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.

@Goldphish,
40k has not bothered with any clearly defined game play goals since 3rd ed.(Even then it was an eleventh hour conversion of a WWII rule set Rick Priestly was working on.That ended up as the finished Bolt Action rule set 14 years later.)

The devs have simply focused on writing the 40k rules primarily to inspire customers to buy new products.(The design brief the sales department has set them since 1998.)

As the 40k rules are too complicated (lots of pages of rules) to be suited to abstract resolution , where things happen 'just because ' it is fun.(
If the rules run under 5 pages total abstract resolution is fine!)

Then 40k should be a simple simulation of a particular type of warfare but what sort of warfare is the best fit?

Ancient /Napoleonic warfare like WHFB,or WWII/Modern warfare like Epic?

And then there is the issue of what size the game should be played at?
Skirmish level with detailed model interaction ,(Necromundia/Inquisitor) or battle game with detailed unit interaction.(Epic /Titan Legions)?

(Note detailed unit interaction , allows models to interact to define the net unit resolution, and unit interaction to define the net force/(army) level interaction.)

If the general feeling is shooting is over powered in 40k, then why not look deeper to see if this is a symptom of a core problem with the rule set.
Otherwise just adding random patches to try to fixed the perceived problem may just move the problem to another area.(Eg making Assault too powerful.)

Question 1 )Why is shooting too powerful?
Question 2)Why is shooting and assault much better balanced in other rules sets?
Question 3)What actually needs changing in the rules to fix the problem(s) ?

Even people wanting to save 40k will have different goals depending in what type of game play they prefer.

So if I said 'To save 40k for battle game with unit focused game play I would ....' At least this defines what game play goal the idea is relevant to.

As they would be completely different to 'To save 40k as a skirmish game with model focused game play I would ..'

AnomanderRake.
What exactly would you like me to define for you?

^Post is much better than prior posts, thank you for clarity. An answer or two would be nice, or an explanation as to why you need something to be either binary X or Y as opposed to anything else, but it's a start.

As to your questions:
1) Shooting is too powerful because it can usually hit the whole board at once, doesn't open you up for retaliation, hits much harder than melee, or some combination of the three. Toning these back by redefining terrain and neutering the overabundance of AP2 Ignores Cover AoE weapons would be a good start; still working on the lack of retaliation.

2) Depends on the ruleset. Shooting is weaker than assault in Warmachine because the ranges and typical POW are so much lower, plus the Rate of Fire limitations that don't exist on melee weapons; shooting was weaker than assault in 4e 40k because it was much easier to make it into combat due to less powerful shooting attacks and once you got into melee you could never be shot again due to consolidating into other units.

3) Several quick fixes: Restrict/prohibit consequence-free AP2/3 blasts/template weapons (one Riptide per 1000pts, say). Blasts hit one floor of a building. Assault after running and/or models may assault after disembarking from regular transports (Disordered Charge out of a normal transport, normal out of an open-topped or Assault Vehicle transport). Considering a quick fix for Drop Pods but I haven't come up with one I like yet (my best is that since people moving out of Drop Pods get their movement phase to disembark where nobody else does they don't get that Shooting phase). There are other patches that could be helpful but that's my list of most relevant material.

On the subject of your binary questions 40k is supposed to be sci-fi (so modern) platoon-scale to company-scale warfare, it's a level of scale between Necromunda and Epic where the game is primarily built around unit interaction but characters are floating around to add some complexity in model interaction to the game.

The overpowered nature of shooting comes mostly from the Codexes; over the past four editions guns have been getting progressively cheaper and better while melee weapons have stayed the same or gotten worse for the same cost and assault delivery hasn't kept pace with the guns.

I'm aiming both in short patches and in Aegis to preserve 40k as a platoon-scale wargame built primarily around units with an extra layer of character interaction, I'm not aiming to change the genre of the game.

I added BS bonuses for close range and penalties for long range to the OP (12" and 36" respectively).

I also added charges from non-assault vehicles, at -3" charge range (cumulative with cover).

I would have all codexes and the BRB written by Matt Ward and him alone.

 Pyeatt wrote:
I would have all codexes and the BRB written by Matt Ward and him alone.

One author wouldn't be a bad idea, though that one's not working for them anymore. At least make the design team talk to each other once in a while.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
I would have all codexes and the BRB written by Matt Ward and him alone.

One author wouldn't be a bad idea, though that one's not working for them anymore. At least make the design team talk to each other once in a while.

I think play testing and editing is more the problem, rather than multiple authors.

I agree that play testing and editing is very important part of development, that should be done to an adequate standard before selling product to customers.
(GW management seem to think that this is an optional extra! )

However, at the very start of the development there should be a clear and concise design brief on what the game play the rules should be focused on.

As this focuses development on clear and concise rules, which make achieving the development goals a lot easier!(Like every game I have played other than 40k!)

When I was referring to balance between shooting and assault, it was in terms of both of these game features being useful in different ways so players do not feel compelled to favor one over the other .
Rather than both compete to deliver the same options in the same way.(Just by killing stuff!)

Not necessarily making shooting and assault equally effective in all situations.(Which is an impossible, and flawed premise.)

But both having clearly defined roles they are good at , but can be used to achieve any function , but not with equal efficiency.

Eg
If shooting is great at slowing enemies down, (suppression/disabling transports) and blocking enemy L.O.S (Smoke /blind).
But not so effective at actually destroying units .

This leaves assault as the go to way to destroy units , but can only slow down or block LOS by inefficient 'tar pitting ' of enemy units.

This gives each attack type clearly defined uses and benefits , with obvious draw backs.

This makes players think about tactical use of units , so they have more varied value beyond 'what can they kill' .This could let under used units have more value in the expanded game play perhaps?

I probably need to explain that better...

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that play testing and editing is very important part of development, that should be done to an adequate standard before selling product to customers.
(GW management seem to think that this is an optional extra! )

However, at the very start of the development there should be a clear and concise design brief on what the game play the rules should be focused on.

As this focuses development on clear and concise rules, which make achieving the development goals a lot easier!(Like every game I have played other than 40k!)

When I was referring to balance between shooting and assault, it was in terms of both of these game features being useful in different ways so players do not feel compelled to favor one over the other .
Rather than both compete to deliver the same options in the same way.(Just by killing stuff!)

Not necessarily making shooting and assault equally effective in all situations.(Which is an impossible, and flawed premise.)

But both having clearly defined roles they are good at , but can be used to achieve any function , but not with equal efficiency.

Eg
If shooting is great at slowing enemies down, (suppression/disabling transports) and blocking enemy L.O.S (Smoke /blind).
But not so effective at actually destroying units .

This leaves assault as the go to way to destroy units , but can only slow down or block LOS by inefficient 'tar pitting ' of enemy units.

This gives each attack type clearly defined uses and benefits , with obvious draw backs.

This makes players think about tactical use of units , so they have more varied value beyond 'what can they kill' .This could let under used units have more value in the expanded game play perhaps?

I probably need to explain that better...

Precisely.

I don't think I could do it in five hundred words or less truthfully but I do have a few ideas that might help with game speed, balance, and overall quality.

1 - I've noticed that 40k seems very discombobulated when it comes to making up it's mind on who's turn it is to do what. The notion that my enemy can move, shoot, and assault without any response from me is pretty silly when you think about it. When you have a UGOIGO sort of build, I find, things tend to run smoother and gameplay as a whole seems to be better as well.

2 - Do away with the ten thousand special rules. C'mon, there really isn't a need for every single special rule in the BRB or the various codexes. I know, I know, it adds diversity to army playstyles, but actually I think it hampers the understanding of the game as a whole in addition to causing various issues between opponents due to rules conflicts. I can't say what needs to be removed with any real certainty as I haven't thought that far ahead, but I'm certain the special rules section could be lightened by almost 1/3.

3 - Stop using Fantasy as a baseline for every rules change and to a lesser extent, understand that this system isn't Rogue Trader anymore, i.e. it's not a skirmish game. I liked what someone said about taking a look at the Epic rules and transforming them to work with larger models. This is where lessening the number of super-secret, codex only, super special, one-time rules helps a great deal. Not every single Sergeant, Veteran, or squad leader needs to be a special snowflake, i.e. make army-wide upgrades for these models that are consistent with their parent army.

4 - Find someone who's actually played a game involving high amounts of armor, because I can't stress enough how poorly this rules are written (I apologize for what I hope won't be a seven thousand word complaint coming up...). Glancing hits in almost any other system are defined exactly as the title implies: GLANCING. Not, the tank is damaged from scratched paint or perforated exhaust pipe or dented panels. I know that everyone hated the armor rules from fifth edition, but they made actual sense. Glancing hits could never take out a tank, they could only do what actual glancing hits can do, i.e. destroy tank treads/engines/hover things (immobilization), stun/shake the crew, and destroy weapons. After the weapons were gone the tank vehicle was effectively mission dead so, yeah, you could eventually take out a tank that way. Penetrating hits operated much the same way, suffering no negatives once penetrating armor, because well...melta shots inside a tank are bad mmmmmk? I think the current penetration rules are a step in the right direction; instead of needing 7's to blow gak up, just keep it on a d6 and add +1 for AP1 (because lets face it, that AP is meant for anti-armor) and make glancing hits back to the way they were in fifth. I can go on about cover saves, defensive fire when dealing with assaulting units, and various other things...but that's for a different thread. Note: I mean this change as a game-wide one, not just for my plucky Guard.

5 - I'm still out on the Psychic Phase, although I think it's an improvement on what used to be.

6 - Take random objectives and cram them in whatever ass(es) of those that designed them. THIS is why we can't have nice things, these sort of 'competitive' additions to 40k only succeed in adding yet one more thing players need to consider in an already daunting game. They skew gameplay in idiotic ways that make zero sense from both a game and a fluff stand point; I know, fluff doesn't matter when we're talking rules, but who honestly buy's 40k stuff for the rules? If you want to introduce objectives that are more fluid, change the current rules for objectives. Outside of the competitive circuit (and I'm using competitive very lightly here), tactical objectives offer nothing to the game.

7 - Stop using a d6 to decide every single situation, seriously. I understand that war is random and fate is fickle and all that, but seriously, there's hardly a moment goes by in any 40k game where someone isn't rolling a d6. Swarming bugs running through terrain - d6, running anything - d6, CHARGING - d6...I mean really? Certainly bugs would handle rough terrain than any bipedal humanoid (again, inserting a fluff related reason for my complaint, but it makes sense), also genetically bread super-soldiers hundreds of years old can't judge how far they can run and get leg cramps randomly. And finally...charging. Yes ladies and gent's, this horse turd of a change is the subject of much contention in the 40k community, because well, it's fething stupid. Not only do professional troops/space horrors/demons from another plane of existence NOT know whether or not they can reach their destination/target, but apparently if they suddenly realize that it's too far (failing the roll), they just stand there and get shot (overwatch). Need I say more?

Ok, that was longer than I thought (but not as long as some replies here).

@The Silo.
Do you agree in principal with what I posted, or I need to explain it better?

@Frankenberry.
I agree with all the issues you have with the 40k rule set.(As do many others.)

The thing is I believe the reason for the issues in 40k are embedded in the basic game mechanics and resolution methods, not being suitable for the game play 40k is currently trying to achieve.

And so although superficial changes may appear to make things better in some areas, they will cause confusion, and conflict with other rules and resolutions somewhere else in the game play.

Only when you change out the game mechanics and resolution methods for something more in synergy with the units, can you just remove clutter and make genuine improvements to game play.

EG Adding a movement stat back in to remove the plethora of special rules and totally random movement .

The thing is elements of the 40k rules would work well if the rest of the rules were changed to support them, to make them work together to deliver well defined game play.(EG using armour values OR armour saves for all units, to remove clutter and disparity between units.)

Lanrak wrote:
@The Silo.
Do you agree in principal with what I posted, or I need to explain it better?

@Frankenberry.
I agree with all the issues you have with the 40k rule set.(As do many others.)

The thing is I believe the reason for the issues in 40k are embedded in the basic game mechanics and resolution methods, not being suitable for the game play 40k is currently trying to achieve.

And so although superficial changes may appear to make things better in some areas, they will cause confusion, and conflict with other rules and resolutions somewhere else in the game play.

Only when you change out the game mechanics and resolution methods for something more in synergy with the units, can you just remove clutter and make genuine improvements to game play.

EG Adding a movement stat back in to remove the plethora of special rules and totally random movement .

The thing is elements of the 40k rules would work well if the rest of the rules were changed to support them, to make them work together to deliver well defined game play.(EG using rmour values OR armour saves for all units, to remove clutter and disparity between units.)

Exactly, while I meant to convey as a whole the 40k ruleset needs a revamp, this is actually far more succinct and very much on point.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree that play testing and editing is very important part of development, that should be done to an adequate standard before selling product to customers.
(GW management seem to think that this is an optional extra! )

However, at the very start of the development there should be a clear and concise design brief on what the game play the rules should be focused on.

As this focuses development on clear and concise rules, which make achieving the development goals a lot easier!(Like every game I have played other than 40k!)

When I was referring to balance between shooting and assault, it was in terms of both of these game features being useful in different ways so players do not feel compelled to favor one over the other .
Rather than both compete to deliver the same options in the same way.(Just by killing stuff!)

Not necessarily making shooting and assault equally effective in all situations.(Which is an impossible, and flawed premise.)

But both having clearly defined roles they are good at , but can be used to achieve any function , but not with equal efficiency.

Eg
If shooting is great at slowing enemies down, (suppression/disabling transports) and blocking enemy L.O.S (Smoke /blind).
But not so effective at actually destroying units.

This leaves assault as the go to way to destroy units , but can only slow down or block LOS by inefficient 'tar pitting ' of enemy units.

This gives each attack type clearly defined uses and benefits , with obvious draw backs.

This makes players think about tactical use of units , so they have more varied value beyond 'what can they kill' .This could let under used units have more value in the expanded game play perhaps?

I agree in principal with your post. Shooting and assault should have different tactical impacts.

In general, the gameplay and rules should have a clear focus. If a special rule is not absolutely essential to how a unit functions then that rule shouldn't exist. Buffing a model's profile should always be the preferred solution rather than a new special rule. Randomness should only affect unit interactions: charging, shooting, damage tables, etc. At this scale, randomness should not affect single unit actions: moving through cover, perils of the warp table, running, etc.

@The Silo.
If I may expand upon the points you made .

I would say that if a rule set has a clearly defined game play , and it uses the most appropriate 'stat line' to arrive at the objective of the rules.
Then special rules are only ever needed to cover the actually very few special abilities.

However, the way 40k hands out special rules for everything , makes me question the suitability of it using a stat line from a completely different game type.(WHFB)

The thing is 40k 7th ed is such an eclectic mix of all possible game types, to appeal to a wider range of potential customers.
That in trying to fix it, we need to define at the start what game play we want to arrive at.

Originally when 40k was a skirmish game, it was presented as 'Zooming in on the epic battle lines and focusing on the most important engagement.As the combatants close on each other over the last few hundred meters. (This sort of explained why so many 'named characters' were always involved I suppose! )

But back then getting more than 25 Space Marines and a vehicle in 2000pt army could be a struggle.
40k 7th ed Space Marine armies of 2000pts are getting very close to the size of armies we used for Epic (10mm) games in the 1990s!

This is another problem IMO. All other battle games at current 40k size tend to use 6mm to 15mm sized minatures. So players are happy using rules for unit interaction.

With 40k using 28mm heroic minatures players expect them to be a special as the price they had to pay for them! So pointing out the rank and file troopers are mainly just attack and wound markers for the infantry unit .Can make some people uneasy/unhappy .

As far as randomness goes, I am happy for the scenario the players engage in to be randomly generated.
Eg 6 attacker mission cards, 6 defender mission cards, with 3 to 6 set up options.
But the missions to be more generic and objective based, like to recover items , hold/capture specific objective markers etc.

So players focus on playing their mission, and not just' beating the other guy.'
This is proper narrative gaming IMO, not tons of random stuff, to detract from the lack of in game choices!

IMO, the dice roll to decide in game interaction (to hit, wound, save etc.) is enough randomness in game.

We could write 500 words to point out the things we would need to change to save 40k, for a specified game play type.
But actually saving the 7th ed 40k rules in 500 words, I think is impossible*.
(*If you want to arrive at a game that is on par with well developed games that are played because the rules are good.)

I have read most of this, and when we say we want to save 40k, are we meaning for ourselves? GW does not want to save it, they still have people buying and re-buying thier Crap. All in the hope that GW would fix the rules. The rules are where GW wants them, vague, inconsistant and wanting.

GW made this a competitive game, not a fun game on purpose. If they made it a fun game, with a solid rules set, people would find their nitch and that would be that. GW knows that we all don't have someone to game with, and uses that against us. If you have no one to play with you need to go to a club or gaming store to play. If it were a fun game with good rules you would just play your game. But, my designing 40K to be a competitive game, you go to the club, get destroyed and feel compiled to buy something new to get even. It is an endless wallet emptying struggle..... because it is a Competitive Game.

My Son and I gave up after they abandoned 5th edition for 6th. Everyone has their own thoughts on what or how a game plays out. We like infantry heavy games with other equipment like vehicles and what not on the rarer side.
We made our own rules and changes of 5th edition, and that is where we are! We are happy with what we have and that is all that matters to us.

SORRY GW, you have far to much of our money, you are not getting anymore.

@Tara.
We want 40k to have the quality of rules we think it deserves, eg equal to the other games we love to play.

GW plc did not make 40k a competitive game, they made it a sales promotion tool!

I have played lots of competitive games that are loads of fun.
(Competitive means players have opposed objectives in the game.Co-operative is the other game type where players work together to achieve a common objective.Only in 40k do you have to work so hard to make fun one of the objectives of the game !)

The real issue is with GW plc using PV and F.O.C.s to imply a level of balance suited to pick up games, that it simply does not have.

Just a thought in general , another reason for a complete overhaul.
If we as a group decide what game play 40k is supposed to have.And some how manage to hash out a rule set that is agreed to be much better than GW own efforts.
The other issue is if it becomes popular, GW plc will look at taking the legal hammer to it.

So using identical resolution methods and game mechanics to GW plc copyrite rule set 40k, even with changed names .Is going to get it C&D out of the public domain.

 Tara wrote:
I have read most of this, and when we say we want to save 40k, are we meaning for ourselves? GW does not want to save it, they still have people buying and re-buying thier Crap. All in the hope that GW would fix the rules. The rules are where GW wants them, vague, inconsistant and wanting.

GW made this a competitive game, not a fun game on purpose. If they made it a fun game, with a solid rules set, people would find their nitch and that would be that. GW knows that we all don't have someone to game with, and uses that against us. If you have no one to play with you need to go to a club or gaming store to play. If it were a fun game with good rules you would just play your game. But, my designing 40K to be a competitive game, you go to the club, get destroyed and feel compiled to buy something new to get even. It is an endless wallet emptying struggle..... because it is a Competitive Game.

My Son and I gave up after they abandoned 5th edition for 6th. Everyone has their own thoughts on what or how a game plays out. We like infantry heavy games with other equipment like vehicles and what not on the rarer side.
We made our own rules and changes of 5th edition, and that is where we are! We are happy with what we have and that is all that matters to us.

SORRY GW, you have far to much of our money, you are not getting anymore.

I got back into 40k in March after not playing since 3rd edition. It was easy since I had so much already assembled and painted, a lot of rules background, and I had unopened boxes from forever ago. So I went on a huge binge assembling and painting 40 WFB Dwarves, 20 Dark Eldar, 3 Reaver Jetbikes, 10 Space Marines, and multiple IG tanks. So I was in the groove. But then I ran out of stuff to assemble and realized I had zero interest in getting new models at the jacked up prices. I bought the previous ed Dark Eldar book, and was considering getting the SM book, but I've since soured on the idea, realizing it'll cost $100 just to get the rules for my second and third armies.

The rules, which were already clunky back in 3rd, have gotten completely unwieldy. And I'm sure that you could eliminate between 25-50% of the rules, speeding the game dramatically with no adverse effect on gameplay.

In 3rd, you effectively knew what you had going into a game. Psykers had set powers, there were no warlord traits, assault ranges were 6", etc. You built your army and your opponent brought the random element to the game. In 6th/7th, you're rolling warlord traits and psychic powers that can be as effective as a 40 point upgrade or can turn your warlord/psyker into a waste of points.

Overwatch and pile in moves add a lot of player actions without adding meaningful gameplay. Think of any great board games, Chess, Go, Risk, Monopoly, Settlers of Catan, Diplomacy, they're great because they boil down gameplay to core elements with no wasted player action. Every roll, move, and action is purposeful and impacts the game. Today the 40k randomness has made it impossible to build an army on a solid foundation and has bloated the ruleset with lots of extra rules and rolls that feel like junk thrown into what would otherwise be a fun experience.

@The Silo.
I agree that after the rushed 3rd edition battle game rules of 40k was forced onto the game devs and players.
All that has happened is the devs have tried to fix the rules, by adding more rules, rather than address the core issues.
(Which is the only action the GW managers allowed them to do.All attempts to correct basic game play flaws have been rejected by the GW managment.)

This has just made an over complicated and counter intuitive basic game, in to a more over complicated and counter intuitive game.

Yes you can re -set 40k to 3rd edition and keep the same basic stat lines and resolution methods.
Even the cleanest version of 40k , under its current set up of game mechanics resolution methods and stat lines, would be over complicated and counter intuitive,compared to any other game currently on the market.(With WHFB being the only possible exception. )

I prefer to look at rule sets that delivered much better game play at the 'battle game' level.And take inspiration from these, start with good rules for 6 to 15mm battle games, then scale up the detail to suit 28mm.
As this starts with a solid foundation that is proven to work well.Then any changes can be judged objectively .

With a half arsed conversion rushed through at the eleventh hour.
You do not have a solid foundation to build on, so no one can make objective decisions.And so actual game development suffers as a result.

It seems then that hoping for a complete overhaul is out of the picture. Rule changes however are still very easy to implement.

 TheSilo wrote:
It seems then that hoping for a complete overhaul is out of the picture. Rule changes however are still very easy to implement.

I'm trying, but I've got a chicken-and-egg problem of me having no idea whether I've succeeded because I can't get any feedback because nobody thinks my rules are any good.

he, alot of tthose rules remind me of the 3rd edition of 40k

here some thoughts

 TheSilo wrote:
Pre-game:
- psychic powers are chosen when building the army list. All current restrictions apply (i.e. ML1 can only learn one power + primaris). Warp charge 1 powers cost 0 points, Warp charge 2 powers cost 10 points each, Warp charge 3 powers cost 20 points each.

choosing would debalance some powers more then they already are... i.e. invisibility

Movement:

- models may charge after disembarking from a non-assault vehicle (unless the vehicle began the turn in reserves), suffering -3" to their charge range. This is cumulative with any other penalties, e.g. charging through cover.
+
Shooting:
- vehicles moving 6” or less may fire all their weapons at full BS, vehicles moving 12” or less may fire 1 weapon at full BS, unless otherwise debuffed (e.g. shaken) or otherwise noted (e.g. skimmers, fast).

then whats the point of fast/open topped vehicles? fast vehicles are already nerfed.
proposituion: unit can only assault if disembarked from a non-assault-vehicle before it has remained stationary.
keep above changes, but allow fast vehicles to shoot all weapons and disembarkation of units at 12"

Psychic:
- remove the perils chart, perils of the warp inflicts 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed (including invulnerable saves and feel no pain).

its the only thing keeping psychers at bay... the current rules are ok.

Assault:
- (see above: Movement).
- in overwatch, template weapons and grenades (1 grenade per unit) inflict d3 automatic hits. Tau supporting fire is unaffected. Nothing else may fire overwatch.
- eliminate pile in moves. Everyone in a combat within 6" of an enemy model fights (close combat, short range fire, etc). In the movement phase, models in engaged units must move into base to base contact with an enemy model or as close as possible (moving 6").

doesnt that buff TAU waaaaayy to much? they would be the only army that can fire at assaulting units?
for the assaults... this would only work if you can remove models of your choosing. i.e. models from the back

Morale:

- if a unit is falling back and fails its test to regroup, the unit is instantly removed as a casualty, it is assumed that they were completely routed or cut down in a hail of fire.

unneccessary and hard nerf to non fearless, ATSKNF armies.

@The Silo.
Expecting GW plc to care enough about game play , to implement a rewrite, is not going to happen.

Everyone who plays 40k changes the rules in some way to arrive at a playable game they could enjoy.

The problem is there are so many different ways of changing the 40k 'big book of ideas' into a 'playable game,' no one can make changes to'improve' the game that every one wants.

Re-writing the rules for a particular type of game play , is much more straight forward and easier to do.

The reason 40k has such an identity crisis is the clash of game size , (company level,like F.O.W/Epic SM. ) and the minature size 28mm heroic which is mainly used for platoon level skirmish size.(2nd ed 40k reached this limit of this game size.)
Game size dictates detailed unit interaction , 'shiney model syndrome ' means players expect detailed model interaction.

The way the units are equipped and organized dictates modern warfare based game play.
The background setting and look of the game , WHFB in space' means players accept/expect ancient warfare based rules .

So the logical objective assessment of the game play, dictates one thing.But the look of the minatures is directly opposed to this.
Some times things need to work , not just 'look right'.

If you think that altering rules can achieve more than JUST adding bloat to an already bloated system.
Just do the following.

Stage 1.
List the current flaws with the 40k rule set.
Get everyone to agree what these flaws are.

Stage 2.
List the ways to fix these flaws , (not quick fixes that cause issues some where else !)
Then get everyone to agree on which corrective action to use.

Then see what you end up with, and if your P.O.V. changes.

@AnomanderRake,
PM me your latest WIP and Ill have a read through, and give you feed back if that is any help...

Lanrak wrote:

I prefer to look at rule sets that delivered much better game play at the 'battle game' level.And take inspiration from these, start with good rules for 6 to 15mm battle games, then scale up the detail to suit 28mm.

Any particular such rulesets you'd recommend Lanrak?

RedNoak wrote:
he, alot of tthose rules remind me of the 3rd edition of 40k

here some thoughts

 TheSilo wrote:
Pre-game:
- psychic powers are chosen when building the army list. All current restrictions apply (i.e. ML1 can only learn one power + primaris). Warp charge 1 powers cost 0 points, Warp charge 2 powers cost 10 points each, Warp charge 3 powers cost 20 points each.

choosing would debalance some powers more then they already are... i.e. invisibility

Movement:

- models may charge after disembarking from a non-assault vehicle (unless the vehicle began the turn in reserves), suffering -3" to their charge range. This is cumulative with any other penalties, e.g. charging through cover.
+
Shooting:
- vehicles moving 6” or less may fire all their weapons at full BS, vehicles moving 12” or less may fire 1 weapon at full BS, unless otherwise debuffed (e.g. shaken) or otherwise noted (e.g. skimmers, fast).

then whats the point of fast/open topped vehicles? fast vehicles are already nerfed.
proposituion: unit can only assault if disembarked from a non-assault-vehicle before it has remained stationary.
keep above changes, but allow fast vehicles to shoot all weapons and disembarkation of units at 12"

Psychic:
- remove the perils chart, perils of the warp inflicts 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed (including invulnerable saves and feel no pain).

its the only thing keeping psychers at bay... the current rules are ok.

Assault:
- (see above: Movement).
- in overwatch, template weapons and grenades (1 grenade per unit) inflict d3 automatic hits. Tau supporting fire is unaffected. Nothing else may fire overwatch.
- eliminate pile in moves. Everyone in a combat within 6" of an enemy model fights (close combat, short range fire, etc). In the movement phase, models in engaged units must move into base to base contact with an enemy model or as close as possible (moving 6").

doesnt that buff TAU waaaaayy to much? they would be the only army that can fire at assaulting units?
for the assaults... this would only work if you can remove models of your choosing. i.e. models from the back

Morale:

- if a unit is falling back and fails its test to regroup, the unit is instantly removed as a casualty, it is assumed that they were completely routed or cut down in a hail of fire.

unneccessary and hard nerf to non fearless, ATSKNF armies.

On psychic powers, individual points costs for powers would be more desirable but I don't think I could come up with good values for the 50+ powers. I'd rather have people pay the points upfront rather than have their army be OP or UP based on their roll on the chart. Players who field psykers shouldn't be forced into a position where the validity of their gameplan hinges on a die roll before the game even begins.

I incorporated your suggestion on vehicle shooting, combat speed counts as stationary, cruising counts as combat speed. This will reduce gunline parking lots and reflect the fact that a machine gun on a tank is a pretty good firing platform if it's driving at walking speed.

Disembark is ok at 6", though I'd prefer to do away with access points altogether. The -3" charge out of non assault vehicles is a decent penalty to simulate the extra time and effort to get out, alternately it could just eliminate the d6" extra on the charge, i.e. the charge is 6"+3" from the access point. Charging out of vehicles used to be insanely powerful when players could move 12"-24" disembark and then charge, limiting transports to 6" before disembarkation fixed this problem. Eliminating charges out of vehicles tipped the scale too far.

The overwatch change isn't a buff to Tau, it is a nerf to every army's overwatch. Tau can only use supporting fire, the charged unit cannot overwatch with their weapons. This change is still generally a buff to assault units and armies.

With the current perils chart, a 5 or 6 is only detrimental if the psyker fails his ld test. My primary problem with the chart is that it's incredibly random and you have to look it up every time there's a perils of the warp, it's just a pain and it doesn't contribute to gameplay. I've gladly added an additional penalty, but the chart is a PITA at the moment.

I can count on one hand the number of times that a unit has had an impact on the game after failing a regroup test. Most of the time people in my area just pull the unit off the board at that point, it's not worth rolling every turn to see if those four dudes get their act together, especially since most of the time that unit is below 25% and has to roll double 1's anyway (which only happens on 3% of morale tests). This is already after they fled from close combat and failed another ld test, at that point they're gone. If it's an important unit, then you should be spending points on bonding knives, regimental standards, synapse, etc, etc.

As to psychic powers the quick answer is to rewrite the charts; Invisibility was a bad balance decision however you slice it, purchase or roll. Seven Disciplines of seven powers (49) plus Daemons (three of four, 12) plus other books with full disciplines (two Eldar, one Space Wolves, one Orks off the top of my head, 28) comes up with 89 powers lower bound, plus any that I'm missing; some of those are bound to be filler dropped in to pad out the disciplines to seven powers each or redundant between disciplines. I'm chopping it down to the five major common disciplines only in Aegis, giving some armies (for whom it makes sense; Eldar and Chaos, mostly) unique powers, and cutting the size down since I'm not assuming I need to roll for them.

As to minor changes the big problem with psychic powers is that it's nigh-impossible to Deny something that's not cast on your guys; Invis and Precog both fall under this (statistically twelve Deny dice to deny them cast with minimum successes). Deny on 5+ as standard, improved by one when targeting a unit containing an enemy psyker, improved by one for Adamantium Will would help armies that can't spam Mastery levels immeasurably when dealing with Blessings; as for armies without psykers some non-psychic counter (army-wide Adamantium Will for Tau (since they're hard to affect with Warp powers, having no Warp presence and all), wargear that grants denial dice/improves denial against powers cast in a certain bubble for Necrons (based on the anti-psychic obelisk tech that pops up in the lore now and again but is never mentioned in game), wargear that forces enemies casting powers nearby to Perils more often and more fatally for Dark Eldar (trapped angry souls out to murder psykers)) would be indicated.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As to psychic powers the quick answer is to rewrite the charts; Invisibility was a bad balance decision however you slice it, purchase or roll. Seven Disciplines of seven powers (49) plus Daemons (three of four, 12) plus other books with full disciplines (two Eldar, one Space Wolves, one Orks off the top of my head, 28) comes up with 89 powers lower bound, plus any that I'm missing; some of those are bound to be filler dropped in to pad out the disciplines to seven powers each or redundant between disciplines. I'm chopping it down to the five major common disciplines only in Aegis, giving some armies (for whom it makes sense; Eldar and Chaos, mostly) unique powers, and cutting the size down since I'm not assuming I need to roll for them.

That's a good point. Pyromancy, as fluffy as it is, is a worthless tree. And if you're not rolling on a chart that is magically d6 compatible it'd be relatively easy to condense most of the trees to 4+primaris.

Saving 40k in 500 words or less:

1) Look at Necromunda rules for some inspiration.

2) Rather than ignore rules with "special" rules make them add +/- like power weapon +2 to hit armor (Termie 4+, marine 5+...). Try to carefully make use of the core mechanics.

3) I liked a squad's individual members not accounting for anything than the space they take-up, closest to closest for removal = no. Less fussing about being careful with individual models (similar to 5th edition).

4) Allies, where to begin... start off using the Org chart like normal (2HQ(1min), 3FA,3EL, 6T (2min), 3Hvy, 1LoW) but must make a valid list with it 1 HQ each, 2 troop each to start. Make a list based on the fluff Necrons partnering with marines still offends.

5) Hold tournaments, create hobby shop tournament packages, take ownership for centralized tournament rules, post rankings.

6) Host army painter programs, army colour scheme planning, army list programs, heavy metal guides for painting the various groups. One-stop scheme planning for armies.

7) Advertise, sell intro boxes of the game at Walmart / Target / Canadian bloody Tire.

8) Sell "special edition" pre-painted miniatures like X-wing models.

9) Find a good Kickstarter and get more modular terrain made.

10) Sell specially priced packages (-10%) of key army models for building armies.

11) Hold special online forum posting / interaction with key members of GW, being able to bend the ear of GW employees.

Take a good hard look at how beer companies advertise: it is not a product, it is a lifestyle!

@thegreatchimp.
Well here are some good battle game that we enjoy.
Epic Armageddon, (and old school NETEPIC.)
Drop Zone Commander.
Dirtside.

And of course Flames Of War.I know its WWII but its basic concepts and simple methods of covering lots of modern warfare functions make for a good reference IMO.

The original post was devoted to rules proposals in a quick and concise way, I'll give some details here about why I think these changes are each important.

 TheSilo wrote:
Saving 40k in 500 words or less, with improved balance, less tedium, and greater player agency. Goals: to improve balance between shooting and assault, remove tedious rules, and improve the player’s ability to effectively design and execute a game plan. I would appreciate constructive comments and criticism for these house rules.

Pre-game:
- warlord traits, players may freely select their warlord trait if using their codex's unique warlord traits. Codices without unique traits may freely select from the BRB warlord tactical or personal traits (not command nor strategic traits!).
- psychic powers are chosen when building the army list. All current restrictions apply (i.e. ML1 can only learn one power + primaris). Warp charge 1 powers cost 0 points, Warp charge 2 powers cost 10 points each, Warp charge 3 powers cost 20 points each.
- fielding a bound army list grants +1VP to the controlling player.

Why allow people to choose warlord traits? This is about player agency. I think of warlord traits as a flavor for your army. In most codices the warlord traits represent different aspects of the army's gameplay. If I had my way, I'd always take an Imperial Guard commander who can outflank D3 units. But as is, I'm often stuck with a command squad with the relentless special rule, or I get to ignore morale checks from shooting except my army is entirely mechanized (4/6 of the traits are useless if you take a mechanized company). It would add considerable variety to the game if players could build their armies with a key warlord trait in mind, and this is the same problem that I have with rolling for psychic powers, it dissuades players from building armies around traits or powers because the odds are usually 50+% that you won't get the power that you want.

On psychic powers, invisibility is clearly a concern and needs to be rebalanced. With that exception I think it is fine for players to pay points to freely select their powers. Again, this allows them to build an army around their tools rather than building an army and then finding out what tools happen to be available.

 TheSilo wrote:

Movement:
- all model movement is now performed in the movement phase, including run (+3") and charge moves (+3"+d6"). If the charge fails, treat it as a run move directly towards the target unit. If the charge is successful, move all models the appropriate distance, into b2b contact if possible. In the shooting phase, the charging unit may fire assault and pistol weapons as normal (combat doesn't start until the assault phase), when using template and blast weapons ignore friendly models from the same unit caught under the template. In the shooting phase a charged unit may only be targeted by the unit(s) that charged it.
- any move entering, exiting, or crossing difficult terrain subtracts 3” from the model’s base movement, including bikes, cavalry, and vehicles. This affects run and charge moves. Units with the move through cover, beasts, and skimmer rules ignore this modifier.
- models may charge after disembarking from a non-assault vehicle (unless the vehicle began the turn in reserves), suffering -3" to their charge range. This is cumulative with any other penalties, e.g. charging through cover.
- any rules improving or re-rolling run moves (e.g. fleet, crusader, Move Move Move command) allow the model to run +6” instead of +3” (this doesn't apply to charges).

This model movement change might be the most important. Currently, it is not unusual for you to have to move a single model four times over the course of one turn: movement, charge, pile in, and consolidate. This makes horde armies a huge pain to play with or against. Players always get lax with the measurements, because no one wants to carefully measure out the movement for 50 termagaunts. This change would mean that you'd move a model at most twice in a turn: charge and consolidate, so that there's more time spent playing and less frustration measuring out dozens of model moves over and over. Fixed run moves give the player a solid tactical option, you can opt to forgo shooting knowing how far you can run. Similarly, terrain has a fixed negative impact. I've played too many games where a blob of guardsmen just barely fails to get out of cover, and next turn I lose a whole movement phase by rolling 2" even though there's only 1" of terrain to get them out into the open. These changes also eliminate the excessive rolls for running and fleet re-rolling when playing Tyranids, and units like hormagaunts can actually truck across the field very fast with their improved run move. The narrowed charge range will prevent awful 2" or 3" charges and get rid of the ridiculous 10", 11", 12" charge ranges, while keeping some randomness.

 TheSilo wrote:

Psychic:
- remove the perils chart, perils of the warp inflicts 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed (including invulnerable saves and feel no pain). The psyker's unit also suffers one S4 Ap2 hit for every "6" that was rolled on the psychic test.

The Perils of the Warp chart is an easy chart to throw out. It is highly random, makes no logical sense, and is hard to memorize. More to the point, getting rid of it will do nothing to hamper gameplay. Currently, when someone rolls a Perils, the whole game has to stop while someone digs out the rulebook to find the ridiculous perils table, roll for the result, take a ld test, then resolve the effects. I much prefer my solution since it doesn't allow high ld models to get out of trouble on rolls of 5 or 6, and because it penalizes really bad perils rolls (with multiple 6's).

 TheSilo wrote:

Shooting:
- eliminate the look out sir rule.
- simplified vehicle damage table, 1-2 Shaken, 3-4 Stunned, 5-6 Immobilized, 7+ Explodes.
- +1 BS at targets within 12", -1 BS at targets beyond 36" (minimum BS 1 when shooting)
- all cover is treated the same, shots at models in cover or with cover modifiers (camo, stealth, jink, etc.) are fired at -1 BS (no more cover saves). Shots at models with both cover and a cover modifier are at -2 BS. Modifiers cannot reduce BS below 1. “Snap shots” always miss targets in cover. "Ignore cover" confers +1 BS when shooting at targets with cover. A unit is considered in cover if at least 50% of its models are out of sight or obscured from the closest shooting model with LOS.
- combat speed now counts as stationary for the purpose of firing. Cruising speed counts as combat speed for firing.
- remove all incidents of "randomly select a model" for wounds, instead the controlling player may choose who takes wounds in these instances.

Look Out Sir! is a major rules offender. Any unit with a character essentially adds a shooting sub-phase for the absurd LOS rolls. It's also bad gameplay since it excuses bad positioning, fails to reward good positioning, and makes no narrative sense. Most players use this rule to selectively tank small arms fire on their superior character's armor, while allowing plasma blasts to hit the guys around him. It doesn't make sense and it really slows down the game. The vast majority of the time it's not going to matter if your Sgt lives or dies.

Vehicle table change is mostly to make it easy to memorize and easy to track damage. The weapon destroyed result is hard to keep track of if the weapon is not removable on the vehicle. I can never remember what weapon I shot off my opponents defiler.

Short range benefit, long range penalty, this is meant to reward mobility and penalize gunlines. For some reason rapid fire weapons are the only ones that improve at close range. I think heavy weapons should have a reasonable threat range at 36", beyond that they're going to be less reliable.

Cover BS modifier, the current cover system is bizarre, and well armored units often receive no benefit from being in cover, this despite the fact that cover is one of the most important aspects of any battlefield. A Space Marine standing in a trench should be much more well protected against small arms fire than a Space Marine standing on a road. This change will integrate cover's effect in the roll to hit, rather than granting a pseudo invulnerable save.

Vehicle shooting change, vehicles are more accurate on the move than infantry. Just the way they are, they're much better gun platforms. The current rules force vehicles into gunlines despite the fact that vehicles are specifically meant to improve mobility on the battlefield.

Randomly select a model is a garbage rule, and unless you have exactly 6 guys in a squad, it's often impossible to resolve fairly. When trying to randomly allocate wounds in a squad of 30 Ork boyz where only three are special characters or weapons troopers, this rule turns into a real pain.

 TheSilo wrote:

Assault:
- (see above: Movement).
- in overwatch, template weapons and grenades (1 grenade per unit) inflict d3 automatic hits. Tau supporting fire is unaffected, the charged unit may not fire. Nothing else may fire overwatch.
- eliminate pile in moves. Everyone in a combat within 6" of an enemy model fights (close combat, short range fire, etc). In the movement phase, models in engaged units must move into base to base contact with an enemy model or as close as possible (moving 6").
- fix the WS chart. If the opposing WS is 2+ higher than your own, you hit on a 5+.
- eliminate the initiative+d6 roll when fleeing combat. If the unit flees and the enemy chooses a sweeping advance, then the fleeing unit is completely eliminated. A unit may not consolidate after a sweeping advance. If the winning side chooses to consolidate instead, consolidation moves are always up to 3".

Overwatch is a waste of time. It's far less effective than regular shooting, but it takes just as much time to resolve. It provides a freebie defense for shooty armies and there's no way for assaulty armies to work around it. Flamers and grenades can function as defensive weapons, allowing players to kit their units to resist assault, while eliminating the dice spam from rapid fire units in overwatch. The game does not allow charges on turn 1 or charges from reserves, which means that if you're getting charged, you already had your change to shoot them in the shooting phase.

Pile in moves are superfluous player actions that aren't necessary or constructive to the game, just a waste of time. The game has an awful lot of this fiddling with models that is not necessary (e.g. disembarking models by putting them in BTB contact with the transport and then moving them)

The WS chart is too generous to low WS models. The to-hit rolls for a guardsmen and space marine striking a Chapter Master are the same on both sides of the die. Allow high WS models to reasonably defend themselves in combat.

The initiative roll off is often unnecessary, and it's rolling for the right to retreat and try to regroup. If you fail your morale test in close combat, your troops are routed and cut down. They had their chance in combat and with their ld test.

 TheSilo wrote:

Morale:
- when suffering 25% casualties from shooting, units take a pinning test instead of a morale test. Weapons with the "Pinning" special rule force the pinning test at -1 ld.
- if a unit is falling back and fails its test to regroup, the unit is instantly removed as a casualty, it is assumed that they were completely routed or cut down in a hail of fire.

Failing a morale test is often disastrous, units lose ground falling back, and then can only move 3" and fire snap shots. The much more rational response to overwhelming enemy fire is to hit the dirt, lose your shooting for a turn but hold your position. This makes it much harder to root out units through shooting alone, making assault much more of a necessity.

If a unit has failed one morale test, fallen back and failed its morale test to regroup, why should they get a third chance? The unit is usually decimated at this point and has fled most of the board length. And testing for insane heroism at below 25% is just a waste of time.

Conceptually Overwatch exists to make shooty armies not auto-loose if the other guy makes it to charge range. Implementation-wise it'd be better/faster to give small arms (rifles, pistols, grenades) a melee profile rather than increase the length of the Assault phase by 50% by giving the defender two phases of attacks.

Changing overwatch into some form of inverse hammer of wrath might work.
One hammer of wrath hit at the profile of the gun for every 5 shots that would normally be fired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, 1 for every 6 would be easier for calculation.