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 figured this would be an interesting exercise.

So lets assume GW rules writers are competent and they can actually design a game and accomplish the intended aim without any major screw ups like wildly over-powered combos etc (unless you want them). Let's also assume we can't deviate TOO far from what 40k is now so you have to stick to a d6 system, IGOUGO, points, CPs, strats etc, what would be ideal for you without going into too much detail?

Short version:

A conglomeration of 3rd-6th informed by AoS and LotR. Particularly how AoS handles CPs and 'strats' (if we have to have those) and LotR manages less pointless dice rolling.

Biggest thing would be GW writing a design document first and sticking to it for the entire duration.

 Sim-Life wrote:
you have to stick to [...] IGOUGO [...], CPs, strats

welp, skiping this one then.

My ideal 40k is Grimdark Future by OnePageRules

Release a big book of Crusade/ campaign building.

Make inquisition detachments viable by bringing back specialist character acolytes, adding transports to the list, and bumping acolyte unit size to ten. Revive the concept of chambers militant.

Create more kits for every range except Space Marines until we are closer to parity; ( at the very least, bring back Asdrubael Vect, Duke Sliscus, Baron Sathonyx and Kheradruahk- and give them models this time; maybe Jacobus and Kyrinov for sisters, gnarloc and greater gnarlocs for Tau, etc).

Start including terrain cards/ rules with terrain, and possibly improve terrain rules (can't shoot through area terrain).

Fix the app.

Restore digital codexes.

Formally announce a living edition and the death of edition churn.

Create more kits for every range except Space Marines until we are closer to parity; ( at the very least, bring back Asdrubael Vect, Duke Sliscus, Baron Sathonyx and Kheradruahk- and give them models this time; maybe Jacobus and Kyrinov for sisters, gnarloc and greater gnarlocs for Tau, etc).

I really object to wasting production slots for smaller armies on special characters.
If you want 'parity,' you need units to choose an army from.

Voss wrote:

Create more kits for every range except Space Marines until we are closer to parity; ( at the very least, bring back Asdrubael Vect, Duke Sliscus, Baron Sathonyx and Kheradruahk- and give them models this time; maybe Jacobus and Kyrinov for sisters, gnarloc and greater gnarlocs for Tau, etc).

I really object to wasting production slots for smaller armies on special characters.
If you want 'parity,' you need units to choose an army from.

Make generic character kits with a lot of options, then add like a head thats named-character specific or something.

Vect : Archon
Sliscus : new generic Corsair HQ
Sathonyx : archon on hoverboard
Kheradruakh : Mandrake HQ

boom, 3 new entries in the anemic force org slot that bring new options

PenitentJake wrote:


Restore digital codexes.

Formally announce a living edition and the death of edition churn.

This basically. Digital codexes and stop endless waves of books. In my ideal 40k core rulebook would last at least 10 years and each codex at least 5-6 before being replaced by a new one. Campaigns, new missions, expansions, etc... would be released for free as downloadable PDF.

Anything else ain't that important for me, as I like current 40k a lot, but reducing the dice rolling would be nice as well.

Built for speed of play and clarity of battlefield

Get rid of most rerolls, modifiers, bucket of dice situations.

Most units use only common abilities and have movement and range limited enough that you can see at a glance what they can and can't reach and how much they threaten

Constrain skew/alpha strike lists though FoC, cost, and/or mission structure

A 'simplehammer' concept certainly isn't going to be to everyones taste, cutting away rules and options for the sake of clarity leads back to old questions like "why are stats 1-10 when the game mostly only uses 3-5", and "why doesn't faction X have a unit that can do Y". But I find clear and concise rules have their own charm with actions having clearly defined stakes and outcomes.

If we wouldn't have to stick to the fundamentals, then I would start from the Apoc ruleset, but since it's against the rules of this exercise, then I would be quite close to what 9th edition, because honestly apart from a few major screw ups on the balance side, the game feels "right" to me.
So starting from 9th I would change the following:

New cover system. Less based on obscuring elements, but with many types of cover. Cover in general should matter a lot more, providing bonuses like reduced AP, hit penalties, reduced attacks in melee, damage reductions... in general getting creative with cover. Things out of cover should die fast, things in cover should be harder to take out.

New leadership system. Instead of losing one model, the unit is in disarray. The unit cannot contest objectives and automatically fails actions different from "recover". Cannot receive benefits from stratagems and has a -1 to hit. The unit can recover from disarray with the "recover" action. That action can be started at the start of the movement phase and is completed at the end of the shooting phase. Combat attrition checks stays. Units get a -1 Ld for every other allied unit that was destroyed that turn.

Finally, a unit can be the target of one stratagem or command ability per player per phase.

Oh and digital dexes.

@Voss- for sure I'd want units added too- I'd like Trueborn, Bloodbrides and Haemoxocytes to be datacards with models rather than upgrades for example. But I do want those characters back- especially Vect.

@VladimirHerzog- agreed the generics are more helpful in the long run, and as a Crusader, more useful to me specifically. However, some of these named characters, particularly Vect (and possibly Kheradruahk) are head and shoulders above what a generic character would be, so they would need a card and a kit.

But the generic Corsair HQ? Yeah, for sure, far and away a better choice- afterall, we already have one named Corsair HQ in Yriel; another wouldn't make Corsairs more viable, even if it would give some of what was taken back to the DE.

I'd mostly want to go back the rules from 3-7.


Given that that's not happening:

USRs.

Units do what their datasheets say - no endless buffs through layers of stratagems, relics, warlord traits, and auras.

No reroll auras. Ever.

Easier/better secondaries. There is too much to remember in a game of matched play currently, and the various secondaries and actions don't help. Things like RND and banners should just be 'in the shooting phase, instead of shooting'.

More varied primary missions.

No more things that go 'on a 2+, some effect'. Just let those things happen.

A significant reduction in lethality. The game should last 5 rounds, not 2/3.

Make an edition last longer. All books released at the start, with campaign books adding new units as the design team creates new stuff.

-Cut back massively on cognitive burden- use USRs when possible, standardize weapons when possible, re-work stratagems to be abilities tied to characters so that their number scales organically to game size.
-Put design effort into play aids. An army's rules should be able to fit on a double-sided quick reference sheet. A codex should not be needed for play.
-Re-work statlines to more directly represent unit capabilities and increase speed of play. If a unit is supposed to be hard to hit, that shouldn't require a special rule. If a unit is supposed to be good in melee that shouldn't require special rules on top of base stats either. Resolving an attack should not require as many as six rolls plus re-rolls to resolve. Modifiers to rolls are good. Modifiers to stats are better. Re-rolls are bad and should be avoided.
-Implement a reaction system, so that units can perform actions in response to enemy activity (eg firing on units moving into their LOS) at the cost of acting in their next turn.
-Scale back AP modifiers; rework vehicles to feel more like vehicles. Better saves and introducing simple directional (front/back, 180 degrees) armor saves might do it.
-Living, digital rules.

And lastly, perhaps most significantly:

-Re-think the core structure of a battle. Consider escalating engagements where armies arrive piecemeal. Consider sideboard mechanics where you can change your list before game start. Consider requisition mechanics where you pick what units to bring in as the battle unfolds. Consider dynamic deployment zones a la Chain of Command. Consider giving players agency over terrain setups or battlefield conditions. Consider asymmetric objectives, asymmetric army sizes, or asymmetric deployment. Move away from both players showing up with equal-points sight unseen lists, randomly determining an objective for both sides, deploying all their forces on the board a simulated hundred feet from the enemy, and then rolling off for first turn in an immediate bloodbath that rewards pre-game number-crunching and skew lists.

I think 9th edition core rules are solid.

Stratagems would become something specific to the mission being played. A few universal ones like Command Reroll, Insane Bravery, etc. and each mission might have one for the attacker and one for the defender.

Command Points would be used for army construction and unit requisition (e.g. pay CP's for detachments and some units like named characters and some units that would be assigned a rarity keyword).

Eliminate Power Level. This is largely an unneeded and unused feature.

Tone down the quantity of bespoke unit abilities.

Tone down the AP and Damage.

Have some forethought and make a plan with how development of the edition should play out. In other words set some strict guidelines for the edition and its codexes. It seems like GW has a product release schedule, but not a development road map and this is why everything feels reactionary and off-the-cuff.

Move away from both players showing up with equal-points sight unseen lists, randomly determining an objective for both sides, deploying all their forces on the board a simulated hundred feet from the enemy, and then rolling off for first turn in an immediate bloodbath that rewards pre-game number-crunching and skew lists.

That would be a gigantic buff to horde armies and armies who are on the top tiers. It would drasticly hurt armies with less granular point distribution among its points per unit. Just imagine rolling something like 1500pts game, and the opponent has knights that cost 400pts. I guess he is going to have to enjoy a 1200 vs 1500pts game. Same for elite armies where squads cost 200-300pts. Specially if GW didn't give those armies any filler options. And this is before even considering the cost of an army and the collection size, and transport. Tell people that they have to take 3000pts by bus or bike to the store, just in case the game ends up beign 1450pts would make some people quit, and others would just ignore it and play what ever is the avarge game size localy.

Overall 9th edition is solid and I even like how the Codizes implement all these faction and subfaction rules, however :

- Alternation / reaction mechanic is needed to make the game more tactically interesting, the HH Leaks look promising for example
- Strats that represent options - no thanks, just give me Upgrades instead
- Reduce strats overall (I like the mechanic basically, though)
- No models no rules and abominations like the Plague Marine datasheet need to die
- Cover needs to be simplified yet more impactful
- LOS back to main body matters, not Banner tip to toe
- Lethality reduced by core rules, mali for movement and distance and make mali stack again
- More interesting morale system, it's good that nobody outright ignores morale like 70% of the factions did in prior editions, but morale should also matter when you fail via pinning, suppression, limited targeting options, whatever
- Proper narrative mission support, even most Crusade missions look just like the boring matched play stuff, give me asymmetrical missions and rules to play with uncommon armies against each other, a game with Daemons, Tau, Pure Grots and Imperial Knights will never be balanced through Codizes alone, but you could give me missions or Tips how to make these matchups work that are more interesting than: just ignore them gunning you down and wait on that circle for 4 turns

 oni wrote:

Eliminate Power Level. This is largely an unneeded and unused feature.

Maybe in the games & environments YOU play in.
Some of us, those of us who make use of the Crusade system, use it 2-3 times a week & greatly enjoy not having to waste time fiddling with pts on the more granular level you all love.

Some combo of 3rd through 5th with the best parts from each.

Throw stratagems in the bin, same goes for "no model no rules". Any equipment strats are put back into units as options.

Maybe keep the auras from some characters, but only if the designers can actually use their imagination rather than just handing out re-roll 1s like sweeties.

Lethality reduced majorly. All superheavies and LOW are Apocalypse only (get your bloody Primarchs off my table. I don't care).

All books written simultaneously and/or have a bible for how to write them, that the do not deviate from.

Given the parameters of the exercise, I won't list any specific mechanics, because those would deviate from IGOUGO and D6. But, what I generally want from 40K to be is this:

- most buffs/bonuses/modifiers to base stats should be a result of positioning and other board situations, not Gotcha mechanics like Stratagems or permanent auras that result in predefined blobs of units.

- no card game on top of a miniature game

- lethality reduced by up to 90%

- and most importantly (and this will sound like a heresy to a lot of you) - stop awarding any VPs for killing stuff. The necessity to kill stuff should come from clearing path to achieve mission objectives, not a brainless exercise of direct destruction. Especially in this setting, killing yet another 100 of Orks or Imperial Guardsmen is utterly insignificant. In a real war, going in, blowing up the only bridge within 50km and retreating without firing a single shot is usually more efficient in stopping 50 tanks than trying to blow up those 50 tanks in an open battle.

To sum up - I want 40k to be a proper wargame, not a war themed game with a lot of gamey mechanics.

Well, maybe it would be better, if GW concentrated on making match play, that majority plays, then puting effort in to a crusade/narrative, system which can be created by the players wanting to play that way themselfs.

- Reduce lethality across the board. Weapon AP is fine but the default should be 0 and re-rolling shots/wounds should be rare.
- Eliminate Overwatch, let units fire while in melee on their own turn (except maybe Heavy Weapons). But also units can only attack in melee on their own turn (no double melee every turn of the game). Make fleeing from melee dangerous (bring back overrun mechanics). IOW you get to do your thing on your turn, period.
- Reduce amount of Victory Points earned (low double digits is fine, but that's per game, not per TURN)
- Eliminate Stratagems, Relics and Warlord Traits, there's way too much to memorize at a tournament level.
- Eliminate Auras (replace with things for the HQ/Medic/Banner/Chaplain/Ethereal units to do in the Command Phase)
- Roll Psychic into the Command Phase.
- Make Leadership relevant (for example, require a Leadership check to Charge a unit that is in Cover, or to enter Dangerous Terrain). Including for vehicles!
- Make Transports relevant (i.e. deploy after movement should be universal, charging from a vehicle with a Leadership test)
- Bring back Tank Shock.
- Minimize internal faction differences to unit types and weapon choices - Salamanders should not have three pages of rules that are different from three pages of rules for Raven Guard
- Bring back Universal Standard Rules
- Remove random number of shots. You can give flamers 6 shots and a 'no more than one hit per model' rule or something.
- Reduce the size of the rulebook and codexes. Like 1/3 the size for each and the codex shouldn't even be hardbound, a 48pg staple bound is more than enough. GW can put out premium deluxe versions with all the shiny art if they like, but make the game actually portable.

Go back to 6th Ed.

 Hairesy wrote:
Go back to 6th Ed.

Out of curiosity, why 6th and not 5th or earlier?

well,

I have written my ideal version of 40k long ago (around 2015) that does not deviate much from the original by that time but tried to add more player interaction without interrupting the active player and just had more streamlined/clear rules in general
(my ideal version of a SciFi Squad/Platoon level game would look different)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBXYftgKUUcN6Rleij3cZnoufY1c_xA9nlrJlI0jh7U/edit#

A.T. wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
Go back to 6th Ed.

Out of curiosity, why 6th and not 5th or earlier?

That's the system I learned on and had the most fun playing. I've never played anything older than 6th so I'm just going back to the last time I enjoyed 40K.

One in which rules are designed around giving players a wide variety of very different tools so that they have multiple, creative and satisfying ways of posing and silving problems. Rules that concentrate on player agency, areas of interaction and out-of-the-box problem solving rather than spending time on endless chores the game wants them to passively perform (like rolling a few times too many dice).

Lots of thinking, planning and problem solving, lightning fast resolution.

Think Gloomhaven meets Warmachine meets Divinity Original Sin but in epic scale and grimdark future.

 Hairesy wrote:
Go back to 6th Ed.

Which is universally considered the worst edition ever, even by GW which shelved it after just two years, lol.

Your chosen restrictions limit the potential of this exercise. You basically said, "You can build a house! Any kind you want! But ... It has to follow this blue print and use these predetermined materials."

So I guess I would have to answer ...
I wouldn't be interested.
Bring back 3.5. the greatest edition ever. The one that lasted almost a decade.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I figured this would be an interesting exercise.

So lets assume GW rules writers are competent and they can actually design a game and accomplish the intended aim without any major screw ups like wildly over-powered combos etc (unless you want them). Let's also assume we can't deviate TOO far from what 40k is now so you have to stick to a d6 system, IGOUGO, points, CPs, strats etc, what would be ideal for you without going into too much detail?

Onepagerule + Boltaction
Digital rules only.

 Hairesy wrote:
That's the system I learned on and had the most fun playing. I've never played anything older than 6th so I'm just going back to the last time I enjoyed 40K.

That's fair enough.

You might enjoy giving 5th a try, while it was far from flawless it simplifies a lot from 6th - no warp dice-offs, no challenges, no hull points, no fliers(they were in the game, but as skimmers), no snapshots or overwatch, and less randomness and surplus rolling in general.

Wound allocation is a little messy though, if you do give it a try i'd advise treating all upgraded rank and file models in a squad as a single 'group' for complex wound allocation (it will make sense if you read the rules), and requiring wounds within a group be allocated to any already injured models first. +1 on damage rolls against immobilized vehicles wouldn't go amiss either...

nou wrote:

- and most importantly (and this will sound like a heresy to a lot of you) - stop awarding any VPs for killing stuff. The necessity to kill stuff should come from clearing path to achieve mission objectives, not a brainless exercise of direct destruction.

100% agree on you with that and i've been preaching it since the days of ITC. Killing stuff in a wargame is its own reward. Being given points for it means you're doubly rewarded for something you would do anyway