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.

What I was saying is, if you build it to always be within the scope of the rules, there is no problem with them in the core ruleset.

The main issue everyone has with gargantuans, superheavies, and flyers is they were just yanked from a separate system with no thought to how they would affect the normal gameplay. If they are redesigned from the ground up to fit seamlessly within the ruleset, there is no reason to ever have a separate supplement.

Adding a percentage of points stipulation fixes your size issues, rewriting the rules allows you to keep their potency in check.

With regards to the ex-apocalypse GMC/SH/Flier issue, I was thinking about this recently and came up the shell of an idea:

Have two different game sizes.

The first is Skirmish, with a recommended point size of 500-1500 points. Ex-apoc models are banned, the core FOC is smaller, and superformations like the Gladys and Decurion are banned. Standard formations are still fine.

The second is Warfront, with a recommended size of 1250+ - and yes, the overlap is deliberate, to allow people to shift from one to the other. In Warfront, ex-apoc units are fine, as are superformations.

Some formations are specifically designed for one game type or the other, and have something in the rules to indicate this.

That way, armies can more easily be balanced for multiple game sizes. Obviously, the rest of the system also needs a revamp.

Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.

Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.

These are just a few of the changes I would make. I would make the rules accessible online so that they can be easily rewritten if need be. I would also re-write the whole rulebook for 8th edition basing it on 5th with some adjustments, as well as release all the 8th edition version of Codexes at the same time, after thoroughly playtesting them within 8th's rules.

What if all units for a faction are put in their Codex, but each unit is given a Level which represents the minimum size game it is appropriate for. That way players can easily make clear what type of game they want to play, without it coming across as "house rules".

Level 1: Basic units and non-named characters.
Level 2: The rest of the non-Super Heavy/Gargantuan units.
Level 3: The Gargantuan and Super Heavy units.

Having set game sizes with the units that are appropriate for that game size, is a sensible idea.

The issue I have with super heavies is they have to be super effective, and cost an appropriately higher amount of points.

This causes imbalance in the level of investment in the game.And also takes the game size beyond a 6 x 4 table IF you want to keep sensible levels of tactical maneuver.

I was just proposing to get the basic battle game sorted first, so when we add the bigger kits, they can be brought in to a more stable and structured frame work of game play.

One of the core faults in 40k is the way the F,O,C focuses on function of units rather than rarity of units.
This means the game devs try to adjust PV to perform the function of limiting units, which is the road to forced imbalance IMO.

If the F.O.C was HQ , Common units, Support Units, Specialist Units similar to the way Epic SM built armies.(Which was about the same size armies in 6mm as 6th ed 40k used 28mm for!)_

It would leave PV to determine relative in game worth.

Basically players pick a HQ and 5 common units as the Core of the force.
They may add up to 4 Support units, and 1 Specialist unit.

This allows lots of different themes to be covered to represent the old Klans, Regiments, Craftworlds etc, without all the current complication that 7th ed 40k uses.

Lanrak wrote:
I was just proposing to get the basic battle game sorted first, so when we add the bigger kits, they can be brought in to a more stable and structured frame work of game play.

Absolutely. There's no point getting into the details of the more massive units if you don't have the most basic ones properly balanced. I think it would probably be easiest to start with the cheapest, most basic units in the game, and balance them so that their optional upgrades are appropriately priced for how they impact the game. Then progress up through more powerful units, so that their prices are appropriately balanced relative to the cheapest units. So Super Heavies/Gargantuans would be the last things tackled.

The issue I have with super heavies is they have to be super effective, and cost an appropriately higher amount of points.

This may be accurate to most Super Heavies, but may I present the Baneblade and its variants as a counter-point. They are very expensive units, but their effectiveness as directly related to the game size. Their main weapon are enormous blasts, which only matter if the enemy's units are sufficiently clustered to allow multiple units to be caught in its radius. In smaller games it is simply too easy for an enemy to spread out, leaving the Baneblade not much more effective than a Land Raider, so even if a player has an option to bring it in a game <2500points, it typically isn't wise. (It's a bit like how you can't use a nuke in a fight with your next-door neighbor, even if you have one, the weapon simply requires larger scale and greater distance to be used)

If the F.O.C was HQ , Common units, Support Units, Specialist Units similar to the way Epic SM built armies.(Which was about the same size armies in 6mm as 6th ed 40k used 28mm for!)_

I do suspect that changing the classifications as you described would make it easier to build themed armies. However, I would note that with both your suggestion and the current method, players can take multiple smaller detachments to achieve the same effect.

What if the standard F.O.C. were replaced with everyone having a Decurion Detachment?

@Bill1138.
I think we are on the same page as it were, but express the same ideas in slightly different ways.So can talk past each other a bit.

The argument about the Baneblade only being effective in a particular game size, is more or less what I meant about the imbalance in the levels of investment in the game.
If you are trying to balance an infantry hoard army with lots of super heavies , even if the PV are worked out really well,And each force has a 50% chance of winning.It just is not a fun match up.

So having set minimum game sizes before certain units can be chosen is the best way to deal with this, I agree.

I would like to think that;-
Pick a HQ Unit, then select a core of 5 common units to finish the core force.
And have the option to pick up to 4 Separate Support units, and up to one Specialist unit.

Is much easier than the 7th ed method of force selection.(I did ask about this new method, , and sort of lost interest when the guy explaining it broke out a Venn diagram )

If the HQ unit sets the theme , and what units are classed as Common, Support and Specialist.We can include the more diverse units, as they would only appear in the appropriate list.
EG Squiggoths ,Wildboys,and Boarboys only appear in a 'Snakebite'.feral list.

This question is far too difficult to answer with a single band-aid.

As it stands, 40k has numerous problems with it. Since this game lacks even a consistent grammar system and basic proofreading at times, there's a hell of a lot of holes to fix before even getting to the game mechanics.

But in broad strokes, this is what I'd like to see happen:

1st: General simplification of the rules. My main gripe with this is that Flyers, Gargantuan Creatures, Superheavy Vehicles, D-Strength weapons, and even sometimes some of the normal stuff like Jetbikes VS Eldar Jetbikes have just too many subsections and "advanced rules" tacked on top of them. The game needs to simplify all of this. This will be a very hard pill for people to swallow but it is one if the game is going to have any semblance of balance in the future, as any designer will tell you that increasing complexity only creates increasingly harder issues and unforeseeable issues down the road. Gargantuan Creatures, Superheavies and D-Strength weapons in particular should be relegated back to Apocalypse, as their very nature requires special rules to break 40k own internal system just to work (D-Strength literally exists because it broke the strength stat).

Next up, cleaning up the FoC. Get rid of Formations, Unbound, weird-ass detachments and whatnot. This is not only because of the above complexity issue, but it's also horrible for designers to balance game units. When the FoC was originally implimented, it was just as much of a tool for army building as well as a design tool for designers; Troops would be your baseline units that you design everything around and where you start. Fast Units are Troops that are...well Faster, Heavy Support had more heavy weapons, Elites are Troops but better. An occasional deviation from this is ok, but to have almost every single army break a rule you had as the baseline and you might as well never have a baseline to start. Formations, theoretically, can do the same, but from a designer's viewpoint is far too unwieldy to gauge things and the old FoC is far easier to work with.

Then: Clean up the Codexes. We have 5 flavours of power armor alone and they have three supplements and two campaign-exclusive detachments and relics lists. I know Space Marines are GW's cash cow but this is responsible for 80% of the wacky rules we have; each individual marine detachment feels the need to be "unique" so we gotta make each one unique somehow. And we can't even decide which way to make them unique. Which one is the close combat specialists? White Scars, Blood Angels, Space Wolves or Ravenguard? Who is suppose to be shooty? Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, Dark Angels or Space Wolves? Who is suppose to be all-rounder? Ultramarines, or Space Wolves? This sort of explosion of "variety" instead caused all of the space marine armies to be "watered down versions of a Non-Space Marine army in power armor" (Dark Angels = Tau, Iron Hands = Necrons, etc...). And the supplements did no favours for the other armies either; Haemonculous Coven should be playable without a separate book and Chaos really needs to be reunited as one army again. And let's not even get started on Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, that paltry excuse for a Deathwatch "army", Inquisition and the Stormtroopers.

And then: Get rid of all the random tables. They make no sense at times and are harmful at worst. Your Warlord should know exactly what skills he has to bring to the table, he doesn't bring a column of armored tanks and then suddenly realize he specializes in infantry tactics. Same goes for Psychic Powers. Psychic Powers in general needs to be simplified and not every army needs it's own special version of it, and certainly not every marine chapter under the sun. As it stands, Chaos, Eldar, Nids and Orks should get their own dedicated lists, since they each are either the embodiment of their own psychic presence or have research it longer than every other race. Everyone else should just suck it up and use the core codex ones. The Psychic phase is an iffy one, but I actually like it and it should really be implimented to something similar to the Fantasy Magic Phase instead, making casting more reliable.

And more: Get competent designers and playtest. The game right now has zero playtesting going through it (most of the grammar mistakes can be caught just by reading the rules!) and it could use competent designers. They need to get rid of the mentality of updating things just to sell stuff. And be responsible for the rules they write. The whole idea of "Forge the Narrative" is a cope out; it's a crappy excuse for their neglect for the rules. You can totally make rules that support the narrative if you take the time to playtest and innovate, as this forum showed it's not that hard either. We have a huge pool of people who would probably do it for pennies if given the chance, and the longterm gain for GW would far outweigh the short term costs.

Finally: Move the narrative forward. There's no need to retcon stuff back into fluff when you can just move things forward. In fact prior to the codex overhaul this is exactly what 4th edition did; the special issue wargear were out-and-out to be testbed systems with the implication that the would-be 5th edition the Tau codex would include "fixed" versions of them for the common trooper to use (this however never happened). This way they can still introduce new models and stuff to the game without having to shoehorn their backstory into the fluff, and don't have to crap over the rules of existing units to sell them. For example, the increasingly scarce Chaos Space Marines from the original heresy in the various codexes can be chalked up to casualties slowly taking their toll on the traitor legion's forces, with none of the new blood being able to fulfill the role. Instead GW is unable to decide whether the current CSM dex should represent the original Traitor Legions or newly-turned Marine Chapters.

And those are just the broad strokes suggestions I'd have. Each Codex, each unit, each weapon has it's own faults and should be managed accordingly, and if I were to actually list them, it would be a 40 page document MINIMUM. At this rate, it'd be easier to build the game from the ground up rather than try to patch this sinking ship.

I would look to 30k.

Remove formations and decurions.

A baseline FOC that encompasses everything anyone would need with restrictions on the bonkers stuff (LoW). Rites of war to add lots of flavor and adjust the FoC to fit various play styles with both bonuses and drawbacks for each one.

@MechaEmperor7000.
Agree with nearly everything you posted.
Except
A)Even when GW had competent game developers, the GW Sales Department totally ignored them !

B)The '1000 years in an entire universe' game setting ,is full of potential to explore and expand upon.
The fact GW totally miss-managed the way they approached it, does not mean they had to advance the story line.

If they only showed limited examples of a fraction of what was out there, and let players fill in the massive blanks, it would have been fine.

But some asshat wanted to define the entire IP , in some misguided idea of 'control everything and we will make more money'.And just restricted/mangled the established narrative, and drove more people away.

I agree a complete re write is the most effective way to fix 40k.

@Lance845.
If you did not experience 3rd ed 40k.
You may not realize even the most balanced and simplified version of the GW 40k battle game rules had serious flaws.

They called it 'Blandhammer' for a reason.And we all thought when they release all the codex books they will put the 'character' back into the game...
But the cost of adding character to the new rules was adding more and more special rules, additional rules bloat and complication.

Until we have the natural progression of starting with a flawed rule set , trying to fix it without making any needed changes, 7th ed 40k.

As 30k uses very limited number of unit types compared to 40k, it is so much easier to balance.
I believe the more units you add the more special rules bloat will occur, and the game will end up close to the 7th ed 40k mess we have now.

Maybe not a complete pile of steaming dung with glitter on the top.But quite a lot of hints of the dung theme over all.

Formations aren't the original sin here. Miscosted fundamental units and weapon systems are. Scatterlasers, for example, are criminally undercosted.

Scatter lasers probably could use a bump but the real problem is their is no limit to how many you can take per unit. Even a guard squad would get a huge bump if I could take unlimited GL for example.

There is certainly a lot that could be done to make the game less imbalanced...

Remove the point cost of the game? This way we can balance the game in relation to the type of board we are playing, the method of deployment and the objective(s) of the mission.

One thing I think is an absolute necessity (in addition to the complete redesign of the game itself) is to make the rules more accessible.

Codexes should be available as paper-backs (just the rules, not all of the extra fluff and pictures that just make the books thicker), and these should be sold for what it costs to make and distribute them. I'd personally simply make all of the lore currently in the Codexes available online.

And for the people who want everything in their Codex (prices be ), they can buy a special edition Codex, which is hard back and has all of the extra fluff that the rest of us don't care to lug around.

Then do the same with the Core Rules. And the new Core rules and Codexes should all be released at the same time.

This would remove a lot of the overhead cost of getting into the game which is keeping a lot of people out. And if they back off the prices of the miniatures then their potential market gets a lot larger, as more of the younger crowd will be able to afford to play.

@ Bill1138.
If you are focusing on game play and game balance,and selling minatures for use in a tactical battle game.
(Rather than selling the customers '..jewel like objects of wonder..'(tm) )

Then why not have the core rules and army lists as free to download PDFs?(That can be updated every year, based on feed back from the players on the forums.)

People wanting cool stories still have Black Library books.
People wanting big books full of pictures and inspiration for collecting/converting can buy the 'Source books' for each faction. Eg like the current codex books without rules, but more focus on conversions and painting guides..

And If we are looking at game function and balance , perhaps starting with a force we have the most in common with.EG the bog standard human force.Would better show how all the factions differ from us.

Rather than start with GWs posters boys , the 7 foot tall super men with the best gear in the galaxy, and how every other faction is 'inferior' to them
in some way.

Lanrak wrote:
@ Bill1138.
If you are focusing on game play and game balance,and selling minatures for use in a tactical battle game.
(Rather than selling the customers '..jewel like objects of wonder..'(tm)

Then why not have the core rules and army lists as free to download PDFs?(That can be updated every year, based on feed back from the players on the forums.)

I'd absolutely be fine with the rules all being free downloads online. It certainly would make updating the rules easier. However, I do think at least the Core Rules should be available as hard copies simply because it will be much more durable than binders (and not all of us have I-pads). And if the rules were actually done right, it should be several years before any sort of update to the Core Rules is needed, and the length of time between editions could be doubled through the use of a printable FAQ to cover the changes that become necessary.

And If we are looking at game function and balance , perhaps starting with a force we have the most in common with.EG the bog standard human force.Would better show how all the factions differ from us.

EG? Did you mean Imperial Guard? If so, that's something I've been looking into. I think if we were to start with one Codex to balance internally, before moving on to the others, this one is probably the best, as it is the closest to having objective real-world comparisons out of all of 40k's factions.

@Bill1138.
The option to buy the rules in paperback format if you want to would be fine by me.

But a rule set written for the game play of 40K should not run to more than 50 pages. IMO.
(The faction lists should not be more than a dozen pages each if they are focused on in game data.)

Yes I meant IG as the starting focus of the game.As they are the closest real world analogue we have in 40k.
If the game lets these easily identifiable units behave how we expect, then it will arrive at more intuitive game play.
And for this reason I think 40k should have an equal focus on mobility fire power and assault, to allow all units to have more relevance.

As the 'weird aliens' can behave slightly differently to the normal human forces, without breaking the game to make them super special in their own unique way with loads of special rules.

This is why I think we need a complete re-write to cover more game play with the core rules.
(So mobility, shooting and assault each have 2 elements on the stat line rather than the current 0,1,4 loading .)

If we are talking about re-writing rule books and Codex for balance, I don't believe from a logistics stand point that just re-writing everything and releasing it at the same times is even MILDLY a realistic concept. I mean you are talking about a massive financial investment that could cripple if not bankrupt a company like GW, lets be realistic... however I am actually ok with the approach they are currently taking with formations. I do not believe that formations are in anyway the problem with the game currently. Now, does everyone have them yet, NO! that is a major issue, as a chaos player, it kills me to not have any real formations outside of DK and CD's.

Now I would like to see rules released on GW's site for free might be a good way to draw people into the game, it helps reduce that barrier of entry. and you can make an argument that that makes them more money in the long run.

I honestly believe that formations is the way to keep the game alive, so long as GW is careful to not to go insane with them and get to greedy on forcing new content at to fast a rate that no one can afford to keep up with it. Now, that being said, you can make the argument that they have not done the best job of balancing those formations, some are much better then others. these splash releases i think area good way to go, it allows them to rebalance a bit with formations and fun scenarios mid codex release. More careful thought into those formations i think is the key, making each army dinamic in some way is the key to "balancing" the game out.

But ill be honest, the game needed and SHOULD have advanced beyond the old standard CaD where units shuffle forward and shoot at each other or charge each other. Looka round beyond the game its self, look at other games on the market, they are NOT games that you shuffle forward blandly shoot and make saves and ho hum threw games. Im sorry this is not 2nd or 3rd edition anymore, its just NOT and i really think people need to get past that! If that is your thing, cool, that's good for you, there are plenty of historical civil war wargames out there that you will love! and there is nothing wrong with that, but 40K is NOT that game anymore, and if it wants to survive it HAS to evolve! Those that don't die off.

The real work I see needed to be done is more on simplifying some rules, not all but some. The core fo the game isn't bad, infact i think its as good as its been in a few years now.

I believe the real balancing comes on giving some thought to how models work. A lot of the models that are "bad" in today's games are ones that have had no rules updates in years, their rules have just been copied and pasted from edition after edition. "Terminators im looking at you!" A lot of people complain about Eldar, and hey im not a Eldar defender! they are undercosted for as elite as their army rules are! For sure, but its not their formations that break them! its their point costs! They move well, they shoot well and they are FAR cheaper then they should be points wise! Points balance is the biggest problem the game faces right now. You can make that argument for a ton of models! Termies, if they where much lower points how often do you think you would see them? Dreadknots, if they where closer to 60 pts how often do you think you would see them on the table? Now give them a formation that plays to their strengths and let them dynamic in the roll they play? and sure you will have a very balanced game. will there be mismatches? of course! but that's they way it should be! Some things are just better against others, there is NOTHING wrong with that. i mean there are guys at my local shop that say the same things, no one wants to play with them because they are hateful old curmudgeons that are not fun to play against, not because their army is "abusive" or "to strong" but because they are miserable to be around.

Now the last thing i would say is doing a better job of prioritizing rules updates. i mean there is no reason we should see two or even three releases for some armies, to update their rules and keep them current when others havent seen any love in years! I mean I am a Chaos player at heart, I love my CSM's but on the table i have to hook and crook wins if i want them. There is no reason that they haven't gotten a splash book with formations in it.

I do not think "taking out formations and getting rid of rules" that quite frankly has kept this game fresh, fun and dynamic is in any way an answer, going back kills the game, more dynamic rules for the armies that don't currently have them i really think is the answer! and that seems to be the way we are going.

Dyslexican32,

From your post it seems that you're arguing to not throw the baby out with the bathwater (if I'm reading it correctly). But I don't think that's what we're doing. The current rule sets are horrendously broken, to the point that simply patching it up isn't going work. The game has degraded to the point where we need to step back, figure out what aspects can be kept, and what needs to go, and then re-build the entire game from the ground up, re-balancing everything along the way. That is not the same thing as simply reverting back to a previous edition.

Many players (and former players) loathe GW's method of turning the whole game on its head every time they release something. For us, it isn't keeping the game fresh, it's just making it too expensive to play by making the models we have useless.

Example: I have around 10,000 points of Grey Knights, and most of my models cant be fielded with any plausible chance to win. Grey Knights went from a well-rounded Codex with good internal balancing to a crappy mono-build which still doesn't work particularly well without allies. You said that bad units were the result of the units not being updated for new editions, but GW ruined the Grey Knights by doing the opposite (not leaving something that worked well alone).

And most players who've been with the game for any length of time will have similar stories about when the same has been done to their Codex, or worse, when their Codex becomes completely obsolete because some other Codex got an update which is completely OP, making their's irrelevant when it can't hold up in competitive play..

This is not refreshing the game. It's sucking the soul out of the players, and its driving many of them away.

The rules and all Codexes need to be developed together, with balancing at the forefront of the priorities. Not every unit needs to be able to match every other unit. Not every list will be perfect for every enemy. However, a well thought out "take all comers" list should have roughly equal odds of beating the same from any other Codex, and that is not what we currently have.

The game is broken, both internal balance within Codexes, and external between Codexes. What we've been bouncing around are ideas about how to fix this balance. Much of fixing these issues involves cutting things which are OP, or add too many variables for any sort of balance to be possible. However when the game was rebuilt, these would be re evaluated to see if they have any place in the new rules.

The rules need to be made available either much cheaper or free. This removes a large portion of the price barrier to getting into the game. It also makes it much easier to start multiple armies, so GWs income could actually increase (assuming their reputation hasn't already driven too many people away).

The entirety of the rules for the game should be
1: The Core Rules (which includes everything about Fortifications alternate game modes, etc).
2: The Codexes, which include every unit for that faction (including any units which are restricted to Apocalypse or some other gameplay format.
3: FAQs which can be printed out and kept with their appropriate books.

The online FAQ should be always be up-to-date, and new editions of the rules would NOT be a place to try out new rules, and would only include the changes which had already been implemented in the FAQs.

@Dyslexican32.
Re writing the rules and re doing all the codex books at the same time is what the game of 40k has needed for while now.

If the rules are written for the game play and cover about 90% of the game play, the majority of units can be covered by the core rules and balanced quite quickly.(EG most other war games are 'sorted' by 3rd ed of the game.The 40k battle games 3rd ed,(6th ed).Was so underwhelming GW had to release 7th ed 40k after just 2 years to try to prop up falling sales volumes!

Is writing rules to inspire collectors to buy more models, rather than writing rules to deliver a good game working out well for GW ?
They have lost appx 2/3rd of their sales volumes since 2004,And they are still loosing sales volumes in a growing market...

It could be argued GW can not afford not to sort out the rules properly with a complete re-write.

My objection to detachments and formations etc.Is if the F.O.C was doing its job properly they would not be needed.
Every other game I know of manages to cover force organisation/army composition in a simple and elegant way that works.(Usually working on unit rarity not unit function.)

A lot of the issues with the 40k battle game are unique to 40k, because its the only game I can think of that has never has rules written specifically for its game play.

The actual core rules of 40k only cover standard infantry in the open.The other dozen or so unit types need separate,or special rules.

So the core rules of 40k cover less than HALF of the game play of 40k.And that is is why if has to use over eighty special rules , and multiple resolution systems for the same in game function.

An objective comparison of 40ks core rules to other rule sets shows them to be inadequate, or down right unsuitable for the intended game play.
(Depending on what game play you think 40k should have. )

40ks restrictive rules deliver very simple game play.
But GW corporate thinks its customers are happier with adding complicated rules to make up for lack of game complexity.

The only way to address these core issues is with a complete ground up re-write.

Dyslexican32,

From your post it seems that you're arguing to not throw the baby out with the bathwater (if I'm reading it correctly). But I don't think that's what we're doing. The current rule sets are horrendously broken, to the point that simply patching it up isn't going work. The game has degraded to the point where we need to step back, figure out what aspects can be kept, and what needs to go, and then re-build the entire game from the ground up, re-balancing everything along the way. That is not the same thing as simply reverting back to a previous edition.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the game needs to be re written from the ground up. Are there rules that I would say need addressed? Yeah of course there are! Stomp is one that comes to mind off the top of my head. The way that works currently makes it very abusive. However I do not believe its the core rules that are the problem, You can make the argument that codexes are not well balanced across several editions, given that some have not gotten releases in SEVERAL editions however I totally disagree that the answer is to cut out things like formations and go back to FoC only.

The problem is not the formations in the game, formations have made the game much more dynamic and fun IMO. Like i said I do not believe that the formations "break the game" they don't, some are stronger then others, sure i will grant you that. But if you look at the formation and how they function themselves its not the formation its self that makes them broken, its the improper balance of the units involved that makes the eldar formations so much more powerful then others to use an example. The units themselves are extremely point efficient for what they do,s o its the volume of the strong units you can bring that makes the so strong. A proper balancing of units in codexes seems to be the fix IMO. Those formations just accentuate their strengths.

Example: I have around 10,000 points of Grey Knights, and most of my models cant be fielded with any plausible chance to win. Grey Knights went from a well-rounded Codex with good internal balancing to a crappy mono-build which still doesn't work particularly well without allies. You said that bad units were the result of the units not being updated for new editions, but GW ruined the Grey Knights by doing the opposite (not leaving something that worked well alone).

Look I agree with the bad idea of taking Grayknights and GW intentionally making them worse, I have no idea why they did that either. Especially when the game took a shift to much more powerful armies. I don't know what to tell you on that, However i know in my game group I have let a friend use his old codex(we make a few logical tweeks to make it work) and they do just fine against most armies. They do struggle against high mobility armies, which is the meta right now ill give you that. But again if you build a formation that allows them to shine they will be just fine. And yeah I mean I don't know what to tell you cus without intentionally taking some cheese my CSM's are in the same boat where they just struggle to compete on a competitive level. Infact my CSM army gets wrecked by Gray knights ona regular basis. So i DO understand your frustration but don't agree with the solution of "cutting" thing out of the game fixing that problem.

The game is broken, both internal balance within Codexes, and external between Codexes. What we've been bouncing around are ideas about how to fix this balance. Much of fixing these issues involves cutting things which are OP, or add too many variables for any sort of balance to be possible. However when the game was rebuilt, these would be re evaluated to see if they have any place in the new rules.

What specifically about the game is broken? Give me an example? Where and why is it "OP" I see so many people throw that term around but i find so often that it makes me roll my eyes. people at my shop cry about eldar (which are very strong i don't disagree!) and Dark Angles bikes. And where yes some of my armies struggle against them, I have others that destroy them. again if the codex's where updated properly then this would not be an issue at all. We all use the same core rules, but don't use the same codex. That was my whole point, rewriting the game from the ground up is not the answer. I actually think 7th is a fairly good system over all.

My objection to detachments and formations etc.Is if the F.O.C was doing its job properly they would not be needed.

I remember a ton of complaining about the same things when this was the case. This goes back to what i said before, "it was better before" is not an answer. its sticking your head in the sand.

An objective comparison of 40ks core rules to other rule sets shows them to be inadequate, or down right unsuitable for the intended game play.
(Depending on what game play you think 40k should have. )

How so? please give specifics? Because i don't think there are any problems that a few patches or more clearly written versions of the core rules wont fix, and even then there really aren't that many, the problem the FAQ's are next to nonexistent to fix the few relevant issues. But over all iw ouldnt say they are "inadequate:"

The only way to address these core issues is with a complete ground up re-write.

Again a disagree. The biggest problem is codex balance not core game balance. Most of the armies that have fallen behind are ones who are waiting for updated rules and formations, this leaves those that don't have updates behind. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EDITION! people make the same complains because their codex hasn't gotten an update. "the game is broken it needs fixed!" but when its their codex is on top its crickets.I think the only issue we really have right now is there seems to be no strategy for rounding things out, again done this in between codex or splash releases. If there was a concentrated effort to make sure that each codex got a little love, then the game balances out. But crying about how this or that is " OP" or "broken" so we should go back to FoC and no allies doesn't even fix anything, if anything it puts armies that are already strong like Eldar that much further ahead. Try playing a game where you and an eldar opponent run Foc, see where that gets you. cus I have its not pretty. but "rewriting the whole game" isn't even a semi realistic answer. A plan moving forward, yes but they seem to have that cis currently moving those armies that have gotten updates into a spot where they can compete against each other.

The rules need a total rewrite. And ditch the d6 system.

 Dyslexican32 wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree that the game needs to be re written from the ground up. Are there rules that I would say need addressed? Yeah of course there are! Stomp is one that comes to mind off the top of my head. The way that works currently makes it very abusive. However I do not believe its the core rules that are the problem, You can make the argument that codexes are not well balanced across several editions, given that some have not gotten releases in SEVERAL editions however I totally disagree that the answer is to cut out things like formations and go back to FoC only.

A proper balancing of units in codexes seems to be the fix IMO. Those formations just accentuate their strengths.

I don't personally have a preference regarding Formations beyond the need for consistency. Either give everyone fair and similarly combat-effective Formations, or cut them out entirely. I don't care which. But proper balancing of the Codexes does require a full re-write of their rules, and that by necessity will include some of the rules from the Core Rulebook.

the bad idea of taking Grayknights and GW intentionally making them worse, I have no idea why they did that either. Especially when the game took a shift to much more powerful armies. I don't know what to tell you on that, However i know in my game group I have let a friend use his old codex(we make a few logical tweeks to make it work) and they do just fine against most armies.

Out of curiosity, what "tweaks" did you put on the 5th Edition Codex?

Look I agree with They do struggle against high mobility armies, which is the meta right now ill give you that. But again if you build a formation that allows them to shine they will be just fine.

It's better to fix the base units before trying to introduce Formations which showcase the units abilities. Most of the units in the Grey Knight 7th Edition Codex are utter crap, and so over-costed that it really can't be fixed with a Formation.

What specifically about the game is broken? Give me an example? Where and why is it "OP" I see so many people throw that term around but i find so often that it makes me roll my eyes.

You are correct that the term "OP" is thrown around far too much. However I rarely use it for that reason. When I refer to "cutting things which are OP" I was referring to when a single unit can be practically un-harmable by another codex unless they actually built an army around fighting that specific unit. Imperial Knights and Wraithknights are two such examples. And some of these re-rollable Invulnerable Saves are just as bad, especially when the unit has Storm Shields.

people at my shop cry about eldar (which are very strong i don't disagree!) and Dark Angles bikes. And where yes some of my armies struggle against them, I have others that destroy them.

That's not balance. That's at best a strict Paper-Scissors-Rock mentality. It's fine for different armies to have different things they excel at, provided if each Codex plays to its own strengths, either army has a roughly equal chance of winning. No one wants the odds to be 2/1 or 3/1 against them going into a game just because of the army choices.

My objection to detachments and formations etc.Is if the F.O.C was doing its job properly they would not be needed.

I remember a ton of complaining about the same things when this was the case. This goes back to what i said before, "it was better before" is not an answer. its sticking your head in the sand.

I don't think that's fair. His argument was that if the balance and variety needed were already built into the Codexes, then the extra special rules from Formations and Detachments wouldn't be needed. If every unit in the Codex were already equally viable, then all of the variety players could want is already right there. As I said, I don't personally care if Formations stay or go, so long as the end result is balanced gameplay, but I do think that he has a point that either way the Codexes need to be re-balanced, and if everything the units need to be viable is in the Codex, dropping Formations will just make the balancing simpler.


You're free to have your opinions just like everyone else, but for me the game's become unplayable, because too many rules are too vaguely worded, and everyone wants to interpret them differently. And GW knows this is a problem because their Core Rulebook even has a rule in the front that says if you can't agree on the interpretation of a rule then both players should have a "roll-off." That's , and some of their writers need canned! As long as the game has been around and having seen how people will rules-lawyer vague wordings, there is no excuse for how many of these vague wordings are still in the game.

At the very least the Core Rules need gone over with a fine-toothed comb, removing every instance of vague wording, and the Universal Special Rules need to be subject to the ground-up re-write of every Codex to balance them.

@Dyslexican32.
When I pointed out the original concept of the 40k F.O.C was flawed.
(GW focused on unit function to help new customers collect armies.And it was part of an abandoned promotion method. EG collect HQ and 2 troop units, and get 10% off a FA or HS units choice.)

I was NOT suggesting to return to this flawed system.But to create a new system similar to the ones other games use, that allow varied and interesting army /force builds without of all the shenanigans of Detachments and Formations 40k rules need.

However, unless the game rules represent and supports all unit functions equally,the game play and game balance will be compromised.

Considering GW called Epic Armageddon an '..advanced tactical battle game for experienced players...'
And as it covered the same units and armies as 7th ed 40k.(But in 6mm so the armies had room to maneuver on a 6x4 table. )

You would think that the rules for this 'advanced game' would take up many more pages than 7th ed 40k.
The last time I looked all the rules and all the army lists for Epic Armageddon took up less than 350 pages.

What part of the statement '.The actual core rules of 40k only cover standard infantry in the open.'Was unclear?

As there are over a dozen types of unit in 40k , how can the core rules only covering one of them be a good thing for clarity and game balance?

If you assume that game play of 40k should be an equal balance of mobility, fire power and assault.(So all units can shine in the game.)
Then you would expect the stat line to show this..
But 40ks stat line has 0 stats for mobility,1 stat for shooting, and 4 stats dedicated to assault.

Oddly enough WHFB stat line works great for WHFB.(Where the game play focus is firmly on close combat and shooting is used in a supporting role.) But is not that great for 40k.

Unless you have witnessed how the 'unsuitable/unstable ' core rules of 3rd ed , lead to the horrendous rules bloat and game play issues , it may be difficult to accept the core rules are seriously flawed, and need to be reworked /replaced to correct the errors at source .

@Martel732.
I agree in ditching the use of D6 in artificially restrictive ways .(Binary condition dictators, purely deterministic methods.)
Lots of games use D6 in much more intelligent ways, and I would prefer to try these methods before ditching their use completely.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.

Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.

Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.

Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.

Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.

Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.

Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.

Personally i would rather no Bike jump FOC. it makes building too easy. personally would say they can get scoring but you still need troop tax.
i dont understand the immobilized vehicle thing though. it still has crew and probably a beacon for a thunder hawk to come by and scoop em up. realistically speaking

100% no BB sharing. no BB in general it allows way to much shenanigans.

 Desubot wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.

Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.

Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.

Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.

Personally i would rather no Bike jump FOC. it makes building too easy. personally would say they can get scoring but you still need troop tax.
i dont understand the immobilized vehicle thing though. it still has crew and probably a beacon for a thunder hawk to come by and scoop em up. realistically speaking

100% no BB sharing. no BB in general it allows way to much shenanigans.

Not being super into Imperium fluff, but having played the Deathwatch RPG, and having looked at the Drop Pod model, there shouldn't be anyone left in that. It should just be sitting there, and will be retrieved at some point after the battle. So no, they shouldn't be scoring.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Have armies constructed out of a CAD, none of this formation gak that gives advantages for no points cost what so ever, especially when some benefits are much better than others.

Only Troops score.
All Bike units are FA and can be moved to Troops if two HQs take Bike.
Immobilized Vehicles (for purposes of DT) don't score.
Can't share transports even if Bb.

Pretty much exactly what needs to change. I'd also throw in some changes to SHVs/GCs.

Also, I disagree with the formations. Don't remove them. I like them.

Personally i would rather no Bike jump FOC. it makes building too easy. personally would say they can get scoring but you still need troop tax.
i dont understand the immobilized vehicle thing though. it still has crew and probably a beacon for a thunder hawk to come by and scoop em up. realistically speaking

100% no BB sharing. no BB in general it allows way to much shenanigans.

Not being super into Imperium fluff, but having played the Deathwatch RPG, and having looked at the Drop Pod model, there shouldn't be anyone left in that. It should just be sitting there, and will be retrieved at some point after the battle. So no, they shouldn't be scoring.

Then why not just make all DT non scoring overall. unless otherwise transporting a troop choice.
a drop pod still has a beacon and an Automated gun (which i dont think should be BS4) so a T hawk in general would be coming by to take it back. (drop pods aint cheap )

I think the only real balance that could be achieved is if GW got another company (like WizKids or Fantasy Flight) to write all of their rulebooks and codices for them. GW could still publish them and put their name on the books, but someone else would actually write the contents.

SG