Switch Theme:

How would you fix 40k?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





On my other thread talking about GW new beta approach I see a lot of people saying that the current devs are bad at their jobs and anybody would have made a better game. However, I've only very rarely ever seen someone actually laying out a tested and will thought out design document on how they would "fix" 40k. So I call a challenge! How would you fix all the current community problems with 40k?

Rules:
1. It can't just be you writing gibberish! You need to post a well constructed argument laying out the current flaws and how your changes "fix" them.
2. You may steal rules from other games.
3. You may outright scrap 40k rules and build your own from the ground up.
4. You can't attempt to fix one flaw. You have to list all the flaws you feel the games has and how they can be "fixed".
5. Your game doesn't have to be balanced just fun for everyone to play without anyone being stomped turn 1.
6. You can't delte factions or currently existing units.
7. If you have no ideas yourself then you are allowed to respond and reply to people's suggestions.

(More rules to be added if needed)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/19 00:18:19


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Norwich

You want people to write a complete rules document

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/19 00:20:48


   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 lolman1c wrote:
On my other thread talking about GW new beta approach I see a lot of people saying that the current devs are bad at their jobs and anybody would have made a better game. However, I've only very rarely ever seen someone actually laying out a tested and will thought out design document on how they would "fix" 40k. So I call a challenge! How would you fix all the current community problems with 40k?

Rules:
1. It can't just be you writing gibberish! You need to post a well constructed argument laying out the current flaws and how your changes "fix" them.
2. You may steal rules from other games.
3. You may outright scrap 40k rules and build your own from the ground up.
4. You can't attempt to fix one flaw. You have to list all the flaws you feel the games has and how they can be "fixed".
5. Your game doesn't have to be balanced just fun for everyone to play without anyone being stomped turn 1.
6. You can't delte factions or currently existing units.
7. If you have no ideas yourself then you are allowed to respond and reply to people's suggestions.

(More rules to be added if needed)


With the ability to touch anyone on t1 the game will always be very one turn tableeee.

best way to combat that is to do alternating activation as it mitigates a lot of trouble that causes.

alternatively night fighting in all the games.

thats the primary core problem. everything else is fixable with playtesting and adjusting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/19 00:22:26


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Applying some sort of alternating activation, would be the simplest change with the biggest effect on gameplay.

I for one welcome our new revenant titan overlords... 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





Turn one used to be about positioning, and now it's about alpha strike.

Even if it if it were just a unique mission, I wouldn't mind a Fog of War type rule turn 1, similar to the old Night Fighting. No units targeted outside 24 inches or so.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/19 00:29:20


 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






Because I know there is a spicific poster who loves the idea and j do to. Change it to a Different 10 system.

kill ALL the orks!

1500 pts Legion of the Damned (Salamanders)
1500 point Dewathwings  
   
Made in us
Skilled SDF-1 Pin-Point Barrier Jockey





Mississippi

Okay, I’ll bite - since I’ve been working on a rewrite anyways for some time now.

A. Decide on the scope of the game - is this going to zoom in on a small, heroic group of warriors, a few squads up to an entire planetary force. Personally, I would be shooting for a small squad game - about 3-5 squads, with maybe 1-2 vehicles per side.

B. Scrap or peel back the stats on all units. Start with one faction’s base troop as the baseline for a model in the game. For my version, a basic Space Marine is the starting point - with his base gear, he’ll cost 15 points.

C. Develop the base rules with an eye to accomodate the gamut of units that can be thrown into the game. This means the rules for movement, terrain, shooting, melee, morale and psychic abilities. Tune to a D10 or D12 system.

D. Combine, delete or rejigger units for the game (sorry, but there are simply some things that aren’t going to survive a rewrite - I don’t care if you already have models. That’s part of why the game is broken as it is).

E. Minimalize special rules. A given unit should break/bend 2 base rules at most. Units with special rules should be far more difficult to field and generally unique or exceding few in number. No unit should ignore the base rules of the game (such as morale), and exceptional units that give you an advantage vs. a base rule (such as fearless, allowing morale rerolls) should be rare - no more than 1 non-spammable unit per army.

F. The game should reward doing more than advancing up the field and killing the enemy. Sniping, immobilizing, outmanuevering, pinning, ambushing and other activities should be rewarded with in-game advantages. I should be possible to defeat an enemy army without having to blow every model off the board.

G. Create rules for solo, team and co-op play (vs. an AI enemy).

More to come (esp. if I get asked about specific things).

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Focused Fire Warrior




Eastern Fringe

Have 70% of the 'fan base' disappear.

The first rule of unarmed combat is: don’t be unarmed. 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Tampa, FL

IMHO the biggest flaw is that 40k tries to cater to every possible size, with a set of rules that doesn't know what it wants to be. So IMHO the very first thing is to split the core rules into two segments: One is company-level/squad-based, with heavy restrictions (e.g. no flyers or superheavies, maybe a limit of 0-1 tank and/or transport). The second is larger scale, uses team bases (i.e. movement trays) instead of being squad-based (so for example, 5 space marines on one bases counts as one "unit") and is much more abstract in the rules. For example, in the squad-based game you care what special or heavy weapon a squad has. In the larger scale game, this becomes less relevant; you may not necessarily care if a squad has a missile launcher or a lascannon in it. The larger scale game is also where superheavies and flyers are allowed.

There would also, hypothetically be an even more detailed skirmish game where you have maybe 10-12 models or so per side on a smaller table, where you can get into even more detail than the squad level.

Right off the bat, this would let you pick a way to play that best fits what you want, or combine all three of them for the narrative (imagine fighting a large scale battle, then zooming down to a particular engagement, and then zooming further to some special ops mission), with rules that best cater to those sizes. Ideally there would be a same core set of rules to govern all three sizes, and it's just the level of detail that varies, going from more detailed to more abstracted as you get larger in size.

Next, i would codify a lot of the special rules that models/units have, and consolidate them. For example, let's imagine a hypothetical "Fleet" rule that lets a unit move faster (for sake of example here let's say it lets you advance and charge in the same turn). This is a core rule of the game, defined thusly:

FLEET: A unit with Fleet can Charge in the same turn it makes an Advance


Now, anything in the game that has this advance + charge ability doesn't need a special ability of its own to define it, it simply has Fleet reprinted on its datasheet. This could even extend to things like re-rolls, where you define it something like:

Re-roll Hits [<KEYWORD>]: Friendly <KEYWORD> units within 6" of this model can re-roll hits of 1.


Again, the key here is a common set of rules that are applied where necessary. There's no need to give one model "Rites of Battle" and another model "Lord of Chaos" and another model something else, all of which are the same "re-roll hits of 1" with a different keyword applied. The rule itself is global, only the keyword changes (e.g. on the model's sheet it simply needs to say Re-Roll Hits [<CHAPTER>] without needing to have its own variation of the same rule). As part of this, I would also do away with the wonky "fluff rules", for example in 8th edition parlance, all abilities that give back Command Points would trigger on the same condition (perhaps with a variable condition as above, e.g. "Master Strategist [X] where X is the roll needed" to account for variances), there would not be something like the Tallyman doing it on any result of a 7 on 2d6, but the Autarch getting it on a single die roll of a 6, but this relic giving it on a 5+, etc. It would be one set or a variable set that applies to everybody.

Just some initial thoughts, but the key point here is to split the game up so each size can do what it needs to do without the baggage of the others, and make common sets of special rules that are applied globally where necessary instead of making up similar-but-not-quite rules everywhere.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/19 00:53:52


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Walking Dead Wraithlord






I would list a large number of changes which would make the game more balanced/playable, but all of my ideas contradict the "sell more models" approach GW has firmly entrenched itself in, so it would be rather pointless.

 
   
Made in au
Screamin' Stormboy




Australia

Eh, I wouldn't have a clue about game design. My only real gripe at the moment is the removal of blast templates. That really hit low BS armies hard. So the only thing I would do is bring those back.

Never challenge an Armenian to a game of chess. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






ditch 100% of 8th ed, get a dark vengeance core rulebook, do not add formations, do not add the mountains of addtional junk, balance the codex from there. 30k is a great game, its well balanced, so the rules are fine its the codex and additional junk that made 7th such a mess. clean sweep.
   
Made in gu
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

Switch to alternate activation of units. There's a variety of forms this could take, but it would fix most of what I don't like about 40k.

Something like either bolt action or dropzone commander would be great.

It would mostly eliminate alpha strike (a huge problem for 40k gameplay) and all the problems associated with it. But it would also encourage more even engagement from both players, rather than you sitting around while I shoot 100 guns at you for half an hour.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Sorcerer of Chaos




Alternate activation.

Make managing the battlefield matter again (terrain)

Make maneuver matter again (alpha striking your entire army would be a no go, and would be reserved or restricted)

Add elements of risk into the game instead of the banquet's feast we've had for years where there is only low risk high reward "choices" presented to us.
   
Made in it
Drifting Cronos Hungry for Souls




Italy

How would I fix 40k? For now I just think that everyone should have a codex. When all the factions have it, we'll really see the state of 40k.

Competitive game cannot really be fixed IMHO, there are too many variables and it's impossible to make all the factions perfectly balanced internally and among each other.

But I'd like friendly semi competitive games to be balanced, that's the goal. Even in 7th edition I could have decent odds of winning against the top tiers (but a couple of unbeatable tournament lists) using my mid tier or bottom tier armies. Now the distance between the strongest and the weakest armies is way wider.

I agree about limiting deep strike which is a mechanic that irritates me, I'd keep it for max a single unit in the game. But I wouldn't mind to make it completely disappear, with the entire armies on the table during deployment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/19 07:58:40


Orks 9500
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




As others have already said, you've asked for more detail than I can put in a single post. Instead, here's a summary of areas that I would look at first, with an outline of how I'd fix it.

1. Get rid of the '6 limit' on things like warlord traits and psychic powers. Some armies should just have more. Or less.
2. Reduce the number of rules which use mortal wounds, introduce a lesser version of mortal wounds (probably just auto-wound, but saves allowed)
3. Codify the vast majority of special unit/weapon rules into a clearly defined set of 'atomic' rules. e.g. Feel No Pain-esk rules all become SpecialWoundSave 5+
4. Restore blast markers, with more than just two diameters. 3", 4", 5" 6" 7". Place the marker where you want, count models beneath it, roll to hit for each model.
5. Restore templates, either with varying sizes, or with one size and varying range of 'torrent'. e.g. standard flamer would be 1" range, you must place the tip within 1", then point where you like. Some would then auto-hit, others you'd roll like with blasts above.
6. Imperial plasma weapons to all lose 1 point of strength in each mode.
7. Conduct thorough review of all multi-wound weapons. Make many of them fixed values instead of Dx. Those that remain change from D6 to 2D3, or D3+3 etc
8. Allow some method of deep striking closer than 9", but with a risk. Say, for each inch closer … e.g. roll a d6 for each model deep striking. If at 8", a roll of 1 inflicts a mortal wound. If at 6", a roll of 1-3 inflicts a mortal wound.
9. Restore fire arcs, but keep them more relaxed. Turrets still 360". Hull mounted/sponson all 180".


I'm tempted to restore differing armour values on vehicles (rear arc etc) too, but I haven't missed it as much as I expected to.

Building a better 7th edition 40k Project Zeta Warseer thread Dakka thread 
   
Made in dk
Fresh-Faced New User



Norrköping, Sweden

I would use the "Beyond the gates of 40K" which you can find in this section further down.
It really has every rule that i think is needed to make a really good wargame. Random activation a la Bolt action, really good terrain rules and rules for shooting that takes facing, your own unit placement etc and make them important, pin markers a la Epic:armageddons blast markers.

It's a really cool mashup and i think it would make 40K an awesome game (maybe a tad to difficult for the kids).

But random activations and having to choose between moving-shooting, advancing or charging would go along way.

Also not allowing units to shoot thru terrain (meaning that neither the firing unit or the unit being fired upon would be in cover but me on opposite sides of the cover) would be great because positioning would be a tactic choice again.

   
Made in gb
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine






1. Take turns activating units; the current "I go, you go" mechanism has always been a big problem for the game, especially when using bigger armies where you just take turns losing models.
2. Take simplification further; roll weapon skill, Strength and attacks into an Attack characteristic, and Toughness and saves into a Defence characteristic. Make it use opposed rolls, i.e- you're rolling for 10 models, so you roll 10 attack dice, your opponent rolls 10 defence dice, and the difference in successes is the damage (if any).
3. Balance the god-damn codexes; this is the big issue that GW has always had. By reducing the number of stats it should be possible to come up with a formula for quickly costing things in a balanced way, requiring only minor tweaks for wargear options and special rules. This would probably require significantly thinning special rules again, as GW seems to have a hard-on for adding more and more special rules every edition to the point that balance becomes impossible.
4. Increase specialisation rather than reducing cost; marines keep creeping down in points cost because GW doesn't seem to want to make them tougher, but I don't want cheap marines (in points terms, gimme cheap models any day), I want them to be the elite, low model count army they're supposed to be. Same with the elite units in other armies; I want better units, not cheaper ones. Step 2 (simplification) might partially address this as standard, as if you assume lasguns had Attack of 5+, and marines a 4+ Defence, then they would be significantly tougher than they are now.

These are more broad ambitions, but would form my overall strategy for starting to fix the game.

   
Made in us
Walking Dead Wraithlord






Just because I'm bored - the changes I would make (for betterment of the game, not betterment of sales - though one could propel the other)

  • Remove IGOUGO - but I imagine that's about top of everybody's list. Use tokens/chips/cards ala Bolt Action, etc.
    Establish a creative authority within the company, and a subset of professional technical editors beneath him or her.
    Create a genuine style-book as authors and writers use which establishes how to phrase/write actual rules in the rulebook. The editorial team should be responsible for this, and overseeing its implementation.
    Establish and use a mathematical basis for creating units, effects, and costs (wargear, etc.)
    Establish a rules-destroying secondary team which has X amount of time with each planned release - their entire goal is to break it. If a dozen podcasts and forums can find a chink in a codex within 24 hours of it being released, GW should be catching this earlier.
    Reduce the lethality of almost everything in the game (also allowing for slightly smaller games). No infantry units outside of a select two or three, should ever be rolling 4-5 attacks each...resulting in dice buckets of 50-60-70 dice. That stuff needs to go.
    Rely more on the stat lines of actual models.
    Introduce more strict army organization decisions. Remove the current ability to just effectively run "whatever you want" as a legal army, particularly for tournament settings.
    Reduce codices to fewer number - combine small armies which really don't need entire books.
    Make codices $19.95 and softback - particularly in light of the constant FAQ/errata/Chapter Approved. If the rules are this fluid, the codex should be viewed more as a disposable notebook of sorts. Make them cheap and encourage people to write in them.
    Launch a line of narrative/"historical" aimed products to garner more attention from the non-tournament GW fans. Include "historical" scenarios (much as you'd find in a proper historical wargame), new scenarios, new characters/rules intended for use in narrative based games.
    Reduce the number of new kits being launched - and concentrate 100% effort on bringing the entire current range to current plastic or metals.
    Relaunch character options in metal, vs. plastic. This opens up a much easier path to special edition miniatures, special releases to accommodate special campaigns, and reduces investment time/cost.
    Overhaul the way named characters are used - place restrictions on them to prevent constant spamming.
    Remove allied armies from tournament settings.
    Work more on community involvement pushing the story and design direction (give players a vague sense of partaking in the creation of the future story) - not sure how outside of massive campaigns.
    Remove the "no model, no rules" decision - this is the biggest mistake I've seen GW make - gutting a lot of the enthusiasm of players with old models and those looking to kit-bash cool and unique models.

  • Plenty more, but that's enough for now.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/19 15:44:55


     
       
    Made in us
    Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot





    Revise 1st turn in either forms of:

    -Remove turn 1 deepstrike.
    -Roll to enter for deep strikes
    -Apply night fighting (-1 to shooting @ < 12" ) for the first player

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/19 16:00:56


     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut







     lolman1c wrote:
    On my other thread talking about GW new beta approach I see a lot of people saying that the current devs are bad at their jobs and anybody would have made a better game. However, I've only very rarely ever seen someone actually laying out a tested and will thought out design document on how they would "fix" 40k. So I call a challenge! How would you fix all the current community problems with 40k?

    Rules:
    1. It can't just be you writing gibberish! You need to post a well constructed argument laying out the current flaws and how your changes "fix" them.
    2. You may steal rules from other games.
    3. You may outright scrap 40k rules and build your own from the ground up.
    4. You can't attempt to fix one flaw. You have to list all the flaws you feel the games has and how they can be "fixed".
    5. Your game doesn't have to be balanced just fun for everyone to play without anyone being stomped turn 1.
    6. You can't delte factions or currently existing units.
    7. If you have no ideas yourself then you are allowed to respond and reply to people's suggestions.

    (More rules to be added if needed)


    I went straight to #3 and build my own game system from scratch, due to several issues primarily relating to its turn structure:
    -IGOUGO should really read "IGOUWait:" As the game scales up, the amount of downtime a player has before being able to actually play the game increases in turn. Until the Fight Subphase comes about, the only decisions one player gets to make are the use of any bespoke Stratagems, or whether to deny a power or two. The only problem is Stratagems are once-per-phase, and Deny is a "pass-fail" system where it can be near-impossible to actually deny a power that went off. Were you to let your opponent make your armor save rolls for you, you could watch an episode of your favorite show and go "remind me when it's my turn again? Thanks."
    -IGOUGO favors alphastrikes: 8th edition has "alternating deployment", "auto-succeed" no-scatter Deepstrike Reserves, Reserves are only restricted to units explicitly capable of it and a weak cover system. The result is that the first-turn advantage is stronger in 8th edition than ever before. In 7th edition, the fact that Reserve Rolls were mandatory starting from turn two (yet were still randomized) meant that going second tended to be advantageous for players wanting to "beta-strike" their opponent. This edition has the Guard artilery/DS Plasma tag-team combo, yet last edition had Warp Spider spam and the Grav Skyhammer; in either case, your only option is "bring bubblewrap" (though in 7th you could use Interceptor now and then).
    -40k's Phase Structure is Clunky: 40k has "Move everything, then psychic, then shoot, then charge". You must do everything you want with all units for a phase before moving to the next phase. While simple enough by itself for 3rd through 5th edition (you could move units left-to-right, shoot units right-to-left, then charge left-to-right, 'typewriter-style') with the odd exception here and there (Eldar Crystal Targeting Matrixes in 3rd, Coteaz's "I've Been Expecting You" in 5th, etc), 7th introduced a lot more "out-of-phase" actions. Soulburst is the one most people will happily point to, though numerous Formations also had their own combination of "out-of-phase" actions: The Riptide Wing could forfeit movement once per game to shoot in the Movement Phase, the Terminator Annihilation Force got an immediate free round of shooting versus their preferred target when arriving from Deep Strike Reserve, etc. 8th in turn has added the revised Act of Faith mechanic, the Fix Bayonets Order, and assorted Stratagems, leading to entertaining civilized discussion on YMDC whether an ability that is resolved "as if in a Phase" can be combined with a Stratagem specific to the Phase that said ability is resolved "as if" it is in.

    Additionally, I consider assorted mechanics just bad design in general.
    -I consider Rule of One Mechanics (Strategic Discipline, Psychic Focus, etc) to be "Fake Balance," an artificial cap that covers up what is ultimately a fundamentally flawed system. I proposed making Psyker Powers a "degree of success" system in another thread, and would probably eliminate "armywide" stratagems altogether and implement them in a separate manner.
    -"Infinite Free Overwatch" is a bad mechanic because it just means one player rolls a lot of dice without an actual decision-making process involved (contrast with WHFB where you could "stand and shoot" once, or flee as a charge reaction). (This is fixed in the core rewrite)
    -Eliminating USRs in general for "bespoke" special rules. I am pro-USR, just against them being used badly. For example, in 7th, there was a good period of time where one of the USRs (Missile Lock) wasn't used at all. Then the Dark Angel Codex came out and gave Missile Lock to the Nephilim's Blacksword Missiles. Thus, you had a USR for one weapon for one unit in the entire game, all while there were at least three other weapons that had their own non-USR special rules for representing missiles that lock onto their targets. For this flaw, I suggest going back to USRs with several caveats (I'll include this later).
    -Keywords are amusing for their potential yet GW has been haphazard in their use, leading to idiosyncracies like Coven Raiders benefitting from Haemonculi, a FAQ to clarify that a Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor in a unit of Grey Hunters is treated "as if it has the TERMINATOR Keyword", a FAQ to clarify that adding a Terminator to a Deathwatch Killteam does not make the rest of the unit count as having said Keyword, and the fact that an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor can't actually ride a Custodes Land Raider (And that's before dealing with the "moneygrab" issues like Primaris Marines only being allowed to ride in their expensive new Primaris-exclusive transport). For this, I propose "loosening" Keyword restrictions, while integrating Keywords with USRs (see above).
    -More amusingly, GW doesn't use Keywords for weapons. Case in point, Chapter Approved has a Stratagem that lets INFANTRY units double the range of any flamer weapons they have. A flamer is defined as "a Burna, a Skorcha, or any weapon that has 'flame' in its name." Nevermind the fact that Orks do not have any Infantry that actually have Skorchas (they have Kombi-Skorchas, and rule-lawyers could argue that the rule refers to a pure non-Kombi Skorcha), but this means that a weapon like an Incinerator would not benefit, but a Pink Horror of Tzeentch would be able to double the range of its "Flickering Flames." Promethium can literally fuel the raw stuff of change itself...unless it's Pink or Blue Fire, because Fire is obviously not Flame right? I await the joy of Tyranid Players upon the return of the Plasma Syphon as they tell their opponents "Sorry, your Syphon does nothing against my Exocrine. It doesn't shoot plasma, it shoots plasmic!" To fix this, I recommend being able to 'scope' Keywords to weapons. Weapons would inherit the Keywords of the model wielding said weapons, though not the opposite way around. Thus, the aforementioned Stratagem would allow INFANTRY FLAMER weapons to double their range.

    I knew I wanted an "alternating activation" game (Alternating Phase games can lead to "hide & kite" situations), but I felt that most games wouldn't work for 40k due to the fact that there's a massive variance in scale and power between assorted units. Since "All activations are equal" in most AA games, a game with ultracheap units could lead to a scenario where one player takes several Baneblades or other doomsday devices, and a bunch of solo Acolytes/Astropaths simply to buffer the Activation Count, either for numerous "skip phase" actions (in simple "I activate one, you activate one" systems) or to enable a larger alphastrike (in "die-draw" systems ala Bolt Action, or "the player with more units activates more units" systems ala Battletech). I also dislike "random" activations (whether "Retain the Initiative" rolls in Epic or diebag draws in Bolt Action) for their general swinginess/ability to have a large impact on the game; this should be something the players control! And then of course, I also dislike games where "Interrupt" mechanics are either bespoke to unit special abilities, or are "free" (Ex: Infinity AROs), and I dislike when a game has a lot of "actions" that are permutations of the same atomic options.

    So I decided to make my own game from scratch, independent of 40k itself but "compatible with any 28mm models (wink wink)." Because I do admittedly still like the modularity and kitbashability of a lot of Citadel kits, yet their rules still leave me unsatisfied. I am still fleshing it out but the core mechanics are in place, I've gotten several tests in, and I feel pretty positive about it. The tl;dr of it is:

    -Each player gets a certain amount of Strategy Points (SP) per turn (renamed from Tactical Points since TP is short for something else ). Unlike 40k, Strategy Points are not spent on bespoke Stratagems like a pseudo-manabomb, but they're used to manipulate the turn order as well as to bring in units from Reserves; quite literally, they represent how coordinated your army is as a whole.
    -A unit may do 2 actions per turn, period. To track this, I recommend two-color counters, "yellow" representing units that have taken 1 action, "red" representing actions that have taken 2 actions.
    -Actions are either "Move & Rapid Action", or "Full Action." Think D&D "Move & Attack" or "Full Attack". Rapid Actions would include melee, weapons traditionally deemed "Pistol/Assault" weapons, etc. Full Actions would be firing Bolters, Techpriest repairs, etc.
    -The game is I-Activate, U-Activate. The player taking actions with Activated units is said to have The Initiative.
    -When you Activate a unit, you may take 1 or 2 actions with that unit (to the maximum of 2 actions per turn).
    -The player with less unactivated units (meaning no actions taken) can "skip" their activation ( "Fine, you move an Acolyte. Quit messing around and take a *real* turn!"). Currently, I am not imagining that units in Reserve would be factored into this, but that's another thing altogether.
    -The player with The Initiative may spend SP to Retain the Initiative, assuming that their opponent has not skipped due to having fewer units (I am looking for a proper term for "skip activation"). It costs 1 SP to activate two units in a row, 3 SP to activate three in a row, 6 SP to activate four in a row, 10 to activate five in a row, etc.
    -The real unique item however is the fact that the game uses an Interrupt Stack, ala "Magic: The Gathering." This stack is triggered on "intent to attack". If Player A declares an attack against one of Player B's units, Player B may pre-empt this attack by having any one unit (it does not necessarily have to be the one being targeted) take a single Action. If that Action is an attack against Player A, Player A may Interrupt Player B in turn; adding a unit to the stack costs a SP for every two units (round down) already on the Stack. Once a player chooses not to Interrupt, or to Interrupt with an action that is not an attack, the attacks are resolved down the stack in "Last-in, first-out" order.
    -I have added several rules and edgecases for dealing with things that have occurred in playtesting: For example, "What happens if a unit cannot attack its original target" (Ex: "Player A shoots Player B's Tactical Squad, Player B interrupts by driving a Rhino in front to block Line of Sight", "What happens if an attack would affect multiple enemy units belonging to one player", "What happens if an attack would affect multiple units belonging to multiple players", etc. I've also experimented with rules for abilities that let you manipulate the stack, including having units 'swap out' with a unit that's not in the stack (fun for flanking an opponent from multiple directions), with such abilities costing SP in turn. Again, SP are NOT for bespoke stat-buffs like "+1 to damage" or so.
    -As a balancing mechanism between Interrupts versus Activations, it costs an additional SP to Interrupt with or Activate a unit that has already taken a single Action. Remember that while you can do 1 or 2 Actions with an Activation, you can only do 1 with an Interrupt. Thus, attempting to turtle and play a pure Interrupt game will either eat into your available Actions or SP.
    -And finally, bringing in units from Reserves will also cost SP in addition to their other costs.
    -I am currently experimenting with certain Characters having a replenishing pool of Hero Points, which can be spent as substitute Strategy Points (for the Hero's unit/taskforce in question), or for Heroic Feats (which are more like 8e Stratagems/WMH Power Attacks/etc).
    -For Superheavies, I imagine I will go down the route of making them "composites." So rather than a Baneblade getting two actions period, you would activate its engine crew separately from its tank crew separate from its sponsons or so, and they could all be targeted separately. The actual implemention is something I am still intending to work on, but the intent is that a unit that large means taking less units overall, so you can afford to put a little more detail into such a unit and subdivide its parts. Plus, you can now enact that tank scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Harrison Ford put a rock in the tank sponson.
    -To replace "Equipment" stratagems, I might just add a rule that states that each army gets about 10-20% of its points value on "Special Mission Gear" which can be spent pre-game on stuff like grapplehooks, lascutters, dozer blades, etc. It would be an "equipment sideboard" of a sort. You might not be able to swap out your whole army in one go, but you may be able to jury-rig some pre-battle modifications.

    Naturally, this "two-action" system combined with an Interrupt Stack means the elimination of assorted rules like Advance ("Move and Move"), Overwatch ("Interrupt: Attack"), or Heroic Intervention ("Interrupt: Move"). Weapons and psychic would need to be rebalanced to deal with the potential for 'Shoot Twice' scenarios. At this rate, this is why I'm going for a full rewrite because I really am enjoying the system so far.

    I tested it out last week with 8e Heralds of Ruin on Tabletop Simulator. The game didn't take that much longer than it normally would IMO (aside from the "learning the rules" bit), but the end result was that neither of us felt like we had to wait long before we could actually make meaningful in-game choices. The fact that Interrupts only trigger-by-attack meant that there's less emphasis on 2nd-ed/SWA-style Overwatch-camping, and more emphasis on ducking from cover-to-cover, setting up flanking maneuvers, ambushes and counterploys, and the careful management of Strategy Points. My opponent did mention that the game did potentially feel less "cinematic" than 40k because of the scale involved, but it felt far more cerebral with the complexity being less "this unit has this special rule which interacts with this special rule" and more about play-vs-counterplay.

    I'm looking to test this system at 1000 points next, and to hopefully test it with WHFB/Kings of War or any other "Rank-and-File" system as well.

    PS: And of course, vehicle firing arcs are more cinematic. Indiana Jones would be dead (atomic fridge notwithstanding) if the Nazis could trace line of fire from any part of their hull.


    This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2017/12/19 18:29:03


     
       
    Made in gb
    Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





    Maybe some people should turn these ideas into pdfs that look loke a real rule book and just do some play testing in the community. I bet (like with other games I play) if the community made a better system then a lot of people will just play that (and then the company adjusts to get their sales back).
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut







    Oh, and as a visual example (forgive the crappy backdrop), this image shows how the stack would resolve. The dice could be substituted with other numeric markers of course.

    Player A has two Cultists, and Player B has two Horrors.
    -Player A wants to attack the Horror on the top-left with the Cultist on the bottom-left. So Player A places a "Target" on the unit, and a "1" next to the Cultist that wishes to attack.
    -Player B does not want to sit back and take it, and so decides to Interrupt. Player B places a "2" next to the Horror on the top-right.
    -Player A wants to ensure his Cultist is able to attack, and so decides to Interrupt in turn. Since there are 2 units already on the stack, A would have to spend a Strategy Point in order to place a "3" next to the Cultist on the bottom-right.
    -Finally, Player B decides to counter-interrupt by having the initial target Interrupt. ("Target Zero" is technically not on the stack and is eligible to Interrupt). Since there are 3 units (rounded down to 2) units on the stack, Player B would spend a SP to put a "4" next to the horror.

    Note that once the units resolve attacks, you choose how the attack is actually implemented. So you could choose whether to charge (Melee is a Rapid Action, and usually gives 3 additional inches of "lunge" movement, thus consolidating "charge bonus", "5-foot-step", "pile-in", etc. into a single move), shoot, etc. The caveat being if you wish to declare an attack that would affect multiple enemy units, you must do so beforehand. So you couldn't declare "I charge this unit", then go "I switch to flamers to tag this unit that did not interrupt". That being said, the order of operations would be:

    -Horror #4 must resolve an attack against Cultist #3. After resolving the attack, remove the "4" marker and replace it with an action counter.
    -Should Cultist #3 survive, it must resolve an attack against Horror #2. After resolving the attack, remove the "3" marker and replace it with an action counter.
    -Should Horror #2 survive, it must resolve an attack against Cultist #1. After resolving the attack, remove the "2" marker and replace it with an action counter.
    -Should Cultist #1 survive, it must resolve an attack against Horror 0 (Target Zero). After resolving the attack, remove the "1" marker and replace it with an action counter.

    Note that since each unit would thus be in the position of having taken a "single" Action, this means that Activating or Interrupting with the Horrors or the Cultist on the right would cost an additional SP in the future. Since the Cultist on the left is still Active, it can still make a second action.
    [Thumb - Targeting.jpg]

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/19 16:44:56


     
       
    Made in gb
    Lieutenant Colonel




    As many have said before.
    Define the scale and scope of the intended game play first!.

    If you are aiming for (re-enforced) 'infantry company size' modern warfare type units and game play.

    Then using Napoleonic based game turn and rules for detailed skirmish, hacked up and patched is not going to be a very good place to start.

    Anyhow. here is my list of flaws that need fixing in 40k rules,(since 3rd ed.)

    1)No defined scale or scope for the game play.

    2)Not enough interaction in the game turn.

    3)Restrictive stat line.(Does not cover all units adequately.)

    4)Overly simplified resolution, that does not allow for the detail players expect in the interaction.

    These 4 have allowed rules bloat and disconnect between the expected game play and the rules.

    So depending on what sort of game you want , depends on the level of re writing you need to do.
    (I would prefer to start from scratch .)






    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/20 17:11:41


     
       
    Made in au
    Regular Dakkanaut




    Adding to my earlier list:
    10. When a Character is within 2” of a non-character unit of the same model type (such as a Cavalry character near a squad of Cavalry), the character may not be selected as a target by enemy shooting.
    11. Cover to be calculated by remaining models, so the owning player can elect to remove models outside of cover first in order to protect those within cover.
    12. Wounds to stop applying if no further visible targets available. Again allowing the owning player to choose - he can preserve those in the open with better weapons, or lose them to take fewer casualties over-all.
    13. Intervening terrain to provide cover up to a certain distance away, much like how statues work now. Distance yet to be determined.

    Building a better 7th edition 40k Project Zeta Warseer thread Dakka thread 
       
    Made in us
    Courageous Space Marine Captain






     lolman1c wrote:
    Maybe some people should turn these ideas into pdfs that look loke a real rule book and just do some play testing in the community. I bet (like with other games I play) if the community made a better system then a lot of people will just play that (and then the company adjusts to get their sales back).


    Nope though you are free to spend your time and do it

     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     Scott-S6 wrote:
    And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

    Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
    Send help!

     
       
    Made in us
    Skilled SDF-1 Pin-Point Barrier Jockey





    Mississippi

    Challenge Accepted!

    This is the “core rules”, I’ll post the Space/Stellar marines and any other faction folks are curious about in a moment, once I’ve got it converted to PDF (still working on unit points at this time, the only thing that is fixed is that a bog-standard Tac marine is 15 points).




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Adding marines

     Filename Grim Darkness - The Rules.pdf [Disk] Download
     Description Grim Darkness Base Rules
     File size 1103 Kbytes

     Filename Grim Darkness - Codex Apocalypse - Stellar Marines.pdf [Disk] Download
     Description Stellar Marines
     File size 826 Kbytes

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/21 17:40:22


    It never ends well 
       
    Made in gb
    Fresh-Faced New User





    Just wanted to chime in to say that I strongly that if one were "fixing" 40k, one would first have to start by selecting and understanding a single scale in which the action takes place.

    The most fun I have had playing 40k has been in smaller games where there was, quite honestly, less going on. Thus my preference would be for something like platoon scale (with the IG and Tau pushing that up towards company sized elements - heck let's call it "re-enforced platoon scale").

    My first few games of 8th were played out of the index and entirely without stratagems or command points, and the game was honestly much more enjoyable for being without them. I enjoyed the way in which the index armies had clearly been designed at the same time, and with something like a single - simple - vision.

    I understand that people love all the bells and whistles - so do I - I just think that quite a lot of the problems that have emerged with the various metas that we have been through since the release of 8th can be tracked down to the fact that there are five million ways to buff nearly every unit.

    So, in short, I would not change much, just focus on a small scale and return the game to its index blandness!
       
    Made in us
    Skilled SDF-1 Pin-Point Barrier Jockey





    Mississippi

    I think that the current 40K works “decently” at about 1250-1500 points, and without anything that is super-heavy or more powerful (that means exculding the likes of Roboute and Magnus). It’s not that I have anything against bigger games, but I think the likes of Epic better handles games that are more about tanks and monsters, whereas 40K better handles infantry with a sprinkle of armor/transports/big battlesuits.

    Likewise, 40K has become about blowing things off the board - rather than units surviving until the end of the game but being reduce in strength or somewhat nuetered by game effects (and the real victory conditions being about gathering objective points instead of kill points).

    It never ends well 
       
    Made in gb
    Fresh-Faced New User






    Likewise, 40K has become about blowing things off the board - rather than units surviving until the end of the game but being reduce in strength or somewhat nuetered by game effects (and the real victory conditions being about gathering objective points instead of kill points).


    Could not agree more. One of the big problems that my group and I were experiencing near the end of 7th was that units simply could not stay on the board - anything that lacked massive defensive buffing rarely lasted more than a single turn under the massive firepower that most competently put together armies could bring to bear.

    The index armies, and the opening salvo of 8th - for all its touted deadliness - changed all that. Flattening the curves on wounding, as well as adding more wounds to vehicles made everything more survivable. However, alpha strike has crept back in through the codexes and the worrying rules-bloat that they bring with them (where re-rolls were relatively scarce outside of HQ choices in the indexes, now almost any unit can be made to re-roll various hits and wounds).

    Which is not to say that the game is terrabad awful nonsense - it remains fun, if a bit lethal.

    All of this is to stray a bit from the idea of "fixing" the game however.

    I don't, personally, think that what the game needs is extra systems on top of what already exists. A different turn structure could shake things up a bit - but it won't fix the fundamental sticking point that lies at the heart of this beloved toy soldiers game of ours; the fact that the most valuable and important thing for almost any unit to do at any given time is to beat face really hard (or stand in the way of something that beats face really hard).

    without a greater variation in the roles that units can perform - and more reasons for them to perform roles other than simply shooting or hitting things - there will always be a set of apex choices which dominate the PL/point to kill ratio. In order to make space for a bit more tactical play, lethality needs to be reduced at the top of the range (plasma equivs). Luckily this is possible without a nerf, just reduce the number of "re-roll 1s" buffs available.

    What "other roles" do I think that units could perform? Well, we have different force org slots don't we - why not give those some mechanical representation - troops already have a distinct purpose in the various "objective secured" rules they have attached to them. These could be extended so that, for instance, fast attack units could provide recon for allies (perhaps allowing some artillery style weapons to fire with the fast attack choice's line of sight?). To my mind that veers a little too far back to the idea that all units must support each other by making each other more killy - and it might be a better idea to have the enemy be unable to advance, WHF style, within a certain range of Fast Attack units.

    In the same vein Heavy support choices might gain the ability to suppress the enemy - in the manner of the tremor cannon - as a way to reduce the opponent's effectiveness without necessarily killing more dudes (in this case I would remove all of the "grinding advance" style special rules).

    Elite units on the other hand would be more resistant to suppression and disruption than their "troops" brethren - losing less movement from heavy support attacks and able to advance within the disruption range of fast attack choices - better able to close distance to the enemy but unable to hold the ground they claim.

    HQ units are a bit of mystery, but I would change the auras a bit to have them do less "kill" focused things - like double the value of nearby troops for the purposes of holding ground, or setting nearby troop's advance value to 6" (no need to roll).

    I do hope these ideas are not too vague for this thread.

       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: