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.

hi all.
i was hoping some of you could help with a suggestion on a new game.
im tired of the mess that is the 40k rules.

can anyone point out a game with a setting where the GW range of models would fit in and has a better rules system?
id really like to see something with random unit actions, kind of similiar to bolt action where you draw chits to see who activates.

i thought about infinity as it seems really interactive, both players seem to be doing something at all times. the models are kind of a turn off for me though, i dont care for the action poses that they seem to love making.

id also like to play large model count games like in 40k.

any thoughts?

I've never played it, but Warpath from Mantic has free rules, larger squads+vehicles, and is much less complicated than 40k (it looks very much like something meant to compete with 40k).

You could try adapting Saga for play with 40k minis. I've heard of people adapting it a bit for modern warfare so 40k should be pretty easy. It has semi random stuff in that you have an orders board and you have to roll dice to activate units (but those dice also control your abilities, so that you have to decide the best way to synergise unit actions and special abilities for them). It would require making some custom battleboards, but could be done for non vehicle/walker models (i.e. infantry).

Yeah, Warpath is probably the place where it would be easiest to use your GW models.

There are not many vehichles in Warpath right now, but that is supposed to be fixed with the KS they will be doing sometime in 2014. And as Maniac said, there are free rules on Mantic's site, so you can go see if its something you'd like without costing you a penny.

Ive also heard necromunda is good.

The problem are not the rules. It's the people reading them. Yeah some are poorly written but it's also the people that try to take advantage of it. Try to find people that play to have fun and enjoy the game(fluff nerds is how I consider them includes myself). Do what I do and make a list of rules you consider broken(pretty easy just go to YMDC) show it to your opponent if he disagrees don't play him.

That's an easy way to play people that enjoy the game and not WAAC players

sangheili wrote:
The problem are not the rules. It's the people reading them. Yeah some are poorly written but it's also the people that try to take advantage of it. Try to find people that play to have fun and enjoy the game(fluff nerds is how I consider them includes myself). Do what I do and make a list of rules you consider broken(pretty easy just go to YMDC) show it to your opponent if he disagrees don't play him.

That's an easy way to play people that enjoy the game and not WAAC players

Are you seriously claiming the problem are the players and not the game itself?

If the rules were good, balanced, and well written, there wouldn't be an issue with the players having different interpretations or ideas of casual vs. competitive play.

The rules are the problem, not the players. Its never the player bases fault the rules cause issues. Claiming other players ruin it because they're WAAC is lazy and does not address the core issue of the problems with the game.

On topic, I've heard good things about Warpath as well, and its something I'll be looking into to port over.

Speaking from experience, Warpath is a very good system, nice and clean and very interactive. The problem is finding players, but if you can find anyone up to give it a go then I imagine it'll be pretty easy to convert them over.

The new rules for Open Fire are quite interesting.

 Blacksails wrote:

Are you seriously claiming the problem are the players and not the game itself?

If the rules were good, balanced, and well written, there wouldn't be an issue with the players having different interpretations or ideas of casual vs. competitive play.

The rules are the problem, not the players. Its never the player bases fault the rules cause issues. Claiming other players ruin it because they're WAAC is lazy and does not address the core issue of the problems with the game.

On topic, I've heard good things about Warpath as well, and its something I'll be looking into to port over.

I believe that GW has always maintained it's a miniatures company and not a gaming company. I believe that they are under the impression people will be reasonable and not let weird, wonky rules get in the way of a good game.

Current developements (allies, dataslates) are definitely calling that into question.

A friend of mine has a theory that former colonial possessions of the Brits are taught to revere what's inside a book. Brits don't have this same reverence, and so are comfortable altering the rules when they deem them bad.

I can't say that I know this for sure, but it certainly explains a lot in my mind.

Right, but either way, the fault of the game lies with the game/rules/company that produces it. Blaming the player base for not 'playing it right' is possibly one of the laziest things I've read defending 40k as a passable system.

I don't think any one culture, or colony, or country, or anything, has a special 'reverence' for rule books, whatever that means.

The rules aren't so far out of whack that the game is unplayable.
I think the game expects its players to be flexible and able to adjust. If there are particular rules you disagree with, change them; talk to your friends/opponents. Sometimes you might have to play a game with a rule(s ) you don't care for, next game
maybe not. The point of the game is to have fun and be social with other 40k fans. If you're looking for a man-mode/take no prisoners/ultra hardcore tournament ruleset - then yeah you have to look elsewhere. 40k isn't trying to be that game, but dont fault GW on that - that isn't their goal. plenty of people enjoy the game, and find ways to work within the rules.if hou can't or won't do that, don't blame the game.

System design is hard, be it hardware, political, software, game, or whatever. Throw in evolving content and unique factions with dynamic goals, and any nontrivial answer is vanishingly likely to be either complete or balanced.

thanks guys.
warpath looks pretty cool. ill have to look at it some more.
i already want to switch from warhammer fantasy to kings of war so maybe ill just stick to mantic

ill check out open fire as well. see what its all about.

Change the system from d6 to d10 or d20 and adjust all the tables and other rules to take this into account, including unit stats.

This would allow for greater variance in units, stats, saves, effects and everything else.

 Blacksails wrote:
Right, but either way, the fault of the game lies with the game/rules/company that produces it. Blaming the player base for not 'playing it right' is possibly one of the laziest things I've read defending 40k as a passable system.

I don't think any one culture, or colony, or country, or anything, has a special 'reverence' for rule books, whatever that means.

I'm not defending anything, just explaining a possible reason for the loose rules.

The reverence isn't for rule books, it's for information in books. If you study post-colonial cultures, especially the US, you typically find a people obsessed with rules. Look at the Supreme Court in the US: it's constantly debating RAW (intent of the writers of the Constitution) vs. the realities of modern society and the needs to change to adopt to those realities. The writers of the US constitution couldn't have had assault rifles in mind when they made the second amendment covering guns, yet many use the RAW to justify owning military-grade equipment.

Americans are very hesitant to break written rules; other cultures less so, especially many European cultures that are very old. Blindly acting in a certain way because "the rules allow it" is the true laziness because it denies critical and independent thinking.

So, that's what that means (referencing your final statement).

So what I'm taking away from this thread is you guys are too lazy and by the book to create house rules?

Seriously why do you guys even come to the 40K forums if the game is as horrible as you guys say it is?

 Gitsmasher wrote:
So what I'm taking away from this thread is you guys are too lazy and by the book to create house rules?

Seriously why do you guys even come to the 40K forums if the game is as horrible as you guys say it is?

Because many of us still play the game, collect the miniatures we enjoy, the hobby aspect, and the fluff/background. There's also the hope GW might do something positive for the game in the next edition.

Also, many of us use Dakka for other sub sections for other games. And I know that I participate in the proposed rules section a lot to help balance things and fix problems. So not really lazy, or by the book, at least for me.

I understand what your saying blacksails but lately these forums have turned into nothing more than a bash GW fest. I dont get why people will go out buy something then come complain about it? That makes no logical sense.

Traditional thinking goes like this. I dont like this thing, so therefore I will not buy/participate/talk about it. I will go my own way and separate myself, or not go around people who participate in what I do not like. Hence die hard ford fans, ford owners clubs, for people who like fords. Just like this section of Dakka is for 40K fans.

The people who have been posting lately strike me as the kind of people who go out buy a ferrari, join the Ferrari club of america, then show up to a meeting and talk about why Porsche's are better.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I understand what your saying blacksails but lately these forums have turned into nothing more than a bash GW fest. I dont get why people will go out buy something then come complain about it? That makes no logical sense.

Traditional thinking goes like this. I dont like this thing, so therefore I will not buy/participate/talk about it. I will go my own way and separate myself, or not go around people who participate in what I do not like. Hence die hard ford fans, ford owners clubs, for people who like fords. Just like this section of Dakka is for 40K fans.

The people who have been posting lately strike me as the kind of people who go out buy a ferrari, join the Ferrari club of america, then show up to a meeting and talk about why Porsche's are better.

Well, the first thing to realize is that not all of criticism is bashing. A lot of what I read is well thought out, well informed posting with comparisons and examples. There are bad posts and good posts, but that can be said about anything. And remember, many of us still buy into 40k for many reasons; personally, I'm in it for the HH series on FW, the models, the fluff, and the fact that its a readily available game anywhere I go. However, all of that won't stop me from pointing out the flaws in the system or the company whenever is appropriate, and my original response in this thread was.

Sure, traditional thinking may conclude that, but again, many of GW's/40k's biggest detractors on this site still buy the models or play the games or enjoy the fluff as much, if not more than, you do. In the General Discussion board, its entirely appropriate to discuss things about 40k at large, even if I don't like the game much as a ruleset.

Your example is off. It'd be like someone buying a Ferrari, joining the club, and the discussing the problems with the car and what can be done to improve using examples from other successful automakers. Its not strictly about which ones better (though GW certainly falls near the bottom on most metrics), but about what is wrong with the game, why its not healthy, and what can be done to improve it.

In short, not every critique is 'bashing', not every negative outlook means the poster despises 40k and wishes a horrible death upon the creators, and not every thread should consist of hyperbole from either side.

But that's why this thread exists. Someone clearly isn't happy with the rules, and wants to use the models in a better 28mm sci-fi system.

Necromunda is a good fit. You can use all your 40k models in it, and the rules are quite a bit less complex. I think they've got more holes than normal 40k rules, but I'm in the minority on that opinion, so odds are you'd like it a great deal.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Necromunda is a good fit. You can use all your 40k models in it, and the rules are quite a bit less complex. I think they've got more holes than normal 40k rules, but I'm in the minority on that opinion, so odds are you'd like it a great deal.

Out of curiousity, are there vehicles rules in Necromunda? I know its a skirmish game, but even light vehicles, like sentinels?

 Blacksails wrote:


Your example is off. It'd be like someone buying a Ferrari, joining the club, and the discussing the problems with the car and what can be done to improve using examples from other successful automakers. Its not strictly about which ones better (though GW certainly falls near the bottom on most metrics), but about what is wrong with the game, why its not healthy, and what can be done to improve it.

I'm going to assume you have never joined or been a member of a automotive club.

 Blacksails wrote:

But that's why this thread exists. Someone clearly isn't happy with the rules, and wants to use the models in a better 28mm sci-fi system.

But how many of these threads do we need a day? And no you shouldn't have 3+ threads of piss and vinegar filled post every damn hour. Why do people take the game so seriosuly when GW has stated on many occasions that they are a model company first and a game company second? Once you get the fact that GW makes models first and rules second wonky rules all of a sudden dont become a problem.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:


Your example is off. It'd be like someone buying a Ferrari, joining the club, and the discussing the problems with the car and what can be done to improve using examples from other successful automakers. Its not strictly about which ones better (though GW certainly falls near the bottom on most metrics), but about what is wrong with the game, why its not healthy, and what can be done to improve it.

I'm going to assume you have never joined or been a member of a automotive club.

No, I drive a little Veloster Turbo, so its never really been high on my priority. Either way, I don't think car examples apply too well to wargaming.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

But that's why this thread exists. Someone clearly isn't happy with the rules, and wants to use the models in a better 28mm sci-fi system.

But how many of these threads do we need a day? And no you shouldn't have 3+ threads of piss and vinegar filled threads everyday. Why do people take the game so seriosuly when GW has stated on many occasions that they are a model company first and a game company second? Once you get the fact that GW makes models first and rules second wonky rules all of a sudden dont become a problem.

Well, this is the first one about looking for an alternate ruleset I've seen so far, so its certainly different.

Its not that people take the game too seriously, its quite the opposite in fact. The people who take it lightly are still bothered by the absence of balance and poor rules, especially at the price GW expects. The rules don't magically become a non-issue when the company states that they're a model company first. The rules are still bad, regardless of why they're bad, and many of us would like them to be better, especially for the price GW wants for their rules. Its pretty simple really and not at all unreasonable.

Technically, the thread is doing exactly what GW would want. They're a model company first, and the OP is planning on using their models, just not their rules. If they wanted the extra revenue from the rules, they should put the effort in to make them at least comparable to alternatives on the market.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I understand what your saying blacksails but lately these forums have turned into nothing more than a bash GW fest. I dont get why people will go out buy something then come complain about it? That makes no logical sense.

Traditional thinking goes like this. I dont like this thing, so therefore I will not buy/participate/talk about it. I will go my own way and separate myself, or not go around people who participate in what I do not like. Hence die hard ford fans, ford owners clubs, for people who like fords. Just like this section of Dakka is for 40K fans.

The people who have been posting lately strike me as the kind of people who go out buy a ferrari, join the Ferrari club of america, then show up to a meeting and talk about why Porsche's are better.

Well Dakka is for general TTG not just GW, so you're going to get a lot of ex-players, proponents of other systems and new (disappointed) players.

Second, they may like the models and some of the fluff but the rules are rubbish. I'd liken it more to 'I like Ford but I don't want defective Firestone tires.' 'I bought a Toyota but I need my breaks to work.'

Unfortunately Usernames I've had exactly the same problem, and unfortunately, it's hard to find a set of rules that do large battles with infantry and vehicles well. (Not that 40k does.) Even if you do, it's even harder to find a group of players who are willing to learn them with you. GW games are like Mc Donalds, not the best, terrible value, but occasionally enjoyable and you never have a hard time finding one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Change the system from d6 to d10 or d20 and adjust all the tables and other rules to take this into account, including unit stats.

This would allow for greater variance in units, stats, saves, effects and everything else.

This would actually go a long way in fixing the game. The d6 mechanic is fine for skirmish games like Warmahordes but 40k is not Rogue Trader and somewhere in between 6 editions someone needed to realize that.

 Boggy Man wrote:


Second, they may like the models and some of the fluff but the rules are rubbish. I'd liken it more to 'I like Ford but I don't want defective Firestone tires.' 'I bought a Toyota but I need my breaks to work.'.

But if you think the rules are rubbish then why play the game? This game isnt cheap and so it doesnt make very good financial sense to blow your money on something you aren't 95% satisfied with. And if you like a game that nobody in your area plays then I ask "is war-gaming for you?" Just like I question whether most of the current player base should be playing as I'm finding more and more players that can barley afford the models, and rules. Especially that GW has given into player demands for more frequent army updates.

I hope I dont sound like a jerk, because I'm not trying to be one; I'm just saying that if your finding it more and more difficult to buy the necessities for the game, due to a slow economy then I would recommend that they walk away from the hobby, and instead use the money on something else like food, gas money, or a rainy day fund. There is no shame in walking away from something you love because of money. Lord knows I've done it . But guess what? When I returned a few years later it was so awesome to be back, with money to blow

 Psienesis wrote:
Change the system from d6 to d10 or d20 and adjust all the tables and other rules to take this into account, including unit stats.

This would allow for greater variance in units, stats, saves, effects and everything else.

 Boggy Man wrote:
This would actually go a long way in fixing the game. The d6 mechanic is fine for skirmish games like Warmahordes but 40k is not Rogue Trader and somewhere in between 6 editions someone needed to realize that.

Do you really want people to have to get rid of all the D6's they've collected over the years? Imagine how angry Ork, and Guard players would be now that their bucket of D6's no longer matters? That's something I could see players quitting in mass over.


Edit: Lol I fail at quotation

You guys are derailing our debate about post-colonial cultures with this talk of 40k.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Boggy Man wrote:

Second, they may like the models and some of the fluff but the rules are rubbish. I'd liken it more to 'I like Ford but I don't want defective Firestone tires.' 'I bought a Toyota but I need my breaks to work.'.

But if you think the rules are rubbish then why play the game? This game isnt cheap and so it doesnt make very good financial sense to blow your money on something you aren't 95% satisfied with. And if you like a game that nobody in your area plays then I ask "is war-gaming for you?" Just like I question whether most of the current player base should be playing as I'm finding more and more players that can barley afford the models, and rules. Especially that GW has given into player demands for more frequent army updates.

Well, I can't speak for the others but TTG is definitely for me. There's a limited number of hobbies I can do and less that I'm interested in. I enjoy taking an odd idea and sculpting it into something palpable. I enjoy battle strategy and shoving plastic tanks around my bedroom carpet while playing the theme to Patton doesn't have the same appeal as when I was 12. There's a lot of compromise in life. My friends don't won't to play X, or buy an army for Y? Well I can work around that. How often are you 100% satisfied in anything?

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I hope I dont sound like a jerk, because I'm not trying to be one; I'm just saying that if your finding it more and more difficult to buy the necessities for the game, due to a slow economy then I would recommend that they walk away from the hobby, and instead use the money on something else like food, gas money, or a rainy day fund. There is no shame in walking away from something you love because of money. Lord knows I've done it . But guess what? When I returned a few years later it was so awesome to be back, with money to blow

Basically, I just did the same with clix, so I know where you're coming from. I think it may be just because so many people put so much money and time into the game that we demand better rules. And hey, if GW is listening like you say, maybe all the negativity can serve a purpose.

 Psienesis wrote:
Change the system from d6 to d10 or d20 and adjust all the tables and other rules to take this into account, including unit stats.
This would allow for greater variance in units, stats, saves, effects and everything else.

 Boggy Man wrote:
This would actually go a long way in fixing the game. The d6 mechanic is fine for skirmish games like Warmahordes but 40k is not Rogue Trader and somewhere in between 6 editions someone needed to realize that.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

Do you really want people to have to get rid of all the D6's they've collected over the years? Imagine how angry Ork, and Guard players would be now that their bucket of D6's no longer matters? That's something I could see players quitting in mass over.

On the bright side, maybe we won't have to see the chiropractor as often after dragging 15 pound of dice and 300 boyz to the venue.

I'm suddenly envisioning a massive table like Battletech's "number of missiles hit table" that would cross reference number of shots, unit statistics, and a 2d6 roll...then spit out how many hits/wounds/failed armor saves so you could go from targeting to casualty removal in one roll...

What a nightmare!

The people in my FLGS have started a board game league. They have a competitive Candyland tournament going on mid-January.