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.

 Hellebore wrote:
Once aspect squads take casualties they really lose their punch.

Unit trading efficiency.

Like the old sternguard squads taken with a combi-weapon on every model, it's more punch but also more points to make back and it just doesn't work if there is too little or too much risk - i.e. first turn superheavy artillery strikes that almost cannot fail to annihilate their value in units, or on the flip side units like repentia that required significant help from the opponent.


On the subject of efficient trading I think it was 6th edition? where challenge rules allowed a squad of guard chaff to challenge daemons like An'ggrath to single combat, one minor officer at a time. Sometimes overkill is just way too much kill.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
The crux of the matter is, 40k was never a good game, in any edition, and players came for the models and the Lore surrounding them, and just bear with the terrible gameplay.

Between GW wanting to sell codex and rule books regularly, and some vocal Players being attached to legacy systems that don't make sense anymore (like IGOUGO and D6), the game, in spite of having frequent new editions, doesn't really improve, it just changes.

I'm just curious, what, if any, good games do you think are out there? Or simply, what games are good?

40k Apocalypse

One Page Rule

Conquest TLAOK

So 40k Apocalypse, the game that uses regular 40k miniatures but in large scale battles? Or are you talking about the epic scale version?
One page rules?
And Conquest TLAOK? If I'm reading right that is kind of like a rank-and-flank game with historical/fantasy miniatures?

Any reason you like these games or think they're good?
What are your thoughts about Bolt Action?
Why is Apocalypse good but regular 40k not good?

BanjoJohn wrote:
So 40k Apocalypse, the game that uses regular 40k miniatures but in large scale battles? Or are you talking about the epic scale version?

Apocalypse from 2019 used 40k miniatures, but had different rules that are not comparable to the regular version. It is not just "the same game with larger battles".

 a_typical_hero wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
So 40k Apocalypse, the game that uses regular 40k miniatures but in large scale battles? Or are you talking about the epic scale version?

Apocalypse from 2019 used 40k miniatures, but had different rules that are not comparable to the regular version. It is not just "the same game with larger battles".

That's fair, I've never played it, so I'm not sure what about it would be different/better/worse compared to regular 40k. I think I remember back in 4th edition there was Apocalypse, so its actually older than 2019, but I don't know the differences between all the "editions" of apocalypse.

There's basically just one Edition of Apocalypse and it's the one from 2019. All other incarnations were more like expansions of the normal 40K using the same rules, just adding superheavies, Titans and/ or formations.

One Page rules is a miniature agnostic ruleset that is especially compatible to GW miniatures. It's based on alternating activations and allows more tactical depth than 40K because of that. It also allows for more customisation of models and missions than modern GW games do. I find it a bit lacking on the fluffy, quirky rules that have been a strength of older 40K editions, but you have a whole sandbox of possibilities in the rulebook to spice up your missions and gameplay, filling that lack of fun stuff on bespoke units rules.

The video was interesting to me insofar as I checked out on "current" 40k back during the transition from 3rd to 4th, and a lot of the debates were like watching an American movie dubbed into a foreign language - I recognized the images, weren't sure what the words meant.

I think the presenter is correct that 2nd was arguably the most balanced simply because there were so many ways to wreck an army. Every list had some horrific option and of course the generic psyker rules put the equivalent of tac nukes into play. Vortex grenades were the great leveler as well.

That was mitigated by the small number of factions and if one takes a collaborate approach to game play (as opposed to tournament), it's possible to have great games and the detail enables some epic character story arcs.

The number of factions IMHO is the biggest obstacle to making a definitive set of rules, and GW's need for models churn means that one never really finds balance, just new forms in imbalance.

As to why 40k endures despite its flaws, I think it is largely because it got so big and really came to define tabletop miniatures play, much in the way that Dungeons & Dragons was for a long time the first RPG anyone learned. Lots of people have fallen away from 40k (like me), but they still know it, are interested in it, and even play a non-current edition.

I think the primary reason why "oldhammer" variants are gaining currency is the passage of time has made the flaws known and the same crowdsourcing that found them has also found solutions to them.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
There's basically just one Edition of Apocalypse and it's the one from 2019. All other incarnations were more like expansions of the normal 40K using the same rules, just adding superheavies, Titans and/ or formations.

One Page rules is a miniature agnostic ruleset that is especially compatible to GW miniatures. It's based on alternating activations and allows more tactical depth than 40K because of that. It also allows for more customisation of models and missions than modern GW games do. I find it a bit lacking on the fluffy, quirky rules that have been a strength of older 40K editions, but you have a whole sandbox of possibilities in the rulebook to spice up your missions and gameplay, filling that lack of fun stuff on bespoke units rules.

Ok, so what about 2019 apocalypse makes it different enough? I haven't read the rules for it. So I don't know what makes it different enough from 40k to make it "better".

I have read One Page Rules, so I know its miniatures agnostic. I do think the alternating activations is a good design choice, I am too wired in the, hit, wound, save aspect of 40k to really think that the OPR "hit, save" allows for enough variation in troop types for interesting gameplay. I can see how people who are less set in their ways might enjoy it.

I'm still working on my own project that is like "40k is still good even if broken, I can fix her" hehe.

BanjoJohn wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
There's basically just one Edition of Apocalypse and it's the one from 2019. All other incarnations were more like expansions of the normal 40K using the same rules, just adding superheavies, Titans and/ or formations.

One Page rules is a miniature agnostic ruleset that is especially compatible to GW miniatures. It's based on alternating activations and allows more tactical depth than 40K because of that. It also allows for more customisation of models and missions than modern GW games do. I find it a bit lacking on the fluffy, quirky rules that have been a strength of older 40K editions, but you have a whole sandbox of possibilities in the rulebook to spice up your missions and gameplay, filling that lack of fun stuff on bespoke units rules.

Ok, so what about 2019 apocalypse makes it different enough? I haven't read the rules for it. So I don't know what makes it different enough from 40k to make it "better".

The game works with alternating detachments that you give commands to at the start of the round. So, IIRC, secretly both players give commands to their detachments, then these are resolved in alternating order, supported by stratagems that are drawn each round. Also, saves are resolved at the end of the round so all units get to do stuff before they're dead. From what I've read the lethality is also lower than in 40K, ironically. Unless you bring out the real big stuff.

I have read One Page Rules, so I know its miniatures agnostic. I do think the alternating activations is a good design choice, I am too wired in the, hit, wound, save aspect of 40k to really think that the OPR "hit, save" allows for enough variation in troop types for interesting gameplay. I can see how people who are less set in their ways might enjoy it.

OPR has implemented a couple of ways over time to not make the game too lethal (in my view things died too fast until the current 3rd edition because of no wound roll). The main one compared to 40K is probably that models usually don't have that enormous number of shots or attacks as they do in 40K. If you find something with 18 shots it's very probable it only hits on 4s and they have no AP (Soul Grinder for example). And still it'll cost 700 points because 18 attacks in that game is a lot.
The variation of troop types is not a problem I'd say, but the variation of the factions and psychic spells is something they're aiming at in the current 3.5 beta, so it IS certainly a problem.

I'm still working on my own project that is like "40k is still good even if broken, I can fix her" hehe.

I get you. My personal way towards this is to take the OPR rules and throw some of the fun-stuff from older 40K editions in there. It's easier because OPR doesn't change that fast like 40K does. Whenever I got around to do my own profiles and stuff for 40K it was likely there was a new edition before I got around testing them...

BanjoJohn wrote:
I'm still working on my own project that is like "40k is still good even if broken, I can fix her" hehe.

The impetus for me to design Conqueror was the imminent demise of WHFB 6th edition, which I really liked. Rather than keep up the churn, I "built a better Warhammer" on one of the design threads on Warseer, self-published it, and that's what I use for fantasy/historical games. A core feature was coming up with a working points system so that people can design their own units (though I have samples in the book).

I then turned to a "Conqueror 40lk" but quit early on as I found 2nd ed. was really what I liked and correcting a few game mechanics solved 90% of the problems. Playing with friends rather than amped-up kids spoiling for a tournament also helps.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I'm still working on my own project that is like "40k is still good even if broken, I can fix her" hehe.

The impetus for me to design Conqueror was the imminent demise of WHFB 6th edition, which I really liked. Rather than keep up the churn, I "built a better Warhammer" on one of the design threads on Warseer, self-published it, and that's what I use for fantasy/historical games. A core feature was coming up with a working points system so that people can design their own units (though I have samples in the book).

I then turned to a "Conqueror 40lk" but quit early on as I found 2nd ed. was really what I liked and correcting a few game mechanics solved 90% of the problems. Playing with friends rather than amped-up kids spoiling for a tournament also helps.

That's really cool! I've taken the RT "points system" as a starting point and I'm working on building a working points system from there. I plan on testing my points system as a "rebalance" of 3rd edition, without changing the units/stats or whatnot, just adjusting the points of units to make it feel like it works better, then using that points system to help shape my own version of what I think would be a good game.

If I remember correctly, an older edition of warhammer fantasy had a points system for building units too? Like 3rd? 2nd? Did you use that as a starting poing for yours or derive it from scratch?

I've taken the RT points formula and weighted the stats differently, they weighted BS too low, T too low, and some other stuff needs rebalanced as well.

BanjoJohn wrote:


That's really cool! I've taken the RT "points system" as a starting point and I'm working on building a working points system from there. I plan on testing my points system as a "rebalance" of 3rd edition, without changing the units/stats or whatnot, just adjusting the points of units to make it feel like it works better, then using that points system to help shape my own version of what I think would be a good game.

If I remember correctly, an older edition of warhammer fantasy had a points system for building units too? Like 3rd? 2nd? Did you use that as a starting poing for yours or derive it from scratch?

I've taken the RT points formula and weighted the stats differently, they weighted BS too low, T too low, and some other stuff needs rebalanced as well.

A lot of balance issues came down to point costs being terribly off. With 2nd the level of carnage that heavy weapons could generate balanced things out.

To determine the points values for Conqueror I started from scratch and did a bunch of Mathhammer using expected values and weighted them based on tactical effect. Thus: missile units cost much more points because their radius of influence is so large. After many years of playing, it has held up - unless one has a tactical advantage (say on a flank), the higher-pointed unit generally wins a straight-up fight. Of course, sometimes the dice fall funny and a unit of militia will stubbornly hold its ground against elite troopers, which is why we play rather than just compare lists.

I'd recommend the same approach if you are recalculating 40k values because the designers very conspicuously did not always get it right.

For example, you have to consider how easy it is to get into melee combat, and how many casualties can be inflicted once in contact vs shooting. Shooting was much, much weaker than melee in terms of total casualties, and that was why lists skewed the way they did. I leaned into a shooty Ultramarine list, but even I knew close combat was inevitable, so I fielded an assault squad without jump packs which moved to the point of impact and served as a bodyguard for my captain.

GW also valued things differently based on unit type and that led to some distortions as well.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:


That's really cool! I've taken the RT "points system" as a starting point and I'm working on building a working points system from there. I plan on testing my points system as a "rebalance" of 3rd edition, without changing the units/stats or whatnot, just adjusting the points of units to make it feel like it works better, then using that points system to help shape my own version of what I think would be a good game.

If I remember correctly, an older edition of warhammer fantasy had a points system for building units too? Like 3rd? 2nd? Did you use that as a starting poing for yours or derive it from scratch?

I've taken the RT points formula and weighted the stats differently, they weighted BS too low, T too low, and some other stuff needs rebalanced as well.

A lot of balance issues came down to point costs being terribly off. With 2nd the level of carnage that heavy weapons could generate balanced things out.

To determine the points values for Conqueror I started from scratch and did a bunch of Mathhammer using expected values and weighted them based on tactical effect. Thus: missile units cost much more points because their radius of influence is so large. After many years of playing, it has held up - unless one has a tactical advantage (say on a flank), the higher-pointed unit generally wins a straight-up fight. Of course, sometimes the dice fall funny and a unit of militia will stubbornly hold its ground against elite troopers, which is why we play rather than just compare lists.

I'd recommend the same approach if you are recalculating 40k values because the designers very conspicuously did not always get it right.

For example, you have to consider how easy it is to get into melee combat, and how many casualties can be inflicted once in contact vs shooting. Shooting was much, much weaker than melee in terms of total casualties, and that was why lists skewed the way they did. I leaned into a shooty Ultramarine list, but even I knew close combat was inevitable, so I fielded an assault squad without jump packs which moved to the point of impact and served as a bodyguard for my captain.

GW also valued things differently based on unit type and that led to some distortions as well.

That's some good advice, I'm thinking I'll pick up your game to take a look at what you've got and your points system. Mathhammer and spreadsheets to "game the system" puts me off when trying to find the "best" units, but it feels perfectly fine for trying to create a more balanced points system.

BanjoJohn wrote:

I have read One Page Rules, so I know its miniatures agnostic. I do think the alternating activations is a good design choice, I am too wired in the, hit, wound, save aspect of 40k to really think that the OPR "hit, save" allows for enough variation in troop types for interesting gameplay. I can see how people who are less set in their ways might enjoy it.

It's true that I do play OPR and leave feeling that is just doesn't quite have enough depth to fully satisfy me... but personally the alternative is not playing ANYTHING with all my 40k minis so it's still great. Get the tiny soldiers on the table, shoot some gak, talk some gak, done within two hours.

I'm hoping one day to have a BIG game of it using all of my Guard infantry and vehicles.

I bumped the Apoc 2019 thread recently, the brief info I've seen on how it plays looks really interesting. Alternating activations, resolving wounds at the end so everyone gets to fight concurrently, units having simplified matchups for damage, activating groups of units at a time.

I dont think the problem is that "every edition of 40K was broken". The problem is that 40K was originally a ROLE PLAYING GAME which required a Games Master, and it was never intended to be a "fair wargame", but GW has tried their damnest ever since 2nd edition to shoehorn it into one, while failing, first by accident perhaps, but later by intent (always keep the customer coming back for more, a mantra of capitalism since the 1950s)

Idk, there is always a community with no problem with editions/balance and community where always imba, cheese and broken mechanics, it's more like 40k is fine, people are broken. With some guy whose only wanna win and nothing else matters we always would have imbalance cause people especially looking for it.

 RustyNumber wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:

I have read One Page Rules, so I know its miniatures agnostic. I do think the alternating activations is a good design choice, I am too wired in the, hit, wound, save aspect of 40k to really think that the OPR "hit, save" allows for enough variation in troop types for interesting gameplay. I can see how people who are less set in their ways might enjoy it.

It's true that I do play OPR and leave feeling that is just doesn't quite have enough depth to fully satisfy me... but personally the alternative is not playing ANYTHING with all my 40k minis so it's still great. Get the tiny soldiers on the table, shoot some gak, talk some gak, done within two hours.

I'm hoping one day to have a BIG game of it using all of my Guard infantry and vehicles.

I bumped the Apoc 2019 thread recently, the brief info I've seen on how it plays looks really interesting. Alternating activations, resolving wounds at the end so everyone gets to fight concurrently, units having simplified matchups for damage, activating groups of units at a time.

Alternating actions, and wounds suffered at the end of the turn sounds an awful lot like battletech, which is a good thing.

Every edition was unbalanced in the points value comparison part. I don't think it was broken in the sense an infinite combo loop would start and end the game.

 kabaakaba wrote:
Idk, there is always a community with no problem with editions/balance and community where always imba, cheese and broken mechanics, it's more like 40k is fine, people are broken. With some guy whose only wanna win and nothing else matters we always would have imbalance cause people especially looking for it.

True collaborative play solves almost all game design problems, which is why tournament-style games usually involve very clearly delineated rules with zero ambiguity. Chess, poker, even some of the Milton Bradley wargames all have had decades (if not centuries) to adjudicate various elements.

GW made a deliberate decision to change the design as part of a programmed product cycle rather than use an iterative method of improvement. It's interesting to see where the 'alumni' went and what they produced after leaving GW. Bolt Action gives a good idea of what 40k would likely have evolved into if the designers had called the shots rather than upper management.

 tauist wrote:
I dont think the problem is that "every edition of 40K was broken". The problem is that 40K was originally a ROLE PLAYING GAME which required a Games Master, and it was never intended to be a "fair wargame", but GW has tried their damnest ever since 2nd edition to shoehorn it into one, while failing, first by accident perhaps, but later by intent (always keep the customer coming back for more, a mantra of capitalism since the 1950s)

It has as much to do with evolving trends in game design in general. Board games used to be based heavily around roll and move and see where you land mechanics as a sort of random event generator. RPGs leaned on results tables to discover what happened and in turn, 40k is old enough that a lot of its contemporary ideas of good game design are built on rolling dice and seeing what happens.

Game design has evolved a lot over the last decade or two though. Board games are built around action limits and resource mechanics and most modern games are designed in that mold. RPGs even push a great deal more mechanical consistency and decision based success because it's simply rewarding for players. Ultimately whatever the game was originally designed to be 40 years ago is kind of irrelevant. That game simply wouldn't be relevant today and 40k wouldn't be what it is if it hadn't evolved with the times.

Also? 40K as a range has probably more armies, and more units within those armies, than any other wargame I’m aware of.

Thats a lot of moving parts. The more units in a given Codex, the bigger the challenge of giving each a role, and avoiding cheese.

As ever when I raise this, that doesn’t mean, and shouldn’t be taken as an argument that, GW can’t do better in terms of overall balance.

Just that for better or worse, they’ve set themselves a bigger challenge than most, and keep adding to that challenge by releasing new units and codexes/equivalent pretty regularly.

Honestly, as much as people like to complain, 40k is currently more competitively diverse than just about any other wargame out there. I unfortunately think complaining about balance has become a hobby of its own and not something that people actually step back and reevaluate objectively. It can always be better, but I get the impression most people complaining aren't actually experiencing how good it has really been both now and for much of the edition.

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, as much as people like to complain, 40k is currently more competitively diverse than just about any other wargame out there. I unfortunately think complaining about balance has become a hobby of its own and not something that people actually step back and reevaluate objectively. It can always be better, but I get the impression most people complaining aren't actually experiencing how good it has really been both now and for much of the edition.

I can't talk about other games very much - but I think 40k is incredibly competitively diverse today compared to where it had been.
Invoking 7th every time gets old - but I feel a world away. The difference between the haves and have nots was so extreme - and this probably went back to at least 5th. Maybe all the way to 3rd, but I was a teenager and didn't play the game that way.

There have undoubtedly been moments in recent years where certain books are clearly a cut above the rest. But I feel the number of factions - and the breadth of units taken from those factions - that place in tournaments is so much bigger than it was before. The number of trap choices is relatively low.

Tyel wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, as much as people like to complain, 40k is currently more competitively diverse than just about any other wargame out there. I unfortunately think complaining about balance has become a hobby of its own and not something that people actually step back and reevaluate objectively. It can always be better, but I get the impression most people complaining aren't actually experiencing how good it has really been both now and for much of the edition.

I can't talk about other games very much - but I think 40k is incredibly competitively diverse today compared to where it had been.
Invoking 7th every time gets old - but I feel a world away. The difference between the haves and have nots was so extreme - and this probably went back to at least 5th. Maybe all the way to 3rd, but I was a teenager and didn't play the game that way.

There have undoubtedly been moments in recent years where certain books are clearly a cut above the rest. But I feel the number of factions - and the breadth of units taken from those factions - that place in tournaments is so much bigger than it was before. The number of trap choices is relatively low.

Yeah. GW has balancing down pretty well right now.

Could it be better? Sure.
But it's healthy right now, I'd say.

It's certainly something they actually started taking seriously from 8th onwards. Can only be good for everyone, I've never played a tournament but it'd be nice to know don't have to try balance the game myself with opponent pre game.

My main issue with the current game is what they decided to do in order to make it this balanced. It's just more abstract than I'd like. I find the feel of the game has changed. It just feels more disconnected from what it represents.

You could rebrand chess and call it the most balanced 40k ever but the setting is lost in the process. Obviously they've not gone that far, but it's slipped far more into game first setting second than I'd like.

If a game's evocativeness is lost then all you're doing is fighting rules with rules and there are plenty of better rules out there.

 Hellebore wrote:
My main issue with the current game is what they decided to do in order to make it this balanced. It's just more abstract than I'd like. I find the feel of the game has changed. It just feels more disconnected from what it represents.

You could rebrand chess and call it the most balanced 40k ever but the setting is lost in the process. Obviously they've not gone that far, but it's slipped far more into game first setting second than I'd like.

If a game's evocativeness is lost then all you're doing is fighting rules with rules and there are plenty of better rules out there.

This has bee going on for a very long time. It's probably the biggest difference between 2nd ed. and what came after. In 2nd, there was an intuitive feel to what was happening and the mechanics tracked very closely on WHFB, which was itself so closely tied to traditional simulations that GW had a line of historical army lists one could use.

What 3rd did was break that link - decisively, as it turned out. The level of abstraction meant that appeals to realism ("common sense") were no longer valid.. For me the breaking point was an FAQ explaining that yes, it was legal to fire Turbo Boostas with a declared movement rate of 0 and allow an ork vehicle to 'slide' 3" without counting as moving for shooting purposes. If the reason shooting is limited by moving is actual movement, this makes no sense, but more and more of the rules were about speeding gameplay or creating exploits than a reflection of an alternate reality.

For a time, I was able to embrace it, because it was what everyone was playing, and even wrote an article explaining how one has to understand that the rules are counterintuitive, but can accurately reflect real-world-ish battlefield conditions. By 4th, that wasn't true.

Watching the video, one can see that the designers have also grappled with this over the years, and so we get different ways of gaming as shooting vs melee are weighed against each other and the need for model differentiation becomes the paramount concern.

An escalating model count also requires more abstraction as it's no longer feasible to have individual combats fought as duels.

To put it another way, I don't think anyone is looking at GW's rules 'engine' for inspiration in doing WW II to modern combat. Bolt Action works because it's built around what 3rd ed. was supposed to be - a refined iteration of 2nd. It works because it feels real.

I recall someone did a WW II list for 3rd ed. 40k and it was absurd. Half-track rushes and melee mosh pits. It was quite the eye-opener into what the system had become.

The whole BALANCE UBER ALLES direction the game has been taking post 8th is what's driven me away from playing it.

I loved RT & 2nd. Then they Squatted my Squats so didn't play from then to 8th.
While 8th ed (pre-2nd marine codex) was "fun"(TM) everything since has made me enjoy the game less and less with each game I played.

Abstraction is fine but not at the cost of flavour. I stopped playing my Salamanders when they became jist green Ultramarines, then brought my Flawless Host/EC out of storage only to see them gutted by the EC codex. Im not even gonna try with my Admech.

Then the geniuses brought over crappy 40k mechanics into 30k(my last bastion of gaming) so now im just a modeler/painter. I guess there's at least that.

I play older editions too I was just trying to be nice to GW for actually making the effort lol

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

For a time, I was able to embrace it, because it was what everyone was playing, and even wrote an article explaining how one has to understand that the rules are counterintuitive, but can accurately reflect real-world-ish battlefield conditions. By 4th, that wasn't true.

Huh. I tend to think of 4th as being a refinement of 3rd for the most part. What part of 4th changed that took you out of it?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Huh. I tend to think of 4th as being a refinement of 3rd for the most part. What part of 4th changed that took you out of it?

All the new books. Up to that point, I liked to be able to read about all the armies I might face, and while I had already soured on the system, the prospect of buying a bunch of new books forced the issue. Same as why I quit WHFB as soon as I got wind of 7th ed (and immediately sold off everything while I could still get decent prices).

The resale value on the 3rd ed. books was so poor that I threw them away rather than move them to the new house.

The paradox is that I have none of the 6th ed. WHFB that I loved, but a ton of 5th ed. books, which I loathed. They did come in handy when working on Conqueror, though, as did Ravening Hordes, which was probably the best GW army list ever created.