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.

 Desubot wrote:

Then why not just make all DT non scoring overall. unless otherwise transporting a troop choice.
a drop pod still has a beacon and an Automated gun (which i dont think should be BS4) so a T hawk in general would be coming by to take it back. (drop pods aint cheap )

I'd be fine with that ruling. I liked 6th edition where Troops were the only things that could score.

Do you guys honestly think that this is the only change that is needed?

Why did GW have to resort to a heavy handed blanket rule like 'only troops units can score' in the first place?

For all those who think 40k just needs a few tweeks to get internal and external balance good enough for the random pick up games.

Why not just list the few tweeks needed to sort the game out.

And then we can see how easy it really is to fix the game with a few tweeks.

Lanrak wrote:
Do you guys honestly think that this is the only change that is needed?

Why did GW have to resort to a heavy handed blanket rule like 'only troops units can score' in the first place?

For all those who think 40k just needs a few tweeks to get internal and external balance good enough for the random pick up games.

Why not just list the few tweeks needed to sort the game out.

And then we can see how easy it really is to fix the game with a few tweeks.

In all honest, the only tweak that needs to be made is letting Fantasy Flight write the rules from now on.

40k is not a balanced game, it is a narrative driven game

Sure in the tourney scene it is, but there are many many garage games played out with a narrative theme and the system works better for these games.

The system works better when people don't really care about the outcome and just want to see the story unfold.

The best moments in 40k are not when you tally the score at the end to see who wins/loses. Its the special moments that happen during the game that defy all odds.

Its the guardsman that tanks a unit of terminators.

Its when you roll a 12 for that charge that needed it.

Its when you roll a yahtzee of 6s for your saves.

The randomness of the game is its charm.

Near the end of any game I'm losing, for fun I invent a 'moral victory objective' - something I can still accomplish even though I have a for sure loss heading my way.

To compare, the ultimate balanced game would be chess. And even then whoever goes first has the advantage. Both sides have the exact same units and rules. There is no narrative in this game, it is a pure skill contest.

#1 way to attempt to balance 40k is don't be a dick - see what your opponent brings and if you know you are going to curb stomp him then trim your list to something equivalent.

When you go into a game, focus on the fact that a cool story is about to unfold. If all you focus on is the math hammer of winning then you are robbing yourself of the joy of seeing the story unfold in the random way it is about to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example of the moral victory objective - last game I lost my termy libby was in a fight with a trygon prime. I'm like - if this guy can get force off and kill the prime I win the moral victory.

And he did, against all odds, and it was awesome even though I lost.

@chaosmarauder.
Having enough balance in the rules to allow fun random pick up games does NOT prevent people making up their own narrative for their games..
In fact having well defined intuitive rules helps EVERYONE enjoy playing the game.

If you are saying that the rules for 40k do not support random pick up games, or any sort of tactical planning.And they are basically one step up from making the rules and story as you go along. And for those people who just want to put nice looking models on a table and push them round for a couple of hours and roll dice to see what happens.They are good enough at the very basic level of being better than nothing?

Then I totally agree.

But if you have played a war game with elegant intuitive rules , where careful use of tactics delivers a well considered and well deserved advantage.
The 'randum ' nature of 40k rules writing leaves any one wanting to play with any sort of applied skill with limited scope for enjoyment.

I understand everyone has different expectations from a rule set.

But all players have the power to make up random cool stuff they want to use with their friends, and making up up cool scenarios/missions/units /events is loads of fun!

Most rule sets that are sold to gamers tend to aim higher than this level of achievement, that most players are quite capable of doing themselves..

My point is sorting out the core issues with clarity and functionality in the 40k rules would just let more people enjoy playing 40k in more ways.

I am aware that GW makes a game that some people enjoy playing after lots of negotiating to arrive at a game both players want.

But I would like the rules to my favorite game setting to be if equal quality to those developed by other companies.

I am not saying you can not or should not find ways to enjoy playing games of 40k.

Its just GW should actually put more effort in to developing the rules , so players can have an enjoyable game from the 'Rules As Written.'
Rather than expect the players to sort out all the issues themselves.!

Yes, but...

Most tactics in 40k are more akin to - I'm going to 'try' to do this, or I'm going to send these guys over here 'in the hopes' that they can accomplish x or hold x.

Because of all the sheer random factors, you usually don't know if the tactic you set in motion is going to succeed or not.

Unless.....you used a killer combination that you purposefully implemented that you know is going to get the job done.

What I am saying is that the more unknown the outcome the more actually fun it is.

The problem with absolute balance/reducing random outcomes is that it will immediately swing the playing field towards the more skilled players.

Who seriously wants to have a pickup chess game against a chess master?

Thats why, no matter what rules are invented, the onus has to be on the players to ulimately make lists that they think will create a balanced game - regardless of what is actually allowed by the rules to take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok so what I can see is this:


There are 2 opposite ends to this equation


Either you want a game where the most skilled player will win regardless of army or list

or

You want a game with millions of cool rules in it with no balance that can be used to forge a very random narrative outcome

but I don't think you can have both

Trying out random acts in the hope the random out come is successful is not tactics , it luck.

And using the poor game balance to find a powerful combination to give you an unfair advantage is not tactics either, its using lopsided strategic loading to your advantage.

If you have no interest in influencing the out come of the game then more randum stuff happening may increase your enjoyment.

But can you understand not everyone finds this fun?

Think of all the games where skill is a factor.And people enjoy playing the games and seeing improvement in their skill levels.

Why should that not apply to playing 40k?

At what point do chess masters play brand new players?Most players tend to find players of similar skill levels, and improve as a group over time.

The rules and army composition lists can be balanced enough to allow players to enjoy random pick up games. Eg players with equal skill levels have equal chance of winning.

And the beauty of this level of balance is better players can off set their skill advantage with simple handicaps. Eg the more skilled player can take less points of stuff.

You said..

Either you want a game where the most skilled player will win regardless of army or list

or

You want a game with millions of cool rules in it with no balance that can be used to forge a very random narrative outcome.

Now lets look at the level of effort required to arrive at these two 'opposites'.

The first one with focus on game play and player skills will take a team of game developers and play testers,between 3 and 8 years to arrive at.(With lots of feed back from the gaming community.)

The second one takes how long?
How long would it take you to re-write YOUR codex , just writing cool rules and stat lines YOU think are about right.The ONLY qualifying control is do YOU think its cool.
Maybe one week?
So one person re-writing all the rules and codex books focusing on 'the rule of cool'. Might take 3 months maybe?

So writing rules for enjoyable balanced pick up games, takes a lot more time and effort.And is well beyond the capabilities of any one gamer working on their own.(No disrespect to fellow gamers meant!Its very very difficult to develop a game properly, even with a development team !)

That is why gamers tend to be happy to buy rule sets that deliver this very hard to achieve product , a well defined rule set that delivers balanced game play!

Re -writing the rules and codex books just so you think they are 'cooler'. Is well within the capabilities of most gamers!If game play and game balance is not of any concern.

So I am having difficulty in understanding why you want to buy 'cool rules' from GW .When you could create 'cool rules' yourself or with your gaming group.

My gaming group have always added on house rules to all the rules we play.We just make the rules suit our group better.

We can add any level of narrative/random stuff to any level we want.To any well written and balanced rule set.

But we can NOT add any level of balance we want to , to a narrative /randum rule set.

I hope that makes my point a bit clearer.

 chaosmarauder wrote:


There are 2 opposite ends to this equation

No there isn't. Balance and fluffiness are not mutually exclusive concepts. A simple gander at any other wargame in existence disproves this notion.

Either you want a game where the most skilled player will win regardless of army or list

or

You want a game with millions of cool rules in it with no balance that can be used to forge a very random narrative outcome

but I don't think you can have both

As above, no, not even close.

It certainly requires more work to balance out all that 40k has become, but by no means impossible.

Further, random does not in any way equate with narrative anything. Random is simply random. I'd argue that giving the player control is in fact significantly more narrative oriented.

Narrative oriented games are scenario driven. That's it. Everything else about the game should be designed to be balanced and intuitive for all styles of gameplay. Balance helps narrative gameplay.

I use Kings of War as my example. There is randomness involved (Nerve Tests, Attack, Spells) but most of it is set, Movement rates and Charges. The game revolves mostly around good tactics with the random determining how well those tactics work . Hitting someone in the rear is not a guarantee of Routing them, but its still a really good idea, and this is what 40k is missing. A fair amount of tactical depth seems to have been lost, and im not really sure when that happened.

40k is extremely random. Perhaps the most random game in existence.

Name any other game where more dice are rolled throughout a single game than 40k.

As a rough hand estimate, probably about 100 dice rolled per turn per player over 5-7 turns is roughly 1000 rolled dice (give or take many factors).

And it is entirely possibly for 1 player to roll all 1s or the other to roll all 6s.

But as a quick guess, in my games at least, I'd say about half of all rolls are statistical (what you'd expect).

You guys are asking for them to balance the game. A game that, once you include all the rules from all the codexes not to mention the randomness of the dice rolled themselves, is impossible.

What are they going to do - play the codexes in a million games before releasing them? Write a master program to run on a super computer to generate all the possibilities for balance?

The simple way is what they have done - write the rules the way they want them (rule of cool) and let the players decide that if something is not balanced then house rule it or throw it out.

I believe, that if a bunch of 'balancers' were given the rules of 40k to rewrite then they would dilute a lot of the fun out of the game.

Edit - by the way I'm mostly trying to play devil's advocate here not trying to come off as a dick - its obvious there are a couple things that could be more balanced (wraithknight cost, free rhinos, free gear, scatbikes, etc etc) but one way of balancing could be just to increase the power level of all the weaker dexes instead of reduce the power of the new stuff

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimmor wrote:
I use Kings of War as my example. There is randomness involved (Nerve Tests, Attack, Spells) but most of it is set, Movement rates and Charges. The game revolves mostly around good tactics with the random determining how well those tactics work . Hitting someone in the rear is not a guarantee of Routing them, but its still a really good idea, and this is what 40k is missing. A fair amount of tactical depth seems to have been lost, and im not really sure when that happened.

I watch a lot of battle reports, and I think that tactics are still in the game.

Maybe the problem is with the list building stage now - it is a lot easier these days to create imbalanced armies due to all the new formations and the power creep in the new codexes.

But from what I've seen, as long as both sides create somewhat balanced armies, the games can still go neck and neck and be really close.

@chaosmarauder.
I think you will find if you roll 1000 D6s they will follow the statistical average quite closely.

The way that takes the minimum amount of effort is what GW plc have done - write the rules the way they want them (rule of cool) and let the players decide that if something is not balanced then house rule it or throw it out.
Fixed that for you!

We are asking GW plc to show the same amount of professionalism and effort in writing rules that all the other game companies provide us with.

This is not the fault of the GW game devs but the GW sales department ,and the GW chairman T.Kirby.(All the GW game devs have produced excellent work when they escaped from GW towers.IMO.)

If the rules were written for the current game size and game play of 40k, we would not need to make up over 80 special rules to make the game interesting/fun.

If you like lots of random rolling, just make up some stuff and add it into your house rules if the 'balancers' make the game too 'bland' for you.

Move the rules online and make it a living rule book. tweek as necessary.

That should be the first step if they truly want balance.

Sunstripe wrote:
Move the rules online and make it a living rule book. tweek as necessary.

That should be the first step if they truly want balance.

The first step they need to take is to not treat there consumer base as just "people who buy gw stuff"
If they treat people with respect and actually listen back (while filtering out the vitriol) then maybe they could get somewhere. even with a living rule book it wont do much if they just dont care to listen to people that dont have nothing but praise for them

Skipped over the topic a few times because I didn't have time for the essay that would be required to answer, but now here goes: Niv-hammer 40k fixes!

-Nix all formations. Units get what they get for their point cost, not more because you take them as certain arbitrary combos.

-remove cover saves, and work it into BS mods as below.

-Introduce simple BS modifiers: very hard to hit (-2), hard to hit (-1), easy to hit (+1), and very easy to hit (+2). Zooming flyers, shrouded/invis units, gone to ground units in any cover and units standing in heavy cover are very hard to hit, jinking units, stealthy units, gone to ground in the open and guys standing in light cover are hard to hit, vehicles/MC's in general are easy to hit, superheavies in general are very easy to hit. Some exceptions exist. Terrain stacks on other effects, but nothing goes past -2 or +2 total.

-AP rebuilt to reduce armor, not nullify/do nothing. Most weapons in the game lose some AP. (most notably virtually all basic troop weapons.)

-Vehicles: plenty of decent fixes on the forums. I'm a fan of either giving vehicles armor saves or removing the damage chart and effectively making them X wound models.

-Snap shots are gone. "You can't shoot" means you can't shoot.

-overwatch is now: a unit that doesn't shoot in its own shooting phase gains interceptor. If they do not shoot anything in the opponent's movement phase, they may shoot at the first unit to declare an assault against them.
Special Note: if you are going second, all your units are automatically overwatching at the start of the game.

-whoever thought up random charge distance and anyone who supports it are all reassigned to janitorial duty. Assault made a fixed distance again. (Although some things may still alter that distance.)

-all movement effects happen in the movement phase, including running. Jump shoot jump is removed. Jet packs are renamed jump packs and function in line with them. (This is less about balance and more about my pet peeve of half the game being taken up by the same units moving 2-3 times per turn.)

-you may charge after running, getting out of a non-assault transport that stayed still, infiltrating, scouting, or outflanking. (Remember that player 2's units are automatically overwatching on the first turn.)

-random warlord traits and psychic powers are removed. Unnamed Warlords are given a choice of default "low power" traits from your codex, or the option to replace them with traits that cost points. Psychic powers work similarly.

-psychic phase gone. Most buffs and debuffs happen in the movement phase, witch fires in the shooting phase. Return to older quicker-to-resolve psychic format.

-give some low rate of fire heavy weapons the ability to cause more than one wound to a single model.

-Take wounds where you want in a squad, (getting rid of look out sir,) but once you start allocating to a dude from a wound pool, he keeps taking them, so no nob bikers running around with 1 wound each before any losses.

-battle bros is no longer a thing. Only dudes from army x can be in a unit or a transport from army x.

-play test a bit, sprinkle some point changes here and there, and that should about do it.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

I watch a lot of battle reports, and I think that tactics are still in the game.

Maybe the problem is with the list building stage now - it is a lot easier these days to create imbalanced armies due to all the new formations and the power creep in the new codexes.

But from what I've seen, as long as both sides create somewhat balanced armies, the games can still go neck and neck and be really close.

Ya, and thats a huge problem. You shouldnt have to do that much work to make a wargame, that i freaking paid money for, balanced. I will, again, use Kings of War. I can very easily make multiple lists with each army and have a pretty good chance of holding my own. Hell ive seen a few 1k point armies that are made of basically nothing but Militia and can still win, because its more about tactics and lest about list building, and thats an issue that 40k has. More and more of the fight is being resolved in List building, and that is GWs fault

@Grimmor.
Totally agree with you 100%.
GW plc decided to reduce the level of tactical complexity in the game , and increase the level of strategic focus, and complication in the rules to compensate.
This was purely to appeal to younger gamers according to Rick Preistley.As GW Sales Department thought that churn and burn of new players was a more profitable focus.(Special rules to pimp the latest releases to children/collectors.)

This speaks volumes, as good game design tends to appeal to new and veteran players a like.Well defined elegant rules are easy to learn and a joy to play.And tactical depth keeps players interested for years.

But as so often is the case, if the man at the top does not understand, then they will push the company in a direction they can understand and express simply, '..in the business of selling toy soldiers to children..' T.Kirby GW C.E.O/Chairman

Picking one player group over another is just flawed logic that reduces sales volumes..(By 2/3 over 12 years in GW case! )
And so that is why T,Kirby is so against any meaningful market research , it WOULD prove him WRONG!

Sorry about the rant...

@niv-mizzet.
A logical list attempting to address lots of symptoms of the core flaws in the game rules.

However, core flaws remain..
1)If you remove Formations, you still have not corrected the core flaw in the 40k F.O.C.In that is uses unit function to restrict use.
Where as all other game use unit rarity to restrict use , and allow more varied narrative lists to be used.

2)Subtract BS value from 7 to find score to hit.'Oddball resolution method'.Requires additional modifiers to add variety back.
And unfortunately when using modifiers to a D6 result you are limited to what you can use.

If we added an opposed stat to BS eg 'Stealth' , we could resolve shooting to hit, close combat to hit, and to damage all in the same way.Opposed values on a table.(Where we can use a wider range of values and fine tune results easier.)
Stealth value would allow us to directly show how hard the unit/model is to hit at range.EG size, skill, silhouette ,equipment , can all be considered and displayed on one stat.

I am happy for light cover to add 1 to a models Stealth value, and heavy cover to add 2 to a models Stealth value.(Which is more intuitive than 'minus shooter to hit score .'IMO.)

I agree that GW 'APs all or nothing nature' is awful and needs to be replaced, as it adds a terrible imbalance in the armour and weapon interaction.

Either weapons with AP value 6, ignore any to save rolls that roll natural 6.(Same as -1 A.S.M.)
This would be a slight modification as values would need to be revised.However, some players like to succeed on the rol of a 6, so may be rejected.

The other way is to use the same method to arrive at save values for all models.
If we give all models an AV from 1 to 10
And all weapons an AP value from 1 to 10.
Then we can use them on a opposed value chart, like we do to hit , and to wound...

I agree any re-write should cover all models in the same way.No artificial separation to try to boost sales .

3)Over watch is a poor mans fix to the core fault of lack of player interaction.Simply using alternating game phase game turn removes the need for over watch entirely.

Pointless Random rolls , were put in to replace the vacuum in the game play the removal of actual tactics left!
Use the Stat line to cover the in game interaction, and randum rolls can be relegated to optional house rules for those that want them.

Clarification .
If all movement happens in the movement phase, units move into assault in their movement phase.
I totally agree with tidying up mobility options!

I agree with the removal of random traits, and the psychic phase.(Psychic effect can happen in the appropriate phase.)

4)You still have not addressed the complete lack of depth to Morale and Command and Control aspects of the game.
This leaves shooting and assault competing over the small aspect of killing stuff, which really limits tactical depth.

See how even a reasonable, intelligent and comprehensive list of changes can miss some core issues with the 40k rules?
No disrespect meant to you niv-mizzet, just trying to show how much needs to be done to actually fix the 40k rules.

New Force Organization Chart
Common: Unlimited
Uncommon: 1 may be taken for every 2 Common units taken
Rare: 1 may be taken for every 4 Common units taken
Super-Rare: 1 may be taken for every 8 Common units taken

Ex: If an army includes 8 Common units, that army is also permitted to include 4 Uncommon units, 2 Rare units, and one Super-Rare unit.

This does away with multiple Force Organisation Charts, being as it is a formula which works for any sized army, restricting higher value resources to higher value encounters.



And to speed up Combat Resolution:

Changing Ballistic Skill and Cover.
The units being shot at can provide a modifier to the Ballistic Skill of the units shooting at them, up to +2 or -2. Ballistic Skill now is the value of the highest die result which results in a hit (no more 7-BS). After modifiers, if a BS is 6 or higher, it’s an auto-hit, no roll needed. If after modifiers it’s 0 the unit can’t shoot at that particular target.

Modifiers could include things like size of the target, speed of the Target, Point Blank Range, stealth gear, etc:


Discontinuing Armor Saves, Invulnerable Saves and Toughness, by incorporating them all into Armor Class. Units would all have a base AC, with modifiers for Armor and Wargear (such as Storm Shields, Iron Halos, etc). Everything would have Hit Points rather than some being called Wounds and some being called Hull Points. There would still be Glancing and Penetrating hits. Glancing hits would just be the lost hit-point. Penetrating Hits would remove a hit point, plus an additional effect determined by a chart. AP on weapons would be modifiers on the roll to determine the results of Penetrating Hits. Units would have a classification as part of their profiles which determines if they roll the mechanical or organic side of the Penetrating hit chart.


Wound Allocation: Defender Allocates Wounds. However, Wounds must be applied to the same model until it is removed from play before Wounds may be allocated to other models in the unit.

@Bill1138.
I would suggest the first choice in the new F.O.C would be the HQ unit.
If we include several force types for each faction, then the HQ selected could set the 'theme of the force'.

EG in a SM list ,
A HQ mounted on bikes would be the start of a Recon /Fast Attack army.(White Scars)
Common units could be SM bike Squads , Scout bike Squads, Land Speeders.

A Jump Pack equipped HQ would be the start of a 'Deep striking /airborne assault force.)(Raven Guard/Blood Angels.)
These could have Jump Pack equipped Assault marines, and Drop pod tac Squads, and Land Speeders as common units.

I would prefer the next level of units to be called Support units .As they are more specialized/ restricted in the force,And are there to support the common units in achieving the mission goals..

And the final level of rarity could be called Specialist units.These are the units that are very limited in the force.

So we have HQ and Common units making up the 'Core' of the themed force.And Support units and Specialist units are chosen by the player to fine tune the play style of the force to suit them.

I think 3 levels of unit rarity work well in other games , (core support, specialized, Epic, combat , weapons , support F.O.W., company /brigade/corps Firefly etc).

I am not sure the 4th level (Super Rare)is really needed for 40k.?

However the simple ratio method you propose is a good way to scale the F.O.C to any size.

I agree that BS and cover rules needs to be re-written.(However I have stated my preference above.)

I would warn against rolling toughness into armour value/class, as many people associate the 3 stage damage resolution with '40k ness.'
(Its what I have found after trying out several damage resolution methods. )

But having one standard way to resolve damage is a good idea, as it removes pointless complication.

If vehicles are suppressed by penetrating hits like all the other units in the game.
And physical damage reduces a multiple hit point models movement or attacks, for every hit point lost.
Do we need to have a separate chart?

(We can have a 'disastrous damage rule'.When a model takes twice as much damage (or over), than it has remaining hit points it explodes/rampages and causes hits on all units within 5" blast template damage equal to the number of excess git points lost.)

Just some ideas to discuss..

Hire a team of mathematicians specializing in statistical analysis, and create a points system based on that with a Guardsman as the base line.

Then re-write the entire system from the ground up.

Then re-write all codex's at the same time based on the new system.

You can't have -2 and +2 modifiers on a D6. Those modifiers will dominate the game like invisibility does.

@ Brutus_Apex.
I works better if you decide on the end game play, (eg detailed unit interaction in a modern battle game.)
Then write the rules specifically for that game play.
Then write the army composition lists.

And after all that then you can start looking at allocation of Point Values to determine relative in game worth.
(Starting costing with basic humans is the most sensible method, I agree. )

@Martel732.
I agree that +/-2 modifiers when using a D6 directly in a deterministic way, have a large impact on the game play.
However, if you use them to modify stats that are opposed on a chart, to give the required dice roll.There can be more finer adjustment of results.

Lanrak wrote:
@Bill1138.
I would suggest the first choice in the new F.O.C would be the HQ unit.
If we include several force types for each faction, then the HQ selected could set the 'theme of the force'.

I'm curious about this concept of the rarity of units being dependent on the HQ. How would you note this on the profiles, and is this not simply turning the various HQs essential components of what are essentially themed formations? Is there some reason that if dividing the unit choices by rarity, you couldn't simply have a variety of options at each tier to allow you to theme an army that way?

I am not sure the 4th level (Super Rare)is really needed for 40k.?

As I put it the Super Rare units would be those probably best left to Apocalypse games (Super Heavies and Gargantuan Creatures). The other three tiers would be what are typically allowed in most games.

However the simple ratio method you propose is a good way to scale the F.O.C to any size.

Thanks!

I would warn against rolling toughness into armour value/class, as many people associate the 3 stage damage resolution with '40k ness.'
(Its what I have found after trying out several damage resolution methods. )

Yeh, I've seen that response. However, some of the changes I think would be beneficial to game balance would add time to the game turn, so I was seeing if there were a way of simplifying and shortening combat resolution. I thought if we could simply remove the charts and any math beyond simple single-digit addition/subtraction as well as resolving combat in 2 rolls per Wound instead of 3, it would drastically speed up the game.

What if instead, everything has an Armor Class, and Invunerable Saves become modifiers to the Armor Class, while Armor Saves remain saves? This way if a unit would have a 2+3++ due to Terminator Armor and a Storm Shield by the current rules, the unit would have a bonus to his base Armor Class from the Storm Shield, but would still benefit from the Armor Save (unless the weapon's AP nullified it).
I think a change is needed because it doesn't make sense for a Terminator with a Storm Shield to be just as vulnerable to Bolter or Lasgun Fire as a Terminator without one.

But having one standard way to resolve damage is a good idea, as it removes pointless complication.

Thanks again!

If vehicles are suppressed by penetrating hits like all the other units in the game.
And physical damage reduces a multiple hit point models movement or attacks, for every hit point lost.
Do we need to have a separate chart?

(We can have a 'disastrous damage rule'.When a model takes twice as much damage (or over), than it has remaining hit points it explodes/rampages and causes hits on all units within 5" blast template damage equal to the number of excess git points lost.)

Just some ideas to discuss..

I was thinking that if Toughness and Armor Class were rolled into one spectrum for all units, then there would need to be two sides to the damage chart for pens (similarly the Thunderblitz and Stomp tables have different effects for vehicle and non-vehicle targets) because it doesn't make sense for organic infantry to explode damaging the unit around them when they die.

So if we keep the current Vehicle Damage Table, The parallel table for non-vehicles could be something like:
1-3: ????
4: Dazed. The model may not make a shoot action for the following Game Turn.
5: Knocked Prone. The model may not make any move or shoot actions during the following Game Turn.
6: Strikes True. The model is removed as a casualty.
7: Passes Through. The model is removed as a casualty, and one other model in the unit receives a Wound.

That serves as a visual for the concept, but if anyone has a better idea I'll gladly hear it.

@Bill1138.
I did not explain the idea of themed forces that well.
If each faction has several different themed forces, eg using the old Klanz, Craftworlds, Regiments, Chapters etc, as examples.

Then in each different theme , units will be classed differently, and some list can have specialty themed units.(EG Boar Boys Wild Boys and Squiggoths in a Snakebite Klan list only)

EG for Orks we could have..

Bad Moons List.(Biggest guns and best Equipment.)

Blood Axe list,(Special forces and IG equipment. Sneeky gitz that trade with 'Umies.)

Deff Skulls list.(General Ork list as Deff Skull borrow from other K;anz.)

Evil Sunz List .(Mechanized/mounted infantry.)

Goff List(Hoard Infantry.)

Kult Of Speed List.(Recon.rapid reaction force.)

Snakebite List (Primative hoard .)

I think the HQ unit is going to be indicative of the theme of the list in most cases.I should not have said the HQ sets the theme.


I am not saying rolling armour and toughness into a single defense stat will not work.(It does allow quick and simple damage resolution vs an attack stat.)
Its just I am not sure its the best method to use as lots of 40K players like the 3 stage damage resolution.

Large monsters can rampage before they die, if you want MCs and Vehicles to be treated similarly.

I think 40k has become mired in USR's and incredible boons for formations. Force Organization is so complex and varied that it would be incredibly difficult to balance all the elements and moving parts of the game against one another. It's an absolute mess.

To balance the game, I believe simplicity need be restored. Too many parts of the game are slow and clunky, and the numerous bonuses and combos available are too vast. Perhaps if these rules functioned smoothly and interacted with other rules in a smooth way, I wouldn't object to how numerous they are - but at this point I really feel some limiters are necessary to steer the game in a good direction.

I'm in the camp hoping for a new edition that significantly alters the mechanics of the game without it becoming AoS. If this were paired with push in a new direction creatively, I could be into that as well. Not that I believe this is around the corner - at this point I can't tell if GW has the capacity to do such a thing.

 Thokt wrote:
I think 40k has become mired in USR's and incredible boons for formations. Force Organization is so complex and varied that it would be incredibly difficult to balance all the elements and moving parts of the game against one another. It's an absolute mess.

To balance the game, I believe simplicity need be restored. Too many parts of the game are slow and clunky, and the numerous bonuses and combos available are too vast. Perhaps if these rules functioned smoothly and interacted with other rules in a smooth way, I wouldn't object to how numerous they are - but at this point I really feel some limiters are necessary to steer the game in a good direction.

I'm in the camp hoping for a new edition that significantly alters the mechanics of the game without it becoming AoS. If this were paired with push in a new direction creatively, I could be into that as well. Not that I believe this is around the corner - at this point I can't tell if GW has the capacity to do such a thing.

The first thing I always worry about when people talk about rewriting and making things more "simple" is AoS. And though there were a couple of things i did like that AoS did, those did not outweigh the bad. I still find the biggest "imbalance" in the game is that some codex have formations and some don't. those that don't, really lag behind. Now some haven't been done well, blood angels comes to mind. But most of the codex that have had formation updates within the last year or two are relatively on the same footing, and can win games if played to their strengths. The only codex that i have seen that is on the extreme of imbalance is the eldar book, and that is mostly point costs and they way they can spam D and special weapons now. If it wasn't for those things we wouldn't be even talking about them as an issue. Tau are strong but certainly not unbeatable.

The slippery slope of talking about "balancing" 40k, to me comes down to two schools of thought, are we talking about balancing on the competitive level? or are we talking about balance on the casual level. because those are two VASTLY different animals. But a total re-release of the games edition, and codex at the same time isn't the answer. Because if they did that, we wouldn't be talking about "balance" we would be talking about "money grabs" Lets call a spade a spade.

Getting rid of the, "In between codexes." may help balance the game.

Things need to be more complex, not more simple. That's just the way it is with so many different units in the game. Making it more simple gives us less granularity when we need more.

The game play of 40k needs to be more complex. eg more tactical depth.
But the rules for the game need to be simplified, eg remove pointless complication.

Straightforward rules written with clarity brevity and elegance , can deliver more tactical depth and game complexity.

However , deciding what the game play of 40k should be is another thing GW plc do not want to be bothered with.

GWs rules for 40k are more like a scrap book full of cool ideas, but without any real focus on practical implications or clarity of purpose in terms of being an instruction set on how to play the game.

For starters, limit the number of ICs that may join to a unit to 1. So no IC may join another IC. That will get rid of most shenanigans.

 deviantduck wrote:
For starters, limit the number of ICs that may join to a unit to 1. So no IC may join another IC. That will get rid of most shenanigans.

I'll second that.