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.

Been reading way to many complaints and rants as of late. So this got me thinking. How do people want their 40K to be? A lot of the negativity I believe is because, 40K is not their vision.

So I am curious as to what people want 40K to be. How do you want it to be played? What kind of rules do you want?

For me, I would like a balanced game where point values actually mean something. A 20 point SM mini does not equal a 20 point Tyranid mini. Also I would like something different from I move/shoot/assault. To me that leaves the other person doing nothing, up to 1/2 sometimes. I would like a I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot then assault. Then have some unique rules where a character can move/shoot out of turn. Something like LotR, or something similar to it.

I like to play for fun nothing really serious, but as I said before, I would like some balance. There is no way a 5th edition Spore Mine costs what 10 points and is 4 points cheaper than a SM, while a SM can do sooooo much more, for only 4 points. That was just an example.

So how about you guys and girls? What do you or should I say envision what 40K is to you.

Pretty much as it is now, to be honest. Give me a set of rules that provide a framework for a narrative and I'll be happy.

Same, I want to have fun with my friends, as long as were having fun im happy. The only thing I can complain of is cost, but obviously that can be worked around.

Make all units and options on a par for their role, declare war on units that are objectively "better" or "worse" in their Codex or in the game in general and Nerf/improve to try and achieve parity as much as possible.

Dispose of as much "cinematic" randomness as possible and, with the exception of rolls to hit, wound etc, try and make player decision making the ultimate arbiter of victory, rather than dice rolling.

I want 40k to have balanced rules that allow for both casual/friendly and competitive play, with OPTIONAL extras (e.g. Fortifications, Escalation) for friendly narrative play. Basically a game with rules that are tight enough so I know if I pick a fun and/or fluffy army I won't get stomped out of existence by a netlist and that has very few "What happens when X and Y occur?" situations, but flexible enough with additions to allow for a myriad of campaign and themed games.

For example, the randomness should be optional as a "If you and your opponent want more cinematic play, we've included these random charts to spice up your games.". Things like Stronghold Assault, Flyers doing what they do, Escalation, fortifications, etc. should be under an "Advanced Rules" section that says to the effect of "We encourage playing narrative games that tell a cinematic story. If you and your opponent agree, try adding some of these rules to really make your games stand out!"

That way competitive games, tournaments and pick-up games don't have to use those things but have a nice, solidly written set of rules, but campaigns and the like can add more flair and flavor to make games more interesting without impacting everybody else. I've long held the belief that ANY game should first strive to make their rules playable in a competitive environment and then add optional extras to make things more "interesting" where appropriate. That way you allow tournaments and the like to function with just the base rules (or even allow for certain special scenarios e.g. if you had a random events table, maybe the final tournament game has some additional rules thrown in to make it more exciting), but don't discourage people from tacking on extras for their own story-driven games. The issue is GW has done the opposite - made a story-driven game without a care about tournaments or anything other than story-driven games, so you can't really remove those things. Narrative and random elements should be designed afterwards to be plugged in, so you can choose not to play with them if you don't want to, not basically forced on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Make all units and options on a par for their role, declare war on units that are objectively "better" or "worse" in their Codex or in the game in general and Nerf/improve to try and achieve parity as much as possible.

Dispose of as much "cinematic" randomness as possible and, with the exception of rolls to hit, wound etc, try and make player decision making the ultimate arbiter of victory, rather than dice rolling.

This as well.

Escalation and Stronghold Assault are optional - just discuss with your opponent beforehand. I'm sure no-one actually turns up to a game with a titan without first agreeing on it, even if RAW they could.

Flyers and fortifications are part of the core rules, and for me a really positive addition. I don't see why flyers receive so much criticism. How are they any more incongruous to a skirmish game than a tank? Also, they are lots of fun. Fortifications add a new and interesting element to the game as well imo.

GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market. The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting. GW is all about making cool models and then thinking about rules that let you field them. I am a big fan of this approach.

Back OT - I find the igougo model tedious at times, especially with larger games or 2v2s, so if something could be done to improve that I would be happy. Also, the amount of USRs really slow the game down. Apart from that I am really happy with the state of 40k and gaming more than I have ever done.

The current game is largely fun to me. A few of the typical 6th edition gripes such as assault being bad also hold true in my eyes. As well as high str cheap shooting being growing on trees for some armies, and snap shots being the same even on the greatest marksmen in the universe.

I also dislike random psychic powers and the internal balance of said powers.

But really 80% of the game is well done in my opinion. I consider those cases to all be somewhat minor, or moderate in one or two cases.

Oh, and apoc units need their point costs scrutinized heavily if they want to join in non-apoc size games. I don't really enjoy the "models flying off the table" games with str D flying everywhere. I like single models and their stats being large enough to be relevant, but small enough to have a big battle.

A game that ends with one sergeant killing the last enemy model and being the only guy left on the table? THAT is a good game.

I want fun and I got fun. So keep it same as it is. Funny how in our FLGS are not people in constant rage or pain from evil GW.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:



GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market. The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting. GW is all about making cool models and then thinking about rules that let you field them. I am a big fan of this approach.

I am not interested in playing competitively, but when I play, I am interested in competing, not having my arse handed to me because I've chosen units and options that are patently less viable than those available to other factions. If I lose through my own poor decision making, then that's fine, if I lose because the balance of the game is skewed so far in favour of my opponent's army's I essentially had only a small percentage chance of winning, even if I played everything perfectly, that's less fine.

I'd like GW to make cool models, and then make balanced, fair, reasonable and thoroughly tested rules to let me field them. I'd be a big fan of that approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
I want fun and I got fun. So keep it same as it is. Funny how in our FLGS are not people in constant rage or pain from evil GW.

Not really, if my Blood Angels get their arse kicked by someone running a brace of Wraithknights, I don't go postal at my club, I laugh and joke and congratulate my opponent on their win.

It doesn't mean I'm not a bit pissed off that the state of the game means that such a match is technically "fair."

 azreal13 wrote:

I am not interested in playing competitively, but when I play, I am interested in competing, not having my arse handed to me because I've chosen units and options that are patently less viable than those available to other factions. If I lose through my own poor decision making, then that's fine, if I lose because the balance of the game is skewed so far in favour of my opponent's army's I essentially had only a small percentage chance of winning, even if I played everything perfectly, that's less fine.

I'd like GW to make cool models, and then make balanced, fair, reasonable and thoroughly tested rules to let me field them. I'd be a big fan of that approach.

Obviously a really different approach to the game. I played a game today and took a horribly expensive unit in a landraider because I love the model [and the Death Cult Assassins inside!] plus an Avenger Strike Fighter as I also think this model is brilliant and enjoy zooming flyers around. I took a big unit of footslogging sisters because I was bored of keeping them in tanks for most of the game and wanted to change things up. I was pretty much tabled by turn 4 against Eldar but had a great time [and my DCAs kicked ass!] I keep asking the Eldar player to take a seercouncil star so I can see what all the hype is about. I don't really care about being competitive as long as I'm using models that appeal to me.

Having balanced and fair rules would be very restrictive to the model designers. Also, I don't want 40k to turn into Warmahorde. If I want that kind of game, I'll quit 40k and play one of the competitors. I'm glad I've got the choice of playing a rule set which give more importance to making great models than making great rules and focusses on fluff and narrative. 40k isn't perfect and has never been perfect, and I'm fine with that.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Having balanced and fair rules would be very restrictive to the model designers. Also, I don't want 40k to turn into Warmahorde. If I want that kind of game, I'll quit 40k and play one of the competitors. I'm glad I've got the choice of playing a rule set which give more importance to making great models than making great rules and focusses on fluff and narrative. 40k isn't perfect and has never been perfect, and I'm fine with that.

(Emphasis mine)

What is this I don't even

How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.

WayneTheGame wrote:


(Emphasis mine)

What is this I don't even

How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.

Because, surely, lots of models would get vetoed due to game balance. Can't see Knight Titans [just one example] getting put into production if the focus is on a balanced game.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:


GW doesn't cater for tournament players because they are such a small part of its market. The vast majority of 40k gamers will never see a tournament and many find the idea of plying competitively off-putting.

Really that is a sweeping statement to make. How can you prove it. I don't ever remember been asked by a red shirt what I was going to use a model for. I certainly never filled any questionnaire in.

I'd like to know that I can play a themed army and still have a fairly good chance to compete. I don't mind a slight disadvantage (makes things more interesting) but if I hit a situation where I cannot win vs. my opponent bar a miracle, that seems to me to be poor game design.

I do not want to have to "tailor down" to meet my opponent because I am not in a situation where I have a regular group. Instead I'd like to be able to build around a theme I enjoy and be reasonably confident of a fun game with a stranger. Currently 40K does not provide that.

On a different level, I'd also prefer the game to go back a little bit to it's squad based roots. At the moment, there are too many ginormous monstrous creatures/walkers/fliers in the game and it looks wrong to me on such small battlefields. Probably cool for theme games if you like that sort of thing, but out of place on the average 6' x 4' battlefield. I do like those things existing for themed games though because they are pretty great centrepiece models.

I'd also like less "inserted complexity". A lot of the rules of 40K seem bolted on for the sake of it to encourage large amounts of dice rolling. I'd rather a system that was elegant but deep.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

I am not interested in playing competitively, but when I play, I am interested in competing, not having my arse handed to me because I've chosen units and options that are patently less viable than those available to other factions. If I lose through my own poor decision making, then that's fine, if I lose because the balance of the game is skewed so far in favour of my opponent's army's I essentially had only a small percentage chance of winning, even if I played everything perfectly, that's less fine.

I'd like GW to make cool models, and then make balanced, fair, reasonable and thoroughly tested rules to let me field them. I'd be a big fan of that approach.

Obviously a really different approach to the game. I played a game today and took a horribly expensive unit in a landraider because I love the model [and the Death Cult Assassins inside!] plus an Avenger Strike Fighter as I also think this model is brilliant and enjoy zooming flyers around. I took a big unit of footslogging sisters because I was bored of keeping them in tanks for most of the game and wanted to change things up. I was pretty much tabled by turn 4 against Eldar but had a great time [and my DCAs kicked ass!] I keep asking the Eldar player to take a seercouncil star so I can see what all the hype is about. I don't really care about being competitive as long as I'm using models that appeal to me.

Having balanced and fair rules would be very restrictive to the model designers. Also, I don't want 40k to turn into Warmahorde. If I want that kind of game, I'll quit 40k and play one of the competitors. I'm glad I've got the choice of playing a rule set which give more importance to making great models than making great rules and focusses on fluff and narrative. 40k isn't perfect and has never been perfect, and I'm fine with that.

What a load of tosh!!

Good models and good rules are not mutually exclusive.

I can't believe you're happy that you were able to take a unit that was sub par in game because you like the models, when it is enitrely within the bounds of possibility to be able to take any models you want because you like them and still have the rules support them as valid choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


(Emphasis mine)

What is this I don't even

How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.

Because, surely, lots of models would get vetoed due to game balance. Can't see Knight Titans [just one example] getting put into production if the focus is on a balanced game.

Little in the game is too powerful, the two key issues that plague 40K are wooly rules writing with little support from the designers to clarify things after the fact, and units that are too strong for their points cost. Knights, from what I'm hearing, aren't too far off being balanced unless your opponent is hopelessly underprepared, whereas Riptides and Wraithknights are too cheap for their abilities, making it easy to take multiples in relatively low point games and compounding the issue further.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


(Emphasis mine)

What is this I don't even

How, exactly, does having balanced rules restrict model designers? Nobody is asking for every army to have the same unit types with different names here.

Because, surely, lots of models would get vetoed due to game balance. Can't see Knight Titans [just one example] getting put into production if the focus is on a balanced game.

I'm amazed at the number of people here that seem to think this.

Balance doesn't mean restricting people to 1 riptide, it means lowering their usefulness to match their points level or raising their points to match their abilities.

In a truly balanced game having your opponent drop down 6 riptides would not be a big problem unless your list is lacking anti-MC, and it would only be lacking that if you decided not/forgot to bring it.

That is what I would like 40k to be. A game where I can take the units I think are cool and make an army out of them without putting myself at a huge disadvantage simply because of the models I like. I also want less of these models that look like bad toys and a lot less of these supplements and dataslates. The rules need to all be easy to get a hold of, ideally in one place online somewhere.

40K is not without problems at all, but neither is it awful.

If I and my friends spot RaW trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaW in the balls and move on.

If I and my friends spot RaI trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaI in the balls and move on.

This has worked well for us so far.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
40K is not without problems at all, but neither is it awful.

If I and my friends spot RaW trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaW in the balls and move on.

If I and my friends spot RaI trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaI in the balls and move on.

This has worked well for us so far.

Again, posting this personally for about the third time this week, 40K works fine for social groups/friends/families that play together regularly, they can do this, and they are clearly the set that GW seem to be tilting at, the problem is that many players play in a very different environment where they may not play the same people regularly, or not know them well, if at all. At this point, a clear, concise, well written ruleset backed up with a solid, well tested and reasonably balanced set of codexes becomes infinitely more important.

I want a 40k where every unit is at least usable. If they can get that down, I would be so happy.

I play in a group, the game is amazing. Does everything we want. The only problem we have is price and random magic powers.

Other than that games are good fun. This is my kind of 40k.

edit

Ideally I'd like it if it wasn't being scaled up the way it is being, what with Escalation, Stronghold Assault .etc. This more than anything else is turning 40k into an arms race, and making whole armies defunct.

Additionally, a balance in the rules would be much appreciated, especially between codices. Each army ought to be equal to any other, but with different strengths and weaknesses, with SM as a sort of control. Balance between shooting and assault is also critical.

Also, less of the random for the sake of random. Random assault ranges for example. or the more recent random Knight ranks. Randomness doesn't encourage skillful play.

Finally, I wish they'd stick to their damn FOC. What is the point of a FOC if you're not going to follow it. Stuff like Inquisitors, if they don't have a FOC slot, give them one.

Also give the BT some love already. GW was willing to roll a whole SM chapter, but don't even give them a supplement, instead giving those TWO knight units a WHOLE dex to themselves AND an additional fluff/collecting book. Makes me mad.

 azreal13 wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
40K is not without problems at all, but neither is it awful.

If I and my friends spot RaW trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaW in the balls and move on.

If I and my friends spot RaI trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaI in the balls and move on.

This has worked well for us so far.

Again, posting this personally for about the third time this week, 40K works fine for social groups/friends/families that play together regularly, they can do this, and they are clearly the set that GW seem to be tilting at, the problem is that many players play in a very different environment where they may not play the same people regularly, or not know them well, if at all. At this point, a clear, concise, well written ruleset backed up with a solid, well tested and reasonably balanced set of codexes becomes infinitely more important.

Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.

What I want from 40K is the phrase "40K is not the game for you" to be put into physical form, frozen with liquid nitrogen, and filmed in slow motion hi-def video as it's hit with a shovel.

I utterly detest that phrase with every fiber of my being. It just reeks of elitism. "Oh you want a fair balanced rule set that people can enjoy and not hear complaints about OP units and spam lists? You want to a rule set that doesn't require heavy house ruling and forced list neutering? Sorry this is my game and I will have none of that. Now take this 80 page guide on how we play easy and friendly here and start setting up your games weeks in advance with proper setting and atmosphere, and Emperor protect you if you don't act out some dialogue!"

Honestly what I want out of 40K probably isn't reasonable at this point. I came to the conclusion that a single melta gun in a small squad has a decent chance to one shot a vehicle provided it's in range. It has a good chance of getting into that range with something like a drop pod. To me it seems like right from the start there is something wrong. A standard cheap unit able to one shot kill an armored and mobile fortress just feels wrongs. I tried to think of a fix for that, but the entire system would have to be completely reworked. And that's just my issues with vehicles. It just feels like a stain on the carpet so someone put a rug on it, then that rug got stained in covered in another rug, and so on.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
A standard cheap unit able to one shot kill an armored and mobile fortress just feels wrongs.

Back in WWII, the soviets destroyed enemy tanks by strapping bombs to terriers and making them run under their tracks. A small torpedo bomber can sink a battleship. A guy with a relatively low-tech MANPAD can bring down the best helicopter gunships out there. That cheap unit that blasted your invincible mobile fortress had an anti-tank weapon and positioned itself in an advantageous position. Of course, your opponent could have pitted an equally powerful mobile fortress against yours too, but chose an alternative path. That's smart thinking. It's tactics. And that's EXACTLY what I'd want to see more in 40k.

I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.

The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.

1 RPG can take out a Humvee full of men. The RPG is cheap and easy to get. The men inside are expensive to train, transport and then when they die or wounded they cost more money. Let alone the Humvee.

Seems like one measly RPG can cost a country a ton of money.

The little guns always do the most damage. Never rely on a fortress or power unit. In reality they will let you down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.

The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.

Also screening your tanks will help. A melta needs to be pretty close to do that kind of damage.

I want suprheavies and Destroyer weapons to go in the opposite direction- instead of ignoring 5/6 of the damage chart, give superheavies their own damage chart again. Instead of Destroyer weapons ignoring every save and rolling on it's own special chart, make it a weapon type, and allow weapons to go above strength 10. And for superheavy vehicles to have AV15. Weapons on a superheavie should be differentiated by more than just blast size and number of shots.

Add the move stat in again, and make movement into range bands. Give vehicles range bands as well, and remove "fast". Let vehicles be better at shooting as well. Say can split fire if stationary, fire all weapons at a single target if moving combat speed (X"), one weapon and snapfire if moving cruising speed (2X"), and snapfire a single weapon if moving flat out (3X")

Adjust the close combat chart so that wonding on 2s and 6s is possible.
If you are the same +/- 1 weapons skill of the enemy, wound on 4s. If you are 2 or 3 points higher, wound on 3s. 2 or 3 points lower, wound on 5s. 4+ points higher, wound on 2s. 4+ points lower, wound on 6s.

Interceptor should be chosen not at the end of the enemies movement phase at any target you feel like, but called as soon as the unit you wish to target finishes moving.

Remove disorganized charge.

Remove Smash from MCs

Add Rampage to walkers.

I want a game that feels exciting (despite the fact that it's essentially just moving things and rolling dice), looks awesome (even if you don't shell out a jillion bucks), and has a lot of options that makes battles unique and memorable.

I can sit down with my Dungeons and Dragons buddies and talk for hours about stuff that has happened in our past games-- that's exactly what I want from 40k.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.

Perhaps, but I'd suffer more if 40k was turned to an abstract boardgame or some sort of tabletop DOTA for the sake of balance. Speaking of which, I think enforcing the clear cut paper-scissors-stone kind of balance will simply kill the game - A limited degree of realism is needed, and that means introducing asymmetry and, to an extent, imbalance.

The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.

And for the cost of one of those 5-man squads, their special weapons and their drop pods you can take an IG platoon, 30 cultists or a big mob of ork boyz against which they're completely powerless. Really, I don't see how these are game breaking at all.

So, that brings us to my main gripes with the game:

1- Units, weapons and skills without a counter: I'm not just talking fliers or D weapons here. It's all more subtle. I may be alone in this, but I think the stackable powers that grant Screamers a 2++ re-rollable save, the Wave Serpent's endless range, ignores cover, high-strenght, high-ROF shield gun, Necron flying transports without all the disadvantages attached to flying transports or the "army killer" Eldar Titan are far worse cases of poor rules design than, say, Imperial Knights, Baneblades or Stormtalons.

2- Arbitrary points costs: Again, it's not a matter of 10 points being able to kill thirty times their cost. That's normal. I was talking about certain units whose costs don't reflect their roles and abilities in a logical way. Some are wildly expensive (posessed, genestealers, tankbustas, nephilim fighters, thousand sons...) others are laughably cheap. Often this is due to pricing conventions being carried over through the editions.

3- Useless units: Contrary to common sentiment I don't think powerful units (except in certian cases, most of them listed above) should be declawed. Instead, I'd rather see the host of useless units that plague our codices buffed in some way or another. Some could be fixed by a simple points adjustment, or just letting the player field them in larger numbers, others by giving them rules that enhance their survivability and/or power, while a few could only be saved by an extensive rules rewrite.

I think the problem with 40k boils down to a single issue, actually: GW considers each army as an isolated book, not as part of a coherent game system. The BRB is mostly fine, it's the codices that bring the true game-breaking aberrations to the tabletops. I don't have a problem with superheavies, fliers, MCs or fortifications - Revenants, Nightscythes, Riptides and Void Shields? Perhaps.