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.

Warning: wall of text.

Hi everyone.

I have been toying with incorporating a concept for 40k. It sounds good to me but it is becoming a pain to implement it, so I want some feedback about how would you feel about it.

I do not like going to a game and finding that my options and gear are not the proper ones. If I am sending people to battle, as a good soldier I should know what I am facing, more or less, and take the stuff I need to deal with it. Am I facing tanks? Melta. Hordes? Flamers. Heavy infantry? Plasma. This is worse the better the soldier is supposed to be. Why are my veteran Space Marines carrying flamers to a battle against tanks? Can´t they carry a meltagun in the Rhino and change the weapon?

So this is the concept: upgrading a unit do not give you a weapon, but an “In-game Option”. When the time comes to start the battle (deployment) you make your choice.

Examples:

Of course, you will need some adittional models, or get the models magnetized. This applies easily to a lot of options in every single Codex. Not all of them, of course. You shouldn´t be able to pick your Chapter Tactic on the go. But many. It is easy to implement.

Question 1: sounds good to you? Why? Skip Questions 2 and 3 if your answer is NO.


Now we move to random options. In-game Options simplifies lots of things.
-> Daemons Rewards: instead of a random one, you get a Lesser Reward and make the choice on deployment.
-> Psy Powers: no longer random. You pick one, declaring it on deployment. If it is the Primaris, you can re-roll the Ld test when using it.

Question 2: is this balanced? Should these options be nerfed to compensate the loss of randomness?

This is still easy to fix, but then comes the ones with different prices: melta, plasma or flamer? I will adjust them all, unifying most options at a single cost.

Question 3: is the rule interesting enough to give some love to flamers and a nerf to the plasma, so all special weapons are at a similar level, so you just pay a “ten points” Special Weapon? Of course, this will apply to all armies, unifying most options. It is another iteration of the "keep it simple" rule for desing.

Thanks for the feedback.

Edit: 6th edition is full of "good concepts, poorly implemented". Please tell me what do you think about the "Concept" of In-game Options. Implementation of the details or power-levels are a different problem. Is the concept interesting?

Edit:
Summary: you start the game not with a list, but with many. Or you have a list that can be list-tailored on the go using highly customizable options. You do not pay for specific upgrades, powers and the like. You pay a generic upgrade and select what is it during deployment (exact moment: when you deploy the unit).

Goals:
1) Buffing balanced lists against spam lists. No longer a balanced list will have zero chance against a scissors/rock/paper list.
2) Giving the player more decisions to do in-game, as opposed to making them during list-building. List building is fun, but it is too much influence on the outcome right now. While the set of rules is different, it will still use the units from 40k, so... there are too many of them. And list-building is too times just copy-pasting an Internet list
3) Favoring tactical decisions over sheer randomness. I am bringing an army to a casual game/ tournament, but the outcome is many times determined by what list the other player brought. So we just see each other list and we can stop there. Not fun playing rock against paper.
4) Ending some tournament contradictions: all gear must appear in the model, yet your herald gets a random gear every single game.

I see what you're doing but personally, I don't think this would work very well (well, the Daemon and Psy powers look pretty good though). This could lead to people constantly switching weapons (ah! Sorry, I meant to switch it to a Meltagun instead of a Flamer! My mistake!), making deployment take as long as the game itself.
What if it costed a certain amount of points to switch the weapons? Say, 5 points to switch a Boltgun to a Flamer? This could allow for some strategy in list building as some points can be held in reserve for doing these on-deployment switches.

ex. My space marine is armed with a Flamer and sees that the opponent has a tank. I spend 5 of the points I didn't use for list building to switch the Flamer to a Meltagun.

SkavenLord wrote:
I see what you're doing but personally, I don't think this would work very well (well, the Daemon and Psy powers look pretty good though). This could lead to people constantly switching weapons (ah! Sorry, I meant to switch it to a Meltagun instead of a Flamer! My mistake!), making deployment take as long as the game itself.

But... that would be cheating. You are talking about someone who declares a flamer, put the model with a flamer on the board, and then, after the other player made his decisions, he sees a Leman Russ he somehow missed before, takes the model out, and says: "sorry I meant melta". And then he deploys a model with a melta where the other model was. It is blatant cheating.

You can do exactly the same in the game as it is now. "Oh this Land Speeder? Now it is Thunderwolf Cavalry. Sorry I meant Land Raider. My mistake!" Most people will not allow a player to change models in-game. Not even a single time.

Do you think this rule would induce people to cheat during deployment?

Good point. Alright, I take that back. What I meant was not only cheating though. It was also about a lot of waiting to see what your opponent is doing beforehand (and an awful lot of "after you").
The concept is actually quite interesting!

Well.
I tend to think about the problem the other way round.
When players believe its best JUST to tailor lists to specific opponents, this sort of hints the game play is too shallow to start.
EG what you bring has too much influence on the outcome of the game

If the game play has enough depth, ANY force can deal with any other force, given the right circumstances...

And that is where the '3rd opponent' comes in.
The mission.

if we have 6 attacker mission cards and 6 defender mission cards.And 3 basic table set ups.
Thats over 100 possible random senarios.

So rather than just kill everything or hold set pieces of ground, we have multiple ways to score VPs .(Achieve a major mission victory for 5 VP, and a minor mission victory for 2 VP )
Also this has the benefit of not focusing on beating your opponent, but beating the mission first.

I probably did not explain that too well?

The random missions would be awesome. It would be a battle with a scenario for both players. And would create such great narratives.

Do not like this, for a number of reasons:

1. Building your force is part of the strategy of the game. Adding this removes it because I, as a list builder, no longer need to consider my loadout in terms of balance. Instead, I can throw it to the wayside because I never have to worry about it. My strategy gets worse because the question of 'is my force able to deal with all threats' is completely negated. And what do we have to replace the strategy? On the fly list tailoring. Sorry, but this is a big hell no from me.

2. Even moreso when it comes to psychic powers and gifts, as there is poor balance within each tree and subset of gifts. Again, all strategy is gone when I know without question that my psykers will get the exact powers they need for the situation. Strategy and big-picture planning are replaced with 'oh I always have whatever I need for whatever situation I want'.

3. Your fluff argument does not work. You say "well why don't they have a meltagun in the tank". Well, simply put it is because a transport vehicle is not a rolling armory. This is especially true because this system will undoubtedly mean that most forces change their weapons constantly between games. Does the humble rhino have the 10 lascannons to swap out when I run into a mechanized force?

4. Finally, this is extremely boring. By removing the list-building risk in the game, and any considerations towards a balanced list, all armies will look the same because list-builders no longer have to worry about this.

I don't hate you, but I hate this idea.

SkavenLord wrote:
Good point. Alright, I take that back. What I meant was not only cheating though. It was also about a lot of waiting to see what your opponent is doing beforehand (and an awful lot of "after you".
The concept is actually quite interesting!

Good!
Anyway, it seems my English is even worse than I thought: units got their options as they are deployed, so the first player deploying a unit is the first. No waiting to see what the other player does (unless you go second, of course). If you are the first player, it is your turn. You cannot say "after you" unless you give the initiative to the other player.

Lanrak wrote:
Well.
I tend to think about the problem the other way round.
When players believe its best JUST to tailor lists to specific opponents, this sort of hints the game play is too shallow to start.
EG what you bring has too much influence on the outcome of the game

If the game play has enough depth, ANY force can deal with any other force, given the right circumstances...
(... alternate missions...)

Well, the concept is not even intended for the current w40k As you perhaps remember, I am one of those trying to rewrite the game from scratch.

Anyway, you are right, this is "taylor-listing" heaven. You modify your list after seeing the other player´s list. But I don´t think it is because the game is shallow, quite the contrary indeed. The game has reached a level of complexity that the ability to adapt to all possible situations is zero. A balanced list is at this point unable to handle all the extreme lists that we see nowadays. D-weapons, void shields, screamer-star... The "good for everything" list no longer has a chance, and this rule is there to give some help.

Alternate missions may solve a problem... or make it worse. There are countless alternate missions on the Internet, and GW published a book full of them. I really love some random variants, and those with hidden objectives. Fun to play... if the game if balanced, if that´s not the case the situation for the "good for everything" is even worse.

Using the alternate missions to fix 40k is another idea. The best solution I found is here: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com.es/2013/12/better-mission-design-more-proactive.html
This system allows fair games even if the scissors/rock/paper doesn´t favour you. But it is.... lame.... compared to the fun options you can find and I intend to implement to.

That´s the point where "In-game Options" kick in: the idea totally destroys the scissors/rock/paper system. Fair games for everyone. So you can add fun stuff (alternate missions, random missions, dynamic objectives, hidden objectives) as you please. Your army can now adapt on the go.

 curran12 wrote:
Do not like this, for a number of reasons:

Excellent! Let´s hear them.

1. Building your force is part of the strategy of the game. Adding this removes it because I, as a list builder, no longer need to consider my loadout in terms of balance. Instead, I can throw it to the wayside because I never have to worry about it. My strategy gets worse because the question of 'is my force able to deal with all threats' is completely negated. And what do we have to replace the strategy? On the fly list tailoring. Sorry, but this is a big hell no from me.

Perhaps it was like that in the past. Balance has become so awful that a balanced list has no chance. This is the reason lots of "internet" lists work by going extreme, turning this into a "scissors/rock/paper" game. You ask: "is my force able to deal with all threats"?: the answer is NO. In current 40k your list can deal with nothing. Either your list is all-powerful in something and you rely on not having a bad pairing, or your list is balanced and you don´t stand a chance.

I think balanced lists need help. You will still need to compose a good list, it is only that there will be more viable lists to play with, because all lists will get a big buff against spam.

Another way to put it: while list building is an important part of the game, I get the impression it has become too important. My objective is a fair game between lots of different builds from different Codexes. And no matter how I play test it, extreme lists always break the game, because a balanced list cannot handle them all.

2. Even moreso when it comes to psychic powers and gifts, as there is poor balance within each tree and subset of gifts. Again, all strategy is gone when I know without question that my psykers will get the exact powers they need for the situation. Strategy and big-picture planning are replaced with 'oh I always have whatever I need for whatever situation I want'.

That´s not strategy.

My idea: If you have a psyker you look at the other player´s list and pick a power. You pick that power because tactical and strategical reasons, playing with the strengths and weaknesses of both lists.

The current 40k: you just roll a dice and hope you will get lucky. Your broodlord got a shooting power and has no BS? awwwww your psyker is useless now. What a pity.

That´s not "strategy". You are talking about randomness.

Giving more options to the players -> more tactics and strategy.
Making the players think since deployment, adapting to all enemies -> more tactics and strategy.
Random powers, random options, random everything -> no tactics at all.

3. Your fluff argument does not work. You say "well why don't they have a meltagun in the tank". Well, simply put it is because a transport vehicle is not a rolling armory. This is especially true because this system will undoubtedly mean that most forces change their weapons constantly between games. Does the humble rhino have the 10 lascannons to swap out when I run into a mechanized force?

It still sounds bad to me. If we are playing just random encounters, when the characters do not even now which faction is the enemy, then it makes sense. But if the background mission is about an attack on something, if it has the slightest planning before it, then the army should get the better weapons at their disposal. And that Librarian should prepare a useful power, not go to the battle and see what happen.

4. Finally, this is extremely boring. (...).

Ha ha ha. As you can imagine, it doesn´t sound boring to me at all. By making scores of new lists suddenly viable I will get rid of the "always the same" lists you see over and over again. By making balanced lists far more powerful, all spam lists will suffer

And then you have the main goal of the concept: fair games. Both armies get a buff against those lists that give no choice, thus eliminating the lame, boring games where the match is decided by list-building. I think this is where you and me are in total disagreement. You see a really extreme list you are not able to handle and see it as a challenge: will your crippled army be able to win this one-sided battle? I see I am playing a game where one player has a bigger chance to win thanks to list-building and I immediately go bored. I want fair games. I want the player´s skill to determine the battle, not a list taken from the Internet or from a pay-to-win Dataslate.

By removing the list-building risk in the game, and any considerations towards a balanced list, all armies will look the same because list-builders no longer have to worry about this

Quite the contrary.

By nerfing list-building, list-builders no longer have to worry about this.... so everyone will take the list they want. We will see again units because the model looks awesome, or because the background is awesome, or because they make sense in the theme of the army. Spam/extreme lists look all the same to me. Most of them do not even have background behind.

I don't hate you, but I hate this idea.

I loved your feedback!

When you have an idea, it always looks good in your mind. I need criticism. This thing is taking me a lot of time, since I am trying to balance most options, unit by unit, Codex by Codex. Better to get an idea on how people see it now.

 da001 wrote:


I do not like going to a game and finding that my options and gear are not the proper ones. If I am sending people to battle, as a good soldier I should know what I am facing, more or less, and take the stuff I need to deal with it. Am I facing tanks? Melta. Hordes? Flamers. Heavy infantry? Plasma. This is worse the better the soldier is supposed to be. Why are my veteran Space Marines carrying flamers to a battle against tanks? Can´t they carry a meltagun in the Rhino and change the weapon?

Why are they carrying flamers? Easy. this happens: your guys prepare their gear to take on a rebel infantry held position. H.bolters, flamers etc.

Cool.

Halfway there you get ambushed by a fully mechanised eldar armoured column that they never knew were there.

Captain shortsighticus thinks to himself 'dammit, why didn't I think to bring some las cannons and missile launchers?' If you are sending troops into battle, you should know what you are facing, but you won't. Fog of war. Your enemy idnt going to offer you a list of the stuff he has! 'No plan Survives contact with the enemy'. They might be reinforced. They might be pulled out and replaced with an altogether different force (happened in operation market garden, for example) with different gear. Or your observer might have gotten things wrong (they were tanks? They looked like water storage crates!?).

 da001 wrote:

? Can´t they carry a meltagun in the Rhino and change the weapon?

They could. And assuming the eldar haven't slagged all the rhinos, by the time captain shortsighticus has gone in, got it out, found a tech marine to awaken its machine spirit, perform the necessary obesiaquences, loaded it, and aimed it, it's too bloody late. His column is wiped out. 'Having the gun somewhere' means very little when you need the damned thing right now. The other guy isn't going to politely let you swap load outs if you find yourself with the wrong kit.


And anyway, hoe are you going to swap out the weapons on a tank in the heat of battle?

@da001.
If you are writing new rules from scratch, why exactly are you trying to artificially deal with problems in GWplc s rule set?

GW plc are '...focused on 'selling toy soldiers to children..' according to GW CEO and he should know !

GW plc artificially limit in game tactical options, and focus on making all units and weapons a 'one use wonder'. So folks buy huge amounts of minatures to 'cover all options'.
'Oh noes I have not got weapon X . how could I possibly deal with unit Y !I must buy some for my next game!'

Its odd how good battle games from other companies allow much more tactical flexibility in their games.

'Oh bugger' said the Captain in his flimsy armoured car,'How can I possibly recon that town with those enemy heavy tanks sat on that ridge over there?
I have no anti tank on any of my light recon vehicles that could destroy them!''And their field of fire would decimate all of my units on the approach to assault them.'

'However, I do have some mortars that can fire smoke , blind the blighters with smoke while we cross open ground..'

If you develop the rules based on synergistic tactical interaction , you do not need a metric ton of complex strategic choices before the game starts to make up for the lack of tactical interaction.

And random scenarios are much cooler, than swapping out weapons before the game starts!IMO.

Deadnight wrote:

 da001 wrote:

(...) If I am sending people to battle, as a good soldier I should know what I am facing, more or less, and take the stuff I need to deal with it. Am I facing tanks? Melta. Hordes? Flamers. Heavy infantry? Plasma. This is worse the better the soldier is supposed to be. Why are my veteran Space Marines carrying flamers to a battle against tanks? Can´t they carry a meltagun in the Rhino and change the weapon?

Why are they carrying flamers? Easy. this happens: your guys prepare their gear to take on a rebel infantry held position. H.bolters, flamers etc.

Cool.

Halfway there you get ambushed by a fully mechanised eldar armoured column that they never knew were there.

Captain shortsighticus thinks to himself 'dammit, why didn't I think to bring some las cannons and missile launchers?'(...)

This is ok if it happens sometimes. Gak happens. This is actually the proper way to represent a random encounter, a testament to the RPG origin of w40k.

But it applies to all games. Captain Shortsighticus gets surprised over and over again. Librarian Maximum Idiotus forgets his most vital skill five out of six times. Your Warlord even changes his expertise from battle to battle, switching from "genius at outflank" to "so ugly he inspires fear" without control.

There are many cases in the background when the warriors know what they are good for, know their psy powers, and are properly prepared to battle. I think the skirmish-focused rules (Night Fighting) are mostly there to avoid alpha strikes, a different problem that should be treated apart.

Lanrak wrote:
@da001.
If you are writing new rules from scratch, why exactly are you trying to artificially deal with problems in GWplc s rule set?

Actually I am not. This rule was born to be included in the new set of rules. I am not sure it can work in the current set.

That´s the reason I am trying to focus on the concept, not the implementation of the concept, let alone the power-levels or how to balance all the options to make all of them desirable.

Summary: you start the game not with a list, but with many. Or you have a list that can be list-tailored on the go using highly customizable options. You do not pay for specific upgrades, powers and the like. You pay a generic upgrade and select what is it during deployment (exact moment: when you deploy the unit).

Goals:
1) Buffing balanced lists against spam lists. No longer a balanced list will have zero chance against a scissors/rock/paper list.
2) Giving the player more decisions to do in-game, as opposed to making them during list-building. List building is fun, but it is too much influence on the outcome right now. While the set of rules is different, it will still use the units from 40k, so... there are too many of them. And list-building is too times just copy-pasting an Internet list
3) Favoring tactical decisions over sheer randomness. I am bringing an army to a casual game/ tournament, but the outcome is many times determined by what list the other player brought. So we just see each other list and we can stop there. Not fun playing rock against paper.
4) Ending some tournament contradictions: all gear must appear in the model, yet your herald gets a random gear every single game.

(...)
If you develop the rules based on synergistic tactical interaction , you do not need a metric ton of complex strategic choices before the game starts to make up for the lack of tactical interaction.

Tactical interaction between different units is intended. But that´s a completely different thing of how (or when) you get your gear.

I am not sure about the "ton of complex choices" thing. Most options are obvious with a glance. You are fighting tanks? Melta. Hordes? Flamers. Orks with tanks and Boys? half and half. Your favorite psy-power that works fine with what role you intend your psyker to play? You already know it.

Most options are decided during list-building. If a player brings a unit is because he wants the unit to do something.

One of the examples above: you pay 10 points for a Missile Launcher OR a Plasma Gun. After looking at the enemy for a second, it should be obvious which is the better option, mostly because you already thought that during list-building.

And random scenarios are much cooler, than swapping out weapons before the game starts!IMO.

Probably.

But they are not mutually exclusive.

And the most random, extreme, fun the scenario gets, the worse the scissors/paper/rock problem gets. Scenarios specifically adapted to get balance (like the one I linked) are, imho, far more boring that all the crazy, cool stuff I want to try out.

Actually, this rule was born after playtesting some crazy stuff. Specalized lists destroyed balanced lists, so either you bring the list knowing what are you going to fight against (classic list tailoring, which I think is a bad thing, since it limits you) or you are in for many boring one-sided games.

Oh and thanks for the feedback!

The first post made me go "hell yeah!" straight away. I think its a brilliant idea and makes alot of sense, if your forces are fighting a foe they are going to somewhat equip themselves to combat that foe. I know not all the factions in the 40k universe are incredibly smart or tactically flexible but it would still happen. For instance, when fighting tyranids, brother dave isnt going to take his meltagun out with him and leave his flamer at home without reason while brother steve snipes hormogaunts with his lascannon because they arent total idiots. Similarly, the ever adapting hive mind would quickly spawn forces with biomorphs created for combating the current threat.

One thing I would say though is dont homogenise the weapons cost, as if you specifically wanted a flamer or missile launcher then you end up paying the points for a meltagun/lascannon instead. I would propose you have a "weapon pts limit" which you spend on the model, which allows them to choose that weapon or cheaper on deployment. However by deployment I mean BEFORE both forces actually deploy. Otherwise you end up with the situation of "oh hes running this weapon/setup so I can run this weapon to counter" so on and soforth which makes it basically become a game of wargear poker during deployment. Instead before you deploy or exchange lists you select the models you want to field in the correct points bracket, simply tailoring to the race you are fighting. IE I spend 10 points on my 4 devastor marines and so have access to all heavy weapons that cost 5pts or less, or could even simply select bolters if I want, but the excess points are wasted, if I spend 15 points on 2 devastators and 10 on the other two, then 2 can select 15pts and below weapons, and 2 can select 10pts and below weapons. Tau and other armies that can take mulitple weapons per model would have to have separate wargear brackets per "slot"

Choosing psychic powers I think is a great idea, no bonus for primaris though, most of them are good enough anyway, and some rulebook powers might need a tweak in effectiveness to ensure they EVER get taken

Bobug wrote:
The first post made me go "hell yeah!" straight away. I think its a brilliant idea and makes alot of sense, if your forces are fighting a foe they are going to somewhat equip themselves to combat that foe. I know not all the factions in the 40k universe are incredibly smart or tactically flexible but it would still happen. For instance, when fighting tyranids, brother dave isnt going to take his meltagun out with him and leave his flamer at home without reason while brother steve snipes hormogaunts with his lascannon because they arent total idiots. Similarly, the ever adapting hive mind would quickly spawn forces with biomorphs created for combating the current threat.

One thing I would say though is dont homogenise the weapons cost, as if you specifically wanted a flamer or missile launcher then you end up paying the points for a meltagun/lascannon instead. I would propose you have a "weapon pts limit" which you spend on the model, which allows them to choose that weapon or cheaper on deployment. However by deployment I mean BEFORE both forces actually deploy. Otherwise you end up with the situation of "oh hes running this weapon/setup so I can run this weapon to counter" so on and soforth which makes it basically become a game of wargear poker during deployment. Instead before you deploy or exchange lists you select the models you want to field in the correct points bracket, simply tailoring to the race you are fighting. IE I spend 10 points on my 4 devastor marines and so have access to all heavy weapons that cost 5pts or less, or could even simply select bolters if I want, but the excess points are wasted, if I spend 15 points on 2 devastators and 10 on the other two, then 2 can select 15pts and below weapons, and 2 can select 10pts and below weapons. Tau and other armies that can take mulitple weapons per model would have to have separate wargear brackets per "slot"

Choosing psychic powers I think is a great idea, no bonus for primaris though, most of them are good enough anyway, and some rulebook powers might need a tweak in effectiveness to ensure they EVER get taken

Thanks! Taking notes...

A lot of tweaks are needed for all powers to avoid "must-take" options. The Primaris got some buff because I felt they were slightly below the rest, with Divination being the exception.

A better solution might just letting a unit buy as many upgrades as it wants, but only equip a a certain number at a time, rather than just leaving points out which is a bit odd. This way it requires a conscious sacrifice of points to "buy" the added versatility rather than a simple bonus for buying the biggest or best option.

Rav1rn wrote:
A better solution might just letting a unit buy as many upgrades as it wants, but only equip a a certain number at a time, rather than just leaving points out which is a bit odd. This way it requires a conscious sacrifice of points to "buy" the added versatility rather than a simple bonus for buying the biggest or best option.

I wasn´t thinking of leaving points out. You pay for a 10 points upgrade and then decide which one is it during deployment. Or you buy a psyker and powers are decided during deployment. No changes in costs.

Your option is interesting too. Correct me if I am wrong, but what you propose is buying a Melta AND a Flamer even if the unit entry only allow one special weapon, and picking your choice during deployment. Thus the "sacrifice of points" in exchange of versatility.

Hi da001.
The current game of 40k has reached a level of complication in the rules that reduces the options in game.
40k has very low tactical complexity, and quite high strategic complication.

In a good game , units can be used in a wide variety of ways, so strategic complication is minimized and tactical complexity is maximized.

EG An armoured car squadron can be used to transport light infantry , to scout for a heavier artillery/armour, to be used as a screen for an infantry advance, to out flank enemy and attack artillery , to defend friendly artillery from flanking units etc.
Just one unit used in a tactically flexible way to deal with different in game situations.

In 40k each of those tasks would need a special unit with special rules.

The more varied the missions and random scenarios the less likely it is for extreme lists to succeed.(Especially as JUST killing enemy units would NOT earn you many victory points.)

If you are re writing the rules , you would be re writing the army composition lists/force organisation charts?

So you could put balance in to force composition, and not need this fix for 40k 6th ed?

You are right it is important to get balance right.And that means all forces have strengths and weakness.Just allowing some armies to tailor their list to suit the opponent is just removing some weaknesses from some armies, to match the overpowered ones.

I think it would be much better to fix the problem at source.(Eg re write the army lists and get the balance good enough to start with.)

Lanrak wrote:
Hi da001.

Hi Lanrak. Thanks for your feedback.

The current game of 40k has reached a level of complication in the rules that reduces the options in game.
40k has very low tactical complexity, and quite high strategic complication.

More or less. The strategic complication is tainted by a lot of randomness all over the place, which favors all-or-nothing approaches.

In a good game , units can be used in a wide variety of ways, so strategic complication is minimized and tactical complexity is maximized.

EG An armoured car squadron can be used to transport light infantry , to scout for a heavier artillery/armour, to be used as a screen for an infantry advance, to out flank enemy and attack artillery , to defend friendly artillery from flanking units etc.
Just one unit used in a tactically flexible way to deal with different in game situations.

In 40k each of those tasks would need a special unit with special rules.

Or the possibility of "trimming" the gear of the unit when deploying it.

I see your point, though. My solution will allow specialization in-game, while it seems you are advocating all-purpose units. I am not sure about that. I like specialization

The more varied the missions and random scenarios the less likely it is for extreme lists to succeed.(Especially as JUST killing enemy units would NOT earn you many victory points.)

This depends on how are the missions and scenarios made. If they are built with this in mind, they succeed. But most of them do not, and solve nothing, or even exacerbate the problem.

The reason extreme lists work is because most factions have a lot of problems dealing with some specific type of units. For instance, a pure Sisters of Battle army will struggle against an army with lots of Flyers, regardless of the mission.

If you are re writing the rules , you would be re writing the army composition lists/force organisation charts?

So you could put balance in to force composition, and not need this fix for 40k 6th ed?

I am starting from scratch. The first part of the rules define what is a unit, what is a model and the like.

While doing this, I was shocked by how the Rulebook relies on the reader knowing what is all about. Nothing is properly explained or defined. The writers assume the potential readers know all the concepts from previous editions or there is someone nearby willing to explain the rules. This is a total mess for me. So I am rewriting everything, following a strict code of not using a concept I haven´t defined. And I am using precise definitions.

I wrote down this chapter and moved on to The Game Turn. I am advocating Unit Activation, cover as a BS modifier and many other groundbreaking changes. And getting rid of many useless exceptions, rolls and rules, trying to make the game simpler yet more tactically complex. Then I realized I needed to use many terms I hadn´t defined yet so I went back to Chapter 1. That´s my situation now. Chapter one is getting bigger and bigger... and more confusing.

I do not intend to make any changes to the FOC, except regarding the allies system.

You are right it is important to get balance right.And that means all forces have strengths and weakness.Just allowing some armies to tailor their list to suit the opponent is just removing some weaknesses from some armies, to match the overpowered ones.

That´s the idea! List tailoring punishes spam list the most. By allowing it in-game, the overpowered lists suffer. In the above mentioned examples, the Sisters will avoid flamers and get weapons that allow them to at least try to stop the enemy. It does not balance the game at all, but at least it is a move towards the right direction.

I think it would be much better to fix the problem at source.(Eg re write the army lists and get the balance good enough to start with.)

I will keep an eye on the rest of the threads.

It is telling how many people are "rewriting the game" at the moment.

@da001.
I would say that 40ks FoC are probably the most limiting and counter intuitive of any game system I know off'

Defining units by function rather than how common they are in a particular type of army , feeds the 'special units for special actions,' mentality IMO.

Finding out how units can act together to respond to different tactical challenges, in a 'combined arms ' approach to game play .
Simply lets the players experiment with units in different tactical roles.The rules do not have to specify the tactical roles for each unit,just their in game capabilities.

When a game tells players how to use units in a limited tactical way.Especially when the in game interaction is just killing things of holding a particular piece of ground, with specific units for each job.Then the variation of game play is forced in to strategic listing and composition.

Are there other rule sets you are familiar with ?It may be easier for me to explain with examples from other rule sets...