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.

Extra Armour gives a vehicle a 3+ armor save vs glances. It would cut down on things like deffguns, tau pulse weapons, gauss, etc from shredding walkers and other light AV vehicles but won't prevent things like rockets, meltas, lascannon, plasma, etc from killing vehicles.it would need to be adjusted so some of the lighter skimmers or flyers couldn't take it (force them to jink instead of having armor saves)

Tactical objective cards can have any card that is impossible to occur in a battle to be removed at the beginning of the match. Destroying a building when there are zero buildings, killing a flyer when the enemy has zero flyers, casting a psykers ability when you don't have any psykers, etc.

Vehicles can fire blast weapons as snap shots but not at flyers or in overwatch. I can fire my rail gun as a snap shot but why not the submunition fired from the same gun?

New rule called Zog Off (sounds orky but whatever). A model with Zog Off can roll to ignore a challenge on a 5+ and is improved for each WS higher the model with the special rule has over the challenger. So a Tau Firewarrior Shas'ui challenging an Ork Nob with Zog Off would be ignored on a 3+. If the ignore roll fails he can still opt to sit out (unless alone) but doesn't attack. You have to select the model answering the challenge before making the roll and can not swap who takes the challenge if zog off fails. Only the model with the special rule that answered the challenge can attempt a zog off roll. A roll of a 1 always fails zog off.

variable movements speeds, like 4",6", 8"

Assault after deepstrike.

Base to base contact in movement phase is assault without overwatch.

 poolatka wrote:
variable movements speeds, like 4",6", 8"

Everything moving 6 is weird. This way HW teams could just have a move 4" instead of move or fire. Fast assault units actually get to cover more ground than guys backpedaling with guns.

Expand the weapons skill to hit chart. open it up to 2,3,4,5,6. WS 7 will usually hit on a 2+. If assault actually happens in this game, it can often be very stagnant.

I really like the previous mention of Pistols overwatch at full BS, yet i do dislike overwatch in general.

 Nem wrote:

What I don't want;

Skirmish - the market is dripping wet in skirmish games, Kickstarter is popping up more and more -40k doesn't need to change, not everyone like skirmish. As they are very limited in their options and play styles within a system I get bored with them quickly, I want epic battles.

If I could agree with anything more than I do agree with Nem right now, Privateer Press would kidnap me and create a Protectorate of Menoth warjack based on my appearance called the Agreemer.

GW once sold a game made for epic battles. What was it's name?

It used a scale appropriate to the goal rather than asking people to buy that many 28mm miniatures and cram them onto one table.

How would I change the 40k rules? Select all, delete. Every single aspect of the game is broken beyond any hope of repair, the only solution is to make a completely new game in the 40k universe after firing all of GW's rule authors.

 Peregrine wrote:
How would I change the 40k rules? Select all, delete. Every single aspect of the game is broken beyond any hope of repair, the only solution is to make a completely new game in the 40k universe after firing all of GW's rule authors.

You also need to get rid of the management mandate that says that rules are there to sell models and replace it with one that says rules are there to give a great fun gaming experience and people will naturally want to buy models for it.

I don't have specific rules, but nerf serp shield and marker lights and other tau crap.

The bare minimum I would do would be to cut it into 3 levels:

-Squad/Platoon skirmish game of about 10-50 models per side. Would mainly be based off Standard 40k with heavy Kill Team and 40k in 40 Minutes-based rules. Limited vehicles, largely focused on infantry.
-Company level action, 50-100 models per side with each model representing 3-5 men. The scale 40k is most like today, with about a company or so of men with armoured support elements.
-"Apocalypse", 100+ models, operational level games (battalion level up). Freeform, with Lords of War, superheavies, and whatnot allowed.

 Peregrine wrote:
How would I change the 40k rules? Select all, delete. Every single aspect of the game is broken beyond any hope of repair, the only solution is to make a completely new game in the 40k universe after firing all of GW's rule authors.

+1

It needs a complete, fresh reboot.

*Codexes need to be designed at the same time and released ALONGSIDE the new edition. No more codex creep or books getting done at the beginning or end of a version's lifespan.

*Every model kit has its rules and stats included on the back of the instruction sheet. In this way, you can release a new kit with an older codex.

*Stop having armywide rules that completely ignore or break the rules in the BRB. The only thing ever to get FAQed should be the BRB.

Just a few things off the top of my head.

actually, i'd like an official online faq of official rulings for weird scenarios. Like, you can select two units and it'll clarify weird by-laws. If it were official it would mean a lot to the players, and also be a nice friendly trustworthy quick reference. I hate referencing forum posts and anything other than the rulebook. At the very least, put your video game budget into a full digital version that we can be like, 'well when i shot it with the blah blah in the video game it did this'. something concrete, or maybe even official gamesworkshop battle reports... like, weekly.... even if they were fully rehearsed and dice staged to show weird scenarios.

In my opinion most people's complaints about the rules or not actualy rules problems for example I could say you should be allowed to assault after deep strike that's not a problem with the rules though it's just a thing abou the game that I dont like. A real rules problem is when I literally do not understand how to play out a specific part of the game. Peoples complaints about the rules are wildly overblown.

 CrosisDePurger wrote:
In my opinion most people's complaints about the rules or not actualy rules problems for example I could say you should be allowed to assault after deep strike that's not a problem with the rules though it's just a thing abou the game that I dont like. A real rules problem is when I literally do not understand how to play out a specific part of the game. Peoples complaints about the rules are wildly overblown.

Anything that has to do with balance, slowing the game down, confusing the game, or works against immersion/fluff, is a rules problem.

Hence assaults after deep strike are a rules issue for some people. The many restrictions on when you can and can't assault has a direct effect on the effectiveness of assault, and thus is a problem with the rules as assault is fairly underwhelming.

 Blacksails wrote:

 CrosisDePurger wrote:
In my opinion most people's complaints about the rules or not actualy rules problems for example I could say you should be allowed to assault after deep strike that's not a problem with the rules though it's just a thing abou the game that I dont like. A real rules problem is when I literally do not understand how to play out a specific part of the game. Peoples complaints about the rules are wildly overblown.

Anything that has to do with balance, slowing the game down, confusing the game, or works against immersion/fluff, is a rules problem.

Hence assaults after deep strike are a rules issue for some people. The many restrictions on when you can and can't assault has a direct effect on the effectiveness of assault, and thus is a problem with the rules as assault is fairly underwhelming.

I disagree. Almost every example of rules problems is really just people's opinion's of how the game should be. You could simplify and speed up games drastically if you removed costumization from units like Hordes/Warmachine but you also lose the fun of fine tuning the army, that's an opinion not a rules issue.

Immersion/fluff... whatever go play D&D. If this game represented its fluff every single game would be a hopeless battle from one side or the other.

People will always complain about balance. They complain about it is SC2 and that game is tested all to hell and back. Not every tactic needs to be equally viable nor will they ever be.

First of all, the rules govern gameplay. Therefore, anything that happens within the game is a direct result of the rules. Therefore, balance issues (not subjective ones, but obvious glaring issues) are rules issues.

 CrosisDePurger wrote:


I disagree. Almost every example of rules problems is really just people's opinion's of how the game should be. You could simplify and speed up games drastically if you removed costumization from units like Hordes/Warmachine but you also lose the fun of fine tuning the army, that's an opinion not a rules issue.

No, customization of units happens before the game when you build your list. The game can easily be streamlined while maintaining all of the custom options the game currently offers. The rules aspect is how those options play out in game. Some of which have clunky mechanics, or the very process of selecting them is confusing (the 6th ed marine book was a good example of this with the relics).

Immersion/fluff... whatever go play D&D. If this game represented its fluff every single game would be a hopeless battle from one side or the other.

You are missing the point. This game can cater better to a 'cinematic' or immersive feel by making certain mechanics feel less forced. Flyers are a great example of this; even in the year 40,000, it still brings a lot of questions why supersonic aircraft loiter within a tiny segment of airspace at heights that are threatened by small arm fire. The flyer mechanics could have been included in any number of different ways that would have flowed better with the game.

People will always complain about balance. They complain about it is SC2 and that game is tested all to hell and back. Not every tactic needs to be equally viable nor will they ever be.

People complain about balance because there are always balance issues. If you're going to compare games, at least compare miniature games. With 40k, the balance is a very serious issue for the game; every other wargame currently on the market achieves a level of balance far better than 40k. This drives a lot of people away. Many of the balance issues are also fairly obvious and somewhat simple fixes. We'll never achieve perfect balance, but no one expects it either. You can get close enough where the deciding factor int he outcome of the game is not who brought a rock to scissors, but how you utilized the scissors to break the rock.

Many games already do this, where the game's deciding factor is player decision, not a rock-paper-scissors with 28mm figures.

 CrosisDePurger wrote:

People will always complain about balance. They complain about it is SC2 and that game is tested all to hell and back. Not every tactic needs to be equally viable nor will they ever be.

Right, because if your army relies upon a certain phase of the game--assault, for example-- it's completely my fault that my poor tactics have difficulty overcoming the games' designer's flawed rules making the shooting phase more advantageous. There should be no question that there needs to be relative balance between assault and shooting. This is a fundamental flaw and cannot be FAQed.

I think you're confusing QQing for legitimate issues, or you're intentionally ignoring valid complaints because the game suits your needs and that's all you care about. If you're happy with the state of the rules, then keep on keepin' on and let the haters hate, amirite?

 frozenwastes wrote:
GW once sold a game made for epic battles. What was it's name?

It used a scale appropriate to the goal rather than asking people to buy that many 28mm miniatures and cram them onto one table.

Rofl dofl.

I'd fire the head of the rules department at GW. I'd then hire a monkey with a mental disorder and put him in the vacant position. I expect the GW games rules would improve by 1,000 percent.

Cover gives a to hit modifier not an imaginary shield that protects people better than armour. -1 for soft cover - 2 for hard cover - 3 for a bunker.

This has been said many times Charges from reserves but are counted as disordered charges.

A limit on the amount of warp charges an army can accumulate, eldar and Daemon players chuck buckets of dice around and it's just gotta stop.

Tanks get a T and W, Meltas cause D3 wounds if within half range.

My biggest change would be allowing us to CHOOSE things. I know the game is going for the whole 'narrative' thing, but the things that could either make or break our army often hinge on a dice roll before the start of the game.

Warlord Traits and Psyker powers are the big one. Some traits are USELESS for certain style armies, and getting a useless trait is a slap in the face each and every time for me. I understand that some powers and traits are better than others, but there are plenty iof people who would choose some of the 'less useful' ones if they can combo it up with another power to MAKE it useful. Example: I want my Weirdboy to be my ticket to their front lines, but I can't always get that result. So I often waste points to get two chances to roll it now on the table. But if I get Power Vomit and the Beam, those prove to be far less useful to me because they don't have any synergy. Their ranges conflict, as due their purpose.

I'd rather have my Weirdboy be able to warp my Boyz around, then vomit on a squad they appear in front of, or Warp one turn, then next turn bless my army with extra attacks. Just the little things that bug me about 40k. There is TOO much random factor, that it feels like a game is lost turn one because of the game making me have abilities I can't use or don't want.

The Ignore's Cover USR, as it stands, is the bane of 40k. Change it to "forces the target unit to take cover saves with a -1 modifier to the save die roll" and we'd be one step closer to a fun game again.

 Voidwraith wrote:
The Ignore's Cover USR, as it stands, is the bane of 40k. Change it to "forces the target unit to take cover saves with a -1 modifier to the save die roll" and we'd be one step closer to a fun game again.

This, this, this.

In much the same way as Ignores Cover completely negates the save, I much prefer the armour penetration mechanic in Deadzone where each extra point of armour pen reduced the armour save of the target by one so any AP value is useful and you don't have huge variances in effect going from AP4 to AP3 for example.

 Yonan wrote:
In much the same way as Ignores Cover completely negates the save, I much prefer the armour penetration mechanic in Deadzone where each extra point of armour pen reduced the armour save of the target by one so any AP value is useful and you don't have huge variances in effect going from AP4 to AP3 for example.

I can already hear the Space Marine players complaining about terminators, all the way from the future!

Armor save modifiers

 deviantduck wrote:

 poolatka wrote:
variable movements speeds, like 4",6", 8"

Everything moving 6 is weird. This way HW teams could just have a move 4" instead of move or fire. Fast assault units actually get to cover more ground than guys backpedaling with guns.

Expand the weapons skill to hit chart. open it up to 2,3,4,5,6. WS 7 will usually hit on a 2+. If assault actually happens in this game, it can often be very stagnant.

I really like the previous mention of Pistols overwatch at full BS, yet i do dislike overwatch in general.

We are trying out a new movement mechanic: Initiative + Armor Save in inches.

Terminators move 6", regular marines 7" and so on. So far, very promising. Jump infantry for example are as above X 2". We use the old 6" assault distance, but now use a 'reaction phase' that allows defenders to possibly move or shoot, similar to over watch.

Btw, we allow a single pistol shot as one of the attacks in close combat, resolved to Hit as Weapon skill. Makes those plasma pistols handy!

TechMarine1 wrote:
Armor save modifiers

Really, do saves need to be separate at all? It's a weird situation right now where you might take a wound but hold on! Turns out the attack didn't get through your armour, or actually missed you entirely (after "hitting" and "wounding" you), and hit the wall you were hiding behind? It's a strange timing issue, seemingly designed to cause "Did this effect trigger when you were wounded?" arguments. Cover should modify the attack roll, and armour should modify toughness.

High folks.
I would throw away the WHFB in space versions 3.6 rules we currently have.

And write a rule set specifically for the game play of 40k.
My concept would be start with the Epic rules( massive battle rules ) , and ADD detail to bring the game up to the current level battle game .

I would use unit cards with all the relevant information on them .(Like other games do.it makes in game reference SO much easier..)

And use stat lines DIRECTLY .
EG
Actual values= number of dice rolled , ranges of weapons, and unit movement in inches.
AND
Score required to succeed, or modifier as appropriate.

No charts or tables required !

Write rules inclusively , so the core rules cover 80% minimum of the game play, and special rules are just for a few special abilities.

How many unit types are there in 40k from a game mechanics perspective?Two that is all.Discrete units and indiscrete units.
(Units you remove models from to indicate damage , and units where you track damage separately)

These can be covered with the same resolution methods with very slight alterations for larger multi- wound models.(larger models get 3 armour value for facings as now, and damage is tracked on unit card as opposed to just removing models.)

I would also list the weapon profile individually for each unit to display the weapon effect for that particular user,(This means focus on net in game effect, without having to reference seperate information.)

I would include suppression as part of the natural ranged damage resolution process.

GW plc are writing rules exclusively for new releases to inspire short term purchasing, following the directive of the sales department.

I think the core game play concepts that make 40k 40k, are 'players turns' and '3 stage damage resolution'.(Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save.)
You can keep these and make the rules a lot more straight forward and intuitive.

I can post some example of the revised resolution methods is any one is interested?

Massive stream lining and making the whole system faster and more simplified.

MYbe supply ever unit with a rule card, make it easy and can roll out upgrades to multiple factions without having to do whole massive updates or new codex's.

Still need rules and the codxex for some things but the rules cover game mechanics, the codex covers the army special rules, and other specialised information and cards are simpaly a a way to mean you can gfree up production to be far more creative and supply them by replacement as easy to download PDF files.

Rules and such are decided and reduced in cost as easch has clearly defined task and no need to update as regualy, make game cheaper for players as I'm not having to add new units much to codex, the cards carry stats, cost and the formations they use.
The codex intterperts the special rules and has fluff but its point costs etc transfer to info cards. Codex cost goes down and simply becomes the backgrpoud and cypher to all the special rules and such.
The core rules supply the game mechanics only in the light verson, extra fluff/art versions sold separately at same time but have a cheaper version too that covers only rules. Say half price of full version.

And finally fprgeworld is combined into the system properly so no longer any arguments they are part of the core game, the codex's cover there special rules for faction, the cards supply info on points a etc.

However super hevey etc is kept for certain game types as there very powerul and not allowed below a certain point cost. With a scale for levels which they can be used from lesser ones to full reaver titans, emperor class and god machines.

I'd throw the game away and start over. Oh, I'd keep a few basic things like the fact that it uses D6 dice and models. Beyond that though, meh. The problem I see with 40k is that they copy/paste previous editions but don't really sanity check what they've brought over. More to the point, it's grown such that I'm not sure any individual can keep the entire thing straight in their head. Which means no matter what they need to hire someone that knows how to organize and categorize information in a way to make it apparent to rules authors how jacked up the game is. Basically, they need to standardize how things work and build a framework that rules authors have to stay within.

In the software industry we spend an inordinate amount of time coming up with solutions for "corner" cases. Basically those situations that don't (or shouldn't) happen very often but that we need to handle anyway. As soon as you add two codexes to the current rule set you have one giant corner case in which the players are left to decide how things work. If I wanted to play games like that I wouldn't buy a rule set at all.