Switch Theme:

Make everything worse to make the game better!  [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
Longtime Dakkanaut






So, every time I hear peoples suggestions to "fix a unit", it involves making said unit more effective, or cheaper, and invariably making them better.

This same mentality is evident in GW's method of problem solving - just make the weak things better, continue until eventually whoever has turn 1 tables the opponent and wins.

My suggestion - make everything worse. specifically at killing. I'd like to hear anyone's ideas for blanket changes which will make the game more restrictive or make the units less effective - but in a good way!

These are the generalised ideas; there will be exceptions, but not many.

Rather than making vehicles move and shoot heavy weapons, instead make it so that infantry cannot move and shoot heavy weapons. at all. you move, you don't shoot. vehicles still can, at -1. such is the advantage of being a vehicle.

Infantry can move and shoot, but only assault weapons can be fired normally after moving - rapid fire is at -1 to hit. Heavy, as stated above, cannot be fired after moving. Perhaps allow them to move up to 1/2 their movement stat and lose the -1 to hit for RF weapons. RF weapons cannot fire at max range unless you stand still. All SM abilities which make you count as standing still only remove the -1 to hit, they don't allow full-range firing.

Nothing can be fired after advancing.

Any weapons firing over 36" are at -1 to hit.

Ordnance weapons (anything sufficiently large will go back to being ordnance) means that non-ordnance weapons fired by that model are at -1 to hit if the ordnance weapon fires, unless superheavy.

Heavy Ordnance Weapons do as above, but affect superheavies. Heavy Ordnance cannot be fired after moving, except by superheavies.

Falling back is a 2D6" move, and units can pursue to stop them. Falling back can become a mechanic for moving assault units away from the rest of your force, instead of leaving them standing idle to be shot. chasing units must move toward the unit which fell back.

Falling back can be done as a charge reaction to allow you to move D6" away from the enemy

Counter charge can be done as a charge reaction, to move you D6" closer to the enemy (this isn't for making it more challenging, just more fluffy!).

Thus the options become fall back, counter charge, overwatch or stand (do nothing). Some units might have their own special ones, EG shield wall for bullgryns would be cool..

All stratagems should have "X" uses, not the once-per-turn system there is now. EG Twice per game you can rotate ion shields. Much more tactical decisions to make. some would be unlimited, but more of them need a set number of uses.



What else can we change to make the game more challenging, and make killing less effective? Does anyone have any ideas?

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The only reason things appear too killy is because of IGOUGO creating a situation that allows you to kill half your opponent's army before they even get their first turn.

THAT is the problem you should be looking at.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only reason things appear too killy is because of IGOUGO creating a situation that allows you to kill half your opponent's army before they even get their first turn.

THAT is the problem you should be looking at.


IGOUGO fixes not really the killyiness, consider a unit of obliterators with slaanesh cacophony, pre nerf through shadowspear.

and that is by far not the only case of single units breaking the mold, and whilest AA would probably tone that down a tad it would still be often an issue imo

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





I glanced through your list. Basically I'd agree with quite a few of those, however the main issue here remains: GW isn't interested in tight rules writing, they're interested in selling models. And there are a few factors to this:

1) Make units cheaper, so an average game becomes larger. While this doesn't grow immensely from edition to edition, the "average" game has more than tripled in size since the 90's.

2) Because you want more models, the games become larger but you need to make sure people can efficiently play those games within the time constraints of an afternoon or tournament schedule...if they can't, games will go from 2000 points down to 1,500 which means less models/less sales. How do you get around this? The game becomes more killy.

3) Generally speaking newer units/models often have a sales "hook", occasionally a very powerful one, in game. It's just easier to bump a new unit than to go back dumb-down everything else to make the new unit stand out. It's inevitable "power creep", and it's just part of basic business - not a GW only thing, of course.
_________________________________________

Having said that, yes, the game is way too killy...to the point of "does this even matter" coming to mind in numerous instances. There are a number of times I just remove units/models from the table when my opponent tells me they have 40 dice, hitting on 2's, re-rolling 1's, and then can re-roll all failed wounds, and then have a stratagem to fire again if needed...etc.

There are heaps of ideas to make the game less killy, but are we just spit-balling or are you actually playing this with your friends? The general list of ideas of stuff NOT in 40K (and why I don't really consider it a proper wargame) is...lengthy, just a few:

-Battlefield confusion
-Battlefield communication (and breakdowns in said communication)
-Qualities of battlefield commanders (i.e. everyone is a perfectly obeying soldier)
-Presence of incompetent or cowardly commanders who can have a negative impact on your units performance
-Lack of morale or enthusiasm for units to undertake suicidal or dangerous tasks
-Pinning/suppression mechanics
-Fog of war, including literal versions such as proper smoke, fire, etc.
-Wreckage impacting further game play
-Impact of shell-shock mechanics from massive ordnance bombardments/disorientation/deafness/etc.
-Spotting/detection mechanics
-Actual impact of fear or terror causing opponents/situations
-Overall army morale (does each unit know what is going on, and how bad does the situation get before they quit/leave/bail out?)
-Objectives that are actual relevant and not related to chasing tokens sitting in the middle of a field somewhere (actual thematic purposes/reasons/objectives with regard to why you’re fighting)
-Asymmetrical or uneven engagements (almost no battle in the history of...ever was fought with equally calculated armies)
-A flowing engagement where there is no excuse for IGOUGO army-wide turns.
-Lack of knowing what condition your opponents units/vehicles/morale is in (can be tied to Fog of War essentially)
-Meaningful scenarios involving reinforcements and timelines for a developing condition
-Usefulness of actual scouting/reconnaissance efforts
-Off-board artillery and airstrikes (zero reason for this to exist on the table in a 28mm game outside of maybe mortars)
-Logistics, ammunition, etc.
-Impact of previous engagements (can be tied to logistics/ammunition, how well prepared are your units when they arrive for this fight? Are they at full strength, or are they depleted, low on ammunition, exhausted, lowered morale?)
-There is no meaningful result to winning a game whilst suffering fewer casualties (no follow-on games, no victory conditions which reward not suicidal tactics with zero regard for the lives of your soldiers/force)
-More rules (which people actually use) for bunkers, fortifications, defensive turrets, minefields, tank traps, etc.
-Combat engineer roles/uses (destroying obstacles for the advancement of vehicles, blowing up bridges, sabotaging, etc.)

Basically reduce killyness and add...any of the above and you'd have a more challenging game. However, that's not in GW's interests.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only reason things appear too killy is because of IGOUGO creating a situation that allows you to kill half your opponent's army before they even get their first turn.

THAT is the problem you should be looking at.


IGOUGO fixes not really the killyiness, consider a unit of obliterators with slaanesh cacophony, pre nerf through shadowspear.

and that is by far not the only case of single units breaking the mold, and whilest AA would probably tone that down a tad it would still be often an issue imo

Except those three units of Obliterators aren't firing ALL the time, ergo you have time to counter them with those three units that died really hard.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





-Lack of knowing what condition your opponents units/vehicles/morale is in (can be tied to Fog of War essentially)

Whilest i generally despise the rule, you could use the Random Leadership aka uncertain worth from R&H to simulate morale before an engagement and tie it to detachments for exemple. I also love the rule at the same time due to how charachter defining it is for the army



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only reason things appear too killy is because of IGOUGO creating a situation that allows you to kill half your opponent's army before they even get their first turn.

THAT is the problem you should be looking at.


IGOUGO fixes not really the killyiness, consider a unit of obliterators with slaanesh cacophony, pre nerf through shadowspear.

and that is by far not the only case of single units breaking the mold, and whilest AA would probably tone that down a tad it would still be often an issue imo

Except those three units of Obliterators aren't firing ALL the time, ergo you have time to counter them with those three units that died really hard.


Yeah, i said that, it still is a problem unit too killy.But IGOUGO just multiplies it by three thanks to Ro3

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/28 14:54:13


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Obliterators as now could still be cheaper. The real issue is double firing not belonging to Iron Warriors or Black Legion.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

I'd say another big issue is weapon ranges. Right now there are far too many armies with guns that mean they never have to move to get in range. They start in range, they sit still all game, and never have to think about positioning.

If you want less killy without changing IGOUGO, you need to remove a point or so of AP from most guns, and in all cases but the longest ranged artillery pieces reduce their range from anywhere from a quarter to half.

This also helps bring assault back into use usefulness. If you wanna shoot everything, making the basic gun a rapid fire 18 rather than a rapid fire 24 might make sense. Changing 36 inch guns to 30 inch guns helps. This increases the risk you are counter-attacked by melee troops.

On a board 72 inches long, why are there guns in the game with 72 inch range? Those models will never need to engage in the movement phase all game. It encourages gunline parking lots. And its stupid.

Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts

MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 iGuy91 wrote:
I'd say another big issue is weapon ranges. Right now there are far too many armies with guns that mean they never have to move to get in range. They start in range, they sit still all game, and never have to think about positioning.

If you want less killy without changing IGOUGO, you need to remove a point or so of AP from most guns, and in all cases but the longest ranged artillery pieces reduce their range from anywhere from a quarter to half.

This also helps bring assault back into use usefulness. If you wanna shoot everything, making the basic gun a rapid fire 18 rather than a rapid fire 24 might make sense. Changing 36 inch guns to 30 inch guns helps. This increases the risk you are counter-attacked by melee troops.

On a board 72 inches long, why are there guns in the game with 72 inch range? Those models will never need to engage in the movement phase all game. It encourages gunline parking lots. And its stupid.


i think it's less of a weapon range (which changed not really) but rahter the fact that nowadays your infantry has more shenanigans then ever to move forward in ways that makes them faster then transports issue?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

Not Online!!! wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
Spoiler:
I'd say another big issue is weapon ranges. Right now there are far too many armies with guns that mean they never have to move to get in range. They start in range, they sit still all game, and never have to think about positioning.

If you want less killy without changing IGOUGO, you need to remove a point or so of AP from most guns, and in all cases but the longest ranged artillery pieces reduce their range from anywhere from a quarter to half.

This also helps bring assault back into use usefulness. If you wanna shoot everything, making the basic gun a rapid fire 18 rather than a rapid fire 24 might make sense. Changing 36 inch guns to 30 inch guns helps. This increases the risk you are counter-attacked by melee troops.

On a board 72 inches long, why are there guns in the game with 72 inch range? Those models will never need to engage in the movement phase all game. It encourages gunline parking lots. And its stupid.


i think it's less of a weapon range (which changed not really) but rahter the fact that nowadays your infantry has more shenanigans then ever to move forward in ways that makes them faster then transports issue?


I can agree infantry being faster than their transports is a bizarre rules issue. But 40k has been dominated for several editions by castle-style gunlines. I would maintain I think that reducing ranges and AP values on ranged weapons will help balance out killyness, alpha-striking, and some of the issues of IGOUGO.

Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts

MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 iGuy91 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
Spoiler:
I'd say another big issue is weapon ranges. Right now there are far too many armies with guns that mean they never have to move to get in range. They start in range, they sit still all game, and never have to think about positioning.

If you want less killy without changing IGOUGO, you need to remove a point or so of AP from most guns, and in all cases but the longest ranged artillery pieces reduce their range from anywhere from a quarter to half.

This also helps bring assault back into use usefulness. If you wanna shoot everything, making the basic gun a rapid fire 18 rather than a rapid fire 24 might make sense. Changing 36 inch guns to 30 inch guns helps. This increases the risk you are counter-attacked by melee troops.

On a board 72 inches long, why are there guns in the game with 72 inch range? Those models will never need to engage in the movement phase all game. It encourages gunline parking lots. And its stupid.


i think it's less of a weapon range (which changed not really) but rahter the fact that nowadays your infantry has more shenanigans then ever to move forward in ways that makes them faster then transports issue?


I can agree infantry being faster than their transports is a bizarre rules issue. But 40k has been dominated for several editions by castle-style gunlines. I would maintain I think that reducing ranges and AP values on ranged weapons will help balance out killyness, alpha-striking, and some of the issues of IGOUGO.

Certainly, however i'd fully drop IGOUGO aswell. I switched to KT and even if you don't have all rules, overall it's a better core ruleset imo.
Further, i belive that it would be at the time were we say bye to the 48-48 board and play on 48 -72 or bigger with an incentive for actual manouvre. Of course that would also require more and better transportrules, tankriding f.e. and last but not least propper terrain rule.
Hell, it would make artillery actually usefull...
but that is just what i'd wish gw would do.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I do agree with the idea of dropping ranges down. Really, the game should start with only the big guns in range, so you have to move to make them work.

The issue then is with scale - to make this work, you're looking at RF guns being 18" range tops, and then charges become too powerful.

That said, charges used to be 6", and that would really make it much smoother than the randomised charge ranges. so shorter range gun sand shorter range charges could work well together.

I'm mainly aiming for blanket changes which could be easily applied without having to go case-by-case. EG can't fire rapidfire weapons at full range after moving.


IGOUGO is a part of 40k, and going AA is not the answer to everything, it has its own issues, and will not solve all our problems. It's also a lot harder to get balanced (being as it is a complete rewrite of the rules, rather than a general overhaul). I appreciate that AA is generally more balanced than IGOUGO, but 40k has always been IGOUGO, and yet alpha-strike half your army is dead is quite a new occurrence, and has happened since GW made everything so much better at killing. killing something on turn 1 used to be a special occasion - now it's the opposite. So it's fair to say that the game can be fixed without changing it's central mechanic.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




If you want to keep Alternating turns.(IGO/UGO.)But replace 'dustpan and brush' casualty removal with a more tactically focused game play.

Then scale really matters!You HAVE to move units to effectively engage the enemy to make alternating turns work in a tactically challenging way.
If you look back at the game size and scale in 2nd ed 40k, it just about worked.(The rules were badly written.But the game mechanics and game scale were more in sync, than later editions of 40k.)

The old options of
Move twice,NO shooting. (Run or launch a declared Assault.)

Move once and shoot a bit.(Advance.)(Only Pistols Assault weapons, Rapid fire ONE shot 12" range.).

Or stand still and fire to full effect. (All weapon types can fire, Rapid fire can shoot twice up 12" or once up to to 24" )

Also the old shorter movement distances helped too.(4" advance and 8" charge.)

Having the roll to hit be more proportional would help too.(To model the fog of war etc.)
In fact the three stage damage resolution could do with being more diverse and proportional to get rid of so many special rules.

Anyhow.lots of options to discuss....
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The 8th edition did work pretty well with the Index lists.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:
I do agree with the idea of dropping ranges down. Really, the game should start with only the big guns in range, so you have to move to make them work.

The issue then is with scale - to make this work, you're looking at RF guns being 18" range tops, and then charges become too powerful.

That said, charges used to be 6", and that would really make it much smoother than the randomised charge ranges. so shorter range gun sand shorter range charges could work well together.

I'm mainly aiming for blanket changes which could be easily applied without having to go case-by-case. EG can't fire rapidfire weapons at full range after moving.


IGOUGO is a part of 40k, and going AA is not the answer to everything, it has its own issues, and will not solve all our problems. It's also a lot harder to get balanced (being as it is a complete rewrite of the rules, rather than a general overhaul). I appreciate that AA is generally more balanced than IGOUGO, but 40k has always been IGOUGO, and yet alpha-strike half your army is dead is quite a new occurrence, and has happened since GW made everything so much better at killing. killing something on turn 1 used to be a special occasion - now it's the opposite. So it's fair to say that the game can be fixed without changing it's central mechanic.

But WHY should IGOUGO be part of 40k? Why is that part of the game's identity?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





The difference between IGOUGO and AA is the difference between American Football and Basketball.

One feels like a drive- a long, planned, plodding advance.

The other is furious action back and forth.

Both have their place, and I can understand why people like both. In sports, I prefer American Football. I like being able to act as the DJ, get the drinks or snacks during the slow bits. Constant engagement, where I had to do something every two minutes would annoy the crap outta me, and basketball gives me whiplish with my head snapping back and forth as the ball goes back and forth across the court.

Like I said, I get why people like AA, and I get why people might want every game to be AA, but I just don't.

The other thing to keep in mind is that with both Kill Team and Apocalypse being AA, you are not without options. But if you get what you seem to be asking for, then those who prefer IGOUGO will be without options.

As for your final two questions, yes, when something has remained a part of a game for its entire 32 year existence, and there are those among the player base who have been playing continuously throughout those 3 decades, it does tend to become a part of that game's identity.

I mean, you can (and people do) play hockey on rollerblades with a ball instead of a puck. But in the NHL, they're always gonna be on ice and play with a puck.

So if you like roller hockey, watch and play roller hockey. I suspect it will make you happier than trying to get the NHL to abandon ice and pucks.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/28 22:38:46


 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

Limiting firepower based on movement creates static gunlines. If my Guard lose firepower for moving forward, why would they?

I absolutely agree that, given the ranges of 40k weaponry, the game is far too lethal. My initial sweeping change would be to reduce the AP value of everything by 1... no AP remaining no AP. Having a decent saving throw should be valuable.

Next, eliminate D2 weaponry from any non-heavy weapon that isn’t dedicated anti-tank, like Meltaguns. Plasma is not dedicated AT, so cap at D1. I’m Ok with PowerFists / claws, etc being D2. They’re meant to punch open the toughest of the tough.

Give vehicles high wounds characteristics, but also give dedicated AT weapons a flat, high-damage value. Like, instead of a Lascannon doing d6 damage, make it 6 damage flat. Yes, you could lasgun a 30 wound Knight to death, but taking those lascannons would make a lot more sense.

Reduce RoF for weapons with more than 3 shots. 20 shots from a Punisher (40 with lumbering behemoth) is just dumb. And 4 shots per lasgun is dumb too.

Eliminate all “double attack” abilities. Like FRF, SRF, or Fix Bayonets, or anything that lets you double your offensive output.

Get rid of all reroll to hit / exploding 6s rules. One set of to-hit rolls is plenty, thank you.
   
Made in gb
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator






I think this isn't the right solution; the problem is players taking their entire turn in a single sitting. I'd much rather 40k moved to a single unit activation system, where you can pick one unit to move, use powers, shoot and fight at a time.

Me and my most regular opponent have played a simple version of this, where that's pretty much just how it goes; each round you take turns taking all of a single unit's actions. We then added a basic interrupt mechanic, whereby your action can be to put a unit in overwatch, in which case if an enemy moves within their effective range (you pick) you roll-off to see if it gets to interrupt and takes it actions before the enemy continues.

It's a bit simplistic, and not perfect, as obviously codexes and such aren't written for it, so requires fudging the rules here and there, but it IMO works really well with minimal effort and a bit of player cooperation. A properly implemented rules system based on single unit activations would all but eliminate the "I go second so I lose" factor.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




PenitentJake wrote:
The difference between IGOUGO and AA is the difference between American Football and Basketball.

One feels like a drive- a long, planned, plodding advance.

The other is furious action back and forth.

Both have their place, and I can understand why people like both. In sports, I prefer American Football. I like being able to act as the DJ, get the drinks or snacks during the slow bits. Constant engagement, where I had to do something every two minutes would annoy the crap outta me, and basketball gives me whiplish with my head snapping back and forth as the ball goes back and forth across the court.

Like I said, I get why people like AA, and I get why people might want every game to be AA, but I just don't.

The other thing to keep in mind is that with both Kill Team and Apocalypse being AA, you are not without options. But if you get what you seem to be asking for, then those who prefer IGOUGO will be without options.

As for your final two questions, yes, when something has remained a part of a game for its entire 32 year existence, and there are those among the player base who have been playing continuously throughout those 3 decades, it does tend to become a part of that game's identity.

I mean, you can (and people do) play hockey on rollerblades with a ball instead of a puck. But in the NHL, they're always gonna be on ice and play with a puck.

So if you like roller hockey, watch and play roller hockey. I suspect it will make you happier than trying to get the NHL to abandon ice and pucks.

Except you aren't explaining IGOUGO's place for a 40k game, just merely saying it exists. This really shows there hasn't been a good argument to keep it.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 greatbigtree wrote:
Limiting firepower based on movement creates static gunlines. If my Guard lose firepower for moving forward, why would they?


Because they are out of range, or in a bad position. stay still and shoot at nothing, or move and shoot at something. Or anticipate the game and be ready next turn to shoot without moving.

I absolutely agree that, given the ranges of 40k weaponry, the game is far too lethal. My initial sweeping change would be to reduce the AP value of everything by 1... no AP remaining no AP. Having a decent saving throw should be valuable.

Next, eliminate D2 weaponry from any non-heavy weapon that isn’t dedicated anti-tank, like Meltaguns. Plasma is not dedicated AT, so cap at D1. I’m Ok with PowerFists / claws, etc being D2. They’re meant to punch open the toughest of the tough.

Give vehicles high wounds characteristics, but also give dedicated AT weapons a flat, high-damage value. Like, instead of a Lascannon doing d6 damage, make it 6 damage flat. Yes, you could lasgun a 30 wound Knight to death, but taking those lascannons would make a lot more sense.

Reduce RoF for weapons with more than 3 shots. 20 shots from a Punisher (40 with lumbering behemoth) is just dumb. And 4 shots per lasgun is dumb too.

Eliminate all “double attack” abilities. Like FRF, SRF, or Fix Bayonets, or anything that lets you double your offensive output.

Get rid of all reroll to hit / exploding 6s rules. One set of to-hit rolls is plenty, thank you.


Agree mostly, but AP is not entirely the issue. I also think that an overcharging plasmagun should be able to kill a primaris.

scrapping all the rerolls (particularly auras) and double attacks is a good idea. Capping the double-attack ones is perhaps a better option (EG once per game pick a unit to fire twice) or preventing said unit from firing next turn (EG you get your next turns shot early) to keep the flavour of the game and stop it from becoming boring. removing all the special abilities would stagnate the game, but the amount we have now means nothing is competitive without them.


I would be happy for rocket launchers & equivalent to be damage 3 and lascannons to be damage 4, and all this damage 2 stuff which doesn't feel right (autocannons spring to mind) drop to damage 1.

I wonder if there is a space (to make primaris killing a little less difficult once damage 2 guns are gone) for a blanket rule where is a weapons strength is higher than the toughness of the target, on a to wound roll of 6 it inflicts double damage. Thus D1 guns have a chance of insta-killing a primaris with a headshot if they are S5 or more, which is better than the flat D2 which then hurts light vehicles a lot.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 some bloke wrote:
So, every time I hear peoples suggestions to "fix a unit", it involves making said unit more effective, or cheaper, and invariably making them better.

This same mentality is evident in GW's method of problem solving - just make the weak things better, continue until eventually whoever has turn 1 tables the opponent and wins.

My suggestion - make everything worse. specifically at killing. I'd like to hear anyone's ideas for blanket changes which will make the game more restrictive or make the units less effective - but in a good way!

A unit can gain cover from multiple sources, as long as every model currently on the table get cover from a source, all models in the unit benefit from cover. Units act like barricades. Hard cover confers a 5+ invulnerable save and adds +1 to invulnerable saving throws against attacks with AP-0. Hard cover is granted by units with a 2+ or 3+ Sv characteristic as well as buildings, fences and ruins with iron or stone walls and the unit only benefits if every model in the unit benefits from hard cover at the time the saving throw is made. Any model out of LOS of all models in the firing unit gains the benefit of hard cover cover. The benefits of hard cover are part of the benefits of cover and can be ignored along with the regular benefits of cover. Units may perform evasive manoeuvres to add 1 to their Sv characteristic for the rest of the phase, but they count as falling back and they no longer provide cover like barricades.

All Stratagems that improve a unit's damage output for the duration of a phase instead last for the next attack made in that phase. All Stratagems that lets a unit shoot or fight again cost 1 more CP.

On the first battle round you cannot add to or re-roll hit rolls, wound rolls or charge rolls. The Prepared Positions Stratagem is 0 CP.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 11:07:07


 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@ Some Bloke:

If I don’t have LOS to a target, a penalty for moving and shooting is moot. I wasn’t shooting anyway. If someone is positioning so that they can’t draw LOS to me, I’m winning twice. I’m bombing them with Artillery, gaining value towards my attrition strategy (instead of piece trading, I’m just killing without cost) *AND* I’m controlling my opponent’s positioning.

I assure you, I set up in a way to control the board between LOS and area control with spread-out infantry. I’m covering the objectives to keep you off of them. I’m keeping Scions in reserve to plop down and finish off the units I’ve been hammering with artillery for a couple of turns while you hid out of LOS and couldn’t assault my dudes.

The Guard army is, by nature, already penalized for advancing to the centre. It puts us in Melee range, and that’s bad. So if we’re punished for moving forward twice, Melee range and weaker shooting, we’re losing twice. So you will definitely see gunwalls. It would be foolish to play any other way. As is, advancing with our vehicles is “unwise”.

Penalizing movement will make for un-fun games.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Why the hell should an autocannon not be D2?
Considering it is a light at weapon?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only reason things appear too killy is because of IGOUGO creating a situation that allows you to kill half your opponent's army before they even get their first turn.

THAT is the problem you should be looking at.


Except there are single units capable of churning out obscene amounts of damage.
Alternate Activation will just result in a scenario where you delete a unit, and then your opponent deletes a unit. Everything needs to be toned down. Rolling 8 dice from a single weapon that can be taken multiple times is nonsense.
Or change the terrain rules so they are actually good. Right now terrain is only really useful if it completely blocks true line of sight if you are using a small infantry unit. I think bringing back Area Terrain from 4th ed might be useful this edition.
Double Fighting / Shooting needs to go though. It slows things down and is way too powerful of an ability to have.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 23:15:10


What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only reason things appear too killy is because of IGOUGO creating a situation that allows you to kill half your opponent's army before they even get their first turn.

THAT is the problem you should be looking at.


Except there are single units capable of churning out obscene amounts of damage.
Alternate Activation will just result in a scenario where you delete a unit, and then your opponent deletes a unit. Everything needs to be toned down. Rolling 8 dice from a single weapon that can be taken multiple times is nonsense.
Or change the terrain rules so they are actually good. Right now terrain is only really useful if it completely blocks true line of sight if you are using a small infantry unit. I think bringing back Area Terrain from 4th ed might be useful this edition.
Double Fighting / Shooting needs to go though. It slows things down and is way too powerful of an ability to have.

Damage can be toned back, but what's more broken: 9 Obliterators offing 3 of your units with no response, or 3 Obliterators offing 1 of your units and you get a chance to respond in turn.

I think the choice is pretty darn clear. Isn't it?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

While alternating activations would relieve some issues, Knight armies will still skew the damage. I agree, it’s better than the alternative, but it isn’t a panacea that solves all front-loaded damage issues.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





It can with the proper implementation. When I was playing consistently i played Tokenhammer which resolved a heap of problems from IGOUGO. There would be stronger solutions for tournament play if they bothered, but here's a reason I think IGOUGO will go nowhere.

Changing the gaming method away from IGOUGO invariably slows the game down. Slowing down the games = fewer games in the same time...which leads to smaller games...smaller games = sell less models, etc. Make no mistake that is still the bottom line: sell models. The bottom line is not: write a beautiful wargame.

   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




 Elbows wrote:
I glanced through your list. Basically I'd agree with quite a few of those, however the main issue here remains: GW isn't interested in tight rules writing, they're interested in selling models. And there are a few factors to this:

1) Make units cheaper, so an average game becomes larger. While this doesn't grow immensely from edition to edition, the "average" game has more than tripled in size since the 90's.

2) Because you want more models, the games become larger but you need to make sure people can efficiently play those games within the time constraints of an afternoon or tournament schedule...if they can't, games will go from 2000 points down to 1,500 which means less models/less sales. How do you get around this? The game becomes more killy.

3) Generally speaking newer units/models often have a sales "hook", occasionally a very powerful one, in game. It's just easier to bump a new unit than to go back dumb-down everything else to make the new unit stand out. It's inevitable "power creep", and it's just part of basic business - not a bad GW only thing, of course.


This is true, GW is always going to be releasing new kits and new books. They don’t have any way to sell a perfect game. Even when people recognize this there’s never the aggressive response that can drive GW as far away from me playing a game of 40k as possible. In an entire gaming group we have to aim for minis to be 100% second hand, third party, or flat out recast. There just really needs to be a culture of just not caring about whether GW stays in business if you want to have good 40k games normally.

_________________________________________

-Asymmetrical or uneven engagements (almost no battle in the history of...ever was fought with equally calculated armies)

- and add...any of the above and you'd have a more challenging game. However, that's not in GW's interests.

While things like suppression and army morale are really cool I think no amount of fixes are enough without eliminating the possibility for symmetrical games as much as possible. With any old crude edition of 40k, asymmetrical become riveting. More importantly even with sophisticated suppression, morale, and objective rules, symmetrical games are just endless iterations of stacking lists up against each other . It’s like playing FPS games where people can sit down and then look up 10 hours later with pretty much no memory of any of the hundreds of rounds they played, like they’d been on heroin.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





First off, play enough terrain that you can block a lot of your army from view: gets rid of T1 shot off the board.

Secondly, infantry need to be able to move and shoot heavy weapons. A minus one to hit is fine. Back when playing in rogue trader days (when heavy weapons were not able to move and fire, ) there were too many standoffs where neither side wanted to go forwards because it utterly exposed them to one sided heavy weapon fire. Being able to move and shoot makes a better game.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





a big reason why GW would rather reduce points for under performing units etc rather then massivly change the rules is it's a lot easier to adjust a single number then re-write a datasheet. Also buffing units tends to be more well regarded. if you've ever played a MMO when a major patch ahs nerfed a class you'll know how well people react when their class is nerfed,. it's a LOT easier to buff everything up in terms of avoiding complaints

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: