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.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
System too bulky for its tactical abilities. Many stupid rules.
Armies too large, bad for bying, painting, transporting, playing.

This is my issue, it's just rules memorization, not much in the way of real tactics.

What I would do:

1) Get rid of the d6 system. This is a game for gamers. d10s exist. Use those, *especially* when your stat-lines are rated 1-10.

2) Establish what kind of game it is intended to be. Is it a skirmish game, reflecting a fight between a few small squads involved in a much-larger battle? Or is it an army game, meant to represent hundreds of soldiers on a side in a mass battle? Which ever is decided, everything about army rules, game design, battle-map design... *everything*... needs to be written with that in mind.

3) For sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the choice made in Step 2 is "skirmish game". This will lead to a few basic ground rules: No more than 100 models to a side, no more than 5 of which can be vehicles, no more than 1 of which can be any kind of Super-Heavy or Lord of War (one or the other, not both).

4) Armies will have "themes". Whatever their "theme" is, they will be very good at it. Whatever is not their "theme", they will be mediocre-to-terrible at it. So, for example, if we decide that the IG's "theme" is going to be massed ranks of infantry and weight of fire supported by armored vehicles, they're going to be "meh" to "craptastic" at things like CQC, Psychic Abilities, Rapid Movement and such.

5) Phases will go back and forth. So, for example, in the first turn, Player 1 will take his Move actions, then Player 2 will take their Move actions. Player 1 will then see if any of his units are within Assault range and, if so, now moves units into CC. Then Player 2 does the same thing, assaulting any units of Player 1 they decide to. Once all units have been moved into CC, then the players roll dice to determine the results of the combats on a fight-by-fight basis (CC happens at the same time, there is no "Initiative", these are units brawling, not masses of individuals). And so on through the Phases, with each player taking their turn in that phase until the end of the turn. At the end of the turn, then the effects of casualties and such are accounted for (models removed, Ld tests made to see who is swept, who is routed, who falls back, etc.). Once all that's done, then you start over in Turn 2.

5a) Partial side-note, things like artillery, orbital bombardment, Deathstrike Missiles, generally anything with a Large Blast marker, all that sort of thing, are going to be delivered by off-table sources *and* each shot is going to carry a price-tag in points. It should also be fairly devastating (Artillery is as Artillery does), but, using the Phase-by-Phase order given above, there's a very real chance that your own units will run into the targeting zone of the artillery (Murphy's Law of Combat: When you are forward of your position, the artillery will fall short.) and a shot may scatter onto your own units. Be careful with that shizz! Alternately, hang back and let the artillery fall, but remember that your opponent may do the same thing, or may move their units forward where you'll end up calling fire down on your own DZ.

6) FOCs will exist, but be fairly fluid (following the guidelines mentioned above). Most units will be bought as "teams". A platoon of Guardsmen, for example, will be like 50 points for 10 guys. They all have the same weapons, the same armor, same statline, with options to buy Heavy Weapons or Special Weapons that are applied to the unit.

The unit, as well, is a pool of Wounds. It doesn't matter which guy in the unit is packing the lascannon or missile launcher, as long as the unit has at least 1W remaining, someone can operate that weapon. However, following the End-of-Turn resolution of combats, a unit may be less-effective going into the next turn. If, for example, our unit of 10 Guardsmen (a 10W unit) is allowed 20 shots in the Shooting Phase, but suffered 5W this turn, next turn it will only have 10 shots. Other units, like, say, Ogryn, will have more Wounds than regular Guardsmen, to reflect the fact that they are just plain tougher than regular Humans, and so will be able to absorb more punishment, but will have something like a reduced LD or higher points-cost to balance.

... and that's just a few basic ideas. I could write pages of changes, but really cba at the moment.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
It depends on what you want from the game. A lot of people want 40k to be a balanced, competitive game. I disagree with that sentiment. 40k is FAR from perfect, but it's still fun. It's a beer-and-chips game with good quality miniatures. Personally, I wouldn't change the course of friendly 40k.
If you were to try to remake the game into something competitive or balanced, I'd vote for FFG to do the rules. But, I don't see the need to overhaul 40k.

Agree, completely.

Seems like what most of you are suggesting is what mantic did with the WHFB rules. Narrowed them down, clarified everything rule wise (really have played 10 games now and have never had a rules discussion, unheard of in the world of GW), tock away the focus on making the best list instead of being the best general etc.

I like a d6 system, it's super easy for anyone to get d6s by the bunches needed.

That said, a consolidated rulebook, like the 3rd ed. One is what's needed, and a return to the 3rd ed. Rules. There is too many rules, units, and bs that needs the fat trimmed. They also need to bring back the concept of only being able to play special characters, with opponents permission, and if the army is x amount of points. Flyers just need to be skimmers, unbound outlawed, and the ability to take buildings done away with. ADLs and the like should have never been a thing.

For me, the big issue is multiple rules identical with the exception of one clause. Relentless and Slow and Purposeful, for example. Or Melta and Armourbane - why not remove Melta entirely, and just give current Melta weapons Armourbane (6") or Armourbane (12") - whatever the weapons current Melta bonus die range is.

I don’t want to say it needs a complete rewrite, only from the fear of how terrible a move Warhammer Fantasy into Age of Sigmar was....

But, if it were to be re written, a d10 system would make much more sense, and it should be based off of Fantasy Flights Deathwatch Pen and Paper game (Or also Dark Heresy)
Even though Deathwatch is a complicated system, if you were to take its basic game rules and simplify them to use d10's i bet it would be awesome.

Me and a few friends have played small kill teams using Deathwatch rules except we subbed out using a %dice and applied the rules the same only using d10's to represent the 10th place for simplicity.
Plus the weapon/armory list in the Deathwatch Core book is just amazing, the Heavy Bolter actually fires the way it was expected in all the fluff, not this 3 heavy shot bull

I'm not sure a full rewrite is necessary. They just need to undo some of the nonsense of recent editions. Heck, 5th was pretty solid compared to 7th, so they could just strip back to that and focuss on making a smoother version of 5th.

Step back to 3rd. I liked its assault rules better.

Use the stats from 6th, the Assault from 3rd and the rst from 7th

There needs to be another option in the poll...

40k was fine in its past two editions. This edition has ruined it with power creep, imbalance, and formations. If we wanted to play apocalypse, we would. They can keep it as is but without super heavies, gargantuan creatures, formations, etc.

Most of the balance issues would be fixed with axing formations and op large scale models.

Be careful what you wish for. The last thing we need is Age of Sigmar to happen to 40k.

It does need some serious tweaks though. Especially in vehicle damage rules. And close combat units should be able to charge from stationary transports and all reserves except deep strike.

Oh and the psychic phase needs reworking so psykers are more reliable.

Voted for complete rewrite.

I think a stripping down would probably be ideal, but that wasn't an option. I thought that AoS was pretty good regarding simplifying most things, but the lack of balancing mechanic and absurd role-play special rules were idiotic.

Turning 40k into a well-balanced, light-weight game would be great. Alternatively, stripping things down to a lesser degree would certainly be better than adding more rules. Games with that many pieces certainly don't need more things to slow them down.

yes.

Tomorrow.

Eliminate at least half the special rules and wargear, go for the level of detail 3rd edition had (a power weapon is a power weapon is a power weapon).

It would help if they would design all the codices together with the rulebook (at least to balance them). Rather than 'trying' to update them as they go.

The game needs more d100 tables and a DM.

Also, armour penetration modifiers from 2nd edition, nothing like trying to remember 2d12 +3d4 + d8 + 3 during the middle of a game to sort the men from the boys!

This poll is missing a lot of options.

Like Yes there are bugs and they need to be fixed, no we don't want to risk losing the game we love in a total rewrite. It could become AoS in space for sigmars sake.

Things I would like to see fixed.
- multi wound model crit tables and dropped
- Cover is a to hit modifier that stacks with you guess it cover.
- the unfair formation advantages. All upgrades and bonuses need to be paid for in points.
- Ban pre measure and get rid of random charge range
- Readied actions ( same as in DnD) But drop
- Fix psykers -> Bring them at the lv of Wfb wizards, make rules so that if you have 1, 2 or 3 psyker you can actually cast spells and that if you spamm wizards your advantage isn't that high as it is now.
- Bring back decent terrain rules ( 6th where kinda ok)
- make ramming and tan shocking deadly again
- Restrict vehicle movement again -> Max pivot degrees if moving just like fliers

None of the above. I think it needs a serious look, lots of special rules to be taken out, but not from scratch. I also like it being different from AoS or WHFB. Certainly don't add more rules, and it's not perfect.

[edit] I suffer from memory loss

But it is still a horrible poll that lacks good options.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
TBH, I actually enjoy the game (shocking, I know) and I enjoy how the rules work, although I'll admit it isn't perfect, nothing is.

Do I get banned by mods for saying that? Seem like I would be given all the hate.

Haha, yeah me too. I understand that GW has an economic motive behind it, but I am glad they rewrite editions that shake up the game. I would be bored if we had a single core rule set that never changed with units that never changed.

I'd just like to play the game without having to look up the rules for one thing or another, every, single, game.

A complete re-write from scratch is necessary
not only because it is easier, but also to get the codex rules back in line.
If you try to just change the existing rules you will run into the same problems GW had with 4th-7th edition

For the rules, take the best from 2nd-7th and try do not get into power creep for the fraction rules.

A complete rewrite implies the game is completely unplayable or biased to one faction, which is inherently wrong. In the last tournament game I played our team was Imperial guard, Ork, chaos space marine and tau. According to some sites these are 'underpowered' armies requiring buffs in this and that, however our team flattened the other team (who were tau, DA, skitarri and Imperial knights, the last one not being underpowered... APPARENTLY!). Every army claims to be underpowered but really it is just how you build and play your army.

40k doesn't need an overhaul, just some choice touch-ups to make it more consistent.

So people are begging for simplified gameplay, free codexes, and house rules...

Sounds like Age of Sigmar to me

 TedNugent wrote:
So people are begging for simplified gameplay, free codexes, and house rules...

Sounds like Age of Sigmar to me

It also sounds like many other wargames out there on the market that don't have the issues AoS does.

That said, 40k really could use a total, from-scratch, reboot.

 mrhappyface wrote:
A complete rewrite implies the game is completely unplayable or biased to one faction,

That would be only one reason for a re-write and biased to one faction would only call for a new codex and not for new rules.

Basic problem is that GW always got only half of their armies written for the actual edition.
Some are written for the previous others for the following one.

The other problem is that a new edition is done to change the game and not to fix broken or unclear rules.
We do not have 1 40k game with the improved 7th Rulebook, but 7 completely different games.

And the rules are complicated without being complex.

That is also a reason why people call for simpler rules. The 40k rules are already simple but written complicated.
A complete re-write with keeping stuff streamlined and simple would get the whole rules on 25 pages, including Warlord Traits, Psionic Powers and Fortifications.

But of course GW would misunderstand and just but easy rules to 4 pages but keeping it as complicated as possible and miss important clarifications (which is why AoS is a bad game compared to other ones with simple rules like X-Wing)

I have yet to try any homebrew that plays better than off-the-shelf 40k.

It should not be a big problem to find something which is better

The Questions would be to find something that fits your kind of gameplay (eg prefering Skirmish, mass-skirmish, or mass-battle games)

And yet in pretty much all cases 40k fits me better, particularly if we're talking commercial product rather than someone's late night fit of untested inspiration.