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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 05:14:19
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
When I read through the rules of Warhammer 40,000 (10E) for the first time, my mind glazed over. And for a wargame with its eyes on eSports to take 2 hours per match for several-match (multi-day) competitions is akin to pre-contemporary cricket. There's a whole lot that can be simplified about the game for those willing to take radical steps; here are some examples:
ENHANCEMENTS
You should be able to select any number of Enhancements available to your Detachment that you can afford the points value of. My approach in general is more of the Oldhammer ethos, in that there should be a minimal amount of restrictions on players, particularly in the hobby of crafting their armies. (There should be more flexibility in splashing other units of would-be Allied Factions, for instance. As well as a more complete database of Legends needing to exist--if only in Eternal formats, rather than the rotating ones we see every 3 years when a new edition comes out. Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader contains the formula for determining points values for any model, anyways, so this could be a player-maintained initiative.)
LEADER
Leaders should, by right of flavor, be able to attach or detach from Bodyguard units throughout the course of a battle--say, during your turn at the start of any phase. And, let's face it, Warlord doesn't need to exist.
MISSIONS
The default mission for match play could be deathmatch, with VP solely earned from destroying and/or making below half strength enemy units of x points values. Accordingly, OC can be excised as a characteristic.
Mission objectives feel more like narrative play.
And about those 2-hour matches across 6 match rounds or whatever. The game may nowadays be balanced for 2000-point Strike Forces--which, anyways, the Core Rules call for 3-hour matches--but there should be an ELO ladder for 500-point 1-hour match play. There really needs to be a way for players to get their reps in (within the rapid windows between balance updates).
COMMAND PHASE
Stratagems are way too much extra information for a player to keep track of for each possible Faction/Detachment they may face. Every rule should be easily remembered and the crunchier stuff should all be on datasheets. This, combined, with the fact that battle-shock is barely relevant as-is and thus shouldn't justify its survival as an artefact of flavor, means the Command Phase should be done away with. Accordingly, Leadership can also be done away with as a characteristic. (The original Personality Characteristics having long left Warhammer 40,000 after its original roleplaying nature, it's time to cut the rest.)
UNITS
Explain the flavor of a model being destroyed if it causes its unit to be out of Unit Coherency. (It's also arbitrary that once a unit is 7+ models it requires 2 other nearby models per model for Unit Coherency--just make it 2 for any size unit.) Ditto for one ending up in Engagement Range.
These restrictions echo in the banning of anything that would enable you to reroll more than once, or cause a roll modifier to be other than +1 or -1. It's up to the players to break any rule, but it's up to the designers to appropriately score the statistics of their rules so as not to be so easily broken.
MOVEMENT
Advance exists for the sake of gameplay, but flavorwise need not. Meanwhile, why wouldn't a unit be able to embark on a turn that it's disembarked? And of course by the FAQ we've realized that Firing Deck is too complicated.
CHARGE
2D6 feels arbitrary.
DEPLOYMENT
"More than 9" horizontally" (for Reserves, Scouts, Lone Operatives, etc.) feels arbitrary, too. Why wouldn't a unit be able to teleport onto the battlefield vertically? Or, undetected, closer to an enemy unit? I think it should be anywhere a Normal move could legally end.
AIRCRAFT
Why, flavorwise, can Aircraft only be deployed as Strategic Reserves? Again, this feels like something GW is afraid of being OP being outright limited instead of balanced statistically.
Also, is it realistic that Aircraft can pivot? Wouldn't their movement need to bend to achieve that?
SAVING THROWS
Saving Throws, Invulnerable Saves, Feels No Pain--these are all cop-outs: if an Attack hits, it should Wound. (For that reason, Strength and Damage could be condensed, with the D values used under the S name, and for each of their already-existing purposes. Meanwhile, Sv and AP should be thrown out.)
WEAPON PROFILES
Is there any, any way to simplify/reduce the time it takes for each weapon on each model to roll against each target (beyond fast dice rolling by profile)?
TERRAIN
Terrain effects are needlessly crunchy. In a game with true line of sight, that is enough ludically and literally to justify their existence.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 05:29:32
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
HeretekLibrarian wrote:When I read through the rules of Warhammer 40,000 (10E) for the first time, my mind glazed over. And for a wargame with its eyes on eSports to take 2 hours per match for several-match (multi-day) competitions is akin to pre-contemporary cricket. There's a whole lot that can be simplified about the game for those willing to take radical steps; here are some examples:
ENHANCEMENTS
You should be able to select any number of Enhancements available to your Detachment that you can afford the points value of. My approach in general is more of the Oldhammer ethos, in that there should be a minimal amount of restrictions on players, particularly in the hobby of crafting their armies. (There should be more flexibility in splashing other units of would-be Allied Factions, for instance. As well as a more complete database of Legends needing to exist--if only in Eternal formats, rather than the rotating ones we see every 3 years when a new edition comes out. Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader contains the formula for determining points values for any model, anyways, so this could be a player-maintained initiative.)
LEADER
Leaders should, by right of flavor, be able to attach or detach from Bodyguard units throughout the course of a battle--say, during your turn at the start of any phase. And, let's face it, Warlord doesn't need to exist.
MISSIONS
The default mission for match play could be deathmatch, with VP solely earned from destroying and/or making below half strength enemy units of x points values. Accordingly, OC can be excised as a characteristic.
Mission objectives feel more like narrative play.
And about those 2-hour matches across 6 match rounds or whatever. The game may nowadays be balanced for 2000-point Strike Forces--which, anyways, the Core Rules call for 3-hour matches--but there should be an ELO ladder for 500-point 1-hour match play. There really needs to be a way for players to get their reps in (within the rapid windows between balance updates).
COMMAND PHASE
Stratagems are way too much extra information for a player to keep track of for each possible Faction/Detachment they may face. Every rule should be easily remembered and the crunchier stuff should all be on datasheets. This, combined, with the fact that battle-shock is barely relevant as-is and thus shouldn't justify its survival as an artefact of flavor, means the Command Phase should be done away with. Accordingly, Leadership can also be done away with as a characteristic. (The original Personality Characteristics having long left Warhammer 40,000 after its original roleplaying nature, it's time to cut the rest.)
UNITS
Explain the flavor of a model being destroyed if it causes its unit to be out of Unit Coherency. (It's also arbitrary that once a unit is 7+ models it requires 2 other nearby models per model for Unit Coherency--just make it 2 for any size unit.) Ditto for one ending up in Engagement Range.
These restrictions echo in the banning of anything that would enable you to reroll more than once, or cause a roll modifier to be other than +1 or -1. It's up to the players to break any rule, but it's up to the designers to appropriately score the statistics of their rules so as not to be so easily broken.
MOVEMENT
Advance exists for the sake of gameplay, but flavorwise need not. Meanwhile, why wouldn't a unit be able to embark on a turn that it's disembarked? And of course by the FAQ we've realized that Firing Deck is too complicated.
CHARGE
2D6 feels arbitrary.
DEPLOYMENT
"More than 9" horizontally" (for Reserves, Scouts, Lone Operatives, etc.) feels arbitrary, too. Why wouldn't a unit be able to teleport onto the battlefield vertically? Or, undetected, closer to an enemy unit? I think it should be anywhere a Normal move could legally end.
AIRCRAFT
Why, flavorwise, can Aircraft only be deployed as Strategic Reserves? Again, this feels like something GW is afraid of being OP being outright limited instead of balanced statistically.
Also, is it realistic that Aircraft can pivot? Wouldn't their movement need to bend to achieve that?
SAVING THROWS
Saving Throws, Invulnerable Saves, Feels No Pain--these are all cop-outs: if an Attack hits, it should Wound. (For that reason, Strength and Damage could be condensed, with the D values used under the S name, and for each of their already-existing purposes. Meanwhile, Sv and AP should be thrown out.)
WEAPON PROFILES
Is there any, any way to simplify/reduce the time it takes for each weapon on each model to roll against each target (beyond fast dice rolling by profile)?
TERRAIN
Terrain effects are needlessly crunchy. In a game with true line of sight, that is enough ludically and literally to justify their existence.
Enhancements already work that way.
Attaching and detaching characters isn't simplifying anything.
Warlord not existing feels fine, though.
Making the game just kill points would be horrendous. Why yes, my Nurgle Daemons would just LOVE going up against Tau if they don't have to do anything except stand and shoot. /sarcasm
I would like more mission variety. But Kill Points is not variety.
Where would you move Command Phase abilities that aren't Stratagems or such?
For Units, I agree Coherency killing is weird. It's also never come up in any game I've played.
You can't Embark on a turn you Disembarked because the game is meant to model real-time warfare. You can only move so fast.
And Firing Deck isn't particularly complicated.
2d6 is arbitrary, sure. What's your recommendation for making it better?
If you can Deep Strike 1" away from any enemy unit, Deep Striking melee units will be ridiculously OP.
They're completely immune to attacks until they show up and charge. You might get one Overwatch, except you removed Stratagems, so not even that.
Aircraft are wonky, I'll give you that.
I'm not wholly against condensing the 3-roll chain of attack.
But one roll feels significantly too few.
Your suggestion also means that the ONLY defensive stat is Wounds. Which is not a good idea.
Weapon Profiles aren't bad right now, for the most part.
And I don't even know what you're recommending for terrain.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 08:50:47
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader
Bamberg / Erlangen
|
HeretekLibrarian wrote:MISSIONS
The default mission for match play could be deathmatch, with VP solely earned from destroying and/or making below half strength enemy units of x points values. Accordingly, OC can be excised as a characteristic.
This will likely kill swathes of viable units for list building and lead to both players only fielding the most killy units x3 to shoot each other off the board.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 11:45:22
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
You can take up to 3 Enhancements. I meant that you should be able to take 4+, so long as you can afford the points.
I was wondering if those should still exist, or if a Command Phase would be retained only for their sake. Could they not all be shifted to another phase?
My first thought is a flat 5". This would enable you to close vertical distances to get within Engagement Range, and horizontal distances would of course also be covered.
JNAProductions wrote:I'm not wholly against condensing the 3-roll chain of attack.
But one roll feels significantly too few.
Your suggestion also means that the ONLY defensive stat is Wounds. Which is not a good idea.
To be clear, I meant that:
(1) You would make a standard Hit Roll.
(2) You would make a Wound Roll, EXCEPT "Strength" would be the value that Damage currently is for each model.
(3) Successful attacks would be allocated, and that would be that (no saves, etc.). The amount of Wounds suffered would be equal to what would now be called "Strength" as well (though the value for that characteristic, as I'm explaining, would be the lower Damage of today--this lower value would also be the only advantage Toughness would need to defend against attacks).
I meant that Benefit of Cover, Plunging Fire, and even the Keywords themselves for Area Terrain would be done away with. The only way terrain would affect the game would be literally how those pieces on the board affect true line of sight and vertical distance. (This would reduce the cognitive load, as yet more effects that players need to memorize from texts that are far from the physical game they're playing.) Automatically Appended Next Post: JNAProductions wrote:
Making the game just kill points would be horrendous. Why yes, my Nurgle Daemons would just LOVE going up against Tau if they don't have to do anything except stand and shoot. /sarcasm
I would like more mission variety. But Kill Points is not variety.
a_typical_hero wrote: HeretekLibrarian wrote:MISSIONS
The default mission for match play could be deathmatch, with VP solely earned from destroying and/or making below half strength enemy units of x points values. Accordingly, OC can be excised as a characteristic.
This will likely kill swathes of viable units for list building and lead to both players only fielding the most killy units x3 to shoot each other off the board.
The game has a readymade solution for this: points values. Balance them well enough, and any unit can be viable.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/13 11:58:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 12:05:40
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
London
|
There are many ways to speed up the game. Mostly, play a different game. For whatever reason GW is married to a system decades old that wasn't designed for current troop densities. If GW games were 'serious' then they would be playing one of those systems. But they are a funny bunch, and seem happy with what they have.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 20:12:15
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk
Scotland
|
System works fine for me except for a few tweaks we made, it's your hobby enjoy it however you can.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 20:32:08
Subject: Re:Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Mysterious Techpriest
|
Your victory point system would be wonderful for my Knights.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/13 20:35:47
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
From your list it sounds like you'd enjoy One Page rules as it solves many of the problems listed, especially the wound mechanic (in OPR you have hit roll + save roll (+ FNP))
That being said, I don't think 40K needs further reduction, instead of killing battleshock I'd like it to be relevant for once. Strats have already been reduced to an amount that I find bearable, I'd argue grenades, smoke and tank shock should be unit or universal special rules, but other than that the handling of strats in 10th overall is okay, certainly an advantage to 8th and 9th and a compromise if you don't want to introduce actual reaction mechanics.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/14 15:13:03
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
I got halfway through before realising that you probably just don't want to play 40k in any way that mechanicially resembles what it's been for decades. ADDENDUM: yes, the game has changed (most drastically recently with 7th to 8th), but the kind of changes you're suggesting would make 40k unrecognisable (mostly your implementation for scoring, charging, deep striking, and damaging units).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/14 15:18:10
They/them
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/15 04:53:14
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
HeretekLibrarian wrote:When I read through the rules of Warhammer 40,000 (10E) for the first time, my mind glazed over. And for a wargame with its eyes on eSports to take 2 hours per match for several-match (multi-day) competitions is akin to pre-contemporary cricket. There's a whole lot that can be simplified about the game for those willing to take radical steps; here are some examples:
Okay so the goal of these changes is turning 40k into an eSport? I agree that the game needs to be simplified for that, but I would also add that it doesn't just need to be sped up. I don't think it's a good goal for GW to have.
LEADER
Leaders should, by right of flavor, be able to attach or detach from Bodyguard units throughout the course of a battle--say, during your turn at the start of any phase. And, let's face it, Warlord doesn't need to exist.
That doesn't simplify things, characters being upgrades to units is very simple and avoids cheesy builds, great for an eSport. As a simulation of a conflict in the 40k universe? Not perfect, but still pretty good because a lot of cheesy builds aren't thematic and fluffy.
MISSIONS
The default mission for match play could be deathmatch, with VP solely earned from destroying and/or making below half strength enemy units of x points values. Accordingly, OC can be excised as a characteristic.
Kill that, stand there, flip switch, that's pretty much all the objectives you can have in a game. A destroyed unit cannot kill things, stand on things or flip switches, there is inherent value in destroying units for this reason, units that are better at destroying units are high value targets because they can stop your units from destroying your opponent's units later down the line. The other objectives on the other hand do not have inherent value in the same way, for that reason they create a conflict between the action that has inherent value (go where you have the best ability to kill your opponent's units most likely to kill you and do that) to (go flip a switch without killing anything, stand somewhere where you cannot kill your opponent's killiest units or kill your opponents units that are standing places or flipping switches instead of the ones that kill you). This dilemma creates opportunties for the better players to choose right and the worse players to choose wrong, either focussing too much or too little on killing. But a deathmatch removes this dilemma, which makes the game less skill based and therefore more predictable and less interesting to watch.
COMMAND PHASE
Stratagems are way too much extra information for a player to keep track of for each possible Faction/Detachment they may face. Every rule should be easily remembered and the crunchier stuff should all be on datasheets. This, combined, with the fact that battle-shock is barely relevant as-is and thus shouldn't justify its survival as an artefact of flavor, means the Command Phase should be done away with. Accordingly, Leadership can also be done away with as a characteristic. (The original Personality Characteristics having long left Warhammer 40,000 after its original roleplaying nature, it's time to cut the rest.)
You can learn 6 Stratagems very fast at the start of a game, that's not the issue, the issue is that as a spectator you cannot clearly see or hear when a Stratagem is being used, without a heads up display it's a bad viewing experience. American football is rather complicated, when watching on the TV you get visual aids to see whether the team has gone far enough to move forwards by them digitally adding a line to see if it was crossed, for Stratagems to be part of a pleasant viewing experience they need to be part of the casting. Having fewer Stratagems across the game would make it easier to implement the visuals, but the caster could just read it aloud whenever one is used.
CHARGE
2D6 feels arbitrary.
It's pretty close to the 6" it used to be, it creates an unlikely but possible charge from over 9" away (Deepstrike).
DEPLOYMENT
"More than 9" horizontally" (for Reserves, Scouts, Lone Operatives, etc.) feels arbitrary, too. Why wouldn't a unit be able to teleport onto the battlefield vertically? Or, undetected, closer to an enemy unit? I think it should be anywhere a Normal move could legally end.
Would make for automatic charges, too dangerous as well for most teleportation strategies.
AIRCRAFT
Why, flavorwise, can Aircraft only be deployed as Strategic Reserves? Again, this feels like something GW is afraid of being OP being outright limited instead of balanced statistically.
Also, is it realistic that Aircraft can pivot? Wouldn't their movement need to bend to achieve that?
Parabolic movement would be hard to do, just imagine that is what is happening. Turn based games have a hard time representing speed, a unit starting on the table feels very slow. If it comes in on your second turn then you can imagine it coming in at speed more easily. It's mostly a balance thing carried over from 9th. Aircraft rules are really unfun and weak at the moment, need fixing, but it's hard because the tables are so small relative to how fast an aircraft goes (3x human running speed is basically hovering for a jet).
SAVING THROWS
Saving Throws, Invulnerable Saves, Feels No Pain--these are all cop-outs: if an Attack hits, it should Wound. (For that reason, Strength and Damage could be condensed, with the D values used under the S name, and for each of their already-existing purposes. Meanwhile, Sv and AP should be thrown out.)
Probably a good idea to have a single opposed rule to speed games up for an eSport. So you have X attacks at Strength Y your opponent has a Toughness characteristic of Z, roll X dice and subtract Z from the result, if they are at least Y you score a wound, no saves or FNP. Sv and AP are really important thematically, a dagger that can slice through ceramite isn't going to help too much against a 10 T tank, but against a Space Marine it is many times better than a regular dagger. This complex system creates a lot of possibility for thematic differentiation which is super cool for a narrative game. I actually argued that 40k should remove a lot of FNP rules and 10th actually did that along with several other things that has sped up the game. We used to have things like templates that scattered in random directions which encouraged units to spread out as much as possible which took time to do, now you can just push forward your blob of dudes unless you need to screen out a deepstrike or charge.
WEAPON PROFILES
Is there any, any way to simplify/reduce the time it takes for each weapon on each model to roll against each target (beyond fast dice rolling by profile)?
Roll by unit like in Apocalypse. Unfortunately for your eSport needs Apoc has the damage phase where you roll saves and the multiple kinds of dice rolls, but I do think Apoc is closer to what you want.
TERRAIN
Terrain effects are needlessly crunchy. In a game with true line of sight, that is enough ludically and literally to justify their existence.
I feel like it wouldn't be as thematic and how complex terrain is doesn't really matter too much for the viewing experience or how fast the game is. The most important thing is that the rules are clear so you don't have long discussions on how a rule works, something you probably haven't dealt with too much, it seems like you might be a little new to 40k.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/15 15:56:18
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Grovelin' Grot
California
|
10th Edition isn't perfect, but I find it hard to see how your criticisms are major faults. Maybe it would be easier if you suggested an alternative for each one?
Overall though, it doesn't sound like you actually want to play standard 40k. Kill Team, Infinity, or One Page Rules sounds more like your cup of tea.
In my opinion, 10th Edition is arguably too simple. The Psychic Phase is completely gone. The direction a unit is facing makes literally no difference. All large monsters/vehicles are bullet sponges that don't really degrade even at low health. Models no longer have Strength or Attacks. Weapon/Wargear options don't even cost points anymore so choosing certain loadouts is a no-brainer decision. At this point, 10th Edition Games are almost entirely decided on how you roll and little else.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/15 21:47:37
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
For those pointing out that I "don't want to play 40k": yes, this is an opportunity for a radical rethink of what a Warhammer wargame can be. Sure, there are other wargame systems out there--to address one, One Page Rules uses saving throws, which is something I specifically mentioned I'd like to get rid of to speed up the process for combat (and to promote attacking)--but as has also been mentioned, Kill Team, Apocalypse, etc. are things, GW has been trying out various simplified rulesets for decades (not only for narrative play).
vict0988, I appreciate you recognizing that I mentioned eSports. (I do agree that your idea about Stratagems popping up on-screen would be the right way to go about eSports broadcasts. And rolling by unit--wargear becoming free, as has been brought up, suggests already that considering each model's individual weapons is outdatedly crunchy--a la Apoc while using Attack Rules as you mooted would be an optimal way to simplify combat, I feel.) I admit that my post mixed that message with ideas for honing the ludonarrative. The latter goal is what I had in mind when criticizing Attached Units being a one-off, Unit Coherency being too crunchy, Deployment abilities being restricted for pure gameplay reasons, and Aircraft being hardly ludonarrative at all. In general, if a reason for something being the way it is is that "otherwise, that would be OP", I consider that a failure of game design and balancing, rather than a prohibition against that thing being able to be changed.
It's useful for me to hear that others also believe the Attack Rules could be trimmed, and that Aircraft could really use a rethink. I've been given some real ideas to try out in homebrew games.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/15 22:57:34
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Grovelin' Grot
California
|
HeretekLibrarian wrote:For those pointing out that I "don't want to play 40k": yes, this is an opportunity for a radical rethink of what a Warhammer wargame can be. Sure, there are other wargame systems out there--to address one, One Page Rules uses saving throws, which is something I specifically mentioned I'd like to get rid of to speed up the process for combat (and to promote attacking)--but as has also been mentioned, Kill Team, Apocalypse, etc. are things, GW has been trying out various simplified rulesets for decades (not only for narrative play).
vict0988, I appreciate you recognizing that I mentioned eSports. (I do agree that your idea about Stratagems popping up on-screen would be the right way to go about eSports broadcasts. And rolling by unit--wargear becoming free, as has been brought up, suggests already that considering each model's individual weapons is outdatedly crunchy--a la Apoc while using Attack Rules as you mooted would be an optimal way to simplify combat, I feel.) I admit that my post mixed that message with ideas for honing the ludonarrative. The latter goal is what I had in mind when criticizing Attached Units being a one-off, Unit Coherency being too crunchy, Deployment abilities being restricted for pure gameplay reasons, and Aircraft being hardly ludonarrative at all. In general, if a reason for something being the way it is is that "otherwise, that would be OP", I consider that a failure of game design and balancing, rather than a prohibition against that thing being able to be changed.
It's useful for me to hear that others also believe the Attack Rules could be trimmed, and that Aircraft could really use a rethink. I've been given some real ideas to try out in homebrew games.
To the contrary, something being changed or prevented because it is overpowered or underpowered is the only justification a game designer needs. Tenth Edition is a tabletop GAME after all. A game where two players duel each other with many expensive miniatures. In order for a game's long-term health and for tournaments or matches to be the slightest bit competitive, a game must be mostly balanced. If there is a serious conflict between lore and gameplay (this happens less often than you think, but I digress), game balance should take priority. There are many other avenues that deals purely with lore accuracy like books, films, etc. Two close friends playing a game can also make all the modifications they can ever want. Rules aren't super important for that demographic. It is when you're playing with strangers, like in a tournament or online, do proper rules become paramount.
If you're playing a cooperative game (e.g. D&D) or a single-player game (e.g. Solitaire), it might make sense to not care much about balance. But not in zero-sum competitive games.
That said, if 40k ever had a huge international tournament, or an online videogame adaptation for the actual tabletop rules, it could use some revisions to be a better spectator sport. I also agree that giving models more health might be a better alternative than putting more and more tests against actually dealing damage to them (especially in Age of Sigmar). Aircraft should be a special unit deployed with Stratagems as opposed to the hoopla going on now.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/16 15:45:54
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Yeah. Lots of hot takes here. Especially the idea that rules making a competitive game more balanced isn't a good reason for those rules. I can appreciate the merit of wanting more of a mash-action-figures-together experience, but that seems at odds with your stated goals of simplifying the game and with the implied concern about competitive events as you mentioned tournaments. If you're looking for a completely different game with a 40k skin on top, you should probably start by making that game; not by making a bunch of unhealthy changes to an existing one.
HeretekLibrarian wrote:
ENHANCEMENTS
You should be able to select any number of Enhancements available to your Detachment that you can afford the points value of. My approach in general is more of the Oldhammer ethos, in that there should be a minimal amount of restrictions on players, particularly in the hobby of crafting their armies. (There should be more flexibility in splashing other units of would-be Allied Factions, for instance. As well as a more complete database of Legends needing to exist--if only in Eternal formats, rather than the rotating ones we see every 3 years when a new edition comes out. Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader contains the formula for determining points values for any model, anyways, so this could be a player-maintained initiative.)
We could probably get away with more freedom when it comes to handing out enhancements. It would, however, mean that there's more potential for wombo-combos. So you either risk sacrificing game balance, or else you have to reign in what some enhancements do, making them less impressive/satisfying just in case they're taken in combination with another enhancement. I also think just returning to having more wargear options in general would be nice.
Allies are fun for narrative games, but they're a nightmare to balance. I'm a little surprised 10th has managed to implement them as well as it has. Ynnari and Reaper's Wager don't seem to be running tables, but they're nice options as are things like imperial agents or the GSC ally detachments.
Go ahead and try to come up with a formula for assigning points costs to units. I think you'll find that it breaks down rather quickly. Such formulas can be rough guidelines, but ultimately it really does need to be more of a fuzzy gut feeling assignment followed by occassional points adjustments.
LEADER
Leaders should, by right of flavor, be able to attach or detach from Bodyguard units throughout the course of a battle--say, during your turn at the start of any phase. And, let's face it, Warlord doesn't need to exist.
By flavor, sure. But this doesn't simplify anything (your stated goal.) The independent character rules in 7th and earlier weren't *that* complicated, but they did get a little wonky. The current incarnation is probably the simplest one we've had and the least abusable, albeit with the most frustrating restrictions. Agreed that warlords are kind of moot at the moment.
MISSIONS
The default mission for match play could be deathmatch, with VP solely earned from destroying and/or making below half strength enemy units of x points values. Accordingly, OC can be excised as a characteristic.
40k has moved away from this because it was really unsatisfying. Games just devolve into gunlines optimized for sitting still and killing eachother. It removes a lot of the interesting choices and back and forth that you get in modern 40k. I'd hate this, and I think most people would too. And making units that aren't optimized for killing dirt cheap doesn't really fix things either.
COMMAND PHASE
Stratagems are way too much extra information for a player to keep track of for each possible Faction/Detachment they may face. Every rule should be easily remembered and the crunchier stuff should all be on datasheets. This, combined, with the fact that battle-shock is barely relevant as-is and thus shouldn't justify its survival as an artefact of flavor, means the Command Phase should be done away with. Accordingly, Leadership can also be done away with as a characteristic. (The original Personality Characteristics having long left Warhammer 40,000 after its original roleplaying nature, it's time to cut the rest.)
I'm not a huge fan of stratagems either at this point. They've been a neat thing to try out, but I'd be fine with getting rid of them. Battleshock isn't great but is probably in a better place now than in the past. I'd be fine with getting rid of it but would prefer to improve it.
But that said, having to move a bunch of abilities to other phases and no longer having a phase in which to handle scoring, status effects, etc. does create some new problems in a vacuum. We don't need the command phase, but there's nothing wrong with having it either. I *would* like to see some of the quirks of the command phase addressed (like units that start the turn inside of transports being unable to use their buff abilities because they weren't "on the table" during the command phase.)
UNITS
Explain the flavor of a model being destroyed if it causes its unit to be out of Unit Coherency. (It's also arbitrary that once a unit is 7+ models it requires 2 other nearby models per model for Unit Coherency--just make it 2 for any size unit.) Ditto for one ending up in Engagement Range.
Removing models prevents shenanigans involving repositioning models that are out of coherency and avoids needing a bunch of wordy restrictions on how that repositioning would work. In practice, unit coherency isn't really an issue you have to think about in 10th because you're just never out of coherency in the first place unless you chose to remove models in a silly order. You said you wanted simple. Current Unit Coherency is simple and effective. The two models for large squads thing is just to prevent daisy chain shenanigans that we saw in earlier editions. You could probably remove that rule without any major issues, but doing so wouldn't have any major benefit either. Again, coherency isn't keeping anyone awake at night. You usually get the hang of it in your first practice game and then never really have to think about it again.
Not sure what you're trying to say regarding engagement range.
These restrictions echo in the banning of anything that would enable you to reroll more than once, or cause a roll modifier to be other than +1 or -1. It's up to the players to break any rule, but it's up to the designers to appropriately score the statistics of their rules so as not to be so easily broken.
You want to prevent rerolling a reroll? Cool. My farseer's Guide ability now means that I hit with 100% of my shots because I'll just keep rerolling until every die is a hit. Stacking to-hit modifiers lead to entire armies being -2 to-hit all game, usually with the option to go up to -3 or -4 when you needed it. It was a bad experience. I'd like a return to *some* amount of stacking modifiers, but the current restrictions are there for a reason.
MOVEMENT
Advance exists for the sake of gameplay, but flavorwise need not. Meanwhile, why wouldn't a unit be able to embark on a turn that it's disembarked? And of course by the FAQ we've realized that Firing Deck is too complicated.
Wha-? Are you saying you don't understand the fluff behind a unit prioritizing moving more quickly at the cost of its offense? I think every tactical turn-based game I've played in the last year has had some variation on that mechanic.
You actually *can* embark on the same turn that you disembark (it's a common tactic for drukhari players); just not in the same phase. The reason for this being that you could theoretically set up a train of transports all within embarkation range of eachother to act as a "railgun" for repeatedly embarking/disembarking units. So you get in on one side of a rhino, disembark out the opposite side. Now you've moved like, 6" or whatever the length of a rhino is. Then you embark on the next rhino a couple inches in front of it and disembark in front of it. Now you've traveled like 12" plus whatever the gap in distance between rhinos. It was a niche situation, but not being able to re-embark in the same phase prevents it. Simple rule. Good effect. Seems like this is the sort of thing you should be in favor of.
Who the heck is having trouble with Firing Deck?
CHARGE
DEPLOYMENT
"More than 9" horizontally" (for Reserves, Scouts, Lone Operatives, etc.) feels arbitrary, too. Why wouldn't a unit be able to teleport onto the battlefield vertically? Or, undetected, closer to an enemy unit? I think it should be anywhere a Normal move could legally end.
All of this comes down to charging out of deepstrike, basically. Being able to deepstrike a squad of vanguard vets or terminators directly into melee wouldn't be much fun for the player on the receiving end as it would be extremely non-interactive and likely result in a one-sided wipe of their units. But deepstriking a melee unit near the enemy only to have it stand around awkwardly and get shot to death before it does anything is similarly unsatisfying. So the designers made it possible (but not guaranteed) to be able to charge out of deepstrike by making charge distances random and ensuring that units are only ever so close when trying to charge after deepstrike.
The horizontal (rather than vertical) thing prevents weird interactions with engagement range. If you only had to be 9" away diagonally, you could end up closer than 9" horizontally when deepstriking near a unit standing on top of terrain. And then because we have a vertical engagement range (itself a way of simplifying clunky distance interactions involving terrain), you could then functionally end up needing to roll less than 9 on your 2d6" charge roll.
It also just makes it easier to measure stuff. Sticking a tape measure out 9" on a horizontal plane is just less finnicky than trying to angle it diagonally near a bunch of models. In other words, it's simpler. Given your stated goal of simplifying the game, these rules seem like they should appeal to you.
AIRCRAFT
Why, flavorwise, can Aircraft only be deployed as Strategic Reserves? Again, this feels like something GW is afraid of being OP being outright limited instead of balanced statistically.
Also, is it realistic that Aircraft can pivot? Wouldn't their movement need to bend to achieve that?
Flavorwise, it's to make aircraft feel like they're constantly in motion. Unless the flyer has hover capability, you're not going to see it frozen mid-air waiting for you to ambush it at the start of a battle. So starting in reserves means that the flyer "moves" onto the table, then has forced movement every turn that it remains on the table. But that said, flyers have always been awkward ducks in 40k and are probably best removed and left for something like Legions.
SAVING THROWS
Saving Throws, Invulnerable Saves, Feels No Pain--these are all cop-outs: if an Attack hits, it should Wound. (For that reason, Strength and Damage could be condensed, with the D values used under the S name, and for each of their already-existing purposes. Meanwhile, Sv and AP should be thrown out.)
As others have stated, condensing saves and increasing Wounds is a viable way to go. The to-wound and save rolls are the most obvious candidates for consolidation.
WEAPON PROFILES
Is there any, any way to simplify/reduce the time it takes for each weapon on each model to roll against each target (beyond fast dice rolling by profile)?
What do you mean "beyond fast dice rolling by profile?" How long is it taking you to resolve attacks? I'm getting through my units' shooting in just a few seconds each. The only units that ever make me wish they'd hurry up are the primaris marine tanks. (Gladius?)
TERRAIN
Terrain effects are needlessly crunchy. In a game with true line of sight, that is enough ludically and literally to justify their existence.
We tried true line of sight. It was weird being able to have your entire army aim their shots through that single ruin window that they could technically see the enemy tank through. Current train rules have room for improvement, but being too complicated isn't one of their faults.
Sincere question: how often/recently have you played 40k? Not trying to be a jerk, but your suggestions make it seem like you're kind of out of touch with how the game is and has been played. And as others have mentioned, the game you want to play doesn't seem to be very 40k-shaped.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 02:44:30
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Wyldhunt wrote:Yeah. Lots of hot takes here. Especially the idea that rules making a competitive game more balanced isn't a good reason for those rules. I can appreciate the merit of wanting more of a mash-action-figures-together experience, but that seems at odds with your stated goals of simplifying the game and with the implied concern about competitive events as you mentioned tournaments. If you're looking for a completely different game with a 40k skin on top, you should probably start by making that game; not by making a bunch of unhealthy changes to an existing one.
Wyldhunt wrote:Sincere question: how often/recently have you played 40k? Not trying to be a jerk, but your suggestions make it seem like you're kind of out of touch with how the game is and has been played. And as others have mentioned, the game you want to play doesn't seem to be very 40k-shaped.
I haven't been playing 10E lately, although I've been looking to get back into it (and so watching match reports, following the meta). I've been more hobbying and narrative playing. This thread is indeed an attempt for me to consider a different way to play but retaining "a 40k skin". I wanted to look through all the Core Rules and take a step back to try and radically reconsider how much of this is baggage that's simply there because it has been for a long time, and what areas for minimalism there may be.
As I posted earlier here, I admit my ideas have jumbled streamlined gameplay with ludonarrative consonance--I'm not sure which I would value over the other, or if it is so binary.
As I've also mentioned, it's been useful for me ITT to see points where people who are obviously more in the weeds than me are concurring. It's interesting that there's nonetheless an admonishment to go play some other game for daring to suggest variant ways of playing.
Wyldhunt wrote:MOVEMENT
Advance exists for the sake of gameplay, but flavorwise need not. [...]
Wha-? Are you saying you don't understand the fluff behind a unit prioritizing moving more quickly at the cost of its offense? I think every tactical turn-based game I've played in the last year has had some variation on that mechanic.
This is the exemplary point to what I'm getting at. Of course I play strategy games in which getting to move a longer distance in exchange for not being able to attack is a trope. Explain to me in terms of flavor why a unit armed with guns is unable to fire those guns just because they were sprinting as fast as they could (rather than just suffer an accuracy penalty, etc.). Why is it verboten to reconsider such entrenched design choices in a thought-experiment online forum?
(By the way, it's not that I'm cherrypicking parts of your post to respond to: I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my various theses.)
Wyldhunt wrote:Go ahead and try to come up with a formula for assigning points costs to units. I think you'll find that it breaks down rather quickly. Such formulas can be rough guidelines, but ultimately it really does need to be more of a fuzzy gut feeling assignment followed by occassional points adjustments.
Another thought-experiment: initial reactions to the (non-official) points values for the three legendary regiments in the Codex: Astra Militarum are that they're busted-cheap.
Using the original points values system from Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader, we can determine the models in a Cadian Shock Troops would be scored as such:
(5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(1-1)+1.5)= 9.75 Shock Trooper w/ lasgun and close combat weapon
(5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(1-1)+2)= 10.25 Shock Trooper w/ flamer and close combat weapon
(5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(1-1)+15)= 23.25 Shock Trooper w/ grenade launcher and close combat weapon
(5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(1-1)+7)= 15.25 Shock Trooper w/ meltagun and close combat weapon
(5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(1-1)+5.5)= 13.75 Shock Trooper w/ plasma gun and close combat weapon
((5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(3-1))*2+0.5+1.5)= 34.5 Shock Trooper Sergeant w/ laspistol and chainsword
((5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(3-1))*2+1.5+1.5)= 35.5 Shock Trooper Sergeant w/ bolt pistol and chainsword
(5+(1/4)*(6-4)+(1/2)*(4-3)+(1/4)*(4-3)+(1)*(5-3)+(1)*(3-3)+(4)*(1-1)+(4)*(1-1)+1.5)= 9.75 Shock Trooper Sergeant w/ auto-gun and close combat weapon
So, a default 10-model Cadian Shock Troops unit of 1 Shock Trooper Sergeant w/ laspistol and chainsword and 9 Shock Trooper w/ lasgun and close combat weapon, mooted to be 65 points, would instead be costed at 122.25 (or 122) points. This is an algebraic accordance with how people are feeling. (Of course, if such a system were still hewn to, all the units would be at different points values, and so people would feel differently about various calibrations. But I'm trying to claim that it's not so difficult to approach people's feelings with mathematical abstractions.)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 04:21:04
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
So you’re using a formula from 1987 and just plugging in stuff from close to four decades later?
I’m not sure that it was accurate at that time. It sure as hell shouldn’t be taken to mean much for the modern game.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 05:13:54
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
HeretekLibrarian wrote:
As I've also mentioned, it's been useful for me ITT to see points where people who are obviously more in the weeds than me are concurring. It's interesting that there's nonetheless an admonishment to go play some other game for daring to suggest variant ways of playing.
I think we're all fans of tweaking the rules or even coming up with variant rules systems here in the Proposed Rules section. Heck, just look at all the homebrewed systems with dozens of pages of comments and support. I think where some of us get a bit touchy is when massive changes are suggested with seemingly little consideration for the fallout of those changes. Asking whether something like Advance/Run rules are cleaving to tradition unnecessarily is one thing. Pitching arrive-anywhere deepstrike with seemingly little thought put into it is another. I think framing things as just wanting to discuss/examine some old rules to see if they still hold up, or framing things as wanting to create a system from scratch would probably be better received than pitching some super unbalanced changes to the default game.
This is the exemplary point to what I'm getting at. Of course I play strategy games in which getting to move a longer distance in exchange for not being able to attack is a trope. Explain to me in terms of flavor why a unit armed with guns is unable to fire those guns just because they were sprinting as fast as they could (rather than just suffer an accuracy penalty, etc.). Why is it verboten to reconsider such entrenched design choices in a thought-experiment online forum?
Sure! So when a unit moves and shoots in the same turn, it's framed as that unit moving "at combat speed." That is, they're moving slowly and steadily enough to still take the time to aim well enough to have a reasonable chance of hitting something. When you advance, the assumption is that you're moving so quickly, the chances of you landing a significant number of hits is so low that it isn't even worth rolling for. If you asked someone to shoot a rifle while steadily side-shuffeling, they'd probably still be able to put bullets roughly in the general area of their target. If you asked them to do it while also sprinting to the right at full speed, they're probably not going to hit the target at all. You *could* represent that with a severe to-hit penalty (somethign like snap shots from 7th edition), but it would be so little bang for your buck that it's kind of not worth the time it takes. Making it a matter of *either* shooting *or* advancing makes it a quicker, cleaner, cleaerer decision and also creates design space for Assault weapons (or rules that make weapons Assault).
(By the way, it's not that I'm cherrypicking parts of your post to respond to: I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my various theses.)
No worries.
Wyldhunt wrote:Go ahead and try to come up with a formula for assigning points costs to units. I think you'll find that it breaks down rather quickly. Such formulas can be rough guidelines, but ultimately it really does need to be more of a fuzzy gut feeling assignment followed by occassional points adjustments.
(Of course, if such a system were still hewn to, all the units would be at different points values, and so people would feel differently about various calibrations. But I'm trying to claim that it's not so difficult to approach people's feelings with mathematical abstractions.)
In my experience (from looking at various pitches for points formulas), there are just too many wonky factors to make that sort of formula work as more than a guideline. You can make toughness and wounds and save stats and defensive special rules all multipliers of eachother, apply similar multipliers for all the stats of a gun, and then multiply that again by a modifier based on the unit's movement speed, and then have an additional modifier on those other stats based on access to an army-wide rule like Strands of Fate... But by the time you've created a super elaborate formula that takes into account synergies and anti-synergies, you ultimately just end up with a mathematical representation of a gut feeling. Whereas instead, you can just take an existing comparable unit and go, "Yeah, here's how they differ. That feels like it should be worth about 20 point smore. Would I field this if it cost 70 points instead of 50?"
Which is a lot less mathematical, but also probably a lot faster and ultimately gets you the same or better results.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 05:24:32
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
What? Could you elaborate or say it in a different way?
The problem is if units are undercosted 20% they get spammed. Value is a mix of multiplicative and additive value of different stats, impossible to account for in a simple equation. A lasgun and a plasma gun have different values depending on whether the unit has high or low BS, a pistol, melee weapon, fast or slow, how tough it is, whether it synergizes with the rest of the faction roster so basically impossible. Pts are balanced enough right now, so come up with a system where they remain balanced but account for unit upgrades.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 05:47:55
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
vict0988 wrote:
What? Could you elaborate or say it in a different way?
The problem is if units are undercosted 20% they get spammed. Value is a mix of multiplicative and additive value of different stats, impossible to account for in a simple equation. A lasgun and a plasma gun have different values depending on whether the unit has high or low BS, a pistol, melee weapon, fast or slow, how tough it is, whether it synergizes with the rest of the faction roster so basically impossible. Pts are balanced enough right now, so come up with a system where they remain balanced but account for unit upgrades.
Shameless plug: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/812887.page
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 08:36:32
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader
Bamberg / Erlangen
|
Wyldhunt wrote:In my experience (from looking at various pitches for points formulas), there are just too many wonky factors to make that sort of formula work as more than a guideline. ...
Personally, I found that a mixture of both, hard maths + soft gut feeling works best for me. With the points calculator I made for my homebrew, I get good enough results for about 80-90% of all units / wargear / options in the game. The remaining 10-20% are things that I can't math properly and either guesstimate or leave open intentionally to help a struggling unit becoming useful enough. Usually units struggle because the given combination by GW of profile + options is not competitive enough compared with a similar unit.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 11:56:55
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
[DCM]
Moustache-twirling Princeps
Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry
|
HeretekLibrarian wrote:This is an algebraic accordance with how people are feeling. (Of course, if such a system were still hewn to, all the units would be at different points values, and so people would feel differently about various calibrations. But I'm trying to claim that it's not so difficult to approach people's feelings with mathematical abstractions.)
Those points cost do not reflect the cost of the Orders each unit can be given, whether each unit can be affected by stratagems or army-wide effects, have synergy boosts from leaders that can be added, etc.
A raw cost of a model is not just a mash of numbers based off the stats of that model. RT also added costs for abilities, but ( IIRC, I haven't read it since '93) did not have costs for army-wide rules.
Basing an army's cost just on the models misses out a massive part of the reason the army performs as it does.
And the rules for 40k have been torn up more than once. Both 8th and 10th ed made huge overhauls to the way 40k's rules are applied. Wound tables were removed and turned into a flat 'to-wound' stat per weapon. Armour Penetration has been changed more than once. Vehicles used to have a different set of stats, and are now just units like any other. Pivot rules were not in the 10th rule book, but got added as paying players actually playtested the rules as released, and found easily-found ways to exploit them.
40k has changed a lot of over the years, with 10th ed being maybe the 4th or 5th major overhaul since RT. Wait for 12th ed, and you'll probably see a whole new 'from the ground up' set of changes.
"why wouldn't a unit be able to embark on a turn that it's disembarked?" Have you ever seen passengers disembarking from a bus or train? 10 people take a long time to get off, even if they are trained to do so. Then, see how long it takes them to get back on again, after the last person got off, did their thing for the turn, and all piled back on again. It's even worse if the vehicle moved in the meantime.
It looks like you want to play Age of Sigmar more than you want to use 40k rules. Most of your changes are in there already. 40k is known throughout the industry as a complex (overley, maybe) game. Many other games (One page rules, etc) exist to cater for what you seem to want. Don't look to change 40k, the change you want looks to be which game you play.
|
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2025/01/17 12:55:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 12:38:37
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Wyldhunt wrote:
This is the exemplary point to what I'm getting at. Of course I play strategy games in which getting to move a longer distance in exchange for not being able to attack is a trope. Explain to me in terms of flavor why a unit armed with guns is unable to fire those guns just because they were sprinting as fast as they could (rather than just suffer an accuracy penalty, etc.). Why is it verboten to reconsider such entrenched design choices in a thought-experiment online forum?
Sure! So when a unit moves and shoots in the same turn, it's framed as that unit moving "at combat speed." That is, they're moving slowly and steadily enough to still take the time to aim well enough to have a reasonable chance of hitting something. When you advance, the assumption is that you're moving so quickly, the chances of you landing a significant number of hits is so low that it isn't even worth rolling for. If you asked someone to shoot a rifle while steadily side-shuffeling, they'd probably still be able to put bullets roughly in the general area of their target. If you asked them to do it while also sprinting to the right at full speed, they're probably not going to hit the target at all. You *could* represent that with a severe to-hit penalty (somethign like snap shots from 7th edition), but it would be so little bang for your buck that it's kind of not worth the time it takes. Making it a matter of *either* shooting *or* advancing makes it a quicker, cleaner, cleaerer decision and also creates design space for Assault weapons (or rules that make weapons Assault).
Right, and if you're trying to replicate the Battle of Verdun, this can make total sense. But if your game is about space marines and xenos, then, perhaps except for with heavy weaponry, it feels more like staying beholden to past game design choices of the genre.
Skinnereal wrote:
It looks like you want to play Age of Sigmar more than you want to use 40k rules. Most of your changes are in there already. 40k is known throughout the industry as a complex (overley, maybe) game. Many other games (One plage rules, etc) exist to cater for what you seem to want. Don't look to change 40k, the change you want looks to be which game you play.
Sorry, I thought this was where in the forum you post proposed rules to 40K. I'll pick up my toys and go play elsewhere, don't worry.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/17 12:53:19
Subject: Simplifying 10E
|
 |
[DCM]
Moustache-twirling Princeps
Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry
|
JNAProductions wrote:Making the game just kill points would be horrendous. Why yes, my Nurgle Daemons would just LOVE going up against Tau if they don't have to do anything except stand and shoot. /sarcasm
I would like more mission variety. But Kill Points is not variety.
Exactly. Lots of armies are far more subtle than just raw Dakka. If you are playing just for Kill points, do away with terrain altogether, and just charge at each other. Kill-point only games do away with half the rules (I know that's your intent), but so many armies and units would become worthless.
Wyldhunt wrote: HeretekLibrarian wrote:
As I've also mentioned, it's been useful for me ITT to see points where people who are obviously more in the weeds than me are concurring. It's interesting that there's nonetheless an admonishment to go play some other game for daring to suggest variant ways of playing.
I think we're all fans of tweaking the rules or even coming up with variant rules systems here in the Proposed Rules section. Heck, just look at all the homebrewed systems with dozens of pages of comments and support. I think where some of us get a bit touchy is when massive changes are suggested with seemingly little consideration for the fallout of those changes.
This too
|
This message was edited 14 times. Last update was at 2025/01/17 20:33:44
|
|
 |
 |
|
|