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.

Firstly I'd be all for this and love to be a part of it. I've already made my own attempt at it using the Warmachine rules (which worked well) but I'm happy to do another version if it gives me a 40K I can easily play.

Secondly I think that the whole thing needs to go and be redone from the ground up, and some things should probably be excluded.

Mike712 wrote:
Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game, I've thought friends how to play using a few 100 points on my dining table, the many special rules just add an abundance of variety in my opinion plus a potential for a lot more if all units were actually viable some just need to be toned down, altered or even re-worded to be less ambiguous for the sake of balance.

I'm not talking about the over-abundance of special rules, I'm talking about core mechanics. For example, wound allocation is a hopeless mess. You need to keep track of where each model in the unit is, exactly how far away from each model in the shooting unit it is, whether a tiny fingertip is poking out from behind cover or not, etc. And most of the time the difference between the current system and just rolling all your saves and removing models of your choice is not very significant. A better game attempting to operate at 40k's scale would use the simpler method to keep things moving faster, even if it means sacrificing a bit of realism (not that 40k's system is at all realistic, of course).

Or consider even the basic stat line. Why does WS exist at all as a separate stat? All it does is decide whether you hit/get hit on a 3+ or a 4+, and the answer is almost always the same as just comparing initiative values. The answer is that 40k is just a re-skinned 1980s fantasy game where the outcome was usually decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table and shooting was limited at best. Keeping WS in the game is just pointless extra complexity, and that's one of the smallest problems with the assault phase.

Also, I really doubt you're teaching anyone the game in 20 minutes. A very simplified version of move-shoot-assault with basic infantry squads and a goal of "be able to roll the dice" that doesn't necessarily involve understanding very well, maybe. But that's not even close to the full game.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
The 40k rule-set has potential in it

Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
What makes it less?

Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.

Honestly? You don't go promoting any fix 40K thread.

You're pretty vocal about opinion of 40K, and I'm largely in the same camp, but if your reaction to someone saying "well, ok, let's fix it" is to be equally negative, then one could, perhaps quite reasonably, accuse you of just being negative, and perhaps enjoying moaning more than sorting anything out.

Perhaps this is an attempt that succeeds, perhaps it isn't, but if everyone shares your attitude, failure is a nailed on, cast iron guarantee.

Plus the OP has expressed a desire to undertake a large percentage of the work, but it makes sense to use a resource like a massive online wargaming community and all its experience in this sort of project (as long as it doesn't go all Gates Of Antares)

That has been my experience.

Dakka user X: I like 40k, I enjoy the experience playing. The rules aren't great but I get by.
Peregrine: how can you enjoy it, you yourself say the rules aren't great. Since when has getting by been the standard for fun? The game is completely unbalanced etc etc etc
Dakka user Y: let's get together and figure out how to make 40k a fun and balanced system. I am even willing to do the lions share of the work.
Peregrine: can't be done. Who are you to do this anyway, what makes this something I should support? Nothing.

On topic, while I do enjoy 40k if a system for using my cool models existed that was more balanced and still enjoyable I would use them in a second. If I had more time I would help you develop this, if it works out that you are making head way I will gladly help promote it anyway that I can. Best of luck.

 Kojiro wrote:
Firstly I'd be all for this and love to be a part of it. I've already made my own attempt at it using the Warmachine rules (which worked well) but I'm happy to do another version if it gives me a 40K I can easily play.

Secondly I think that the whole thing needs to go and be redone from the ground up, and some things should probably be excluded.

Splendid, at this stage any and all support I can get is very welcomed!

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game, I've thought friends how to play using a few 100 points on my dining table, the many special rules just add an abundance of variety in my opinion plus a potential for a lot more if all units were actually viable some just need to be toned down, altered or even re-worded to be less ambiguous for the sake of balance.

I'm not talking about the over-abundance of special rules, I'm talking about core mechanics. For example, wound allocation is a hopeless mess. You need to keep track of where each model in the unit is, exactly how far away from each model in the shooting unit it is, whether a tiny fingertip is poking out from behind cover or not, etc. And most of the time the difference between the current system and just rolling all your saves and removing models of your choice is not very significant. A better game attempting to operate at 40k's scale would use the simpler method to keep things moving faster, even if it means sacrificing a bit of realism (not that 40k's system is at all realistic, of course).

Or consider even the basic stat line. Why does WS exist at all as a separate stat? All it does is decide whether you hit/get hit on a 3+ or a 4+, and the answer is almost always the same as just comparing initiative values. The answer is that 40k is just a re-skinned 1980s fantasy game where the outcome was usually decided by a giant melee in the middle of the table and shooting was limited at best. Keeping WS in the game is just pointless extra complexity, and that's one of the smallest problems with the assault phase.

Also, I really doubt you're teaching anyone the game in 20 minutes. A very simplified version of move-shoot-assault with basic infantry squads and a goal of "be able to roll the dice" that doesn't necessarily involve understanding very well, maybe. But that's not even close to the full game.

I definitely agree with you about wound allocation being a mess, that's for certain. I'm sure you have many ideas on how to address these issues, if there's enough interest for this idea over the next few days I'll create a forum for the project where each core mechanic can be discussed individually in detail starting with the basics, maybe start on turn sequence and movement, I'd really appreciate your input if you're up for it.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Dakka user Y: let's get together and figure out how to make 40k a fun and balanced system. I am even willing to do the lions share of the work.
Peregrine: can't be done. Who are you to do this anyway, what makes this something I should support? Nothing.

You know why I say that? Because there's never a good plan for moving "lets get together and fix this" beyond making a few forum posts and then giving up. If someone presents a solid plan for writing a new game in the 40k universe and getting anyone to ever play it then I will happily participate in the project. But so far the OP looks like just another "lets fix this" thread that will be forgotten by the end of the week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike712 wrote:
I definitely agree with you about wound allocation being a mess, that's for certain. I'm sure you have many ideas on how to address these issues, if there's enough interest for this idea over the next few days I'll create a forum for the project where each core mechanic can be discussed individually in detail starting with the basics, maybe start on turn sequence and movement, I'd really appreciate your input if you're up for it.

You're already several steps too far ahead in the design process. Before you can even start to think about mechanics you need to decide what exactly the goal of the game is. Is it to make a skirmish-scale game with a focus on heroic characters? Is it to make a company-scale game with epic battles and tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it to make a competitive tournament game? Etc. Without doing the basics you can't even begin to answer questions about, say, what a good movement mechanic is, because what a good movement mechanic is depends on what the goal of the game is.

For example:
Skirmish game: lots of detail. Varying speeds for different units/characters, special effects for different terrain type, detailed rules for climbing in ruins/smashing through a locked door/etc.
Company-scale: lots of abstraction. All units of a class move X" measured in a straight line. Terrain is simplified to a small number of types. Units are assumed to be able to find a ladder/kick the door down/etc.
Tournament: lots of precision. Measuring freely on a table leaves too much opportunity for cheating, so use a grid system instead.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:


On topic, while I do enjoy 40k if a system for using my cool models existed that was more balanced and still enjoyable I would use them in a second. If I had more time I would help you develop this, if it works out that you are making head way I will gladly help promote it anyway that I can. Best of luck.

Thanks, it's very encouraging seeing others that would also like to see change for the better, any input no matter how small will be greatly appreciated, even if it's just ideas and suggestions that can be discussed during the committee stage.

To the OP: before committing time and resources, I would think very hard about exactly what the game needs to be balanced. IMO either you scrap the entire ruleset to it's core and build up a ruleset that is capable of representing 40k from a fluff perspective, and probably other sci-fi settings (that might mean that existing forces based on the stucture of GW codices may be irrelevant). Such rulesets already exist and may be able to be tweaked slightly to be playable or more accurate for the 40k universe.

Or, are we talking about some points changes, the addition of a few rules changes here and there? In that case I think some unit comp is a better choice. The game of 40k is random enough as it is that merely limiting some particularly deadly combos and spam would have the desired effect. In friendly games this is done automatically by peer pressure. Some books might still be better than others yes, but the game is random and unbalanced to it's core. The whole thing is meant to be played casually so that's how you should play it.

 Peregrine wrote:
You know why I say that? Because there's never a good plan for moving "lets get together and fix this" beyond making a few forum posts and then giving up. If someone presents a solid plan for writing a new game in the 40k universe and getting anyone to ever play it then I will happily participate in the project. But so far the OP looks like just another "lets fix this" thread that will be forgotten by the end of the week.

In fairness, my 40K conversion to the PP ruleset is playable with over 100 units, and locally we've done just that. Granted that doesn't address getting players elsewhere to pick it up but I for one have the energy and devotion to do it. Files available in my sig if you doubt.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're already several steps too far ahead in the design process. Before you can even start to think about mechanics you need to decide what exactly the goal of the game is. Is it to make a skirmish-scale game with a focus on heroic characters? Is it to make a company-scale game with epic battles and tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it to make a competitive tournament game? Etc. Without doing the basics you can't even begin to answer questions about, say, what a good movement mechanic is, because what a good movement mechanic is depends on what the goal of the game is.

This bit however I must wholly agree with. 40K used to be a skirmish sized game and has moved to near Epic. All of this needs to be looked at and decided before anything gets done. That doesn't mean it can't be done though.

And by the way, one of the biggest reasons why 40k's rules are garbage is that GW refuses to answer those questions. They don't have a clear picture of what kind of game they want 40k to be so they just bolt on more rules every time they think of a cool idea. So in the same edition they add rules where whether a sergeant is armed with an axe or a sword is very important and the sergeant will fight epic duels against enemy sergeants, but also add rules where that sergeant can be sniped out of the squad on turn 1 by a heavy artillery tank (which just happens to be much more accurate than an actual sniper rifle).

 Meade wrote:
To the OP: before committing time and resources, I would think very hard about exactly what the game needs to be balanced. IMO either you scrap the entire ruleset to it's core and build up a ruleset that is capable of representing 40k from a fluff perspective, and probably other sci-fi settings (that might mean that existing forces based on the stucture of GW codices may be irrelevant). Such rulesets already exist and may be able to be tweaked slightly to be playable or more accurate for the 40k universe.

Or, are we talking about some points changes, the addition of a few rules changes here and there? In that case I think some unit comp is a better choice. The game of 40k is random enough as it is that merely limiting some particularly deadly combos and spam would have the desired effect. In friendly games this is done automatically by peer pressure. Some books might still be better than others yes, but the game is random and unbalanced to it's core. The whole thing is meant to be played casually so that's how you should play it.

I personally and also others who have posted here believe that some or much of the core game needs a bit of shaking up, it will have to be a somewhat new rule set to avoid stepping on GWs copy-write anyway, though using some of the better more playable elements from current or past editions of the game so it still feels like 40k.

The army changes themselves would be minor rules and points tweaks to bring not only balance between all the codexes, but internal balance too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


You're already several steps too far ahead in the design process. Before you can even start to think about mechanics you need to decide what exactly the goal of the game is. Is it to make a skirmish-scale game with a focus on heroic characters? Is it to make a company-scale game with epic battles and tanks/aircraft/etc? Is it to make a competitive tournament game? Etc. Without doing the basics you can't even begin to answer questions about, say, what a good movement mechanic is, because what a good movement mechanic is depends on what the goal of the game is.

For example:
Skirmish game: lots of detail. Varying speeds for different units/characters, special effects for different terrain type, detailed rules for climbing in ruins/smashing through a locked door/etc.
Company-scale: lots of abstraction. All units of a class move X" measured in a straight line. Terrain is simplified to a small number of types. Units are assumed to be able to find a ladder/kick the door down/etc.
Tournament: lots of precision. Measuring freely on a table leaves too much opportunity for cheating, so use a grid system instead.

It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.

It's warhammer 40k, but balanced and no longer a victim of codex creep.

Mike712 wrote:
It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.

Even this though is contentious. As I said, 40k started out as a skirmish game and I for one would like to see it go back that way. There's a ton of stuff I think has no place in the game (notably super heavies and fliers) and would be better suited to Epic but is currently part of 40k. I think if a overhaul is on the table it should address everything- including the scale, not just poor wording or contradictions.

Mike, you'll need to define for yourself what a "poor rule or mechanic" is, as well as what a "worthless or broken unit" looks like.

If you intend to stick with this long term, you do need to have a clear goal in mind, and then set goals for each step of the process, starting from the largest picture possible and going down from there. Part of that has to be you deciding what exactly you want to do. Are you looking for a total rewrite? Or are you looking to just tweak units or abilities or some other small aspect of the game?

You then have to realize that there has to be a decision maker, and some of those helping will get butthurt when their suggestions aren't taken. You simply won't get a group of guys(hell, 5 guys would be hard to do) to actually agree on all the intracacies of a new ruleset. It's also going to be a HUGE load of work to do.

If you manage to pull it off, you'll have something pretty sweet in front of you. But it will take years.

Mike712 wrote:
It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.

The problem is that 40k is several different games blobbed into a single rulebook. You have skirmish-scale rules for fighting heroic duels between characters in the same game as epic-scale tanks and aircraft, with design decisions pulling in opposite directions. You have tons of statements about "forging the narrative" alongside tables of random warlord traits/terrain/etc that replace character/story choices by the player with random luck. And the whole rulebook is full of stuff like that. You can't start getting rid of "poor rules and mechanics" until you define which 40k you want to work with because which rules need to go is going to depend heavily on that choice.

And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
It's still 40k, but a version brought in line with the general consensus of the community on what needs to be changed, all the poor rules and mechanics gone and all the worthless/broken units and combos made useful/toned down.

The problem is that 40k is several different games blobbed into a single rulebook. You have skirmish-scale rules for fighting heroic duels between characters in the same game as epic-scale tanks and aircraft, with design decisions pulling in opposite directions. You have tons of statements about "forging the narrative" alongside tables of random warlord traits/terrain/etc that replace character/story choices by the player with random luck. And the whole rulebook is full of stuff like that. You can't start getting rid of "poor rules and mechanics" until you define which 40k you want to work with because which rules need to go is going to depend heavily on that choice.

And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.

- I feel the scale should remain somewhere around where it is now, where games generally work best with around 1-2k points of models on the board, of course the model counts would be ever so slightly different with rebalanced codexes.

- I honestly don't know what I'd personally do about fliers, tanks should remain more or less where they are though I guess you could move all vehicles over to toughness + save for the sake of simplicity what's the point in having 2 systems.

- Duels(challenges) should to go in my opinion, they don't bring anything to the game I feel, I'm not sure how others feel about this.

- You're right IGOUGO needs to be changed to something else, being alpha'd off the board without any chance to retaliate is bad however you look at it.

- I'm not keen on fortifications, they need looking into, at least balancing like some tournaments already do.

- I'm personally not keen on the randomness of powers and traits, I think simply reduce the number of them, balance them all in power/usefulness depending on the army build and let you choose them.

- Cover saves are a poor mechanic, a to hit modifier would be better, how to scale this correctly would take play testing.

- Wound allocation needs fixing as you already said.

- Assault armies need some way of actually assaulting.

Mike712 wrote:
- You're right IGOUGO needs to be changed to something else, being alpha'd off the board without any chance to retaliate is bad however you look at it.

And this right here negates everything else on your list. You can't even begin to talk about rebalancing fortifications because fortifications in a new 40k-universe game with a different turn structure are going to be so different from the current ones balance-wise that you might as well be talking about how many points Vendettas should cost in MTG.

So, like I said, you're way ahead of where you should be. Stop looking at individual rules you want to fix and start working on defining your idea how how this new game should play. What do you want to experience in an average game?

 troa wrote:
Mike, you'll need to define for yourself what a "poor rule or mechanic" is, as well as what a "worthless or broken unit" looks like.

If you intend to stick with this long term, you do need to have a clear goal in mind, and then set goals for each step of the process, starting from the largest picture possible and going down from there. Part of that has to be you deciding what exactly you want to do. Are you looking for a total rewrite? Or are you looking to just tweak units or abilities or some other small aspect of the game?

You then have to realize that there has to be a decision maker, and some of those helping will get butthurt when their suggestions aren't taken. You simply won't get a group of guys(hell, 5 guys would be hard to do) to actually agree on all the intracacies of a new ruleset. It's also going to be a HUGE load of work to do.

If you manage to pull it off, you'll have something pretty sweet in front of you. But it will take years.

If i didn't get the writing support I needed I'd probably do most of the writing myself and simply change the worst rules based on advice from the community and release it as a supplement to the BRB, at the same time as releasing balanced in both points and rules codex updates, if I get plenty of support and assistance I'm sure the scope of the project could be far greater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
- You're right IGOUGO needs to be changed to something else, being alpha'd off the board without any chance to retaliate is bad however you look at it.

And this right here negates everything else on your list. You can't even begin to talk about rebalancing fortifications because fortifications in a new 40k-universe game with a different turn structure are going to be so different from the current ones balance-wise that you might as well be talking about how many points Vendettas should cost in MTG.

So, like I said, you're way ahead of where you should be. Stop looking at individual rules you want to fix and start working on defining your idea how how this new game should play. What do you want to experience in an average game?

I don't see how changing to say a system of alternating players move shoot assault a single unit till all units have moved shot assaulted changes anything but devastating alpha strikes with no chance to retaliate. Or add a new stat, turn sequence with a range 1-5, models with 1 go first 5 go last, or even alternate between players fast attack/HQ, elites/HQ, troops/HQ, heavy in more or less that order.

Mike712 wrote:
I don't see how changing to say a system of alternating players move shoot assault a single unit till all units have moved shot assaulted changes anything but devastating alpha strikes with no chance to retaliate. Or add a new stat, turn sequence with a range 1-5, models with 1 go first 5 go last, or even alternate between players fast attack/HQ, elites/HQ, troops/HQ, heavy in more or less that order.

How many games have you played with this new system?

I think what Peregrine is saying is the turn sequence is the underlying OS of the game, so to speak. Once you decide you're changing that EVERYTHING needs an overhaul in line with it.

I think the first thing to start with though is scale. Work out what you want to see on the table and remember there is already a perfectly good Epic system out there. Once you have that a turn order and then rules for individual actions within that order. Then, once you have a system that supports vanilla troops mauling each other you can actually look at building special rules in to account for fluff.

Edit: finished the post.

Instead of Overhauling the whole 6th edition, why not replace the problematic rules, with the rules that worked from previous edition's? (as far as it is possible).

I personally would like to see the CC return from the 2nd edition (and overwatch,although highly unlikely)

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Instead of Overhauling the whole 6th edition, why not replace the problematic rules, with the rules that worked from previous edition's? (as far as it is possible)

Because many of the problems are with the fundamental mechanics (for example, the turn structure), so you need a complete re-write from the beginning. And the old rules aren't necessarily compatible with the newer ones, so you're probably introducing more problems than you solve.

For example, flyers: before 6th they had a permanent 4+ cover save and AA weapons were extremely rare (not even all flyer weapons were AA, a Thunderbolt had two AA TL autocannons but the lascannons were not AA), but pretty much every flyer was AV 10 and "immobilized" results counted as "destroyed". And depending on whether you're talking about 4th or 5th their movement rules were completely different, either you made strafing runs during your opponent's turn and flew off the table immediately (4th), or moved anywhere on the table more than 36" away pointing in any direction (5th). You can't just change the current flyer rules to the old ones without completely re-balancing the current flyer and AA unit rules. Just to give an obvious example, Tau AA effectively deletes flyers from the game if you make all of them AV 10 again.

In order to break 40k down into a manageable ruleset you'd have to figure out what scale you want to play it on. Platoon, Company, Battalion, Regiment, Army, etc... that all matters.

I'd almost like to see a ruleset that is dependent on game point values; something like 0-500 uses rules X, 501-1000 uses rules Y, so that you could keep the lower point games with more involved rules but the higher point games wouldn't suffer. Of course, that's a stupid amount of work for something that people would probably just find annoying.

 Peregrine wrote:

And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.

Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?

xruslanx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And again, some of the worst problems with 40k are the core mechanics. If you make superficial changes without addressing stuff like the awful IGOUGO turn structure you still have a bad game, except now it's a bad game that doesn't have the one redeeming quality of 40k: the fact that everyone plays it and you can just show up to game night and find an opponent.

Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?

In cases where a person cannot 'defend' themselves in an IGOUGO format means that hot dice, 'better tactics', and unbalanced armies can lead to games ending long before their natural conclusion (i.e. turns 5-6). If you and I spend 25 minutes setting up a board, rolling for Warlord Traits and psychic powers, and deploying our armies just to watch me get crippled in turn 1 without a chance to defend myself, what makes that fun?

If you look at other games that run on a similar scale to 40k, the IGOUGO format may still be in use, but there are ways around it. Most of the issues with an IGOUGO system are limited in skirmish level games due to weapon ranges. In 40k we have weapons that can reach the other side of the board without issue, so you're able to negate the distance setup by deployment zones, force your opponent to spend his turns jumping from cover to cover because to hide out in the open is suicide. So in games like Warmachine the shorter weapon ranges coupled with the 10inch deployment zones mean that the first turn should be used to maneuver and get into place, making it less decisive than if you were to just blast your opponent on the first turn. Malifaux, Brushfire, EFT, and games like Bolt Action and X-Wing to an extent are alternating activations where you might be able to get your big bad OP unit to go, but it's going to be my chance to retaliate before you can use your next big bad OP unit. This gives the players a better chance at staying in the game longer as well as mitigating the damage done by hot dice rolls.

Flames of War also uses an IGOUGO system, but I feel as though it works better than in 40k, though the last game I played was a few weeks ago and I lost half my Shermans on turn 1.

40k's turn system wouldn't be as much of an issue if there were mitigating circumstances that prevented hot dice and overpowered units from decimating an opponent before they got the chance to do anything. The leafblower list from 5th edition basically exploited IGOUGO by using the entirety of their large guns/tanks to cripple choice pieces of your army before you could go/get near them.

Mike712 wrote:
Yes, that's a fair point, but those games aren't 40k, there's just something about the 40k models and fluff that seem more appealing to many

You can use another game system without having to change anything about the minis and the fluff.

Writing 40k lists for Infinity or Eden would be way easier than trying to fix 40k. The same thing has already been done with WHFB and KOW, the alternative army listes are widely accepted in casual games and just work great.

Mike712 wrote:
Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game

My introductory games never include things like flyers, skimmers, psykers, jump infantry, or anything eldar/necron/tau/tyranid/daemon. Same thing with WHFB : special lists for special games.

When I play introductory games like HOTT or KOW, I can bring regular lists and use all the rules : magic, artillery and so on.

Because these systems are streamlined and well-thought, and not just three tons of special rules added on top of a loose sci-fi adaptation of a fantasy game.

 Kojiro wrote:
I think what Peregrine is saying is the turn sequence is the underlying OS of the game, so to speak. Once you decide you're changing that EVERYTHING needs an overhaul in line with it.

I think the first thing to start with though is scale. Work out what you want to see on the table and remember there is already a perfectly good Epic system out there. Once you have that a turn order and then rules for individual actions within that order. Then, once you have a system that supports vanilla troops mauling each other you can actually look at building special rules in to account for fluff.

Edit: finished the post.

 Frankenberry wrote:
In order to break 40k down into a manageable ruleset you'd have to figure out what scale you want to play it on. Platoon, Company, Battalion, Regiment, Army, etc... that all matters.

I'd almost like to see a ruleset that is dependent on game point values; something like 0-500 uses rules X, 501-1000 uses rules Y, so that you could keep the lower point games with more involved rules but the higher point games wouldn't suffer. Of course, that's a stupid amount of work for something that people would probably just find annoying.

I'm fairly set on the idea of balancing 40k at a scale very close to what it is now so people can keep their armies more or less as they are, the less changes that are needed in that regard the more who are likely to give the balanced rule-set a try.

xruslanx wrote:
Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?

When it is army wide and leads to huge alpha strike potential leaving the opponent with nothing to shoot back, yes i'd say yes IGOUGO is objectively bad and needs a shake up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Instead of Overhauling the whole 6th edition, why not replace the problematic rules, with the rules that worked from previous edition's? (as far as it is possible)

Because many of the problems are with the fundamental mechanics (for example, the turn structure), so you need a complete re-write from the beginning. And the old rules aren't necessarily compatible with the newer ones, so you're probably introducing more problems than you solve.

For example, flyers: before 6th they had a permanent 4+ cover save and AA weapons were extremely rare (not even all flyer weapons were AA, a Thunderbolt had two AA TL autocannons but the lascannons were not AA), but pretty much every flyer was AV 10 and "immobilized" results counted as "destroyed". And depending on whether you're talking about 4th or 5th their movement rules were completely different, either you made strafing runs during your opponent's turn and flew off the table immediately (4th), or moved anywhere on the table more than 36" away pointing in any direction (5th). You can't just change the current flyer rules to the old ones without completely re-balancing the current flyer and AA unit rules. Just to give an obvious example, Tau AA effectively deletes flyers from the game if you make all of them AV 10 again.

Can you explain to me how you think a turn sequence of player A does fast attack, played B does fast attack, player A does elites, player B does elites, player A does troops, player b does troops, player A does heavy support, player B does heavy support or something similar using a turn sequence stat. introduces new problems to the game or vastly changes other mechanics? There are people that play now with IGOUGO but one unit at a time apparently it works fine. I can not only see this dealing with the issue of alpha strike, where someone's army is pretty much rendered ineffective in a single turn with no chance to react in any way apart from rolling saves and striking back in combat, but it also adds another layer of tactical complexity, having to balance the threat of a model/unit that hasn't yet fired which the threat/power levels of the models left on the board when it comes to prioritising targets. You could also structure how you play your turn with your army list, want to have more units go first take more fast attack or units with low turn sequence stat, want an army that can react more to your opponents actions, take more units from heavy or with a higher turn sequence stat or run a balanced list that can do both.

Your time would be infinity better spent simply making a new rule system compatible with multiple miniature lines on the market right now and focusing primarily on balance and competitive play.

Then you don't have to convince others to play your version of 40k or deal with people who disagree with your ideas of "how the game should be played".

If you have your own system, then it YOUR system and you can determine what is needed. And then if it grows, and people adopt it, it is not because they want balancehammer, but because your system is fundamentally good. Then your hard work can actually have value as it is not dependent on GW codex updates and other things, it stands on its own.

nkelsch wrote:
Your time would be infinity better spent simply making a new rule system compatible with multiple miniature lines on the market right now and focusing primarily on balance and competitive play.

Then you don't have to convince others to play your version of 40k or deal with people who disagree with your ideas of "how the game should be played".

If you have your own system, then it YOUR system and you can determine what is needed. And then if it grows, and people adopt it, it is not because they want balancehammer, but because your system is fundamentally good. Then your hard work can actually have value as it is not dependent on GW codex updates and other things, it stands on its own.

I value you input, however what you have described is not a a project I'm would want to invest my time and effort into, currently I'm looking for people willing to support and who are interested in the goal of creating a balanced version of 40k. Due to the amount of effort involved with such a project it needs to be something I'm passionate about, as it's likely that the management of this project will become my primary hobby taking up much of my free time for the foreseeable future. This would not be the first time that I have dedicated a vast amount of time to something I am passionate about, my extensive work on a community fan site over the period of 2 years starting in mid 2009 centred around the spaceship MMO eve online popularised the use of certain ship classes in PvP that were previously deemed unfit for purpose, at last count around a year ago the builds I had created in that time had received well over a million views. I was also senior moderator for that site so have experience of co-ordinating and managing a small team of other dedicated fans towards a common goal. I feel that if I'm able to shake up the meta in an MMO I'm able to do similar things for a table top board game too.

While I am not interested in the project, please do not take the following as a snipe on the attempt, the contrary.

You do not need a committee of 20-30 veteran players, designed by committee and all that.

You need one lead game designer and maybe 2-4 game designers under him to speed up the work between the various armies and ease the workload.

What you need in quantities is playtesters and proofreaders.

Sticking to the "original" 40k game system (meaning 6th ed iirc) is problematic because it has many gameplays thrown together from abstracted shooting to personal dueling between heroes without emphasizing much on any of its aspects.

Personally I would advise laying out the gameplay you want to achieve and then the game designer can start working on the 40k game system streamlining it towards the gameplay it is designed for, then balance on each army can be done, but you will find that again a complete rewrite of the army keeping in spirit to what the army is supposed to be instead of what GW has in any codex will work better.

xruslanx wrote:
Are you saying that IGOUGO is objectively bad?

Oh good, I can already see where this is going. You're going to complain about how there's no such thing as "objective" in this context, and compare playing non-IGOUGO games to having sex with your dog.

And to answer the relevant question, yes, IGOUGO is bad. If you replaced saves with rolling to defeat saves (mathematically equal) you could have one player walk away and get lunch while their opponent takes their turn and not miss anything. Having to spend long periods of time watching someone else play the game instead of playing just isn't fun. And that's not even considering the balance issues with alpha strike armies, or the absurdity of trying to explain the fluff of what is going on when a unit charges across half the table and slaughters your troops in melee while they stand around waiting for permission to shoot back.

Mike712 wrote:
Can you explain to me how you think a turn sequence of player A does fast attack, played B does fast attack, player A does elites, player B does elites, player A does troops, player b does troops, player A does heavy support, player B does heavy support or something similar using a turn sequence stat. introduces new problems to the game or vastly changes other mechanics?

Again, how many games have you played like this? You can't talk about how it will or will not change anything until you've tried it. Come back and tell me it doesn't have a major balance effect once you've played a hundred games or so (with the same armies each time).

I can not only see this dealing with the issue of alpha strike, where someone's army is pretty much rendered ineffective in a single turn with no chance to react in any way apart from rolling saves and striking back in combat, but it also adds another layer of tactical complexity, having to balance the threat of a model/unit that hasn't yet fired which the threat/power levels of the models left on the board when it comes to prioritising targets.

So, let me get this straight: you're saying here that removing IGOUGO will have significant effects on the power level of alpha strike armies and completely change target priority decisions, but you can't see how it will have any impact on the rest of the game? You just mentioned two big changes in that same paragraph!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike712 wrote:
I value you input, however what you have described is not a a project I'm would want to invest my time and effort into, currently I'm looking for people willing to support and who are interested in the goal of creating a balanced version of 40k.

The point we're trying to tell you is that creating a balanced version of 40k is going to mean creating an entire new game using the 40k fluff/models. The question now is whether you want to create an entirely new game from a clean start with the freedom to do whatever you need to do to make it work, or an entirely new game that's stuck with a bunch of extra baggage because you need to be able to point to enough rules from 40k to legitimately call it a "rebalancing" instead of a new game.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that you can fix 40k by making a few rule changes and re-balancing the point costs, and that just isn't going to happen.

This would not be the first time that I have dedicated a vast amount of time to something I am passionate about, my extensive work on a community fan site over the period of 2 years starting in mid 2009 centred around the spaceship MMO eve online popularised the use of certain ship classes in PvP that were previously deemed unfit for purpose

Off topic, but which site was that? RvB?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
While I am not interested in the project, please do not take the following as a snipe on the attempt, the contrary.

You do not need a committee of 20-30 veteran players, designed by committee and all that.

You need one lead game designer and maybe 2-4 game designers under him to speed up the work between the various armies and ease the workload.

What you need in quantities is playtesters and proofreaders.

Sticking to the "original" 40k game system (meaning 6th ed iirc) is problematic because it has many gameplays thrown together from abstracted shooting to personal dueling between heroes without emphasizing much on any of its aspects.

Personally I would advise laying out the gameplay you want to achieve and then the game designer can start working on the 40k game system streamlining it towards the gameplay it is designed for, then balance on each army can be done, but you will find that again a complete rewrite of the army keeping in spirit to what the army is supposed to be instead of what GW has in any codex will work better.

The idea behind the committee is to ensure that the game and it's rule-set appeal to to as much of the player-base as possible, with 20+ you are likely to get a broader representation of opinion and this I feel is critical to ending up with a game that the majority will enjoy most aspects of.The committee would also be responsible for sourcing the most popular ideas from the community, community input through discussion and poll ensures that most are happy with the rules too. This is crowd sourcing, but applied to a rule-set rather than a more typical product or service.

You are correct, play testing will be critical, this again will be a community effort, once the alpha rules are decided on and published, gamers can try them in their own games and give feedback to the project team.

These conflicting gameplays are indeed something that will be addressed with the core focus being on unit based combat and positioning as has been the case since 2nd and 3rd edition when I started playing, much of the unnecessary features of the current game streamlined or ditched completely, for example challenges as you and others have already mentioned.