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.

I'd love them to be brave and modernise the game from the ground up.

Alternate activations, or a system like Infinity, or something new that takes the game beyond igougo, which was fine when you had 30 or so models in 2nd, but makes the game drag a bit as they have pushed and pushed for ever higher model counts.

I'm not totally against 6th, its OK, but my group mostly play a home modified 2nd edition anyway, I would hate to be playing 6th in pick up games with the vast amount of new rules in various books and even digital only releases out there, its just impossible to keep track of and must be a nightmare for tournament organisers.

Agreed. The game rules are, and have always been, so clunky, counter-intuitive, and unclear, that they're not really very good for anything, and that only becomes more pronounced when you try to make the game support bigger armies and endless supplements each with the New Hawtness.

I'd love to see a radical redesign that keeps the spirit of each army, is *closer* to the spirit of most or all of the fluff, and lets you play fun, tense, exciting, balanced games in an hour or two. It's absolutely doable, but GW don't seem to want to do it.

Imo, "If" there is a different BRB in Sep '14... it will be a consolidation/clean-up the mess they've made by releasing too many modifications of the core rules.

Also, (also imo) GW has painted themselves into a corner as to any further "core rule changes" that will drive sales.
*Note- I said "core rule changes". To me this excludes codex and supplement changes, GW still has a good sales driver in these type of rule releases. It is the base rules in the BRB that they have run out of room.

My point here is that GW has taken a squad battle game with squad battle scaled models and have systematically expanded the game until there are no places left for which the game could grow into.

I mean we have had:
Squadhammer/Infantryhammer, Herohammer, Assaulthammer, Artilleryhammer, Tankhammer, Shoothammer, Flyhammer, Allyhammer, MChammer , ect, ect...

Each style was designed to expand the game which would then expand sales as players were forced to buy new models just to keep their armies playable/competitive.

Honestly, Without a major overhaul of the basic system, I just do not see where a base ruleset could go to drive sales.

Now as to my wishlist for a core rule revision, hmmm..

A) Take flyers out of the game and give them their own seperate mechanic/system. Such a system could tie into the base game as a pre-game skirmish but in game I liked flyers as a non model attacks similar to orbital strike and deep strike.
Hmm.. maybe just put a rule in that makes a flyer take a stall test (4+stalls) If it remains on the board for more than 1 turn and that any flying transports that disembark models are skimmers for the next game turn.

B)Get rid of Kill Points and bring back Victory Points. 40k was a futuristic sci-fantasy "wargame". Kill Points changed that by removing one of the key aspects that any wargamers should know. All wars are fought on a budget.
If people insist on keeping KP's then make unit gain a KP for every 50 points they cost and have the unit give up a KP for every 50 pts in unit losses. For Vehicles maybe their HP's would equal a KP.

C) Allies Matrix- Needs heavy rework. Get rid of simplistic mirror chart. (Looking at the Imperium her) Let some armies be battle brothers if one army is in charge but AoC if the other leads. This change would really help the chaos factions(LatD)

D) I'm a longtime Tau player and even I feel assault should be 6+d6 or at least 6+d3. And assaulting out of transports that haven't moved needs to comeback.

Actually, I'd like to see "assault out of any transport that was stationary or moved at combat speed" but model shootong overwatch get BS bonus unless vehicle is an assault or open topped type.

Well, thats enough wishlisting.

Later gents,
Captain Avatar

I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:

I want the game to decide what scale it is.

If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.

If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:

I want the game to decide what scale it is.

If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.

If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.

I'd actually want to see variable scales in 40k.

First a skirmish scale ruleset for about 0-750 pts (Or <20 models per side). This is you herohammer.
Then a tactical battle (such as most 40k games should be) for about 1,000-2,000 pts. No air support, some sort of "combined arms" allies.
And then a Large Battle ruleset, geared for 1,500-3,500 pts, allowing for allies, air support etc, while not bothering with fiddly crap like challenges etc.
And finally an Apocalypse ruleset for 3k+.

NoggintheNog wrote:
I'd love them to be brave and modernise the game from the ground up.

Alternate activations, or a system like Infinity, or something new that takes the game beyond igougo, which was fine when you had 30 or so models in 2nd, but makes the game drag a bit as they have pushed and pushed for ever higher model counts.

I'm not totally against 6th, its OK, but my group mostly play a home modified 2nd edition anyway, I would hate to be playing 6th in pick up games with the vast amount of new rules in various books and even digital only releases out there, its just impossible to keep track of and must be a nightmare for tournament organisers.

I've always felt 40k went from a good larger skirmish-scale game in 2nd edition to a bad army-scale game 3rd edition onwards. I don't know why but I started a Tyranid army years ago (4th edition maybe), I played one game and decided moving anything more than 40 individual models per turn is silly and should really be relegated to regimental games like Fantasy. I haven't played with that Tyranid army again since then.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:

I want the game to decide what scale it is.

If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.

If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.

What I wanted to say, but better.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I would love to see a good 40k ruleset, I really would. I have 0 faith in GW making it, in fact I don't believe they would even try but since we are wishlisting here the 1 thing I'd like to see change the most is this:

I want the game to decide what scale it is.

If they want it to be a skirmish game great, cut the number of models needed and remove artillery and fliers. They have no place on a battlefield at that scale, aircraft should be crossing the board in seconds, not turns and artillery shouldn't be able to fire at something only 50 meters in front of it.

If they want it to be a mass battle game (which I suspect is what they were going for) great. But remove the crap like wound allocation and challenges. Make everything measured from the unit champions, make all the other models in their squads effectively wound counters for that 1 unit champion because a squad should not be 10 guys in a large scale battle game, a squad should be treated as 1 unit.

As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!

 Captain Avatar wrote:


My point here is that GW has taken a squad battle game with squad battle scaled models and have systematically expanded the game until there are no places left for which the game could grow into.
,
Captain Avatar

Very much this. If this rumoured "7th edition" tries to compile Core, Escalation, Dataslates etc. fine. They have reached what in the scientific community would be called the "Theory of Everything". The only problem is that the fundamental core is based on a decades old mechanic that simply breaks down in larger games.

I can not escape a mental image of adding modern upgrades like parking radars and CD- players to a 80´s Volvo. Sure you can do that but what is the point?

MadmanMSU wrote:
As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!

The rules are a framework for a mutually enjoyable game rather than an absolute - that's been the case for a long time, it's nothing new.

 Bull0 wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:
As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!

The rules are a framework for a mutually enjoyable game rather than an absolute - that's been the case for a long time, it's nothing new.

But while individual definitions of what "fun" is when playing 40K exist, and while people still look to play the game outside of small established groups with pre-existing friendships and a shared approach to how the game is played, this is a flawed concept and a recipe for the situation we find ourselves in.

One of the biggest myths that Games Workshop has perpetuated is that a looser rule set equals more fun. It's a ridiculous mindset and a game with tight but simple rules can be just fine. Players that REALLY want to have goofy crazy stuff happen should make their own houserules to supplement a tight and well balanced core, not the other way around where tournaments have tons of different ideas on what a comp score is because it's so subjective and the base is wonky.

Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.

Could've made that clearer, sorry.

I would be okay with a 6e rerelease. By that I mean a new book BRB that doesn't change anything - thus rendering it's purchase optional - but just combines/merges all the recent releases we've seen such as Escalation, Stronghold Assault and the dataslates into one massive set of rules.
If however we were talking a whole new edition (as it would appear we are) I'm not okay with this. Having to buy a new book only 2 years after I bought the last one is stupid. It wouldn't change much about codex releases it would just mean those being updated to 6e would instead be updated to 7th, so I wouldn't be too worried about having to go out and buy a new Tau or SM codex anytime soon.
Aaaand I'm out.

Yeah sorry I wasn't trying to be combative. I just hear people talk about "fun" when I've seen tons of GW games come down to nebulous decisions where both players are "right" but one side has to win out and it's often a coin flip from the judge (I've been in that position as both the judge and the player). That just isn't fun unless you REALLY don't care about winning at all and that sort of player is in the minority. Other systems work just fine where if you go down the rules correctly it's clear how something should be handled and if it isn't errata fixes it quickly.

 Brother Payne wrote:
I would be okay with a 6e rerelease. By that I mean a new book BRB that doesn't change anything - thus rendering it's purchase optional - but just combines/merges all the recent releases we've seen such as Escalation, Stronghold Assault and the dataslates into one massive set of rules.
If however we were talking a whole new edition (as it would appear we are) I'm not okay with this. Having to buy a new book only 2 years after I bought the last one is stupid. It wouldn't change much about codex releases it would just mean those being updated to 6e would instead be updated to 7th, so I wouldn't be too worried about having to go out and buy a new Tau or SM codex anytime soon.
Aaaand I'm out.

I have mixed feelings. Partly I agree with you about a 7th ed rulebook, but I kinda feel that the CSM codex got royally screwed in this ed. So here's hoping for eith er a brighter future for our codex, or a nerfhammer for Taudar.

 Bull0 wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.

Could've made that clearer, sorry.

Care to provide quotes on these policies? Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes. It wasn't until 8th ed WHFB came about that GW decided that they were only a beer and pretzels game company and so could ditch any semblance of balance and actual tactical rules on their games...

PhantomViper wrote:
Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes..

People wanted to play 40k/WFB in a competitive environment, so they did. GW just went along. Then, like many other companies that deal with a large audience, they realized the so called "casual" customers make up the bulk of their purchasing base and threw everything they could at that group.

Short-sighted and stupid? Yeah, probably. A reversal of some previous policy? Nah.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.

Could've made that clearer, sorry.

Care to provide quotes on these policies? Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes. It wasn't until 8th ed WHFB came about that GW decided that they were only a beer and pretzels game company and so could ditch any semblance of balance and actual tactical rules on their games...

I didn't use the word policy, I used the word philosophy. As in a design philosophy, as in go read the books and tell me seriously that you believe prior to 6th ed 40k was designed to be balanced. Alessio did have a brief stab at it, it wasn't to GW's taste, it didn't last.

It's not like Alessio was the first. Chambers wanted a cleaner, more interactive set of rules too. And then we was not working for GW any more.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
It's not like Alessio was the first. Chambers wanted a cleaner, more interactive set of rules too. And then we was not working for GW any more.

Yeah, and Gav Thorpe. And none of these people are allowed anywhere near the rules anymore. But yeah, none of this is new.

 Bull0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it, I just don't grok to the idea that GW are just now deciding that a finely-honed tournament-friendly and sharp rule set isn't their thing and they'd rather make something looser. It's not new, it's been their philosophy (more or less) all along.

Could've made that clearer, sorry.

Care to provide quotes on these policies? Because the editions prior to WHFB's 8th and 40K's 6th (well, late 5th really), all had fairly large and officially supported world wide tournament scenes. It wasn't until 8th ed WHFB came about that GW decided that they were only a beer and pretzels game company and so could ditch any semblance of balance and actual tactical rules on their games...

I didn't use the word policy, I used the word philosophy. As in a design philosophy, as in go read the books and tell me seriously that you believe prior to 6th ed 40k was designed to be balanced. Alessio did have a brief stab at it, it wasn't to GW's taste, it didn't last.

I have read the books as I've been playing since 96. And while previous editions (of both games), were far from perfect, it wasn't until this latest batch that the notion of balance was completely thrown out the window. The fact that the lead designers of previous editions strived to achieve a cleaner and more balanced set of rules also gives credence that this philosophy that you talk about only came into effect in more recent times (and resulting in all those guys leaving the company for greener pastures).

That is a far cry from stating that they never cared about balance or tight rules in their games.

Actually it's just a speeding up of what GW has always done

release new models (which is what makes them the money) which people do want with rules that have been tested, but not to destruction

then thry tried to balance things out afterwards either by FAQs (rare that they make major changes this way),

or by releasing a new set of models with rules that rock/paper/scissors the old one problem

the fact that their codex release schedule is way up means we're seeing more issues closer together.

If we got a book then nothing more of 4-5 months there'd be moans about the new op stuff but then folk would settle down and figure out how to deal with it,

with a new codex almos every month we get 'the sky is falling' up to the release from a lot of the existing players based on rumours, followed by 'OMG this is so broken' from the rest of the factions players once it's released, but there's no time for things to settle down before the same thing happens again.

(that's not to say some stuff isn't genuinely broken like strength D popping up in normal games),

PhantomViper wrote:
That is a far cry from stating that they never cared about balance or tight rules in their games.

Stop putting words in my mouth, daddio. Also, the line about "previous designers striving for more balanced and cleaner rules" - yeah, like I said, a handful of them did, in a small bubble, around 3rd ed I guess? And that's it, in the long history of 40k. And where are they now? I'm sorry, but your assertion that up until 6th ed the game was designed around balance and clean rules and it's all gone out of the window now is crap. Now, if you want to argue that things have gotten more excessive in recent years - no argument. That's definitely the case. That isn't what you're saying though.

I have to agree, WH40k has never even from its Rogue Trader days been a balanced gaming system. How could it be with the core rules being changed as soon as the new army list/models comes out, which then needs the next list to buff that race or perhaps nerf some other ability. The time lag between these new mini rule changes produces a even more pronounced effect.

Then from 3rd there has been the fundamental change from skirmish to massed battles but with no real change to the core mechanics. Cynically I would contend the rules are not the priority anymore apart from a thin device to gouge out more cash for the extra models required.

Alessio has written a clean system for Mantic that allows for reasonably quick to handling of massed battles, which to be fair keep rules to a minimum and you actually enjoy playing a game. Could 40k go the same route unlikely as there is a core fanbase that decry any changes to their fave races stat lines and carefully worked out tactics such as they are on a table which is edge to edge figures.

What will 7th be, probably more of the same , soon to be accompanied by new FAQ's , changes to core rules when the next codex comes out. The only new thing here is only likely to be it will have an option to load it digitally onto your iPad or Kindle

 jonolikespie wrote:

sand.zzz wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.

I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.

Please explain that statement. GW has fumbled through their fight with internet discount resales (successfully so however). They have streamlined every department sans the creative people - which they have doubled in size over the past 3 years. A ~5% decrease in sales is significant, but when you consider the whole picture, it does not spell doom. In fact, removing Wells and expanding the creative dept. (which aredirectly related to one another btw, Wells did not want to expand, while board members saw it as investing in the future). So yea, outlook looks good. Big shareholders sells cuz Wells left, nothing to see here.

sand.zzz wrote:

Please explain that statement.

Relatviely flat revenues for several years yet steadily increasing prices (well above inflation) over the same period (and well before) spell one thing: steadily declining sales. Not an issue in the short term, in the long term however.......

I ws amazed to find out that GW apparently has over 100 employees in their 'creative department' when their output is so uncreative.

sand.zzz wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

sand.zzz wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.

I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.

Please explain that statement. GW has fumbled through their fight with internet discount resales (successfully so however). They have streamlined every department sans the creative people - which they have doubled in size over the past 3 years. A ~5% decrease in sales is significant, but when you consider the whole picture, it does not spell doom. In fact, removing Wells and expanding the creative dept. (which aredirectly related to one another btw, Wells did not want to expand, while board members saw it as investing in the future). So yea, outlook looks good. Big shareholders sells cuz Wells left, nothing to see here.

http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

An extensive analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about. Wells left because he knew what was coming.

Anyway, perhaps the best thing GW could do is make this "7th Edition" basically just a revision of 6th with all the new rules, errata, and FAQ incorporated into it, and then spend a year or so working on an all new edition of the game from the ground up with all new rules and codexes. Wishlisting, sadly.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

sand.zzz wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

sand.zzz wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The problem is that this Rumor does not make sense. GW may be incompetent buffoons when it comes to making business but they aren't dumb enough to do something like this.

I hope....

They have an amazing record for incompetent buffoons. If you purchased GW stock 10 years ago, youre up about 750% today.
So perhaps you don't understand things as well as you think you do.

I really don't think you understand things as well as you think you do if you think that GW are in a good position financially.

Please explain that statement. GW has fumbled through their fight with internet discount resales (successfully so however). They have streamlined every department sans the creative people - which they have doubled in size over the past 3 years. A ~5% decrease in sales is significant, but when you consider the whole picture, it does not spell doom. In fact, removing Wells and expanding the creative dept. (which aredirectly related to one another btw, Wells did not want to expand, while board members saw it as investing in the future). So yea, outlook looks good. Big shareholders sells cuz Wells left, nothing to see here.

http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

An extensive analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about. Wells left because he knew what was coming.

Anyway, perhaps the best thing GW could do is make this "7th Edition" basically just a revision of 6th with all the new rules, errata, and FAQ incorporated into it, and then spend a year or so working on an all new edition of the game from the ground up with all new rules and codexes. Wishlisting, sadly.

That was a really interesting & comprehensive (but very long!) article. The bit about Games Day in particular made very sad reading (I had no idea it was that lacking), and completely know where he is coming from with the 'black snow' analogy.

Well that was a pretty good read. Kinda long, but yeah.