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.

This has been bugging me for a while.
I like all that is 40k... except the rules as they stand now for "balance".
I just cannot manage a pickup game worth a darn.

So what am I waiting for?

I "think" if they tightened up formations, balanced them a bit (or a whole lot) and ensured their rules cannot extend outside of the formation, GW might be able to make it work.
The 6th edition of armies being able to ally in many combinations and hugely varying power levels with abilities to enhance across all allies for the points had made things very unwieldy.
I can make a "competitive" game work as long as the understanding is "anything goes" within the rules.

I think I am not angry anymore.
I have many other games to fall back on due to drifting away for a bit.
I just miss the games I could play that matched the stories without it being one-sided.

I have been playing Bolt Action lately, very similar rule sets.
They can make it work, why not GW?
I have been tempted to work on a Bolt Action converter for 40k out of frustration.

SO! what are you waiting for?
What particular change or series of changes you need to see where you can jump back in?
Maybe GW is listening now that we are seeing various changes they are making.

To be perfectly honest?

I'm waiting for GW to stabilise their 'direction' in terms of Codex power levels. The fact they switched halfway through to a Decurion style for everyone but left a number of armies in the cold sort of made me a bit disappointed.

I'd also appreciate some changes to make Assault armies viable again.

And I'd also appreciate actual viable codexes for my CSM and Tyranids. You know.

Pretty much selling my generic CSM, keeping the pretty FW Death Guard I am proud of and focusing on 30k...because oddly enough I find 30k to be better balanced than 40k at the moment.

GW just don't want to write good rules

So I am waiting for the day the community realise that they will never get better rules from GW and start to do their own version of the rules (or accept an already existing fan edition).
And I hope this happens before there is no one left any more.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
To be perfectly honest?

I'm waiting for GW to stabilise their 'direction' in terms of Codex power levels. The fact they switched halfway through to a Decurion style for everyone but left a number of armies in the cold sort of made me a bit disappointed.

I'd also appreciate some changes to make Assault armies viable again.

And I'd also appreciate actual viable codexes for my CSM and Tyranids. You know.

Pretty much selling my generic CSM, keeping the pretty FW Death Guard I am proud of and focusing on 30k...because oddly enough I find 30k to be better balanced than 40k at the moment.

lol 30k is balanced because its marines vs.marines.

 kodos wrote:
GW just don't want to write good rules
So I am waiting for the day the community realise that they will never get better rules from GW and start to do their own version of the rules (or accept an already existing fan edition).
And I hope this happens before there is no one left any more.

A few people have taken a stab at it but it almost needs a formula method and a complete rule re-vamp to get anything that might work.
I am encouraged by Net Epic Armageddon http://www.net-armageddon.org/ they managed to keep my Epic playing friends happy.
I should hunt down that thread where a guy dusted off the vehicle creation rules and made an excel sheet to come up with a "fair" points cost.

 Talizvar wrote:
A few people have taken a stab at it but it almost needs a formula method and a complete rule re-vamp to get anything that might work.

I should hunt down that thread where a guy dusted off the vehicle creation rules and made an excel sheet to come up with a "fair" points cost.

Writing good 40k rules is not the problem, but most players are more kind of "no need for alternative rules because next official Edi will be the best game ever" So they stick with the rules and quit after they get it that this will never happen.

If there is an excel sheet based on the old VCR for all units it would be interesting to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

lol 30k is balanced because its marines vs.marines.

30k is balanced because FW has at least one guy who know to write rules and knoiw actally what rules are in the actual rulebook. While the guys from GW don't know their own game.

 kodos wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
A few people have taken a stab at it but it almost needs a formula method and a complete rule re-vamp to get anything that might work.

I should hunt down that thread where a guy dusted off the vehicle creation rules and made an excel sheet to come up with a "fair" points cost.

Writing good 40k rules is not the problem, but most players are more kind of "no need for alternative rules because next official Edi will be the best game ever" So they stick with the rules and quit after they get it that this will never happen.

If there is an excel sheet based on the old VCR for all units it would be interesting to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

lol 30k is balanced because its marines vs.marines.

30k is balanced because FW has at least one guy who know to write rules and knoiw actally what rules are in the actual rulebook. While the guys from GW don't know their own game.

No 30K is balanced cause everyone is essentially playing the same faction with a few different special rules. Throw the corsairs (written by FW) into the mix (because Eldar have been around far longer than the IoM anyways) and all of a sudden its unbalanced again. It it "balanced" because everyone is playing the same army.

FW has openly stated that 30k armies are not balanced in the same way as 40k armies and playing the two against each other can result in balance issues. Corsairs were not intended for 3ok play.

That said, 30k isnt all that balanced either, it just appears so next to what 40k has become, and is balancexd *enough* that people will overlook most of its faults

 kodos wrote:
If there is an excel sheet based on the old VCR for all units it would be interesting to get it.

Best I can do is this guy http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648525.page was trying out a fairly comprehensive update and I think he had an excel sheet he kept tweaking to keep the points sane.
"Zagman" (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/user/profile/50532.page) put in an awful lot of work it would be a shame to let it get buried.

I am tempted to ask him if he can release his file... I am pretty good at excel.

 Xerics wrote:

No 30K is balanced cause everyone is essentially playing the same faction with a few different special rules .

Which is the same for 40k
Because there is no real difference to the factions any more and all of them play the same. The only difference now is that some get better special rules and cheaper units than others

 Vaktathi wrote:

That said, 30k isnt all that balanced either, it just appears so next to what 40k has become, and is balancexd *enough* that people will overlook most of its faults

100% this

 Xerics wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
A few people have taken a stab at it but it almost needs a formula method and a complete rule re-vamp to get anything that might work.

I should hunt down that thread where a guy dusted off the vehicle creation rules and made an excel sheet to come up with a "fair" points cost.

Writing good 40k rules is not the problem, but most players are more kind of "no need for alternative rules because next official Edi will be the best game ever" So they stick with the rules and quit after they get it that this will never happen.

If there is an excel sheet based on the old VCR for all units it would be interesting to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

lol 30k is balanced because its marines vs.marines.

30k is balanced because FW has at least one guy who know to write rules and knoiw actally what rules are in the actual rulebook. While the guys from GW don't know their own game.

No 30K is balanced cause everyone is essentially playing the same faction with a few different special rules. Throw the corsairs (written by FW) into the mix (because Eldar have been around far longer than the IoM anyways) and all of a sudden its unbalanced again. It it "balanced" because everyone is playing the same army.

Space Marines: various flavors

Solar auxilia

Deamons

Imperial militia and renegades (which is 10 lists in one)

Add to that, factions that are easily represented in 30k

Orks

Eldar/deldar

Necrons

Imperial guard (until imperial army turns up)

Ones that don't fit into 30k, but can be used to represent the various xenos races or advanced humans.

Tau

Tyranids

Marines on marines is just the majority, 30k is not just marine on marine, it's balanced to a certain extent as it can play all these armies with a greater or lesser chance of winning.

The "30k is only marines" myth needs to die.

Yeah if you live in the "pick game only" donut whole 40K is a tough game. The core rules are fantastic but the codex balance makes it a challenge.

I actually still play quite regularly, but I'm waiting for a new Blood Angels codex, a new Tyranid codex and a new CSM codex... and also for the new "nerfed" Eldar codex. ;-)

I'm waiting for the burn it to the ground and restart from scratch. Its probably the only way I'd ever consider playing a current 40K rule set.

@Gunzhard.
Please explain what is 'fantastic' about:-

Everything moves 6" or D6" though difficult terrain.
For ranged attacks you can hit any target any where in range on the same fixed value.(7-BS.)
For close combat you hit on a 3,4,or 5.(WS vs WS chart)
To wound you roll a 2+ to 6+ .(S vs T chart.)
To save roll over the models save value.Unless the weapons AP value is lower than the models armour save value then it does not get a save.
Roll under the LD value on 2D6 to pass the Ld test.

6 different resolution methods and separate rules for vehicles, is just pointless complication for the sake of it.
These are the core rules,that still need EIGHTY special rues to cover the game play.

I use words that begin with F to describe GW rules for 40k, but not one of them is fantastic.

Lanrak wrote:
@Gunzhard.
Please explain what is 'fantastic' about:-

Everything moves 6" or D6" though difficult terrain.
For ranged attacks you can hit any target any where in range on the same fixed value.(7-BS.)
For close combat you hit on a 3,4,or 5.(WS vs WS chart)
To wound you roll a 2+ to 6+ .(S vs T chart.)
To save roll over the models save value.Unless the weapons AP value is lower than the models armour save value then it does not get a save.
Roll under the LD value on 2D6 to pass the Ld test.

6 different resolution methods and separate rules for vehicles, is just pointless complication for the sake of it.
These are the core rules,that still need EIGHTY special rues to cover the game play.

I use words that begin with F to describe GW rules for 40k, but not one of them is fantastic.

Hah ...is this your first time playing 40K? Yeah it's certainly not perfect, never has been though, literally not once ever - but it's still a good game. The "80 special rules" is actually a consolidation that fans begged for over many years of having rules spread exclusively across each individual codex. Personally I'd much rather have MORE rules in the core book than spread over many, which is one of the biggest 'codex' issues right now. We were used to having 1 codex; now it's a codex, plus a supplement, plus a campaign book or two and maybe a WD formation. It's certainly not ideal, but I'm not going to fall to pieces about it.

My biggest complaint with the core rules at the moment is close combat versus shooting; Shooting should be better but sheesh, it's tough enough getting into combat, then when your battered unit arrives it's underwhelming, and if you do pull off a brutal assault you're left standing with a bullseye on your chest.
Still most of the time I have no issue, it's only against certain armies, with certain 'broken codex', like Eldar that I continually have really challenging games against.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The core rules are fantastic but the codex balance makes it a challenge.

The core rules are a far cry from being fantastic.

While the codices do add most of the balance issues, being the army books and all, but many of the issues behind the balance stems from the poorly done core.

Issues between shooting and assaulting, too much dice rolling for simple damage rolls, disparity between vehicles and MCs, battlation and small squad type rules intermeshed, all or nothing armour save mechanic, cover saves being an either/or style save, complicated and unnecessary USRs, and general vagueness/sloppy writing all point to 40k's core rules being sub par.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The core rules are fantastic but the codex balance makes it a challenge.

You never played anything else than 40k

the Core Rules are a mess and nothing more.
If you what just write them down and remove everything that is not necessary (like stuff that is written twice, just a little bit different) you would have 25 pages of rules, including special rules, psionic powers, fortifications etc.

I remember starting to play Battletech, all those shifts hurt my head.
BUT I am so used to 40k that it's poor mechanics are not much of an issue for me at the moment (or any other old-time player).
It is like AD&D: a bit confusing at first but you adjust.

Power level for the points value is the consistent thorn.
Having units that can augment any number of other units makes charging appropriate points a challenge.

This is why I pointed to the formations where small self-contained "warbands" have a hope of being balanced, none of this cross-pollination of groups augmenting others with their special rules or powers. The trick is for them to get out of this power-creep spiral they are so fond of.

<edit> I keep forgetting which came first, the chicken or the egg.
As pointed out, some rules determine the power of the ability by how it is used.
If melee is rather underwhelming, it sure is a waste spending a ton of points on a power fist.

You really have to be sure of the various rules before we waste time assigning points.
I can really see how GW would be hesitant to make big core rules changes: points assignments would have to be revamped for all troops and gear affected.

40K is a sci fi game based on a 30 year old Fantasy/Historical rule set trying to play army level engagements at a squad level of granularity

Fantastic!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, in all seriousness, I'm waiting for GW to acknowledge the game drives models sales, and that a fair contest between two parties is all most of us want without needless amounts of ore-game negotiation, cheese guilt, unit envy and faction inequity.

Then start making a game people can play, rather than 'experience.'

I'm quite excited by the whole FAQ thing.

 Talizvar wrote:
I remember starting to play Battletech, all those shifts hurt my head.
BUT I am so used to 40k that it's poor mechanics are not much of an issue for me at the moment (or any other old-time player).
It is like AD&D: a bit confusing at first but you adjust.

Power level for the points value is the consistent thorn.
Having units that can augment any number of other units makes charging appropriate points a challenge.

This is why I pointed to the formations where small self-contained "warbands" have a hope of being balanced, none of this cross-pollination of groups augmenting others with their special rules or powers. The trick is for them to get out of this power-creep spiral they are so fond of.

I agree entirely. After decades at this, the core and all it's imperfections, are not the issue for me... it's the codex "power-creep spiral". I want Blood Angels and Tyranids to be better (while we're at DE, CSM and Orks too) and I want Eldar and Tau to be much worse.

GW to stop dumping on cc

 Talizvar wrote:
I remember starting to play Battletech, all those shifts hurt my head.
BUT I am so used to 40k that it's poor mechanics are not much of an issue for me at the moment (or any other old-time player).

It is not the mechanic which is the big problem but the poor writing, difficult rules for simple stuff
eg unit types+special rules instead of a simple movement value in the profile)
Making base size very important for the game and than having 3 different sizes available for the same model type because you should use the base that come with the model.
etc

and the biggest issue is that the rules are not written for the codexbooks used
7th edition core rules are written for 6th edition fraction rules and to not work well with 7th edition codex books, especially those books that are already written for the 8th edition.
And because GW does not add proper updates to their rules since the end of 5th edition, their system is broken.

After playing with HH rules for a while now, I think 40K does formations all wrong. In HH, you have to give up stuff to get stuff. In 40K, you just get stuff.

 Gunzhard wrote:

I agree entirely. After decades at this, the core and all it's imperfections, are not the issue for me... it's the codex "power-creep spiral". I want Blood Angels and Tyranids to be better (while we're at DE, CSM and Orks too) and I want Eldar and Tau to be much worse.

So asking to stop the power creep with a different power creep is not the solution

 Azreal13 wrote:

But, in all seriousness, I'm waiting for GW to acknowledge the game drives models sales, and that a fair contest between two parties is all most of us want without needless amounts of ore-game negotiation, cheese guilt, unit envy and faction inequity.

Then start making a game people can play, rather than 'experience.'

I'm quite excited by the whole FAQ thing.

Look at my first post here
And be ready to be very disappointed about the FAQ

 ionusx wrote:
GW to stop dumping on cc

My first army was "Chaos".
Then they took my "specific" daemons away.
Then they took them all away unless I can summon them.
While they were at it, melee became problematic and the little guys started seeming points expensive.

But this is the classic CSM grumble: points to effectiveness is not there.

I now have MANY armies I swear to try to ward-off the "least nerfed" of the month.
BUT I do not have Tau, Eldar or Necrons... woe's me!

A little more than a passing attempt at say a specifically selected series of "scenario" battles for a close game would be nice.
Outlining an escalation campaign for two specific armies would be neat (to act as a buying guide for growing your army! GW would be proud!).
It would be nice to devote a few books or white dwarf mags.

 Azreal13 wrote:
40K is a sci fi game based on a 30 year old Fantasy/Historical rule set trying to play army level engagements at a squad level of granularity

Fantastic!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, in all seriousness, I'm waiting for GW to acknowledge the game drives models sales, and that a fair contest between two parties is all most of us want without needless amounts of ore-game negotiation, cheese guilt, unit envy and faction inequity.

Then start making a game people can play, rather than 'experience.'

I'm quite excited by the whole FAQ thing.

this is pretty much how I feel and what has prevented me from getting in as many games as I used to. The game is just so wonky in scale and ao poorly balanced that its just increasingly unfun to play.

 Talizvar wrote:
My first army was "Chaos".

Same here
first ever army was Thousand Sons.
I was very happy after we got the 3.5 Codex and I got all the metal stuff, including Fantasy Bits and Grey Knight Terminators to make the rubic Termis seen in the WD.
Second Army were Space Wolves, because I liked the background and wanted to get the nemesis too.

Last time I played tournaments was in 5th after the new SW Codex came out and helped to get over the disappointment of the Codex Renegades

And from that point on everything just got worse with every new book

 kodos wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

But, in all seriousness, I'm waiting for GW to acknowledge the game drives models sales, and that a fair contest between two parties is all most of us want without needless amounts of ore-game negotiation, cheese guilt, unit envy and faction inequity.

Then start making a game people can play, rather than 'experience.'

I'm quite excited by the whole FAQ thing.

Look at my first post here
And be ready to be very disappointed about the FAQ

I fail to see what relevance your desire for a community written ruleset to what I wrote? FYI, that'll never happen. Not in a universally adopted sense, anyway. GW starting to give a gak is an infinitely better horse to back at this point. Not that I think it's a dead cert, but it's the choice of two equally green horses, but one being ridden by a champion jockey.

Don't think I'm not healthily cynical about the FAQ either, but just recently they've been slowly working their way down the list of issues people commonly have with GW product, the rules were the last thing to not have been addressed, and now they're making noises in that direction too.

Honestly, I'm beginning to think Kevin is reading my posts, seriously Kev, just give me a job already.

 Jayden63 wrote:
I'm waiting for the burn it to the ground and restart from scratch. Its probably the only way I'd ever consider playing a current 40K rule set.

This.

Exterminatus is the only option at this point.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I fail to see what relevance your desire for a community written ruleset to what I wrote?

You are waiting for GW to realise that good rules would sell more models and they would start making a game to play.

And I said at the beginning that this will never happen.
Because the don't want to
40k is already going the AoS way with formations that overwrite all core rules and new campaign books instead of real codex upgrades etc because that sells better.

The "new way" of selling models with rules is to print limited Edition fraction campaign books, add new models, sell them for 2-3 months to get the maximum out and forget about it after that to make room for the next campaign book with new models.
(because GW's market research showed that most boxes are sold in the first months after release, so they focus on just that and nothing more)

 Azreal13 wrote:

Don't think I'm not healthily cynical about the FAQ either, but just recently they've been slowly working their way down the list of issues people commonly have with GW product, the rules were the last thing to not have been addressed, and now they're making noises in that direction too.

We have had this before
Only questions answered were those that could be by a quick look in the rulebook and other questions were addressed with "we don't see anything unclear here"