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.

When discussing rule changes for 40k there frequently be two camps. One that wants a more complex game with more depth. Others want a more streamline game for fast paced play.

If GW released a supplemental rule set that made an alternate version of 40k that was slower paced and more complex to appeal to fans of hardcore war games. Would there be a market for such a supplement?

I wouldn't be interested.

Possibly. I am not up to speed on all war game options but a better skirmish set with more depth. I might bite.

Yes, but GW needs to show me they can make one good ruleset before trying their hand at a second.

Yep, more of a simulator would be great. A small scale one.

Im enjoying the current game.

 changerofways wrote:
Im enjoying the current game.

That's why I think a more complex supplement would intrigue me. I would not want to abandon standard 40k but something like zone mortalis cubed would appeal to me for when I am in the mood for something more complex. To be honest I would not mind a fast paced version as well. Something that would let you play a 3000 point game in under an hour.

You can have depth without complex and cumbersome rules. Yes, depth is good. No, needlessly complex and laborious rules are not. Definitely do not need slower paced as it's already at the extreme edge of tolerance.

generally if you look at table top stragety games over the years, they've all as a rule gotten simpler and faster to play. So I doubt there'd be much of a market for a "40k advanced"

I don't think a more advanced version of what is out there would be good, but having a basic ruleset and an advanced ruleset, with the current rules being the advanced ruleset would work great.

I would argue the current ruleset, especially once you get codexes involved, is pretty "advanced" when you define it as complex. I'd have no interest in even more, games going overly complex have killed them for me before (why it didn't deter me from 40k in the first place I don't know).

 troa wrote:
I would argue the current ruleset, especially once you get codexes involved, is pretty "advanced" when you define it as complex. I'd have no interest in even more, games going overly complex have killed them for me before (why it didn't deter me from 40k in the first place I don't know).

I agree.

The best part of the game is when you're taking action, making decisions, and watching your opponents face when you decide to ram his rhino with your leman russ. The worst part of the game is when your opponent is unsure about a rule, and then spends 10 minutes trying to find words that aren't in the rule book. I try to play a fast game, I think it's more fun for me and for my opponent.

You could just use FFG's 40k rpg's for an "advanced" game. They come with rules for large unit engagements, called hordes. Throughout the books they have the statlines and wargear for just about every model in existance. I've been thinking of giving it a go myself, doing a "quick" 500 point game of CSM versus loyalists.

They should streamline the game so that a standard sized two player game can be resolved within 60-90 minutes. Then instead of playing a game in 3-4 hours you could do a best 2/3 in 3-4 hours.

You can't simulate anything at this scale. It's all going to be abstraction.

A better 40k Advanced would be one with a Mandatory FOC, no allies, no superheavies, a 0-1 restriction on certain powerful gribblies and no 2++ rerolls. Basically one that makes the game a proper wargame instead of a fan fiction simulator.

basically your wanting GW to copy and paste infinity and/or drop zone commander?? how about you go play that n leave us be

No. I want a game that's simpler, less open to power abuse and easier to get into.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No. I want a game that's simpler, less open to power abuse and easier to get into.

Aye.

GW doesn't need more complexity.

 slowthar wrote:
Yes, but GW needs to show me they can make one good ruleset before trying their hand at a second.

Agreed.

I believe if GW wrote a rules set specifically for 40k game play, rather than WHFB in space version 3.X it would be a good start!

The current 40k rule set is very complicated.(It uses lots of different systems and resolution methods to cover one function.)
Yet the actual game play of 40k is very straight forward.

I am sure a rule set written for the game play of 40k , would allow much more deep and complex game play.With less complicated rules!

if you look at all the good rule sets currently available , 40k is awful by comparison.

Take a load of the special rules and squeeze them into 1.
Like, Melta, armourbane and haywire and make an AV rule.
The same with rending, shred, fleshbane, etc as "Extra-killy".
Sniper and poison as the same.

If S is higher than T, roll 3+,
5+ if T>S.
If S is double T, 2+
etc.

We don't need all the rules that 40k has, and a simplified version could be done fairly easily.

There are so many damned special rules between the BRB and the trillion codixes, supplements, dataslates, etc, that many games, even with experienced players, require quite alot of rule checks.

I'd say its "advanced" enough as is...I'd like a "basic" version!

I like 6th Ed rules by and large - if they fixed the broken units and tided up a few rules - all good for me.....

we tend to play 1500-2000 pt games and are normally done in no more than a couple of hours - usually quicker.

There already is here.

They call it playing 40k 2nd ed.

I haven't liked 40k since 5th ed - but can't bring myself to go back to 2nd ed. It's not that I didn't like it - I didn't play enough of it to know whether I liked it.

Even slower paced? So one games takes 6-7 hours? Oo

I don't think there should be an "advance" Version of the rules.

The standard game should be rules heavy, and geared towards the competitive scene. With hard and fast rulings, and things designed for balanced and consistent play. (( aka, no random mysterious terrain and the like))

Then a second "rules light" version, for the casual players, who want the Narrative game that GW seems to want to push on players.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A better 40k Advanced would be one with a Mandatory FOC, no allies, no superheavies, a 0-1 restriction on certain powerful gribblies and no 2++ rerolls. Basically one that makes the game a proper wargame instead of a fan fiction simulator.

Knowing GW they will make everything worth using (not powerful, no power units for the Tyranids ever, just everything you need to actually have a chance) for the Tyranids 0-1 (and they will all cost twice as much as they should) and restrict you to boring, painfully mediocre units with no options while their new favorite army of the edition has no 0-1 restriction on anything that matters.

Its not fast play vs advanced...

It quality rules without unbalancing loopholes and support to tweak the system as needed,,, versus half arsed unbound crap with no FAQ or thought for how anyone plays outside their sheltered (and apparently moderately skilled) playtesters.

Is it just some 40k players who think you have to have huge amount of rules to arrive at deep engaging game play suitable for narrative and competitive play?

All the other game companies seem to manage straight forward rules, deep and engaging game play , with enough balance for competitive games, and fast flowing intuitive game play that lets the narrative flow naturally .

I think it is much better to start with a straight forward game that delivers engaging and enjoyable random pick up games...
Then add supplement books to develop the game in different directions.

Rather "Simple 40k". Because that's what I'll be homebrewing if 7th introduces even more USRs, special rules that are just the combination of two USRs or more random tables to roll on.

I'm sick of this whole "rerolls to hit on a charge when assaulting infantry squads of at least twice it's own size under a full moon in september, recieving the zealot and crussader USRs for two rounds in case the first CC round is won". Just give a plain +1WS or +1A or +1 AP and finetune ballance with the points cost.