rules section, is it not?

Epic Armageddon does have a very elegant morale system. You could do something similar in 40k, where every time a unit comes under fire it automatically takes a "blast marker", and if it takes 25% casualties and fails a morale check, it takes another blast marker.

Effect of Blast Markers:
1 blast marker = -1 BS, difficult terrain movement, +1 Cover Save
2 blast markers = -2 BS, difficult terrain -2", +2 Cover Save
3 blast markers (max number) = no move/no shoot, +3 to Cover Save

Each time a unit is activated they first take a leadership test to see if they clear a single blast marker, then they proceed with their actions. Fearless units would be limited to 2 blast markers max, and fearless and ATSKNF units would automatically clear 1 blast marker at the start of their activation instead of rolling.

This is all predicated on alternating unit activation and a reduction in the standard cover save to 5+.

It avoids a lot of mucking around with weapon types (although you could have Ordnance or Barrage weapons causing 2 instead of 1 blast marker). Mostly the effect would be to limit Reactive or Overwatch fire and limit the lethality of shooting, while making it more effective for covering your own troop movements.

Something along these lines is what I've been kicking around lately, altho I haven't worked out all the details yet.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
This is all predicated on alternating unit activation

40k codecies are not built for such a thing. The entire game, including army lists, would need revision to actually make this applicable.

DarknessEternal wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
This is all predicated on alternating unit activation

40k codecies are not built for such a thing. The entire game, including army lists, would need revision to actually make this applicable.

Yes and no, in a way.

Even if we assume the game is perfectly balanced as-is (which it isn't), then just about any game-wide rules we propose, including all the previous ones in this thread, will likely upset the balance of power between codices. When you're talking about changing the effect of morale, or any kind of suppression system, you're making changes deep in the guts of the game, and the balance is almost guaranteed to be off afterwards.

That said, if you've never tried playing 40k with alternating unit activation before, I recommend it. It doesn't change the outcome of the game nearly as much as you would imagine, and it's refreshing and fun compared to the "whoever gets the first turn alpha strike wins" mentality of the I-Go-U-Go system. The only real problems arise from things like rules worded as happening in certain phases of a player's turn, but there are work-arounds for that.

Anyway like I said earlier it's the proposed rules forum, not the unit point value tweaking forum. I think when people bounce around ideas about changing fundamental mechanics of the game, they know it's not something people will be picking up and using at their LFGS.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
That said, if you've never tried playing 40k with alternating unit activation before, I recommend it. It doesn't change the outcome of the game nearly as much as you would imagine, and it's refreshing and fun compared to the "whoever gets the first turn alpha strike wins" mentality of the I-Go-U-Go system. The only real problems arise from things like rules worded as happening in certain phases of a player's turn, but there are work-arounds for that.

Some armies, like Orks, are designed to take that alpha strike and still be able to win. If they're all of a sudden not taking it, it throws they're whole army out of whack.

This is the sort of thing I mean about it being easier to start again than try to modify the current rules.

You start of with just adding a morale mechanic.
Then you realise it works better with a more interactive game turn.
Then you want to be able to balance units better .(Because these changes knock everything out of wack.)
So you look at alternatives , to cover ALL units with same resolution mechanic ...
Then you find a realy cool game mechanic that delivers what you want, but then other areas of the rules look very clunky in comparison....So you swap them out with better suited game mechnaics to improve the over all ellegance and internal integrity of the rules...
And before you know it , you have a completly new rule set that bares hardly any resemblance to WHFB at all!

This is my experiance (and my gaming groups) for the last 12 years anyway...

Also if you start from scratch you can pick the trueisms that give intuitive game play without over complicating rules...

Eg IF you say the weapon hit alters the effectivness of the armour.You have to use armour save modifiers.

BUT if you say the armour reduces the effectivness of the weapon hit , you can use a direct comparison.
(In FoW you roll a dice and add it to your armour value.If this result is higher than the Armour penetration value of the weapon hit you make a saving throw.No seperate modifiers needed)

I see the current rules for 40k as a 'closed system'.It has been developed in a specific way, for a specific demoghraphic.And any attempt to 'improve it' generaly results in a more complication than game complexity returned.

If you are happy with the increased level of complication fair enough.

But compared to what other rule sets achive , I would have difficulty in justifing it personaly.

YMMV.