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.

There are so many core rules that just need a nudge one way or the other to make them good/useful/fair. Most of them seem to be involving specific types of units, which is why trying to fix bits here and there don't really address the problem as a whole, because making vehicles better helps some armies but hurts others, making MCs weaker helps some armies, hurts others, nerfing psykic powers helps some armies, hurts others, etc etc etc. For every broken or ineffective rule that gets modified, something else gets negatively impacted in some way.

At this point, its about time to AoS 40K. Obviously, the true AoS rules can't be completely retained, but I love the way unit stats are done for that game and think that could really translate over, providing points/unit size limits are implemented. I also like the streamlined combat rules in AoS.

I would like a change to the alternating phases turn system. 40K Epic played that way if I recall, so its not a strange concept for GW.

Of course, this will piss everybody off because it means, once again, a new version, new rules, etc. But if they did it like they did AoS, all the existing units would have free rules, and the main rules would be free as well. Maybe try to retain as much of the supplemental items like mission cards, psychic power cards, that sort of thing to take the sting off. The turn system would be different enough so that it wouldn't feel like a direct port of AoS, and wouldn't step on that game's toes.

I don't care for fliers, GMC, and super heavy tanks in regular 40k.

 Xerics wrote:
Vehicles get glanced to death too easily.

Yeah, damn those vehicle vs. infantry staring contests!

As some may have indicated, the 40k rules are such a mess because of forced backward compatibility, all the way back to 3rd ed WHFB/RT.

The WHFB rule set could just about cope with the demands of a 40k skirmish game, with lots of additional rules for units not found in WHFB.(Vehicles.)
And an umpteen special rules and modifiers to extend the rules for low tech weapons and armour to cover the wider range of tech found in 40k.

But as the game play focus moved to a battle game, the amount of additional layers of complication to try to make a ancient rule set work with the modern 40k battle game just lead to a holistic complicated mess of a rule set that can not be 'fixed'.
(*If you want the reasonable level of clarity , brevity and elegance found in other war game rule sets, published by games companies.)

No disrespect to posters in this thread, but can any one actually quote the core rules of 40k?

Not the additional layers of rules put on top of the core rules like the additional unit rules/vehicle rules/USRs/special rules/codex specific special rules.etc. But the actual core rules of the game of 40k.

The FIRST rule to define the following , before ANY exceptions ,or additions. Are usually the core rules of a war game....

How does a unit move.
How does a unit shoot,
How does a unit fight in close combat.
How is weapon and armour interaction resolved
How is damaged resolved.
How is moral/leadership resolved.

Just to point out in every other war game I play there are core rules , and special rules.ONLY 40k has to have multiple layers of additional rules.

Looking at the actual core rules in 40k, 40ks core rules ONLY cover standard infantry (if any unit is left without some special rules now?), in the open.
Everything else in 40k needs additional rules of some sort.

Therefore the current 40k core rules are inadequate for purpose, and need to be completely re-written from the ground up.

@Lanrak : Glad we share that analysis

To add to your first rule list, I would also add prior to that :

1) What is the goal of the game (from a player perspective, not a ruleset perspective) ?
2) How long is each game supposed to be ?

I completely agree with your idea of standardizing as much as possible, then adding special rules. It makes it easier to manage.

For example, why do vehicles require a separate damage system than infantry with the AV and no save ? Monstruous Creatures do this very well and they make sense within the current ruleset.
Toughness can be the robustness of the overall construction, while Armour Save can mean how thick the armour is.

Why would a Rhino die to something that the Marine's armour save absorbs ? Imagine Rhinos being T7, 3W with a 3+ and now we have some reasonable survivability. Vehicles can have different profiles for different saves.
In terms of pure statistics it matters due to the increased Armour Save, but right now Rhinos are something like T7.5 with no Armour Save.
(As a side note, in such a system, we could make the Graviton wound on the armour saves without being AP2, it would make it correct against everything while not being particularily good at anything).
This would make dedicated anti-tank weapons as effective as they currently are, while removing the extra layer of complexity and preventing anti infantry weapons with low AP to do very much damage against tanks and finish with the "glanced to death" system.

GreyCrow wrote:

For example, why do vehicles require a separate damage system than infantry with the AV and no save ?

Because most players want to have it this way, but for another reason.

For historical gaming, there is a big difference between a soldier and a tank while for SciFi games it is different. And still most gamers and designers prefer vehicles to have a different mechanic although a giant monster with chitin plates acts more like a tank and should be treated as such.

But for good game design it is not problem at all to have a mechanic which is basically the same for tanks and infantry but let the players have a different feeling about how the models act in game.

To break it down, tanks (and big monsters) should be killed by heavy single shot weapons that just to a lot of damage to a single model, while infantry should be killed by high ROF weapons that cannot wound a tank.
eg a lasercannon should inflict 3+ wounds and wound a tank or monster on 3+ while weapons with high ROF should not be able to wound a tank at all.

At the end it does not matter if a Rhino has AV11 or T7 and 3+ Save. It is not killed by anit-tank weapons but by anti-infantry weapons which shows that the AV System from GW does not work as it should be


There would be several ways to solve this, but just turning AV into T+AS would not work. it needs a complete re-write of the rules how weapons and toughness works (most important that high strength single shot weapons remove more than one wound but not like D-weapons are doing it now)

 kodos wrote:

GreyCrow wrote:

For example, why do vehicles require a separate damage system than infantry with the AV and no save ?

Because most players want to have it this way, but for another reason.

For historical gaming, there is a big difference between a soldier and a tank while for SciFi games it is different. And still most gamers and designers prefer vehicles to have a different mechanic although a giant monster with chitin plates acts more like a tank and should be treated as such.

But for good game design it is not problem at all to have a mechanic which is basically the same for tanks and infantry but let the players have a different feeling about how the models act in game.

To break it down, tanks (and big monsters) should be killed by heavy single shot weapons that just to a lot of damage to a single model, while infantry should be killed by high ROF weapons that cannot wound a tank.
eg a lasercannon should inflict 3+ wounds and wound a tank or monster on 3+ while weapons with high ROF should not be able to wound a tank at all.

At the end it does not matter if a Rhino has AV11 or T7 and 3+ Save. It is not killed by anit-tank weapons but by anti-infantry weapons which shows that the AV System from GW does not work as it should be


There would be several ways to solve this, but just turning AV into T+AS would not work. it needs a complete re-write of the rules how weapons and toughness works (most important that high strength single shot weapons remove more than one wound but not like D-weapons are doing it now)

Agree, having anti-tank weaponry dealing multiple wounds should be the way to go. I do think it should still be more random, as to not fully guarantee a 1-shot, 1-kill hit. Say a Krak missile does D3, a Lascannon does D3+1, Melta does D3+2, etc. However, this should ONLY be on true anti-tank weaponry. Plasma, grav, and the like shouldn't gain that multi-wound ability.

Of course in 7th "random" Edition everything need to be random.

If you want the game working, a fixed value would be the best way to go.

It was the way of 2nd edition, which made sense at the time but they overcomplicated the armour penetration.

Completely understand the difference between the rules for believability purposes. But at this point they might just stop with the points level and just let players bring whatever they want for a battle. In strategy, you don't meet on the open field and agree on a team of 11 players to see who's best. You bring unfair advantage to the table. Here, the points mainly bring glaring differences between players and factions.

T7 and 3+ save was just an example. Remember thought that boltguns throw rocket propelled armour piercing shells to an extent. Make it T8, T9, whatever, we're not limited to stats being arbitrarily limited to 10.

I don't see why high ROF shouldn't be able to kill tanks. Rate of Fire doesn't determine the energy (kinetic or not) of a round. Many 0.50 armour piercing caliber guns can punch through many APC's armour, even though they don't have the strength of a 135mm round.

I do agree though that the bigger the strength, the more likely the ability to do more damage, rather than securing a single damage.

Typically, the Warmahorde way of dealing damage.

@GreyCrow.
I agree that it should be decided what 40k game play is supposed to be before anyone can re-write the rules!

If it is a company level battle game, with focus on detailed tactical unit interaction, played over a 2 hour period.

The the rules are going to look completely different to a large skirmish game with detailed model interaction, played over a 4 hour period.

I agree it is possible to write rules to cover ALL the units in 40k in a similar way.(Without resorting to special rules for practically every unit. )

Special rules should be kept to cover actual special abilities, like chemical weapons ignoring the effects of cover.

Not mainly used to cover the inadequate WHFB rules ability to deal with more high tec weapons and armour found in 40k.(Like tanks and power fields.).


In 40k the massive spread of technology, in terms of weapons and armour means the simple X+ save resolution just can not cope.

@Kodos.
I agree that the effects of the resolution should make infantry act and react differently to weapons than vehicles /MCs .As you stated so clearly in your post.

And so the current system(s) used by 40k are inadequate and because of this, they need to be changed.

If we gave all weapons an armour peircing value,(AP)and all armour an armour value.(AV)

We could employ one of two simple scalable methods to give varied and proportional weapon and armour resolution without modifiers.

Option 1.
Add the Armour value to armour save roll, and try to beat the AP value of the attacking weapon.

EG a SM AV 4 is hit by a Bolter AP 6,
The SM needs to roll 3 + to beat the Bolter AP and pass the armour save roll.

If the SM was hit by a lasgun AP 5, the SM would only need to roll 2+ to pass his armour save.

If the SM was hit by a Plasma gun AP 8, he has to roll 5+ to pass an armour save roll.

Option 2.
Just use an extended opposed stat table to give the roll you need to save...
A=models Armour value/P =weapons Armour Penetration value

A/P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10..1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

7=roll 6+ and halve successes.
N= no save possible

The values are just for illustration purposes.

Some things should not get a save, Multimelta vs flack armour!
And some armour is invunerable to some weapons.Las pistol vs Land raider.

Note this level of scalable variation replaces ALL the current systems used in 40k.
One resolution method for all units .

GreyCrow wrote:

T7 and 3+ save was just an example. Remember thought that boltguns throw rocket propelled armour piercing shells to an extent. Make it T8, T9, whatever, we're not limited to stats being arbitrarily limited to 10.

And if it would be T20 it would not make a difference as long as you can wound everything on 6+.
Instead of hoping that a single shot hits, wounds and the enemy does not get the save, just throwing enough shots on it that wound on a 6 and that there are enough dice rolled to get 3 failed saves is the better way to kill the tank

GreyCrow wrote:

I don't see why high ROF shouldn't be able to kill tanks. Rate of Fire doesn't determine the energy (kinetic or not) of a round.

Simple game mechanic.
If there is one weapon that can kill high toughness single-model units as good as large hordes, there is no reason to take any other weapon. No matter how much point it cost, it will always be the best option and you can cut any other weapons from the list.

The other way around, there is no reason to take expensive high toughness models if they die as easy as cheap mass infantry

Now you may see why there is an imbalance in 40k that cannot be alone solved by changing single rules or adjusting the point costs.

The armor scaling table you have looks pretty good actually. It would make infantry much more survivable without having to use terrain all the time because it would have to be a very high AP weapon to not allow for any saves at all. The only problem is that all the units would have to be rewritten and all the weapons would have to be rewritten to reflect the new wat Armor and armor penetration works. It is a good idea though and would be amazing if GW wrote the game this way. They would also have to do a mass release of everyones codex all at once to ensure the new system permeates all factions at the same time which I, unfortunately, don't see them doing...

Indeed, one single value, either armour or toughness can work rather than a multiple.

Like you said, technology are millenia (and a different setting :p ) apart from WHFB. I don't really how relevant the basic value of toughness is when the standard infantry weapon (lasgun) can pierce a hole through flesh and sear a man through and through.
Same goes when an explosive shell punches through the armour.

It might make sense that your body could handle a sword blow, but not a high powered explosive shell :p
Strength could be then paired with either Toughness or Wounds (dropping one of them) to determine the amount of damage dealt.

EDIT :

@Xerics : GW won't do it. Players could though, nothing prevents them from writing their own ruleset.

@Kodos : Your limitation is arbitrary for game balance, but it's not the only one. If you scale up the points of a weapon by multiplying its shots, S and AP value based on its ability to deal damage, you may then reach high enough points value that players would think twice about spamming.
If a Scatter Laser was 30 points for example, each Jetbike costing 47 points would make it quite a large deterrent. People would still take it, yes, but wouldn't spam it as they do (because each Scatter Laser is the cost of 2 Jetbikes). If we only limited weapons to : low ROF high damage for AT and high ROF low damage for AI, most factions would not have flavour because of similar technology.
It still only kill a maximum of 4 models per turn, which is decent, but by no means game breaking for 47 points (235 points for 5 of them is quite an expensive proposition compared to how fragile they are).

GreyCrow wrote:

Like you said, technology are millenia (and a different setting :p ) apart from WHFB. I don't really how relevant the basic value of toughness is when the standard infantry weapon (lasgun) can pierce a hole through flesh and sear a man through and through.
Same goes when an explosive shell punches through the armour.
.

No, never use a fluff argument. This will not work because you can counter every rule and design with background at this scale (the same way as I can use it to proof the rule)

@Kodos : Unless you want the rule system to be a flavorless wall of stats, then yes you need to base on fluff for it to make sense But the fluff needs to be set in stone and the physics of the world and its elements actually detailed.

Most people don't get interested by Space Marines because they can save a wound on 3+. They get interested by Space Marines because they are Knights in Spehss with guns that fire micro rockets.

So I will use fluff arguments however I please when designing a rule system to represent the general mechanics of a world :p Actually, the fact that most units don't represent the fluff on the table is one of the key underlying problems with balance. Not only it's not statistically balanced, but it's also not representative of the marketing done for each unit.

EDIT : I may have come accross as harsh or aggressive, which was definitely not my intention. Sorry, English isn't my mother language, please don't let this offend you in any way

Lanrak wrote:

Option 1.
Add the Armour value to armour save roll, and try to beat the AP value of the attacking weapon.

EG a SM AV 4 is hit by a Bolter AP 6,
The SM needs to roll 3 + to beat the Bolter AP and pass the armour save roll.

If the SM was hit by a lasgun AP 5, the SM would only need to roll 2+ to pass his armour save.

If the SM was hit by a Plasma gun AP 8, he has to roll 5+ to pass an armour save roll.

Option 2.
Just use an extended opposed stat table to give the roll you need to save...
A=models Armour value/P =weapons Armour Penetration value

We talked about this one and while I like it, for 40k I would prefer to stay with the current mechanic but just bring it to an end were it is working.


Strength VS Toughness, +/-3 is auto wound or not possible (eg S3 cannot wound T6 while S6 auto wound T3)

While against vehicles Anti Tank weapons add 7-AP to their strength and wound normally (Melter has S14 and wounds a Land Raider on 4+)

Yeah but in order for me to write my own rule set this way I would need access to every codex which I don't have. I do have battlescribe so I guess I could technically do it but it would take a long time to make sure everything was right and even thenI only play Eldar with my Wife starting up KDK and one of my friends who plays Necrons and Imperial Knights, so I wouldn't even be able to effectively test the rest of the units. It would take testing on a massive scale with people of all different armies which I do not have the influence to do, and although this thread has been very insightful on some of the down to core rules that just don't work or are archaic, any rule set that is written is going to receive harsh criticism and will most likely be shunned unless GW Age of Sigmars 40k, which the community at large does not believe will happen.

@Xerics : It's a multiple person long haul job. Tough but can be done given enough time, proper project strategy and unshakable purpose :p

GreyCrow wrote:
@Kodos : Unless you want the rule system to be a flavorless wall of stats, then yes you need to base on fluff for it to make sense But the fluff needs to be set in stone and the physics of the world and its elements actually detailed.

Don't get me wrong, but this is not a 5 model skirmish game, so the rules cannot get every detail.

A Lasergun can punch wholes through flesh so it should kill everything that gets hit. But, just hitting something and burn a small whole does not necessarily kill it.
So the simple solution is that a lasergun can still fail to kill a human and takes a wound only at a roll of 4+

If you want a fluffy solution, every hit if 6 should wound on 2+ and every wound of 6 should ignore armour but this complicates the system and I can still argue that for the fluff a lasergun can only really kill a human if it hits him directly into the heart or a vital part of the brain.
So a double six should be needed to kill.

There need to be a cut were we are only talking about game mechanics and not if this represent realistic SciFi weapons properly

EDIT : I may have come accross as harsh or aggressive, which was definitely not my intention. Sorry, English isn't my mother language, please don't let this offend you in any way

I would never intend something like that into a post


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GreyCrow wrote:
@Xerics : It's a multiple person long haul job. Tough but can be done given enough time, proper project strategy and unshakable purpose :p

Right, I do it alone most of the time, thats why it took me 3 years for the core rules alone
And I still find things that can be done better while I work on the army lists

Sometimes some help would be nice but without a high chance that this would ever be a game played by 40k players most people don't have stay long with the project

That's why we have probabilities

I actually like your idea of : After penetrating the armour, a lasgun has the chance to inflict a wound on a 4+. Meaning that half of the time, a lasgun will do enough damage to incapacitate the target, half of the time it hits non essential systems.

Conversely, a boltgun would wound on a 3+ for example, due to the explosive nature of the shell. If by any chance the bolt went through the armour, the explosive impact has got quite a good chance of critically damaging the target.

So rather than having S and AP, we could have AP and wound capability. Much, much easier to manage in terms of points because we have 1 absolute damage capability (the wounding on X+) and 1 relative damage capability (AP opposed to AV).
Much easier to price compared to the double relative system we currently have.

Eldar weapons for example could have high AP (the monofilament fluff) but low wound chance (due to them being micro molecular shurikens that aren't likely to damage major organs).

GreyCrow wrote:
@Xerics : It's a multiple person long haul job. Tough but can be done given enough time, proper project strategy and unshakable purpose :p

At the same time those multiple people would need to agree on the stats and changes. Without that there would be too much infighting. I just don't see the community able to pull that together at a time where GW still exists. But believe me I am taking notes from this thread as there are some VERY good ideas coming out from the woods.

GreyCrow wrote:

So rather than having S and AP, we could have AP and wound capability. Much, much easier to manage in terms of points because we have 1 absolute damage capability (the wounding on X+) and 1 relative damage capability (AP opposed to AV).
Much easier to price compared to the double relative system we currently have.

There are many ways to around the usual problems.
At the moment my rules use an armour modifier instead of an AP value and S VS T and adding the cover bonus directly to the armour save because it solves other problems but stays close to 40k (at least for those who remember the 2nd edi)

 Xerics wrote:

At the same time those multiple people would need to agree on the stats and changes. Without that there would be too much infighting. I just don't see the community able to pull that together at a time where GW still exists.

And still it can be done in a small group were only 3 or 4 are working on the rules, except each others ideas, also except that other ideas work better etc

I think the random roll tables (such as Warlord Traits or Psychic Powers) were designed with a mindset of "They will balance out over several games." For example, on an individual game basis, you might get stuck with the one mediocre trait, but over the course of several games, you'll eventually get all the warlord traits, good, and bad. Your opponent will also sometimes get good traits, and sometimes get bad traits.

I think the problem this creates is that your opponent might roll his really good trait, and you roll your really bad trait, and then you're at a disadvantage. There might not be a "next game", if, for example, you're at a tournament where you need to be the best in 100% of your games.

Assigning point values would allow some measure of balance to Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers. The good traits always cost more than the less-than-good traits, and you can factor that into your army's cost.

I don't have enough free time to see the benefit of playing several 4-5 hour games on a regular basis. I only have time for maybe 1 game a month, so I would like it to be as much in my control as possible, with the least amount of extra randomness piled on.

For tanks, instead of overhauling everything, how about give weapons a tank killer rule, if a weapon does not have this rule then it cannot punch through tank armor. Nice and simple, without making toughness and saves for vehicles. Of course I just went full GW and added yet another special rule.... I feel dirty.

What a lot of you guys are asking for here is to throw away the decades of evolution and fine tuning that got us to this point in 7th edition. In your head or on paper it sounds so easy to just start over and make some new better system, but I assure you it is not as easy as you think it is, making balanced rules with so many variables.

If you try and simplify the rules so they can be balanced easier we will end up with cookie cutter units and builds for all the armies. Complexity and variety in a way is what makes this game so great, you don't want to ruin this game in the process of trying to fix it. These improvements should be made in incremental steps, not a start from scratch approach.

Video games have been heading in this direction of simplified, on rails, instant gratification, hold your hand type games for a long time now. Complexity, choice, and control in games is becoming a thing of the past, it's a big reason why I don't play video games anymore.

I usually stay away from these type of threads or these forums in general because of the widespread negativity here. I actually really enjoy this game and the hobby but constantly reading all this hate and negativity is demoralizing. It bothers me because people who like the game aren't as vocal and don't have as much of a presence here as the critics, and this what all the new players are exposed to is all this negativity.

TLDR: done ranting, please continue.

"Evolution" isn't always a good thing. Neither is what 40k has become over the years.

Tetsu0 wrote:
What a lot of you guys are asking for here is to throw away the decades of evolution and fine tuning that got us to this point in 7th edition.

Exactly. The evolution that has brought us to this point has been going in a bad direction. Scrap it and start over.

Nor would I call what GW has been doing "fine-tuning". There is no sign of any kind of coherent end goal for 40k that each iteration of the rules is converging on, all we see is change for the sake of change. 8th edition won't be any closer to finished than 7th edition was, it will just change a bunch of stuff semi-randomly to justify making everyone buy a whole new set of rulebooks.

In your head or on paper it sounds so easy to just start over and make some new better system, but I assure you it is not as easy as you think it is, making balanced rules with so many variables.

The 40k rules are so terrible in so many ways that a new system, created by competent game designers instead of the people GW currently employs, would almost have to be better. It would be almost impossible to make things worse, after all.

If you try and simplify the rules so they can be balanced easier we will end up with cookie cutter units and builds for all the armies. Complexity and variety in a way is what makes this game so great, you don't want to ruin this game in the process of trying to fix it. These improvements should be made in incremental steps, not a start from scratch approach.

40k has complexity, but very little depth. You have tons of options to pick from but 95% of them are terrible. This creates the illusion of depth at first glance, but once you start building lists you pretty quickly figure out that it isn't real. Simplifying the rules to remove the useless clutter that nobody takes would be a good thing.

throw away the decades of evolution and fine tuning that got us to this point in 7th edition.

Made a good laugh during breakfast.

GW has no evolution norvis their finetuning. They just release a new game. Now we have 7 different games for 40k and non of them is finished and still missing something.

Complexity and variety in a way is what makes this game so great

The only variety we have is the illusion during list writing. For gameplay, everything plays the same, just the OP codex is doing things better than the rest.

And the rules are complex, but only on paper. You can cut of 50% and it would still be the same rules just without the unneeded wording.

Video games have been heading in this direction of simplified, on rails, instant gratification, hold your hand type games for a long time now. Complexity, choice, and control in games is becoming a thing of the past, it's a big reason why I don't play video games anymore.

There is a big difference between simple rules and complex gameplay and 40k has complex rules but very simple gameplay.

Re-writing from scratch would be to option to change back to simple rules and more complex and tactical gameplay while just adding minor tweaks and step by step implementing would keep the complex rules without adding more complex gameplay.

My biggest gripe is that the maximum possible hit chance in close combat is a 3. Why is a bloodthirster just as likely to hit a grot as a space marine is a stormtrooper? I know close combat has bigger issues, but that one has been a pet peeve of mine ever since it was introduced.

Deathstars, spamming and bias against melee are the problems. Pretty easily solved.