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.

I haven't read everything here yet - but one option at least for the time being until the rest of the codexes for 9th are released, could be to just play older editions.

5th edition codexes and rule books can be found used for dirt cheap. I bought my nephews a stack of 5th edition codexes for a few bucks each.

Personally, I think the older editions (3rd - 5th) are much cleaner games. The core rules are a bit more complex than 9th in some respects, but the actually army lists are easier to understand and there is less stuff bolted onto the game system (ie no stratagems). It's a cleaner game I feel.

Just digging into a smaller part of the conversation, regarding house ruling.

I'm quite fortunate that I have a group that's willing, or even enthusiastic, about house ruling the 40K ruleset. Granted, 95% of the hard work of documenting our house rules falls on me, but I find that to be fun in its own right, so it is win-win.

After some time bemoaning the state of the game, we all just decided we liked things better back in 4th/5th era, albeit with some tweaking and refinements based on other editions. Lo and behold, we have a game system we all like a lot more and can get on with playing and enjoying ourselves.

Once you and a core group of fellow players step off the GW rat race, it's really quite liberating. No more pressure to "keep up" with the latest and greatest. If you all agree there are issued or problems with the rules or certain codex's, just make a collective decision to change it - and it it doesn't work out then change it back.

Obviously, if you're reliant on playing in GW stores or want to play in sanctioned events, it won't work as easily.

To points made above - don't wait for GW or someone else to "fix" it for you. If you can see the problems, discuss it with your group or player community and go for it.

a_typical_hero wrote:
There are several in universe reasons why melee is prevalent.

- Several opponents will swarm you (Tyranids, Cultists, Orks).
- Battles are fought in the narrow corridors of space ships. Boarding actions are a thing.
- Weapon technology on average isn't all that impressive, compared to the armor that most armies are issuing to their troops. Think about it. Before the weapon revamp of 8th edition, even the mighty Bolter would just penetrate basic flak armor of renegade militia. Everything a little bit more armored is well protected against these rocket propelled mini grenades. Terminator armor would withstand everything except plasma, melta and lascannons.

On the other side a humble power weapon of any sort (pre AP change) cuts open any kind of armor. Even now a power sword is much more adapt to kill a Terminator or even a tank, than most of the guns.

I've always thought about it in nearly exactly these same terms.

Generally speaking too, the fielded of battle is pretty crowded with a lot of terrain and things move through it all relatively quickly all considered. The frantic nature of battle, explosions going off, the close quarters, the limited sight distances etc. are also contributing factors for why ranged combat isn't more deadly. Plus, you know, even the most basic guard unit probably juiced up on all sorts of crazy meds.

I'm curious what "specific" ideas people have or have seen from other games that, were they to be added into 40K, would make for more interesting board-level interactions (i.e. make for a more tactically deep game)?

A few of my thoughts:

- Alternating activation and/or reaction actions (obviously a huge shift - reactions would be easier to integrate)
- Better morale system that feeds into other elements of play
- More choices for unit actions (i.e. standing and shooting providing a benefit over moving and shooting) to create a bigger decision space
- Rules for pinning/surpression (cross-fire, volume of fire, etc.)
- More nuanced rules for handling close combat resolution (ala WHFB?)
- Better options/method for overwatch fire and/or timing of shooting resolution?
- Bring back vehicle facing and armor

EDIT: Also - reducing the lethality in the game would also help to make it more tactical. It's hard to do interesting maneuvers with units when most of them can be wiped off the board after get shot 2 or 3 times.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Smoke grenades that deny LoS.

I think this ties into LoS rules in general. I liked in 3rd/4th edition that area terrain no, matter the width, blocked LoS up to it's height. It means hedgerows and things would actually prevent units from being shot, giving more choices for maneuver. Maybe that was too strong and instead should've blocked LoS if going through more than 3" or 6" - but the point stands. I also think cover providing their own armor saves was better than acting as a modifier.

Yeah - I'm actually having another conversation about adding suppression/pinning to ProHammer.

4th edition had the "hail of fire" rule, where if a unit took more wounds (before rolling saves) than it had in models (or wounds?), then you could nominate a model to kill. I'm considering taking that same trigger but instead of killing a specific model it would force a pinning test.

Necromunda had pinning tests, and when I was playing 3rd edition 40K at the time my group had house ruled in pinning tests and it added a lot to the game for sure. Could have leadership modifiers for each subseqent pinning test you took in a turn, etc.

One idea i saw recently that was pretty cool is defining clearer sub-types of leadership tests.

There were classic "break" tests for close combat resolution, "restraint" tests for units holding back on things "regroup" tests, "pinning tests" etc. These all used a units base leadership stat but had different modifiers in play depending on the type specific test being made.

As a general observation - I think GW has somewhat shot themselves in the foot by trying to overly simplify the core rules and then make up for a lack of depth by ramping up all the unit- and army-specific special rules.

But the core problem is that the design of 40K simply doesn't give players enough actual meaningful CHOICES or options for how to USE their units. You can have all the complexity and detail you want in the unit rosters and special codex rules, but when all units are functionally: move, shoot, then maybe charge, there just isn't much to work with. There are no stances or reaction moves or other things you can "do" with your units.

The companion to giving unit's more options is also creating restrictions - which in turn force players to make tougher choices. 8th/9th opened up a lot of flexibility in the game, which makes it exceedingly easy to min-max and optimize your choices. For example, all units being able to freely split fire with individual models shooting individual weapons at whatever they want.

Compare that to 3rd edition where you had to shoot the closest unit with your whole squad unless you could pass a morale test! This restriction is an example where it creates opportunities for counter-play and deeper strategy, as you could use other units as a screening force, etc. Not that this particular case didn't have other problems, but it's an example of where restrictions can actually increase the depth of the game. The core rules have moved away from this notion in many cases.