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.

Perhaps the reason no one can agree on what the broken bits in 40k are.
(Apart from the rules are too complicated for the straight forward game play.And the pointless over complication in the rules has lead to levels of imbalance in the game play no one can correct. )

Is because GW plc have mutated the game play and rule set that much to try appeal to every one, the actual intended game play has been lost in the mix.

There are clear indicators of detailed model interaction inspired by skirmish rules ,(challenges), and also clear indicators of streamlined unit interaction found in large battle games with simplified unit interaction.(Morale rules.)And a whole heap of stuff in between.

Straight forward rules that deliver tactically complex game play are very popular with gamers.

So depending on what sort of game play YOU THINK 40k should have,will let you form YOUR opinion on what is broken.

But as a rule set (instruction set to play a game.) The 40k rules are an abomination, on every level.

Lanrak wrote:
Is because GW plc have mutated the game play and rule set that much to try appeal to every one, the actual intended game play has been lost in the mix.

I'd argue that GW are actually aiming to please a very narrow band of people, and just think of these people as their target demographic and think that all of us who play fit this group.

The people inside GW's design studio are the kind of gamers who want to put their whole collection on the table, roll a bunch of dice, not even declare a winner, and have fun with their friends. They buy models not to play games with them, but because they want to collect them and paint them, the gaming is just an excuse to meet up with their friends and roll dice. This is who they are aiming their games at, and this is who they think every one of us that buys their models are, so this is what they make rules for. No one there cares about balance, because the people playing the game at GW HQ don't think it is a problem.

@jonolikespie.
I agree that the current studio staff probably behave how you outline.
BUT the GW sales department have a heavy hand on the direction the 40k rules take.And they will simply enforce ideas into the game to appeal to a theoretical customer type.

People who collect characters want to have detailed fights to match the detail on the models, so we need detailed character rules to inspire sales.
People who collect our larger kits, want to be able to use multiple super heavies in game, so we better have stream line rules to inspire sales.

It is this sales driven influence that has mutated the game rules and game play into a horrid undefined mess.

PS.
When I refer to 'GW plc' , I am reffering to GW Corporate Management /Sales Department.I am aware how little influence the studio has on rules development currently.

Tetsu0 wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

I think an easier way is to just make any charges made from a non-assault vehicle to count as disordered. That way Land Raiders and Battlewagons have some measure of reason for their premium price tag by giving the full benefits of assault to their units while less dedicated transports allow you to make that charge but prevent you from steamrolling the unit.

Another broken part is not being able to assault out of reserve like outflanking or other things like infiltrating for units like genestealers that need that charge to actually do something. I would say do the same thing ala transports and make them count as disordered charges if they do so on the turn they arrive.

Regarding hull points, I'm a fan of saying that glancing hits do not remove hull points but instead force you to roll on the damage table with a -3 modifier on the table. This way you actually have to penetrate to do any meaningful damage rather than scatter laser your way through vehicles. Vehicles in general should have a 3+ save IMO, with Skimmers having a 4+ armour save. This is again, to mitigate the low AP but high S spam method of plinking down vehicles, while allowing lascannons and other single shot weapons greater utility.

I'm also not a fan of the dip-your-toe-in cover system for MC, make it so they need 25% coverage like vehicles. Walkers should have the ability to move up to 12" and only be able to snapfire their weapons or go 6" and fire everything at full BS. Give them MTC cover base and Smash and they're on even footing for most MC. MC themselves should have a similar damage table to Walkers, for every wound you have to roll and see what happens.

Just listen to this guy, this is reasonable. Everything else I hear in this thread is wish listing and salty salt.

Excluding the last part everything there is reasonable. Compared to monstrous creatures walkers are as broken as any of the worst deathstars. They can not be killed by anything instand death, are shielded from massed light shooting, can shoot all of their weapons, are not useless against walkers in melee and their only weakness is one that MCs have also, high S and good AP hits. MCs get cover saves easier which means nothing since everything worth anything is either a deathstar or ignores cover anyway, MCs get to hit walkers once if they aim to do damage, can shoot 2 weapons but usually can only get one, MCs are usually as quick or slower than walkers and have worse stats than walkers.

It's not what rules a unit has, it's what it can do with those rules. MCs generally lack the means to be of any use as MCs and if they are viable they are viable because of ther reasons. Couple of examples of these are flying daemon princes with psychic powers vs. Bloodthirsters, first is good because it can avoid damage and do damage reasonably well compared to it's cost and the later dies to first 2 grav bike etc. units targeting it or gets beaten by that dreadnought. Comparable walker costs 100 ish points so that you can get 2 and their upgrades that in turn just beat almost any monsters they happen face either by shooting or just beating them in melee.

Do you folks realize the reason that the rules for 40k are so bloated and unbalanced, is down to the core rules not doing the job they are supposed to?

Is 40k still WHFB in space?Or has the game moved on to different ethos 18 years later?

If the game has moved on, WHY are we still making the rules backward compatible to WHFB 3rd ed/Rogue Trader?

Especially as GW has just killed off WHFB.

shiwan8 wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

I think an easier way is to just make any charges made from a non-assault vehicle to count as disordered. That way Land Raiders and Battlewagons have some measure of reason for their premium price tag by giving the full benefits of assault to their units while less dedicated transports allow you to make that charge but prevent you from steamrolling the unit.

Another broken part is not being able to assault out of reserve like outflanking or other things like infiltrating for units like genestealers that need that charge to actually do something. I would say do the same thing ala transports and make them count as disordered charges if they do so on the turn they arrive.

Regarding hull points, I'm a fan of saying that glancing hits do not remove hull points but instead force you to roll on the damage table with a -3 modifier on the table. This way you actually have to penetrate to do any meaningful damage rather than scatter laser your way through vehicles. Vehicles in general should have a 3+ save IMO, with Skimmers having a 4+ armour save. This is again, to mitigate the low AP but high S spam method of plinking down vehicles, while allowing lascannons and other single shot weapons greater utility.

I'm also not a fan of the dip-your-toe-in cover system for MC, make it so they need 25% coverage like vehicles. Walkers should have the ability to move up to 12" and only be able to snapfire their weapons or go 6" and fire everything at full BS. Give them MTC cover base and Smash and they're on even footing for most MC. MC themselves should have a similar damage table to Walkers, for every wound you have to roll and see what happens.

Just listen to this guy, this is reasonable. Everything else I hear in this thread is wish listing and salty salt.

Excluding the last part everything there is reasonable. Compared to monstrous creatures walkers are as broken as any of the worst deathstars. They can not be killed by anything instand death

Any AP1/2 weapon can inflict ID on a walker. Walkers can be crippled in other ways that MC's cannot (immobilized, weapon destroyed, etc)

are shielded from massed light shooting

Only if they have high AV, a War Walker or Sentinel certainly is vulnerable to small arms fire. Lets also be honest, how often is small arms fire doing anything to MC's? Very rarely for anything but the smallest MC's. Get something like a FNP'd Riptide and while it's theoretically *possible* to hurt it with Lasguns, practically you'd need 540 Lasgun shots to kill it, 108 shots per wound.

can shoot all of their weapons,

Which in most instances isn't any more than what MC's can, very few have more than two weapons, especially two weapons that really can be effectively used together.

are not useless against walkers in melee

Most are pretty useless in melee. It's only recently after they *doubled* Dreadnought MC attacks for Vanilla SM's that they pose much of a threat, while walkers like Forgefiends, Sentinels, War Walkers, etc are absolutely pathetic in CC, while most walkers that have *some* CC capability are generally universally regarded as being bad, like Ork Dreads, Defilers, etc.

and their only weakness is one that MCs have also, high S and good AP hits.

The fact that Walkers effectively have "wounds" but no Saves doesn't count?

MCs get cover saves easier which means nothing since everything worth anything is either a deathstar or ignores cover anyway, MCs get to hit walkers once if they aim to do damage, can shoot 2 weapons but usually can only get one, MCs are usually as quick or slower than walkers and have worse stats than walkers.

MC's are typically faster than most walkers, there's only a single Walker that I'm aware of that can move 12" a turn, otherwise they're all just infantry, unlike MC's which can be Jump/Jet/Flying units. Likewise when it comes to stats, most Walkers have very poor stats. Most have stats of just 2-4's for WS/BS/Init and Attacks (usually 1-2, dreads now get 4), with only a couple of Dreads that have WS5/6, while there's lots of MC's with WS 5+, up to 10 in at least two instances, and Initiative values of 5+ and an Attacks stat of 3-6 rather than normally 1-2 for most walkers.

Broken bits of 40k

Codex's are not given any temp update with new rules editions which makes for huge disparity
Formations are available to some codexes and not others which makes the above even more of a problem, especialyl with free stuff being handed out to soem armies and not others.
The relative strength of units within codexes is massively out of wack
Strength of codexes against other codexes - the 7.5 codexes are a prime example of this
Over complicated and unneeded pyschic phase
Monstereous / Garg Creature versus vehicles - in particular that the former can not have degraded by loss of wounds whereas vehicles can be by damage table. They have less restrictions of moving ind firing - they are effected by posion but haywire is worse for vehicles.....and of course they get saves.......
Increasing "pay to win" format - eg buy a Anniversary marine and get a free upgrade to your "Marine only" army..buy a web only deal and get a special formation
no FAQs which means the rules are subject to abuse and lack of clarity.

Part of the new powers released with the codex supplement, today.

I see some way of getting a little more balance by streamlining with WHFB.
Psykic phase: you get 2d6 Warp charges. Opponent gets a number equal to the highest d6. No more 20+ dice for Eldar and Daemons. You can be able to cast on a 3+ o 2+, but your opponent can still deny any warp charge on a 4+.
Shooting: for weapons with a range longer than 24" if you shoot a target that is more than half the distance away you get -1BS. Exception - sniper weapons.
AP: removed. Strength modifies armour save. Str above 4 gives apenalty to armour.5:-1, 6:-2, 7:-3, 8:-4, 9:-5, 10: ignores armour completely. Power weapons modify by one better.
All fast vehicles can jink. Why can a Wave serpent jink, but a trukk can't?

Lanrak wrote:

Is 40k still WHFB in space?Or has the game moved on to different ethos 18 years later?

Actually 3rd ed was a 15mm WWII mass battle game that one of the writers (I wanna say Rick Priestly) had laying around and had to quickly hammer into something workable at the last minute when the accountants told the studio they had to make 3rd sell more models.

40 K has too many trap choices. It's not finely tuned at all. I could write something more fair in a week.

Rules Bloat

How can you expect to create a balanced game with such a massive rule set? Not to mention the fact that they change it every few years.

@jonolikespie,
It was Ricks , WWII battle game that was used as a template , to simplify 2nd ed WHFB based rules to allow more minatures on the table.

Unfortunately , the dev team were never allowed to address the errors that the '11th hour rush job' 3rd ed put into the core rules,

If the only combat is with humans and 1940s technology,the rules required are much less complex than those needed for the wide variety of creatures and technology found in 40k.

If the battle game uses smaller scale minatures eg 6 to 15mm then there is enough room on the table for tactical maneuver into weapons range.
This allows alternating game turns,(IGO/UGO,) to work well, as tactical maneuver is the main tactical element in this type of game turn.

Using alternating game turn in a 28mm battle game ,where most units are in shooting range in turn 1.Is poor game design and massively unbalancing.(Alpha strike.)
Adding lots of line of sight blocking terrain to a crowded playing area, limits the amount of maneuver , compounding the problem.

The lack of any tactical use for attacks beyond 'killing stuff'.Makes the game play of 40k very limited and too shallow to support the wide range of units GW want to sell. Lists with a combination of the most effective killer units, auto win against the units that are poor killer units.
Leading to the fracturing of what is left the player base.

Having a simple suppression mechanic, and the ability to fire smoke /blind LOS blocking rounds would give shooting much more tactical depth.
Leaving assault as the preferred method to clear enemy off an objective.

in short the core rules do not support the intended game play of the current 40k game,let alone allow enough granularity to support the wide range of creatures and tec found in the rich 40k background.

After 18 years of GW devs trying to fix the mistakes 3rd ed put in the core rules ,ONLY with a few add on rules and tweeks every edition.it is clear that the only way to address the flaws at the core of the rules is with a complete re-write.

@Lanrak : Indeed, 28mm is not a great format for anything other than skirmish games.
Especially at the point level that we're talking about, individual weapons in units matter a lot less than in a 20 to 30 model army (eg : Tac squad specials/heavy) rather than unit wide kit. So, a smaller scale would be interesting around a unit centric rather than model centric gameplay.

Most units being in range T1 is also an issue.

The fun bit though is that like you said it's an issue of scale. Most of the units in 40k have a use at a strategic level rather than a tactical level. Rhinos and transports for example are interesting to have units reposition between cities, while Drop Pods are good for breaching planterary defenses for a pitched battle location.

But that's macro strategy, rather than micro tactical engagements like we have in 40k.

There is a scale between Mass Battle and Skirmish and it is a up or down scaled version of one of the other 2.

It is possible to get this working but it is also limited and does not work if it gets to large or to small.

I still believe that a 40k size game can work if it is more limited on the upper size.
So having 2 Wraithknights is not the problem as long as there is nothing else in the army (looking at the tank list from Bolt Action)

Well, it really depends what number of models we consider "skirmish". I tend to define skirmish as an engagement at a tactical level rather than at a strategic level, so 100 models isn't out of the equation

The focus is more how much the individual model is considered and can affect the outcome. At a strategic level, the unit is the smallest level of thinking, but in a skirmish the model becomes the smallest level of strategizing.

The two big, overarching problems (that are pretty interconnected) are (imo):
-Games taking way too long.
-Bloated, innefficient rules.

More and more, I think GW should develop 2-3 different rulesets for their models. At a minimum, a skirmish-level platoon-scale game and a company battle game. On top of that, a squad-level game (think Inquisitor) and a large-scale battle game (Epic) wouldn't hurt.

The current 40k rules could likely serve as the starting point for the skimish and battle games if you just cut out the stuff that's not relevant to each game's scale (i.e. no challenges in the battle game, no vehicle/monstrous creature rules in the skirmish game).

I agree a lot of the problems with 40k rules are there is no actual focus on a specific end game play.
The GW sales department just push the rules in the direction they think will sell the latest product releases.

Compared to every other rule set I have played over the last 30 odd years, 40k is quite unique in not having CLEARLY DEFINED the size and scope of the game play.

I am sure a battle game 4th to 5th ed size could work quite well.IF the rules were written specifically for it.(Rather than a WHFB based rule set.)

I agree with Kodos , if the larger units from 6th and 7th were implemented better to fit with the game play of 40k, rather than the sales requirement of GW.
They could be used sparingly in normal sized games of 40k.
But a separate expansion for truley massive battle games like Apoc, would be a better option to field all the big toys at once.

And if 40k was played at 3 or 4 clearly defined scales with rules appropriate to each level, it would do a lot to address the clarity, and balance issues in the rules.

EG
Skirmish rules with detailed model interaction .(Inquisimundia up to 2nd ed size games.)

Battle game rules with detailed unit interaction .(4th ed size up to 7th ed size.)

I am not sure exactly where the rules move to the next size up in these basic groupings.As a lot depends on how the rules are re-written.

But a clear distinction between detailed model rules for skirmish games, and detailed unit rules for battle games, is required.
As the current kludge of micro and macro managing in the rules is awful, and leads to disjointed game play.(WTF moments,)

Deschenus Maximus wrote:
The two big, overarching problems (that are pretty interconnected) are (imo):
-Games taking way too long.
-Bloated, innefficient rules.

More and more, I think GW should develop 2-3 different rulesets for their models. At a minimum, a skirmish-level platoon-scale game and a company battle game. On top of that, a squad-level game (think Inquisitor) and a large-scale battle game (Epic) wouldn't hurt.

The current 40k rules could likely serve as the starting point for the skimish and battle games if you just cut out the stuff that's not relevant to each game's scale (i.e. no challenges in the battle game, no vehicle/monstrous creature rules in the skirmish game).

The fundamental game rules have not changed all that much since I started in 3rd edition, but the nature of the game has changed immensely. A typical game involves far more models and much larger models than when I started. Flyers, super-heavies, gargantuan creatures have all been jerry-rigged on. And we have more character and unit customization than ever, but also more units on the table than ever before. Which inevitably leads to plenty of rules disputes and lots of forgetful players who can't possibly remember what every unit has. Add to that the fact that there are so many core rules and so many randomized elements that slow down the game and punish players for trying to be creative.

The bizarre thing is that they've flipped the logical script, where larger Apoc games bring in more rules not less. The larger the battle, the more simplified and reliable the game system should be. Rolling overwatch, difficult terrain, etc. in large scale games can become an absolute chore.

For the core ruleset, I think there are a few really broken issues:
- Generic mission set that overwhelmingly favors specific army styles. Eternal War favoring shooty-shoot gunlines and Maelstrom favoring Eldar jetbikes in the extreme.
- Excess rules and randomness, change difficult terrain and running to a set move modifier, change overwatch to only apply to assault weapons and pistols. Somehow reduce the scatter on blast weapons.
- Too many exceptions to core rules, maintaining morale should be an important gameplay mechanic, but currently there are too many units that are exempt from morale. And the units that are susceptible suffer immensely from it. They lose 2d6" and then lose their next turn. I would make it so that units get pinned from taking 25% casualties from shooting, not force a morale check, and I would reduce the amount of fearless units by about 50%.
- Too much unit customization where it doesn't add to the game. I would cut out a lot of the customization in troops units and use something akin to the IG veteran's doctrine system. I.e. your troops can go vanilla or pick from 2-3 loadouts, rather than handing out specific gear items and special weapons and armor and grenades.

GreyCrow wrote:
Well, it really depends what number of models we consider "skirmish".

This is not tied to the model number but to the game mechanic
Every game which has specific per model mechanic's is a Skirmish. Warmachine will always be a Skirmish not matter if played with 5 or 100 models, while Flames of War will always be a Mass Battle game, even if there are only 6 Models on the table (MidWar Tiger list)

The focus is more how much the individual model is considered and can affect the outcome. At a strategic level, the unit is the smallest level of thinking, but in a skirmish the model becomes the smallest level of strategizing.

Exactly, but you can design a Skirmish and add some rules to make a game with 100 models be faster, while you can also take a mass battle game and add some more "per model" rules to get the same result.
The only difference is that the first one will be better for smaller games while the other one is better for bigger games.

40k is a skirmish but the rules added to make it work with units are not well doing and it does not work well in bigger games.
But it does not need to be changed to a mass battle game to be working but just adjust the skirmish part of the game to make it faster.

and of course it would be better to just make 2 different games for skirmish and mass battle.

Too many special rules. We have a bank of special rules, several of which are already too similar, and then every army has an additional 4-20 special rules. I get wanting to make each army feel different in how they play but we really should have like 30 special rules that everyone draws from and then each army has 3 special rules that apply to the entire army in the way a lot of formations do now. Skitarii maniple gives scout and crusader. Make that and dunstrider the 3 faction special rules and your done. Individual units can have special rules but only from the generic list so you end up getting a lot of similar playing units (i.e. Jump assault infantry would all generally have the same 3 generic special rules and would be different by their load out, stats, and faction special rules)

No rolling dice for assault range, that's just dumb. Flanking bonuses for assaults and getting people in a crossfire. Less psychic powers, you buy your powers rather than roll. No rolling for warlord trait. Everything can overwatch at snap fire if you didn't move during your turn, weapons that cant snap fire still shoot but at a -3bs to a minimum of 1. Terminators can sweeping advance. Ap doesn't outright negate armor but worsens the roll. Ap 1 becomes a -3 armor save (min 6+) and -2 invuln save. Ap 2 becomes -2 armor -1 invuln. Ap3 is -2 armor. Ap4 -1 armor save. And that's it.

No more glancing vehicles to death. Roll on damage table, make like a roll of 6 be removing a HP. All glancing hits from shooting unit only gets you one roll on table. 6 glancing hits from unit A are only going to get you one glancing table roll but if you cause glancing hits with unit B you will get a second table roll. A tommy gun won't blow up a panzer tank no matter how many bullets you shoot, except in ww2 movies.

Limit the number of saves every unit can have. Armor, invulnerable, FNP, cover, random special rules, etc. some guys have more protection than a main character has plot protection. Imo everyone gets two saving throws. Cover becomes an armor modifier (adding armor opposed to ap lessening armor), and then special wargear (invulnerable saves) have limited number of uses (your force shield can withstand 6 shots from a tank cannon with no battery drain? Really? Is it magic or technology) and you choose either to use this or your special rules saves (like FNP).

Many people have suggested a diffrent size levelled game but honestly, thinking back GW used to have that. In 4ed they had a special setup for 400p games and 160p games. these where called combat patrols and kill teams. They put heavy restrictions on your army and actually played incredibly well. I recall kill team especially as being great fun, but it lacked the depth of 40k and might have been more of a board game in how it played. I honestly think bringing this back would benefit 40k greatly. Have a 1500p game version with heavy restrictions and after that let loose on the rules.

Also a bunch of people have pointed out how we don't have any clear definition of the scope of 40k. In epic a few people claimed that one 40k game was a skirmish between two units in epic. I don't think that quite holds up today but I like the idea. IMO 40k should be what you want it to be and therefore it needs rules that lays on various levels of restriction. It can be a mass battle game, a skirmish game, a patrol game or just a squad based game but it needs guidlines for it.

As far as the CORE ruleset goes the basic move 6, shot 24/12, ld at 25% losses and assult 2d6 isn't bad but it feels like it's ment for a smaller scale then 40k is today. I get the feeling 40k needs to scale up it's rules in harmony with how models have scaled in litteral size. the thre rolls in shooting (to hit, to wound, save throw) while engaging just takes to long and there's to little interaction between the players. Veichles work but are very fragile. Also, whilst not really part of the topic and not exactly broken, it needs to be said that in 40k the superhuman warrior monk who sleeps 4 hours a night and spends 18 hours a day practicing combat, uses a rapid fire rocket propelled grenade gun and is trained to withstand any psychological preassure is pretty much worthless. I get the feeling this should be adressed, no matter what your opinion is on fluff based rules.

@Nerak.
Going back even further, GW plc used to produce a detailed RPG skirmish, Inquisitor.
And detailed skirmish games like Necromundia.
And a large skirmish games like 2nd ed 40k.
(Where the game play was supposed to represent the last few hundred yards of a fight for an objective, the close fire fight and the assault.With a few infantry units supported by one or two vehicles.)

And all the large battles were played using Epic rules and minatures of a more appropriate scale to fit on a table top.(6mm)

However, as the GW corporate management failed to understand any thing about game design and development, and how important it is to gamers.
They thought if they just canned all the other games and made 40k for large battles , then everyone would just buy more expensive 28mm minatures.

Combat Patrol/ 40k in 40mins and Kill Team, were added to the rules by the game devs to try to appeal to people who preferred smaller game sizes.

But these were canned by the GW sales department, as they saw them as stopping people collecting masses of minatures for 40k.

All it did was lose sales from those players who preferred smaller games, as they just left 40k behind to play other games.

IMO the reason the rules for 40k are so bloated , is that fact that the core rules are not suitable for the intended game play.
And so rely on lots of layers of exceptions (additional rules, and special rules, and USRs, and codex specific special rules,) that take ages to learn and use.

However, you have raised a very important point.
The Space Marines were much closer to the background in RT and 2nd ed.They were good but very expensive in terms of PV.(250 pts for a tac squad without any special or heavy weapons!)
This was when an IG trooper was costed as 5 pts without equipment .

But because GW made the SM the poster boys of 40k, nearly everyone wanted to play them.So this caused GW to want to drop the PV to improve sales volumes on SM.

Now as SM were supposed to be jack of all trades, master of none.They were the most popular army, and so every other race had to have counters to them.Some units in other armies could out shoot them, others could out do them in close combat, others could beat them with sheer weight of numbers.

And as SM were played by about half the 40k players, the rise of anti MEQ lists increased.
So GW gave SMs all the special rules that were supposed to be faction specific, and an endless rounds of power creep ensued.

So rather than the bog standard human being the reference point for 40k costing.It became the 7ft tall super human with the best equipment in the Imperium of Man.
Thanks to the short sighted money grabbing ploys of the GW sales department.

And then we wonder why balance went out the window at GW towers....