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.

Well, to be fair...I never had any rules issues pop up in the games I play. I can't recall having any arguments with my opponents over how rule X interacts.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, to be fair...I never had any rules issues pop up in the games I play. I can't recall having any arguments with my opponents over how rule X interacts.

There are two threads over in You Make Da Call just from the Cypher datasheet, both of which look like they wouldn't have existed if GW just wrote out their rules in a clearer manner.

It's all well and good to say that you don't have any trouble playing with your friends but unfortunately that is entirely anecdotal and there are plenty of examples of unclear wordings in pretty much everything GW publishes.

Well IF we managed to enforce proper proof reading and editing on GW towers.
It would help with the basic level of making a well defined rule set.

However, It would NOT help with the main rules problems that have built up over the last 15 years.
The constant change in direction and NOT having the freedom to do what is right, just what can be made backwards compatible has left the rules in a bad way.
(Compared to rule set that were allowed to re-boot when needed.)

Using WHFB skirmish rules for 2nd ed, 40k skirmish game was just about ok.But using ancient skirmish rule to base 40k s modern battle game on is less than optimal.

And I am sure the ability to improve balance in 40k will be hampered by the over complication of multiple and diffuse resolution methods.

The only way to actually remove GW from the equation, is NOT to try to fix their rubbish rule set,
But write our own rule set ,starting from scratch based on what the current game is meant to be.
And then we would be free to play anywhere with what ever minatures we wanted to use.

Why do people call 2nd edition a skirmish game? I frequently saw 100+ hormagaunts.

Because 2nd ed was a large skirmish game.
The rules were written for detaied model interaction, and most armies were not that large for this to cause a problem.
(As always with GW model count increased as time went on.)

3rd ed on wards have been battle games ,( much larger minature counts,)that involve unit interaction .
BUT rather than re write the rules to focus on detailed UNIT interaction .They have a horrible mess of micro managing some areas and macro managing others.. Because GW still used WHFB skirmish rules ,,chopped out lots of it, and covered the holes with poorly applied patches.

In fact GW removed the 2 things that STILL applied to modern battle games , movement rates, and simple modifiers for cover.
And kept the game turn mechanic and damage resolution from Ancient warfare rank and file rules!

Lanrak wrote:
Because 2nd ed was a large skirmish game.
The rules were written for detaied model interaction, and most armies were not that large for this to cause a problem.
(As always with GW model count increased as time went on.)

3rd ed on wards have been battle games ,( much larger minature counts,)that involve unit interaction .
BUT rather than re write the rules to focus on detailed UNIT interaction .They have a horrible mess of micro managing some areas and macro managing others.. Because GW still used WHFB skirmish rules ,,chopped out lots of it, and covered the holes with poorly applied patches.

In fact GW removed the 2 things that STILL applied to modern battle games , movement rates, and simple modifiers for cover.
And kept the game turn mechanic and damage resolution from Ancient warfare rank and file rules!

/ This. And it is sooooo awkward. 2nd ed was pretty good in comparison, I must admit.

- J

OP. I can see the benefit. The idea is a grand one.
But you would need to have 4 or 5 people that make the final decisions on everything.
Those 4-5 people would just be the new GW..

 ascended_mike wrote:
OP. I can see the benefit. The idea is a grand one.
But you would need to have 4 or 5 people that make the final decisions on everything.
Those 4-5 people would just be the new GW..

Except they'd know that the internet exists, and would probably be far more open to criticism and suggestions.

Okay you lot, anyone with enough time and energy to spare to actually give a shot at a new rulebook?

The way I see it, you guys will keep debating for another 25 pages instead of just nominating a couple of trustworthy guys to review the core rules and get that 20-30 page document done (seriously, without the fluff, pictures, model showcase and whatnot, the core rules can be probably reduced to less than 30 pages).

So, by virtue of personal arrogance and until community disapproval, I hereby declare that I shall supervise the whole thing and boss people around. For starters, I look for applicants to actually set out and get things going. I want 2-5 guys who feel they are fractionwise neutral and enthusiastic enough to make core rules. Volunteers, one step forward!

Or we could all find another wargame, like infinity, warmachine, or thousands of lesser known ones, and have a vote on which rule set is the best. It might be fun for home games, like, "today, we're playing the malifaux rules" or something. Also, there was a failed kickstarter called Proxy Army, and I played a few games using their ruleset, and found it very enjoyable, should anyone want to look into that. It was very flexible.

A noval idea this is, but that is it.
If you play in tournaments you have to use the tournament rules, codex's.
If you play at a club they usually have house rules.
If you play with a small group, like 95% of my gaming, you adjust the rules to an agreeable point, based on the armies we play and stick with them.
GW never tried to fix any rules set. They sold them broke and when people grew weary... or GW put something new out there they came up with a new edition. Never fixing the problems of the previous edition.... they just change a gak load of stuff. We decided to stay with our house ruled 5th edition because it was what fit our likes best. 6th edition, again, changed a ton of crap, added even more and is still broken. GW should stay in the miniture business but they have not the heart or mind to put together anything good in the way of rules. If they did each edition would incorporate and cover the holes, gaps and oversights of the previous edition, not open a whole new can of worms.
If I thought for a moment this could be done in this forum, I would be in but just don't see it working.
Besides, our little group has sworn off GW and have been GW free for over a year now!
It feels great, I have more than ever.
Even the Grognards can't agree on a historical rules set... I know... I am one!!!
Regards, and nice try.

Well we have had a go at writing a NEW rule set for 40k.
Its assuming 40k is supposed to be a modern battle game about detailed unit interaction.
(Not some sort of ancient warfare skirmish rule set hacked to bits to speed up play , then slowed down with poorly applied patches, like GW efforts).

Its just gone into Aplha testing , refining game mechanics and resolution methods.And so still a WIP.

But it covers 90% of 40k game play with simple intuitive rules , (using unit stats directly, no tables or charts, but handy unit cards.)
its just the best my gaming group and I could put together.(Working on the idea of simple rules and complex game play.)

I could post a PDF of our latest WIP version under play testing if you like?

Lanrak wrote:
Well we have had a go at writing a NEW rule set for 40k.
Its assuming 40k is supposed to be a modern battle game about detailed unit interaction.
(Not some sort of ancient warfare skirmish rule set hacked to bits to speed up play , then slowed down with poorly applied patches, like GW efforts).

Its just gone into Aplha testing , refining game mechanics and resolution methods.And so still a WIP.

But it covers 90% of 40k game play with simple intuitive rules , (using unit stats directly, no tables or charts, but handy unit cards.)
its just the best my gaming group and I could put together.(Working on the idea of simple rules and complex game play.)

I could post a PDF of our latest WIP version under play testing if you like?

Yes please!

If you make it a thread in "Proposed Rules" and then link us to it, that'd be wonderful

Lanrak wrote:
Well we have had a go at writing a NEW rule set for 40k.
Its assuming 40k is supposed to be a modern battle game about detailed unit interaction.
(Not some sort of ancient warfare skirmish rule set hacked to bits to speed up play , then slowed down with poorly applied patches, like GW efforts).

Its just gone into Aplha testing , refining game mechanics and resolution methods.And so still a WIP.

But it covers 90% of 40k game play with simple intuitive rules , (using unit stats directly, no tables or charts, but handy unit cards.)
its just the best my gaming group and I could put together.(Working on the idea of simple rules and complex game play.)

I could post a PDF of our latest WIP version under play testing if you like?

I'd be very interested in reading this Lanrak.n

I'm in the same boat, but for different reasons. I've done up a very basic rules set myself for myself and a small group to play platoon level games- we play flames of war for big games, infinity for small ones, but have nothing for in between - hence my wee project. Even though it's Nothing fancy, (and it's not necessarily 40k focused either!) it was a very interesting, and engaging mental exercise (I am interested in game theory, and wanted to experience the 'writing of' part). After we test it, I'll put up a post on my thoughts about the whole thing too.

Hi folks.
I have attached a PDF to my post on page 8 of Sister Sydney s thread, 'How to re boot 40k?..'

I have explained some concepts in detail in that thread, and also discussed some alternatives.
It is the latest document we use as a base for our play testing.(No rules for setting up battles or missions yet , we are still working on them )

Please feel free to post comments or questions in the thread , or PM me if you prefer.

We decided to try to stick to using D6 to see if we could make it work with comparison and modification resolution methods to cover the majority of 40k game play.
Because FoW , Epic , and plenty of other games seem to get complex game play from these simple resolution methods.

This page:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/566430.page

Thanks Selym.

Ill just explain the basic resolution methods.

1) Direct representation.
The stat tells you DIRECTLY the mobility rate, (how far the unit may move up to when taking a Move or Assault action.)Or the effective range of a weapon in Inches.

Example Eldar Ranger 'Mobility' (Legs) 6". Shoota 'Effective range 18"'

Or the MAXIMUM Number of dice rolled.

Example 'Attack value' 2 means roll 2 D6 for the models weapon attacks.

2 ) Basic target score for success, (with modifiers.)
Example a UNIT with 'Stealth value' of 3+ , is hit by enemy ranged weapons,IF the enemy roll a 3+.(After the enemy declares a ranged attack that is in range and LOS.)

IF hitting the target is HARDER , because the unit is in cover or over long range .ADD 1 to the target score.

If unit with a 3+ Stealth value is in cover and at long range.(over 30 " away.)
The attacker now needs to roll 5+.(3+1+1=5)

If hitting the unit is EASIER. Because the attacker has targeting equipment, or on Fire Support orders.
Add 1 to the dice roll to hit score.
(NO FETHING SUBTRACTION! )

3) Direct oposing stat comparison.(Using the stat as a modifier.)

Units have a level of armoured protection , this is called ARMOUR VALUE. (AV)In the new rules all units have an AV of 1 to 15.(6+ save = AV 1, Super heavy tank AV 15.)
ALL weapon(effects,) have a level of Armour Peneteration.(AP)

When you take an Armour Save roll roll a D6.(This represents the variation in weapon impact points and angles on the target models armour.)
Add this value to the target models AV.
If this total is HIGHER than the weapon HIT AP , the model makes it save throw and takes NO DAMAGE.

If the total is EQUAL or LOWER than the weapon hit AP, the MODEL becomes 'suppressed'.
The target model MAY take physical damage (lose Wounds/Structure) if the attacker rolls a successful damage roll.

Roll to hit.(Based on TARGETS 'Stealth skill' for ranged attacks and Assault value for close combat.These values have simple modifiers.)

Roll to save, (Difference between targets AV and weapon hits AP.Comparison with D6 being the variable modifier.)

Roll to damage .(Weapon damage value , modified by target resilience.)

All stats will be on the unit card with any special abilities the unit might have.(So we do not need to search through rule/codex books! )

I am awful at explaining things.So please PM me any questions /comments you may have.

Osprey Publishing is beginning to put out miniature games...





http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Tomorrow’s-War-(Science-Fiction-Wargaming-Rules)_9781849085311

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Force-on-Force_9781849085168

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Field-of-Glory-Rulebook_9781846033131

The prices are really reasonable too, makes me wonder what I am doing screwin around with GW.

- J

 da001 wrote:

The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction?

I'm sick and tired of reading this. Please, just please, could someone explain to me all the ways the Eldar Codex is amazing and of superior quality in comparison to for example both the Chaos codices or the Tyranids? Eldar? Really? Multiple useless units -- Check. Senseless background material -- Check. Boring and uninteresting units with a few random roll psychic powers and no additional synergy mechanisms whatsoever -- Check.

Just face it, almost all of the modern 40K codices are equal in terms of how inspirational and interesting they are. The only thing that differs is that some have an obviously overpowered unit, some have several, and some have none. It just seems that the community picks the one that ended up with the largest quantity of badly priced (overpowered) units and raises it on some pedestal of brilliant army design. It's laughable. An overpowered rules supplement (army book) is equally bad games design as an underpowered one, and I already said the intangibles are pretty much the same for every army.

As far as your question about Chaos being a minor faction goes -- It reeks of the stuff I used to read at MMO forums. The threads usually started with "Why does Blizzard hate my class?".

I'll speak from my personal experience in trying to rewrite this game.

The main thing that kills it is losing support from the community. I worked on and actually got it to the point of being a cohesive ruleset and had two solid codices done, all of which was play testable and I have played several games with. It was a blast, but I could only carry it on for so long with just my own motivation.

The moral of the story is if you want to do it, make sure you get a team to work on it that is as dedicated as you are.

I think there's a parable here.

The people that don't like it eventually get up enough ambition to find something else to play. Leaving you with two other audiences: The people that like playing the current system as it is (as broken as it may be) and the people that enjoy complaining about the current system.

With the related observation concerning the number of times someone has observed "Only GW could have published that ________. It would have gotten laughed out of town in the proposed rules forum."

 Therion wrote:

 da001 wrote:

The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction?

I'm sick and tired of reading this. Please, just please, could someone explain to me all the ways the Eldar Codex is amazing and of superior quality in comparison to for example both the Chaos codices or the Tyranids? Eldar? Really? Multiple useless units -- Check. Senseless background material -- Check. Boring and uninteresting units with a few random roll psychic powers and no additional synergy mechanisms whatsoever -- Check.

Just face it, almost all of the modern 40K codices are equal in terms of how inspirational and interesting they are. The only thing that differs is that some have an obviously overpowered unit, some have several, and some have none. It just seems that the community picks the one that ended up with the largest quantity of badly priced (overpowered) units and raises it on some pedestal of brilliant army design. It's laughable. An overpowered rules supplement (army book) is equally bad games design as an underpowered one, and I already said the intangibles are pretty much the same for every army.

As far as your question about Chaos being a minor faction goes -- It reeks of the stuff I used to read at MMO forums. The threads usually started with "Why does Blizzard hate my class?".

Well, who knows, perhaps you are right.

I read the Eldar Codex and I feel the urge to start a new army. I see lots of viable or fun options. Sure, there are some particularly powerful units, but most of them are playable. I also liked the fluff. And perhaps I am biased due to Codex: Dark Eldar, perhaps the best Codex ever released (in my opinion, of course).

I am not boring you to death with what I feel when I read Codex: CSM, Codex: Chaos Daemons or the recent Codex: Tyranids. It is not a good feeling. I have armies of these three factions, and all of them have been pushed out of the game. Many units have become significantly worse or have been scratched off the Codex, and some fluff I loved was retconned.

Taking in consideration your words, perhaps the reason is that I know these three factions, so I know their issues and how the changes affect them, while I do not collect Eldars and know very little of it. So the Codex Eldar looks pretty neat to me, perhaps out of ignorance.


On topic, I have tried to rewrite the entire game a couple of times. Sometimes I get someone to test the new rules, sometimes I do not. Good luck to anyone trying to do so. It is time consuming, and you invest a lot of effort and love in something that will probably get ignored and forgotten.

Some random thoughts:
1) Keep it simple. At least at the beginning. Get rid of anything that may cause complications, and reduce the number of units and factions to a minimum. Keep exceptions low. Ignore most options. IF the system works, there would be time to make it more complex. Try your system at 500 points, no vehicles, no named characters before going wild.
2) For me, the most interesting change would be scratching off the "player´s turn". Instead of "I do everything, you do everything" try "my unit X do everything, then you pick a unit, and so on". It is far more intense.
3) Add stuff based on fluff. Making some fluffy rules will attract some players. And stick to the background. The game is supposed to bring the setting to live. If it is not doing so, it is a massive failure, or a completely different game. Unfluffy changes will not be welcome, no matter how "fun" they are. Which means that knowledge of the background is needed.

 Therion wrote:

 da001 wrote:

The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction?

I'm sick and tired of reading this. Please, just please, could someone explain to me all the ways the Eldar Codex is amazing and of superior quality in comparison to for example both the Chaos codices or the Tyranids? Eldar? Really? Multiple useless units -- Check. Senseless background material -- Check. Boring and uninteresting units with a few random roll psychic powers and no additional synergy mechanisms whatsoever -- Check.

Just face it, almost all of the modern 40K codices are equal in terms of how inspirational and interesting they are. The only thing that differs is that some have an obviously overpowered unit, some have several, and some have none. It just seems that the community picks the one that ended up with the largest quantity of badly priced (overpowered) units and raises it on some pedestal of brilliant army design. It's laughable. An overpowered rules supplement (army book) is equally bad games design as an underpowered one, and I already said the intangibles are pretty much the same for every army.

As far as your question about Chaos being a minor faction goes -- It reeks of the stuff I used to read at MMO forums. The threads usually started with "Why does Blizzard hate my class?".

Honestly I think Chaos, Eldar, Tau, and nids are all terribly balanced. The closest I can think of to balanced is the SM but even then they aren't perfect

@da001.
The real problem with a re write is most current 40k players have got so used to 40k, they WANT a fix to the complicated system they know.
Even though the current 40k rules have been distorted and mutated with 15 years of trying to improve the system but HAVING TO make it backwards compatible AND inspire the purchase of the latest edition GW products.
So clarity , brevity and elegance have pretty much been stamped out...Leaving the comparatively straight forward game play of 40k with massively bloated counter intuitive rules. Which are impossible to correct enough to make it worth while with out RADICAL changes.

So rules re writes either fall into 'slight fixes that make some improvements ' but are quite close to GW 40k.Even though some have made significant improvements over GWs 40k with limited changes.(More interactive game turn , unified damage resolution etc.)
The systems are close enough to GWs, players prefer to stick to the 'official' rules, and borrow some ideas from them for 'house rules'.

Or they are so far from what current 40k players know , they feel they are not '40k rules' because they are not written with the same level of exclusivity GW uses to inspire the sale of product.
GW 'These new minatures are so special they have these special rules that are specially for them,to make them a specially inspiring purchase! '

In short, a well defined , concise , intuitive rule set uses game mechanics and resolution methods that covers ALL game play.Written INCLUSIVELY.(Apart from a small amount of special abilities.)
EG Core rules cover 90% of the game play, 10 % of the rules for special abilities.
These are so from GW s rules , some people struggle to see how they could work compared to GWs rules.
40k has about 30% core rules, (standard infantry ) and 70% special rules, (vehicle rules, USRs,Codex special rules etc.).

A slight modification to your random thoughts.
1) Keep it simple.
Simple rules can generate complex game play if used properly. (40k substitutes complicated rules for complex game play.)
Use a MAXIMUM of 3 resolution processes.This means the game is MUCH easier to learn , and faster to play.

2) Use a game turn mechanic that is suitable for the intended game play.The shorter the time to engagement the more interactive the game turn.
Also be wary of the unit types in the game .Alternating unit activation is fine if units are of similar power levels, other wise alternating phases is preferable.
(To remove the need for additional conditional reactions.)

3)If the core rules are written for the intended game play , BASED on the background narrative.You can include a lot of back ground synergy in the core rules.But you are right a few 'special abilities' can tie the rules to the narrative background.

I write rules because I enjoy the process of creating and discussing them with others.We play a few games with them, and see what works and what does not.It is all good fun IMO.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Honestly I think Chaos, Eldar, Tau, and nids are all terribly balanced. The closest I can think of to balanced is the SM but even then they aren't perfect

I can speak for the armies I play: Chaos, Chaos Daemons, Tyranids, Sisters and Space Marines. All of them have lots of issues that makes them nearly unplayable (imho), with Space Marines being the exception. A lot of work went into the last Codex:SM and it pays: lots of options, background ok (more or less) and not bad balance. This is what I wish for every faction.

After reading your opinion and Therion´s, I will stop saying that Eldars or Tau are OK. They look ok to me, but I do not play the army.

@Lanrak: writing rules in an incredibly fun for me too. Perhaps the most interesting part of the game for me.
People expecting a full fleshed out game system that encompasses everything GW wrote in the last 20+ years is going to be disappointed. It is just too much. The game has grown out of proportion and everything has special rules, with exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.

This is caused by the way the new rules are integrated. Starting from scratch is the correct way to fully implement a change, but it will take a lot of effort and it will be a risky decision. GW is not doing it.

Now on the random thougths:

1: Keep it simple.
Simple rules can generate complex game play if used properly. Quite true.
Everything can be done, step by step.
Step 1: write the first section of the basic rules. Let´s call it "Units and Models". Define attributes, one by one. Define "attribute of a unit". Define models, define units, define unit coherency. Define what is it an entry in the Codex shows: what does Special Rules means? Gear? Weapons? Options? What is an Army?
Define the State of a Unit: a unit can be "Active" (normal) or, say, "Shaken" (not normal). Shaken can include Stunned, Gone to Ground, Out of Coherency, Retreating.... A unit can be in Reserve, it can be in Active Reserve, it can be Inside a Vehicle. When is a unit considered "Destroyed"? End of Step 1: define Type of Unit and say "every rule will be defined for Infantry. At some point other Types will be introduced."

Once this is fully tested, and everyone involved in the development fully understand it and is ok with it, we can move on to Step 2: the Game Turn. If something regarding the first Step must be changed, it should be done only after no other way is found, and it will affect everything in the game. No further changes should be taken before the Step 1 and the Step 2 are tested again, to see if that single change broke something previously accepted. This is basic Change Management, something the current rules (and probably GW itself) lack.

2: Use a game turn mechanic that is suitable for the intended game play.
"Also be wary of the unit types in the game .Alternating unit activation is fine if units are of similar power levels, other wise alternating phases is preferable. "
I am a fan of Alternating Unit Activation. It depends on the size of the armies, but if the army is big it is really boring for the players to wait until you do everything with every unit. A lot of people zoom out when the other player starts moving horde units.

Also it has lots of tactics inside. A weak, cheap unit can be moved first to see what the enemy does, or a powerful unit can be moved first to accomplish a goal before the enemy reacts.

More important: it simplifies trying to look ahead of your turn. Nobody can foresee what a 2000 points army will do in two turns, but using Alternating Unit Activation you only need to see which is your enemy´s next move for one single unit. This looks like chess to me, which is good.

3: the Background is important.

4: Objectives.
Another interesting point is: what are we aiming for? We are "solving problems" but, what are these "problems" we are trying to fix? We need to define goals.

The most common complaints I hear about this game are:
-> Lots of rules to the point you get sick of it. Difficult / counterintuitive rules that contradict each other. Lots of different books. Lack of proper definitions.
-> Boring to see your enemy moving a big army. Static game.
-> Too random elements. Your tactical decisions have no weight in the outcome. A single 1 or 6 can change the course of the battle, and it can happen many times in a single turn. Which is exciting for some, but boring for other people.
-> Lack of Balance. Internal and External. All units in a Codex should be desirable and useful, and all Codex should be able to compete against each other.
-> Background not properly represented in the game. This one is tricky, fluff discussions are endless and terrible.

Am I missing something?

@da001.
'The most common complaints I hear about this game are:
-> Lots of rules to the point you get sick of it. Difficult / counterintuitive rules that contradict each other. Lots of different books. Lack of proper definitions.
-> Boring to see your enemy moving a big army. Static game.
-> Too random elements. Your tactical decisions have no weight in the outcome. A single 1 or 6 can change the course of the battle, and it can happen many times in a single turn. Which is exciting for some, but boring for other people.
-> Lack of Balance. Internal and External. All units in a Codex should be desirable and useful, and all Codex should be able to compete against each other.
-> Background not properly represented in the game. This one is tricky, fluff discussions are endless and terrible. '

All the problems you list are down to the rules for 40k NOT being written specifically for 40k.
They are still a WHFB mod, and WHFB in space sort of worked at the skirmish level.(RT to 2nd ED.)
But has failed to work properly for battle games over the last 15 years.(Despite the best efforts of a TEAM of professional game developers at GW towers.)

Alessio (lead game developer on 40k 5th ed.)Gave up on fantasy battle games in space after the first try away from GW towers.(Warpath 1).And I have a HUGE amount of respect for him and Ronnie making that decision.

However, when the rules for Epic were abandoned by GW and left to 'community support by fans.'They seemed to flurish IMO.
Without the corporate interference , Epic Armageddon covered everything in 40k (including suppliments ) and EA army lists in 138 pages of clear concise rules.

IMO this proves the massive diversity in the 40k game setting CAN be covered with simple rules well written.

My development steps are slightly different.(Probably due to my old day job of conformance engineer for weapons systems development.)I prefer to look at the big picture first.
So I would put your 4) at the start.

As 6th ed 40k is WHFB in space v 3.7 and not a good fit with our expectations. (Well defined concise and intuitive rule set.)
What do we need to get a better rule set, what game play SHOULD we be focused on?

What is the scale and scope of the game play.What is the type and frequency of the interaction of players and elements within the game.

If we are talking about a war game , I find its best to find a real world warfare type that is closest to the intended game play .This makes it easier to get intuitive rules.
Eg No one has fought a battle in deep space with intergalactic cruisers.
However, we can be familiar with battles at sea, and so using naval terms like 'port' and 'starboard' , 'bow' /'stern'' 'broad side', and 'battery' sort of seem intuitive.

If you have massed ranks of infantry /cavalry fighting in close formation mainly using hand weapons.With ranged weapons used in a supporting role.
This is ancient warfare IMO.(Byzantine up to WWI.)

After WWI and the development of man portable devastating area effect weapons like HMG and Mortars etc.
A large group of troops in close formation stopped being scary, and became a target rich environment, and warfare changed for good. (Modern warfare.)

If the game is using small units (5 to 30) of skirmishing infantry , supported by AFV, aircraft and artillery.With mobility firepower and close assault ALL being equally important.
Then this is modern warfare IMO.(1920s to present day.)

This is the biggest reason why 40k fails IMO.The game LOOKS like it should play like modern warfare. (An equal mix of mobility, firepower and close assault.)
But has been stuck with ancient warfare rules (WHFB.) So all the things that should be in the core rules, (vehicles, all the units that are not ordinary infantry.)Are not.
And HAVE to use loads of special rules that are exceptions to the core rules.

After establishing what type of basic warfare type the game is based on, and the size of the game.(Squad, Company, Battalion,Regimental, Army . Corps etc.)
I agree we need to define how the units interact.

This is where we establish the game mechanics and resolution methods and unit characteristics we are going to use.ALL the in game interaction SHOULD be covered by these characteristics and the resolution methods we use.(Leaving just a few special abilities to add flavor after the core game is finalized.)

IF the rules are written for the intended game play , based on the background narrative.The back ground is in the rules in an subtle way.And there is NO NEED to shoe horn it in with special rules ,IMO.

Lanrak wrote:
If the game is using small units (5 to 30) of skirmishing infantry , supported by AFV, aircraft and artillery.With mobility firepower and close assault ALL being equally important.
Then this is modern warfare IMO.(1920s to present day.)

Not sure w40k is modern warfare.

Your artillery can be assaulted by demons, and be saved by a cavalry charge. Something is needed to make cavalry as important as tanks. It is not real, it does not make sense. But 40k is not a futuristic game, it is a fantasy game that combines ancient warfare with modern warfare, magic warfare and futuristic warfare. Every single thing is invited as long as it follows the rule of cool.

There is something visceral and dramatic in close combat, so many sci-fi writers have introduced elements from the ancient past in the way their futuristic civilizations wage war. In Dune, by Frank Herbert, we see a force field that stops anything as fast a bullet, so people fight with swords and martial arts. 40k (heavily inspired by Dune and many other similar books, movies and comics) goes beyond that.

And I like that. Magic, sword duels, demons, attacking with your axe... w40k is crazy and I think it is the way it should be.

The size of the game is quite important. I think it should be a skirmish game. A couple of squads and a hero should be the basic army. So the way it already is. Perhaps I am thinking about 500-1500 points to begin with.

So it is:
Problem-> Lots of rules to the point you get sick of it. Difficult / counterintuitive rules that contradict each other. Lots of different books. Lack of proper definitions.
Solution: get rid of exceptions. Get rid of rarely used rules. Eliminate rolls. Define everything in a way no discussion is possible. Keep track of everything so contradictions are reduced to a minimum. Reduce the number of units/books until the game is properly tested, and add things slowly and after a proper test.

Problem-> Boring to see your enemy moving a big army. Static game.
Solution: Unit Activation system, or keeping it at low points to avoid big armies.

Problem-> Too random elements. Your tactical decisions have no weight in the outcome. A single 1 or 6 can change the course of the battle, and it can happen many times in a single turn. Which is exciting for some, but boring for other people.
Solution: get rid of most of the random elements added in 6th edition. Random powers, random traits, random instinctive behavior, random warpstorm, random mutations, random charges (this one I actually like) and so on. More important: get rid of the "an 1 is always fail, a 6 success" thing. If you need a 7, you just don´t roll. If you need a 0, you automatically pass the roll.

Problem-> Lack of Balance. Internal and External. All units in a Codex should be desirable and useful, and all Codex should be able to compete against each other.
Solution: Test test test. Buffing up or nerfing any unit that need it. Start with a few number of units and slowly add the rest.

Problem-> Background not properly represented in the game. This one is tricky, fluff discussions are endless and terrible.
No solution. After remembering some discussions in the background section, the less this is mentioned the better.
Since no solution is given, is no longer a problem. Keep what official 40k gives us in this regard.

 da001 wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
If the game is using small units (5 to 30) of skirmishing infantry , supported by AFV, aircraft and artillery.With mobility firepower and close assault ALL being equally important.
Then this is modern warfare IMO.(1920s to present day.)

Not sure w40k is modern warfare.

Your artillery can be assaulted by demons, and be saved by a cavalry charge. Something is needed to make cavalry as important as tanks. It is not real, it does not make sense. But 40k is not a futuristic game, it is a fantasy game that combines ancient warfare with modern warfare, magic warfare and futuristic warfare. Every single thing is invited as long as it follows the rule of cool.

There is something visceral and dramatic in close combat, so many sci-fi writers have introduced elements from the ancient past in the way their futuristic civilizations wage war. In Dune, by Frank Herbert, we see a force field that stops anything as fast a bullet, so people fight with swords and martial arts. 40k (heavily inspired by Dune and many other similar books, movies and comics) goes beyond that.

And I like that. Magic, sword duels, demons, attacking with your axe... w40k is crazy and I think it is the way it should be.

True, 40k is not 'modern' warfare. Not only the rules were ported over from WHFB, the entire universe was.

 da001 wrote:

The size of the game is quite important. I think it should be a skirmish game. A couple of squads and a hero should be the basic army. So the way it already is. Perhaps I am thinking about 500-1500 points to begin with.

I do heavily disagree with this. 40k should not be a skirmish game.You should be able to play it at any size from 500 to 5000+

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 da001 wrote:

The size of the game is quite important. I think it should be a skirmish game. A couple of squads and a hero should be the basic army. So the way it already is. Perhaps I am thinking about 500-1500 points to begin with.

I do heavily disagree with this. 40k should not be a skirmish game.You should be able to play it at any size from 500 to 5000+

Then some additional rules are needed, because the game scales pretty poorly.

The obvious one is the size of the gaming surface. Playing a game with 500 points should use a space ten times smaller than playing a game with 5000 points. If you mass 5000 points of grots and conscripts into the "recommended" board, you get a battle with no tactics, no sense, and at least for me no fun.

Movement is key in all warfare. It is perhaps the most important thing concerning tactics. And space is needed to move your units around.

Proposal: imagine a 2'x2' basic "square".
--- 500-1200: 4' x 4' gaming surface. 4 squares.
--- 800-2200: 6' x 4' gaming surface. 6 squares.
--- 1800-3200: 8 squares of 2x2
--- 2800-4200: 10 squares.
--- 3800-5200: 12 squares. That´s twice the size of the normal board.

Squares do not need to be disposed forming "bigger squares". A 1000 points battle can be fought in 4 squares or 6 squares, whatever the players want.

Following the "keep it simple" philosophy, I would focus on the 500 points matches until every single core rule is thoroughly tested. Testing 5000 points games takes an awful lot of time and resources.

Key concept for scaling: make units affect other units within a range. Do not use "this unit provides bonus X for all friendly units in the table". Instead: "...units within 24"."

So then 40k is WHFB in space?
And the units march to war shoulder to shoulder mainly using close combat weapons in blocks representing 100 of actual troops arranged in regiments?
Ranged weapons are few and far between, a few units of bows/muskets and a couple of catapults/ cannons.
And the only units that move faster than infantry are cavalry and beast drawn?

What sort of war film is CLOSEST to the action in 40k?WWII or Napoleonic?

Yup deamons can materialize out of the warp and attack your artillery.The same way as airborne units dropped in and took out artillery in WWII.
40k used fantastic looking minatures , but the BASIC way they wage war has not changed much since WWII.
(DoW 40k, and CoH WWII used the same game engine .No one said DoW felt wrong or counter intuitive like they do about GWs 40k rules.)

The ONLY reason 40k is SO confused and over blown with complication is the core mechanics are from ancient massed battle games and INTUITIVE unit representation requires a analogy to modern warfare.

40k is NOT EXACTLY modern warfare, but is is close enough to BE BASED on modern warfare interaction.
And would be more intuitive if it has modern rules rather than 40 year old Napoleonic rules.(WHFB can be traced back to WGRG Napoleonic rules RP worked on the 1970s.)

Remember MODERN WARFARE IS AN EQUAL MIX OF MOBILITY FIREPOWER AND ASSAULT.
So ALL are equally important and valid to use in game .(Allowing for massive tactical variety.)Modern warfare does not mean just shooting stuff.(Thats JUST FPS!)Assault is equally important!

Perhaps this is why WHFB based rules can not cope with 40k BATTLE size game play.There are simply too many ranged weapons in the system, it can not cope! So there are assault favored editions OR shooting favored editions .NO edition managed to balance shooting and assault effectively .

ALSO IF 40k is supposed to be WHFB in space , why do ALL OTHER UNITS than STANDARD INFANTRY NEED SPECIAL RULES?
Because they do not fit the game mechanics and resolution methods to the limited ancient warfare of WHFB, that is why!

A game based on modern warfare CAN include all the wackiness of 40k.(Epic Space marine did!And even Epic Armageddon does a better job than 40k own rules IMO.)
And 'magic' is just technology we do not understand yet!
I would rather use a rule set where multiple levels of technology are represented ,(modern warfare).Than one where any thing more advanced than a sword or bow need special rules to cover it!

Just because WHRB rules worked better at the skirmish level, does not mean its the ONLY way to make 40k work.
If you want a 40k skirmish game there are loads of free rule to down load GOOD SKIRMISH rule sets you can easily convert.

If you want to keep to counter intuitive WHFB in space, I am sure GW will keep re hashing that for several editions.

However, IF you want a fast paced well defined concise rule set , that is elegant and intuitive for 40k.Then a modern rule set focused on the intended game play of the 40k narrative is the best way to go .(IMO)

Because all the good 'futuristic battle games' I know of are based on 'modern warfare interaction'.(Epic Armageddon, Drop Zone Commander, Dust Warfare,Tomorrows War, etc.)

And the cool thing about detailed UNIT interaction, is it can be transposed to single model 'units' to cover detailed model interaction in a skirmish version of the game!
So the skirmish game and battle game use the same rules, just up scale the level of interaction.