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.

So, I and a friend were talking, and over the months, we've both come to agree on something:

Warhammer 40k, as a game, needs a serious overhaul.

There are too many rules that have too many issues, things aren't balanced based off point cost, and every new book only seems to be making it worse.

Now, that's all opinion, I admit. However, whether or not you agree is besides the point. My question to you all is this:

Would anyone be willing to wait, say, two years, without any new releases, for Games Workshop to completely overhaul the system, and release new codexs across the board, along with a new core rule book?

All the races and armies would still be there, in one form or another, and all models would still be field-able, though likely there would be more released. It would just be a two-year dry spell, that ultimately ends with an overhaul to the mechanics of the game, with only basic concepts remaining the same between the new books and what we have now.

The new system would, however, result in a game that is completely balanced, with every army and unit being just as viable in a tournament setting as any other, if used with skill. It would also be more varied, with each army offering a distinct and unique play style unto itself.

I think a two-year gap of models would be a death knell for the game. If you wanted to do an overhaul, starting from scratch basically, they'd need to hire a parallel team - that way the sculptors could keep putting out models, with "rules in the box" type pamphlets (like the newer fortifications had) by the current design team (or part of it), whilst a 'new' team could be working from the ground up.

No, they'd keep producing all the stuff they do now. Models, books, etc, would still be available to purchase. They just wouldn't come out with anything new.

Having two years without anything new to draw in new sales is a terrifyingly bad idea for any company that isn't swimming around in a money bin a la scrooge Mcduck.

Honestly, they don't really need to even make anything new. They just need to get a marketing department who can come up with more ideas than just 'release something new!'

Honestly, when was the last time Pepsi or Coke released something that's actually 'new'? At best, you get either/or with a splash of something else. It's more about the package than the content. Games Workshop needs to learn to reduce costs and increase sales to a broader target audience, instead of milking the 80/20 rule

The rules are simply ghastly, its quite painful almost shelling out 100 dollars for a codex or the even more expensive rulebook

Necroes wrote:
So, I and a friend were talking, and over the months, we've both come to agree on something:

Warhammer 40k, as a game, needs a serious overhaul.

There are too many rules that have too many issues, things aren't balanced based off point cost, and every new book only seems to be making it worse.

I agree.

I think the main problem is 40k hasn't been a skirmish game for some time, yet we're still using the rules for a skirmish game (HQs aside, the focus should be on the units, not the models).

 Quanar wrote:
I think a two-year gap of models would be a death knell for the game.

I don't think so.

I think what's needed is actual communication between GW and its customers.

And, what they could easily do would be to involve customers by asking them to playtest the ruleset and codices. This would have two advantages:

1) The playtesting would be likely to actually find issues, as opposed to the useless playtesting GW does on its own.

2) It would help generate hype/excitement for the forthcoming edition while releases are low.

The skirmish game thing is partially our fault, though.
No-one makes up play at 2000 points, that's the game we decide to play. It's the 'need' to use the new big shiny robot that ramps the points up these days.
We can easily play 1000 points, and dump the -star units for 'apoc' games. That part is all GW, though, merging superheavy rules into the book.
GW posting up the huge 1-click armies isn't helping there.
Smaller games make less-used units more viable. Striking Scorpions in a <1000 point game are quite good. There's less need to throw Wave Serpents into a small game, too.

People mentioned a basic version of the game a while ago, which sounds a good idea.
GW could simplify the rules to have fewer special effects, and keep the BRB as the advanced game.

According to RP they had 3rd ed 40k as a cleaned up and fairly balanced skirmish game, sort of 2nd ed with issues resolved.
But the sales department wanted to up the model count to a similar level to WHFB.

So the dev team had to cobble together a battle game rule set , (based on a WWII game RP had just started working on) , at the eleventh hour.

AFAIK , practically every edition since 4th ed 40k the dev team have tried to replace the 'WHFB in space mod' , with rules written specifically for 40k battle game.
But after the loss of sales and fans because of the awful 3rd ed that was forced by the sales department.
Corporate management are too scared to make any serious changes.
That is why the GW devs are just limited to adding more rules to a bloated system .

I agree with the OP that to fix the 40k rules they need a complete re write.
Define what 40k is and write rules for that game play.

This can be done at the same time as the 'normal sales spiel' the dev team has to churn out to please its sales department manager.

A complete re write would take less than 2 years any way.Release it for beta testing to the community.
And we get a decent balanced rule set that is fun for everyone , (not just for some).After about 5 years tops.

I agree it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

But there's no need for a huge gap in releases while they work on a new version. There's never a serious gap in model and codex releases when they're working on a new edition.

Public beta would be nice and it's something Jervis has done before with Epic Armageddon.

It's one if the best additions they've made yet. I especially like lords of war in normal 40k. I think escalation was brilliant!

I think most players would like the ability to start with a small skirmish game and scale up to larger battle game if they want to.

This is the problem with the current core rules,they do not cover enough of the game play.
And rely heavily on additional rules to cover the wide variety of units found in 40k .
So as the game size increases the number of additional rules grows, and slows the game down.

Where as if a rule set was written inclusively ,(to include all unit types with a single resolution method.)

The game could scale up much better, without the need to include loads of extra rules as you go.

So detailed model interaction for the skirmish game, and detailed unit interaction for the larger battle games.

Just my 2p worth.

Necroes wrote:

The new system would, however, result in a game that is completely balanced, with every army and unit being just as viable in a tournament setting as any other, if used with skill. It would also be more varied, with each army offering a distinct and unique play style unto itself.

I mean, just about every army has a different play style already. Plus, in all honesty, the 3 7th edition books that have come out have been pretty well done imo. Also, you can't have a game that is completely balanced, nor can you have every model be just as viable in a tournament setting, because people will always flock to what is easier to use. And if we waited 2 years with no new models/releases, GW would probably die out, and most people would move on to another game.

Someone mentioned it earlier, but GW needs to define what kind of game they want 40k to be. It's wonderful to say "it can be anything you want it to be!" But the reality is that the player base is so divided because the idea of what kind of game 40k is, is too varied. If they had maybe a "small" "medium" and "big" categories with slightly varied rules and allowed units, that could focus gamers into what kind of a game experience they want.
"I got 1500 DA and I wanna play light."
"I got 2000 nids, heavy, but I could take a few things out for a light game."

GW wants it to be a game in which players buy lots of expensive models.

They don't want the trouble of creating separate rules at different levels to cater for true skirmish, mass skirmish, and battle games. That is why all the separate optional rulebooks like Apocalypse were rolled into the main rules.

In other words although I agree with your viewpoint, it seems obvious that GW have already made a choice on the matter.

I am sure that GW plc corporate management have made the decision a long time ago that actual game development is not worth bothering with.
(40k is just the same old ideas recycled with more complication each edition.)

However, splitting the game into 'skirmish' and 'battle' variants would be a better way to go.

Have basic versions developed with fun pick up games in mind for new players.

Then have 'campaign books' to add narrative scenarios for the more narrative players.And release tournament packs , with the relevant restrictions for more competitive play.

These 'advanced game' types require much more organisation before hand , and are not really suitable for new inexperienced players.

So rather than a huge confused mess where players are left to try to sort it out themselves.

GW plc steps up and makes it clear 40k can be enjoyed in MANY ways not just one.

And gives clear guide lines and assistance so players can engage with like minded people much easier.

This would allow more people to have fun with 40k in more ways, without invalidating any ones preferred play style.


And as I stated before both the skirmish and battle games can use the same rules , just change the element of focus to model or unit as appropriate!

I'd like an overhaul with some actual balance so I could actually play what I think would be cool (all terminators) and not lose every game.

@WayneTheGame.
How much balance is that exactly?
How much restriction do you impose to improve game balance?

This is the problem with trying to cover everything in one book, its just compromise after compromise.
You can see elements of every game size and play style in 40k 7th ed.
BUT NO DEFINITION OR FOCUS .

Too much focus on model interaction slows the battle game down.

Too much focus on unit interaction make the skirmish game quite drab.

Too much randomness and narrative focus alienates the 'pick up and play' and the 'tournament' players.

Too much restriction in the name of balance , alienates the 'pick up and play ' and the 'narrative ' players.

Pick a complete mid point , and this alienates the 'tournament' and 'narrative' players.

Where as a more defined set of books for each section of the player base (as posted above.)Would be more easier to manage and actually develop.

As much as needed. Other games seem to be fairly balanced without imposing a ton of restrictions. Balance doesn't mean everyone can only use tactical squads, it means that you're not penalized if you want to field unit a instead of unit b because unit b is better in all regards.

No other game seems to have issues balancing choices so while some choices might not be "as good" as another, you aren't virtually guaranteed to lose if you bring that choice against a more powerful choice. 40k is the only game that has that issue, and it's not due to some unique aspect that 40k has that no other game has, it's because 40k's rules are poorly designed, poorly written and still use the 3rd edition rules as a baseline.

Warmachine/Hordes has more choices than 40k, and all of them are roughly balanced with each other in the same faction and across factions; there is no "This unit is not viable to play" at all, there might be "Unit A is better" but if you ask about using a lackluster unit, you can still make it work. Compare to 40k where some armies/concepts just aren't viable because of how the rules work; an all Terminator force for example, will get steamrolled every game because Terminators just aren't good. There's very little way to make that kind of army work. That's an example of poor balance.

Another example of a game that does balance right is Bolt Action. If you take an entire army of veteran paratroopers, you aren't automatically at a disadvantage against other armies, you have to play tactically as you'll likely have less squads and not as much support, but you can win. It's not where a Fallschirmjaeger army will virtually always lose against an infantry army.

we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

Another big thing is using the Tac Objectives. This prevents Reaver Titans from being able to dominate an entire game and the like because the armies must focus on objectives.

Try some larger games with realistically terrained city board and see a huge difference.

tenebre wrote:
we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

I imagine the other problem is getting enough models to play at those point levels (not to mention the time aspect).

Having enough models to play 3000-4000pts - especially if you want any sort of choice (rather than using the same army every game), requires a massive investment.

And, I feel you'd just be better off sinking a lot less money into a game that's balanced at more reasonable levels.

tenebre wrote:
we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

Another big thing is using the Tac Objectives. This prevents Reaver Titans from being able to dominate an entire game and the like because the armies must focus on objectives.

Try some larger games with realistically terrained city board and see a huge difference.

Honestly I think 40k is badly imbalanced at either extreme. At low points you don't have the tools to deal with flyers/superheavies/Riptides/etc, at higher points those things are a lot more prevalent so can cause more damage, and of course there's the fact that a huge game is not only extremely expensive but also takes a lot longer to play.

This is why they need to overhaul the game; a typical game should be 45 minutes to an hour. Larger games of course will take longer, but the rules should be streamlined enough for larger games that it's not an all day affair either, at least not by default.

@WayneTheGame.
I think you ,misunderstood my post.

I am not defending the abysmal levels of balance in the current game of 40k, by saying it can not be improved without draconian restrictions to unit selection.

But the horrid mess that is 40k has no focus beyond 'someone thought it looked cool so made up some cool rules for it'.Without much thought to game play implications.

Eg
A heroic character in a skirmish game should be a force to be feared.
But the same model in a epic battle is just one of 20 commanders in a field with hundreds of infantry and vehicles, that can be swept away by artillery and air strikes.
How do you 'balance' the rules for a character when the game size they can appear in can vary so dramatically ?

Other games that focus on game play , ONLY include units with rules that 'work in the game' and/or add to the game play.

40k gets all manner of units/rules included 'on the rule of cool' , no matter how convoluted or abstract the explanation required to justify it in the fluff /rules.
This means that the rules become so abstracted, that EVERYTHING needs to be explained in isolation.

So you HAVE to cut some units/rules to make the game work well at a specific level.
Simply to improve clarity brevity and intuitive play.

And how much you cut , and at what level is where hard decisions have to be made.
Units that are fine in a narrative scenarios, may not make it into rules for random pick up games.
And maybe competitive players want even more balance/restriction for tournaments?

I honestly think most 40k players have no idea how radically the rules would have to change to 'fix' 40k .

And I believe that separate rules for skirmish and battle games is the most sensible solution, (With narrative and competitive expansions.)
As this would cover EVERYTHING in the current game , but in a more focused and refined way.

I hope that makes my thoughts a bit clearer.

 vipoid wrote:

tenebre wrote:
we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

I imagine the other problem is getting enough models to play at those point levels (not to mention the time aspect).

Having enough models to play 3000-4000pts - especially if you want any sort of choice (rather than using the same army every game), requires a massive investment.

And, I feel you'd just be better off sinking a lot less money into a game that's balanced at more reasonable levels.

A massive investment you say? And people think GW don't know what they're doing..

tenebre wrote:
we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

Another big thing is using the Tac Objectives. This prevents Reaver Titans from being able to dominate an entire game and the like because the armies must focus on objectives.

Try some larger games with realistically terrained city board and see a huge difference.

Trouble with "big games" is that it takes a tremendous amount of time to be played. You can't always have all that free time required, especially when you have a job and family life.

And rolling plenty of dices for all these random tables is also a useless time loss.

 vipoid wrote:

tenebre wrote:
we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

I imagine the other problem is getting enough models to play at those point levels (not to mention the time aspect).

Having enough models to play 3000-4000pts - especially if you want any sort of choice (rather than using the same army every game), requires a massive investment.

And, I feel you'd just be better off sinking a lot less money into a game that's balanced at more reasonable levels.

Except other games just don't compare to 40k.

If 40k does not compare to other games, its because 40k is not really a 'game' any more, more of a thinly veiled sales pitch.(No clear focus on game play, just pushing new product.)

If I want to play 'epic battles' in the 40k universe.I would use Epic Armageddon or Net Epic rules.

Because these rules are written specifically for large battle games with appropriately scaled models.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Except other games just don't compare to 40k.

I know, right? I mean, who'd want good rules or reasonable prices?

40k has a decent (though not especially original) setting, but lacks the rules to actually represent it. There are just too many situations where fluff bears no resemblance to rules, or where the rules are just outright stupid (e.g. no, you can't shoot that 3-story monster because he's in combat with a single guardsman and you might hit him... even though he's entirely obscured by the creature's bulk and will definitely be dead if you don't kill the monster now).

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

tenebre wrote:
we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

I imagine the other problem is getting enough models to play at those point levels (not to mention the time aspect).

Having enough models to play 3000-4000pts - especially if you want any sort of choice (rather than using the same army every game), requires a massive investment.

And, I feel you'd just be better off sinking a lot less money into a game that's balanced at more reasonable levels.

Except other games just don't compare to 40k.

You're right, other games are much better. (snare drum)
Don't confuse setting for game play.
Also, the more juvenile the setting becomes, the more I appreciate the quite detailed settings of other games.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

tenebre wrote:
we play our games at 3k sometimes 4k and this allows us to use any and all units. It also encourages trying out new units. In fact Every unit I read on the net that i am never supposed to take (because they suck) has done quite well.

The problem is with this game is its meant to be played at those levels. the small games simply have horrible balance issues and one bad choice will cost the entire game.

I imagine the other problem is getting enough models to play at those point levels (not to mention the time aspect).

Having enough models to play 3000-4000pts - especially if you want any sort of choice (rather than using the same army every game), requires a massive investment.

And, I feel you'd just be better off sinking a lot less money into a game that's balanced at more reasonable levels.

Except other games just don't compare to 40k.

Yes because no other game is 28mm large scale battles in a grimdark sci-fi environment with flyers, Titans and Space Marines, right? Ergo 40k has no competition at all!