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.

As a small game designer here and have had some experience with game design, I would like to share my fair share on some improvements that could be done to 40k.

For games I do like simplified version of stuff and that it still had complexity to it. A good example would be HoTs vs Lol where the talent system in HoTs completely replaces store system. This simplifies a lot of tedious gameplay and streamlines the fun part of the game a lot more.

For those who say that streamlining is bad for the game, imagine if you went away for 3 years from 40k, would you really want to read 100 pages of rules before being able to "properly" play the game again?

Because of this, I've established the following implementations to address some of the issues listed below.

The goal of this is to:
1. Shorten game time
2. Improve game balance
3. Improve fluff per game
4. Reduce amount of time crafting lists
5. Reduce rule lawyering.
6. Ensure that the incentive to buying new models is still there.


So for the BRB, changes that I would like to see is to:
-Shrink the BRB. The game is as complicated as it is, the current learning curve to get into the game is insane.
The BRB really should just cover basic rules, such as:
..Phases of the game and actions per phase(maybe)
..How to measure movement (distance covered in the codex)
..Simplify Terrain Rules ( Behind terrain X cover, on top of any terrain X- cover)
..How to roll your dice
..MOST IMPORTANTLY, Campaigns/Scenarios.

- Scenarios/Campaigns
After playing a bunch of boards games especially Dead of Winter, I've come to realize that a lot of these board games it's possible to just "learn" the rules of the game in under 15-20 minutes, which in 40k time is 15-20 hours.

Also game duration right now can go really high even with playing, and I believe that having the following format would elevate that problem.
Some people will say that you could just play with less points, but I believe that the following is still better for reasons.

So, have game lengths
1. Have a short, medium, long, etc. types of setups.

2. Each setup will have a FOC, For example, a "short" game will have say 1 HQ, 3 Troops, 1 Fast, 1 Heavy, 1 Elite.
and other short ones might have 3 Fast / 2 Heavy / 3 Elite so on and so forth. Also the size of the playing board. Balance will be touched upon later.

Also one major thing that I would like to mention is that I HATED building lists cause it make me feel as if I should go for the strongest/cheesiest list just so I ensure the win. But at the same time if I do bring a list and stomp someone that wouldn't be very nice. This way I can just bring whatever I have and decide what I want really quick based on the scenario.

3. For terrain setup, either say like x pieces of terrain one for each quadrant of the playing board etc.

4. Fluff, playing dead of winter i realize that each game has a unique background and story to it. For those who haven't played before, the gist is that there are fluff stories to why this scenario is happening and "events" happen during the game. Anyway, for 40k at least, you could probably create some shape or form of a random general war scenario fluff in each individual codex and people who like it can read it out while playing which adds immensely to that game's story.


As for Codices
1. Add all the special rules here, instead of having to flip back and forth to know what blind is or some random BRB special rule you can now just read it in your book. This also helps with balance as there could be really similar rules but altered in such a tiny way that provides the slight balance it needs.

I think by adding the special rules TO each unit it makes the unit feel more alive. There was this one character that was a "Mall Santa" and his ability was, "you can sacrifice this character to make everybody happier" in Dead of Winter. This guy only had one line of text and I can tell already that no one wanted him around. So yeah, I know 40k does that but just not good enough.

2. Now for upgrades, same thing you could have 3 sets of things for them to choose from that will have trade offs similar to how the Starcraft System in the campaign works, this will add fluff and a bit more mechanics to the game.

3. Now to balance between codices you would have a baseline for each Category say Fast eg. Hellions vs Heldrakes, maybe the finally total is 15 hellions is equal to 1 Heldrakes. This part would be the harder part, but Synergy between characters is something you would have to watch out for.

As for having people buy models.
- Incentive to buy models. Now I believe the goal here is to push "Count As" as a norm for friendly games, and not for tournaments.
The following also highlights my major reasoning for why it is a good model.

1. Everything in each codex is viable since each slot should be balanced among itself which is easier than balancing a unity throughout the entire codex.
The current system actually doesn't allow for that since if something is good you take 3 units of it, and thus limiting the choices for other options that might be great but just not as good as the best one.

2. By having these scenarios and stories for each game I believe that people look at their models as heroes or actually characters in a setting rather than a chess piece. I do know that some people play fluffy scenarios but it's not fun when you get stomped by cheesy lists. This should actually push people into getting the actual model rather than people wanting to play Count As.

Anyway, these are all really brief ideas I came up as I reviewed some games and their mechanics and how they can work into 40k. Let me know how you feel about them! Also GW if you happen to read and like this ruleset and want to try these out, you have my permission

 Makutsu wrote:
For those who say that streamlining is bad for the game, imagine if you went away for 3 years from 40k, would you really want to read 100 pages of rules before being able to "properly" play the game again?

As someone who has done this, it is really not that hard to relearn. Just read the rulebook, play a game. The time investment is minimal compared to other hobbies such as memorising the basic commands for programming or researching obscure bits of history. Do not get me started on the learning cliff that is Dwarf Fortress.

Because of this, I've established the following implementations to address some of the issues listed below.

The goal of this is to:
1. Shorten game time

Games are already of variable length. Want to play a shorter game? Play with fewer points and a lower turn limit.

2. Improve game balance

A noble goal.

3. Improve fluff per game

My games already have fluff that I craft with the other player. We do not need a book trying to hamfist a narrative into our one-off battle.

4. Reduce amount of time crafting lists

I, and many other people, like crafting lists. We try and find how to squeeze units that we like into them and try and create unconventional lists that do well. Taking this away to our enjoyment of the hobby.

5. Reduce rule lawyering.

Another noble goal, but one that you never touch on again.

6. Ensure that the incentive to buying new models is still there.

Good luck.

So for the BRB, changes that I would like to see is to:
-Shrink the BRB. The game is as complicated as it is, the current learning curve to get into the game is insane.
The BRB really should just cover basic rules, such as:
..Phases of the game and actions per phase(maybe)
..How to measure movement (distance covered in the codex)
..Simplify Terrain Rules ( Behind terrain X cover, on top of any terrain X- cover)
..How to roll your dice
..MOST IMPORTANTLY, Campaigns/Scenarios.

The phases of the game being simplified would be useful and could be done quite simply by using terms consistently. The amount of debate over what is a "shooting attack" vs. "shooting" while discussing the Tau was insane. Simplified terrain rules could work, especially in games where there are piles of models on the table. However you also stated a goal to move towards smaller games, where a more individual and skirmish based system would work better.

If your goal is to shorten the rule book. I would suggest you leave campaigns and scenarios out of it. These belong in separate books to allow for customisation of how you would play.

- Scenarios/Campaigns
After playing a bunch of boards games especially Dead of Winter, I've come to realize that a lot of these board games it's possible to just "learn" the rules of the game in under 15-20 minutes, which in 40k time is 15-20 hours.

Also game duration right now can go really high even with playing, and I believe that having the following format would elevate that problem.
Some people will say that you could just play with less points, but I believe that the following is still better for reasons.

So, have game lengths
1. Have a short, medium, long, etc. types of setups.

How would you differentiate between a short and long game? Turn number? Special rules? This needs to be elaborated upon.

2. Each setup will have a FOC, For example, a "short" game will have say 1 HQ, 3 Troops, 1 Fast, 1 Heavy, 1 Elite.
and other short ones might have 3 Fast / 2 Heavy / 3 Elite so on and so forth. Also the size of the playing board. Balance will be touched upon later.

Also one major thing that I would like to mention is that I HATED building lists cause it make me feel as if I should go for the strongest/cheesiest list just so I ensure the win. But at the same time if I do bring a list and stomp someone that wouldn't be very nice. This way I can just bring whatever I have and decide what I want really quick based on the scenario.

This does not eliminate list building, it only makes it more difficult to bring the pieces that you will need to play a game. If I know that my army will consist of my boyz mob, two trukks, and some characters, I don't want to bring an ork dread mob. Once you are there, you still need to assemble a force within this new altered force organisation chart.

3. For terrain setup, either say like x pieces of terrain one for each quadrant of the playing board etc.

4. Fluff, playing dead of winter i realize that each game has a unique background and story to it. For those who haven't played before, the gist is that there are fluff stories to why this scenario is happening and "events" happen during the game. Anyway, for 40k at least, you could probably create some shape or form of a random general war scenario fluff in each individual codex and people who like it can read it out while playing which adds immensely to that game's story.

You can include "events" that happen during games and even generate random tables to affect when these events occur, but for the love of Goddesses do not try and impose a random table into the warlord's personality. This isn't some game where every character is a blank slate when we sit down to play. Many people have invested time and effort into coming up with background and backstory for their character and forces. We do not like it when a random table decides whether a character that we have practically written fanfiction about is feeling shooty or stabby today.

As for Codices
1. Add all the special rules here, instead of having to flip back and forth to know what blind is or some random BRB special rule you can now just read it in your book. This also helps with balance as there could be really similar rules but altered in such a tiny way that provides the slight balance it needs.

I think by adding the special rules TO each unit it makes the unit feel more alive. There was this one character that was a "Mall Santa" and his ability was, "you can sacrifice this character to make everybody happier" in Dead of Winter. This guy only had one line of text and I can tell already that no one wanted him around. So yeah, I know 40k does that but just not good enough.

I think you have this backwards. To cut down on the number of rules that need to be referenced, they should be moved back into the main rule book and unit specific rules should be cut down. Most of the benefits can be represented with army wide special rules, the rules from the core rule book, or stat changes.

2. Now for upgrades, same thing you could have 3 sets of things for them to choose from that will have trade offs similar to how the Starcraft System in the campaign works, this will add fluff and a bit more mechanics to the game.

This idea falls flat unless you are planning on cutting most of the special weapons and options from all of the codices. One of the beauties of the game as it is now is that it offers many ways to play using the same army depending on how you kit out your force. This would remove that, forcing everyone that uses ork boyz to use a set number and loadout, whether you want to play trukk boyz, MSU, Greentide, or others.

I also fail to see how this adds fluff.

3. Now to balance between codices you would have a baseline for each Category say Fast eg. Hellions vs Heldrakes, maybe the finally total is 15 hellions is equal to 1 Heldrakes. This part would be the harder part, but Synergy between characters is something you would have to watch out for.

This would not work as models do not always match up against each other properly. Warhammer 40,000 has always been and will always be very rock, paper, scissors with anti-tank weapons being devastating to a tank and anti-infantry weaponry being devastating to infantry (and tanks in 7th).

As for having people buy models.
- Incentive to buy models. Now I believe the goal here is to push "Count As" as a norm for friendly games, and not for tournaments.
The following also highlights my major reasoning for why it is a good model.

I like counts as models, but how does that increase sales?

1. Everything in each codex is viable since each slot should be balanced among itself which is easier than balancing a unity throughout the entire codex.
The current system actually doesn't allow for that since if something is good you take 3 units of it, and thus limiting the choices for other options that might be great but just not as good as the best one.

How will you limit their options? Your force organisation slots looked like current force organisation slots without points. The potential for spam is still there.

2. By having these scenarios and stories for each game I believe that people look at their models as heroes or actually characters in a setting rather than a chess piece. I do know that some people play fluffy scenarios but it's not fun when you get stomped by cheesy lists. This should actually push people into getting the actual model rather than people wanting to play Count As.

Many of us do look at our models as characters and get upset when the game tries to impose a personality on them (you rolled a 6, today you are a strategist)

Anyway, these are all really brief ideas I came up as I reviewed some games and their mechanics and how they can work into 40k. Let me know how you feel about them! Also GW if you happen to read and like this ruleset and want to try these out, you have my permission

It was an attempt that needs some critical thought and playtesting before it goes anywhere. Several aspects of this plan need to be reworked before you could consider trying to implement the system.

If GW where going to rework 40k drastically' I would rather they look at games like warmachine, dropzone comander and a few others of similar size than take from Age of Sigmar.

Putting a lot of the special rules in the main rule book so everyone can read them easy.

Then the codex has two or three special rules for the army itself.
With most units having no more than a single unique rule at most.
Think of a standard scale and stick with it, then create alternate material for other scales. Like apoc and kill team.

Keep the edition rolling for longer, there is no reason an army shouldn't get a book update every edition. Other than incompetence at high management.

Things like weapon profiles should be done as a unit by unit basis based on its points, and I think unit attachments or replacements would be better.

A general improvement of missions for GW games across the board. And a book on forging the naritive would be welcome, something that actuly gave missions and a campaign idea for non points rather than the half ass they put into it now.

Less random rolling at the start of a game the better. Otherwise I agree with the signless for the most part.

BOOO.

keep your AoS shallowness, complete lack of balance or points, squating of armies, destruction of fluff and ugly expensive releases.

The game definitely needs a reboot of almost everything at this point, and needs to decide what scale it wants to play at.

Currently it keeps wanting to play like Epic with the detail and open-endedness of an RPG or Skirmish game, and it's just not working, 40k is an overcomplicated, unfocused, unbalanced mess that can't do anything it sets out to do competently. It's a terrible Epic replacement and doesn't function at all in the Skirmish/RPG scale.

A total wipe and reboot could be great. To be honest, Fantasy was in the same situation and a reboot of sorts wasn't a bad idea at all.

However, as with practically everything with GW at this point, they went out of their way to apparently intentionally execute the idea in the worst manner possible with AoS, and I'd expect mostly the same if they did so with 40k at this point, though I'm no longer sure if it would harm 40k anymore than the current situation is. I mean, I guess it could be argued that AoS didn't hurt Fantasy as Fantasy was practically already dead, but it certainly didn't help anything.

I like the idea of free unit warscrolls so no cheating between players and paid fluff, formations and decurions.
I like the idea of keywords to exactly identifies what a unit is.
I like the point system because players want a sort of balance and I think the 1/3rd models more system in AOS is not enough
I like the complexity of the 7th edition rulebook, I would like to keep the CAD detatchment and the varoius DE, SW, etc detachment instead the decurion because is better suited for small medium battles.
I would like to come back to softcover codexes and hardcover just for collectors edition.
What I don't like is the GW idea to transform 40K in Epic: 40K ia a melee in Epic scale and Titans and aircraft are too big for this.
If you want to play a very streamlined version of 40k I suggest playing 3rd edition, with vehicles design rules you can create almost every vehicle from 7th edition

 Makutsu wrote:


As for Codices
1. Add all the special rules here, instead of having to flip back and forth to know what blind is or some random BRB special rule you can now just read it in your book. This also helps with balance as there could be really similar rules but altered in such a tiny way that provides the slight balance it needs.

I think by adding the special rules TO each unit it makes the unit feel more alive. There was this one character that was a "Mall Santa" and his ability was, "you can sacrifice this character to make everybody happier" in Dead of Winter. This guy only had one line of text and I can tell already that no one wanted him around. So yeah, I know 40k does that but just not good enough.

2. Now for upgrades, same thing you could have 3 sets of things for them to choose from that will have trade offs similar to how the Starcraft System in the campaign works, this will add fluff and a bit more mechanics to the game.

3. Now to balance between codices you would have a baseline for each Category say Fast eg. Hellions vs Heldrakes, maybe the finally total is 15 hellions is equal to 1 Heldrakes. This part would be the harder part, but Synergy between characters is something you would have to watch out for.

The magic recipt to have almost everything balanced is to plan all faction together: this will prevent the needs to create army wide special rules to balance a faction versus another one.
This is also linked to the needs of keeping universal rules on the BRB: during 3rd there weren't universal rules and special rules were replicated on each book; an example is the Terminator armour, at the beginning it was a 2+ armour save only and then was patched in WD with the 5++ save. The SM, first Chaos codex used to have the first version of this rule, the second (3.5) chaos codex the latter.
Why in this edition there are rules like both the "rending" and "bladestorm" special rules? it was not better to make a "rending(infantry+vehicles)" special rule that cover every possibility? Keep in mind bladestorm comes from 6th edition so it allready existed before 7th BRB,
The best thing during 3rd where the Capter Approved compilations: revive them to include all serious updates for the game so you exclude the needs to just buy a codex to have a specal rule and buy this compilation instead.