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.

It's been sometime since I've played so I have no idea how the rules have changed, but I know plenty of people aren't happy with them. What changes do you think need to be made for the rules to be usable, especially at competition level?

My thoughts:

Get rid of distance when it comes to weapons? Anything on the board (unless a pistol)will be in range, but keep the short distance for certain mods. If in short range you can rapid fire or move an fire. If you don't move you get one shot? Would that help?

Has H2H changed much? The last one I remember, and made sense, is that if you had a pistol & close combat weapon you got an extra attack. Grenades means you get to go 1st, but lose one attack, to a min of 1.

I would say more but it's been a long time since I last played

Any other thoughts?

Drop all of the special rules. Every single one of them. Then factor them into the stats for the unit/weapon. Your unit is fast - increase their M stat, they usually strike first in combat - increase their I stat, they are super tough - increase their T stat instead of giving them extra saves.

Hire an editor and someone experienced in technical writing to make the rules clear.

Playtest the heck out of it.

Other things I'd like to make them make more sense:

Grenades can be thrown in the shooting phase to damage units in cover, rather than having an impact on assault order.
Defenders in combat should be able to fire normally rather than snap fire. If the attacker has time to move 12" across a table over open ground, the defenders have time to aim their shots. Assaulting units should be incredibly risky.
Cover has an impact on the to-hit roll, not a save after hit/wound has happened.
Armour penetration should be a modifier to the save roll, not an ignores armour above $x - if You hit a Power Armoured Marine with a heavy bolter, it should be less likely they pass their armour save than if you hit them with a laspistol.
Get rid of the invulnerable saves.

A lot of the issues could be taken care of with rigorous playtesting. Public playtesting would be optimal. Also, some focus groups and fan input might be a good idea. So basically, the exact opposite of what GW has been doing. Unfortunately, what likely needs to happen is they need to scrap the rules all together and rebuild them from scratch. This has the added side effect of probably screwing a lot of people over, which is unfortunate.

Playtesting and actual balance between factions and units within factions. If Terminators suck, that's a design issue and someone who wants to do an all-Terminator 1st Company army shouldn't lose every game played because it's not all bikes instead.

I'd say get rid of random charges, or have the random charge distance be added to your normal move or something; you still advance if you fail a charge.

Consolidate most special rules, you don't need a ton for everything. There should be a small, well-written set of special rules.

As it stands the current system is build off a set of homebrew rules for 15mm WWII mass combat (3rd) and just heavily tweaked every 4 years or so since (every edition thereafter) while trying to stay in touch with it's RPG/28mm skirmish game predecessors (Rogue Trader and 2nd ed).

Apart from the obvious editing and playtesting it needs to decide what scale it is. If you want mass combat that's fine, if you want skirmish that is great too. But the two don't work together.

Either games need to become a lot smaller with fliers, superheavies and artillery removed from the board. Even things like Land Raiders should be limited to large battles only. A captain, 20 marines and a predator could be a full, standard sized list.

Or you could go the other way, keep the games large but remove the skirmish rules. Stop measuring and moving each model in a squad individually for god's sake. Treat a squad like a squad. It acts as a single unit, if one is in melee they are all in melee, if one can see they all can see, ect. No removing the closest, no Look out Sir, no challenges. None of that has any place in a mass battle game.

As it is 7th ed looks very much like a Frankenstein's monster of rules. Some are clearly designed for skirmish games, some regiment level warfare like Epic 40k. Some imbetween, there is just no consistency to it and it slows the game down dramatically.

I can agree with that too, I think the scale of the game should be much closer to Bolt Action, with a supplement or something that lets you field a lot of the big stuff, but what makes the game such a bloated mess right now is that it combines elements of a skirmish/company level game with big flyers and tanks and large scale battles.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I can agree with that too, I think the scale of the game should be much closer to Bolt Action, with a supplement or something that lets you field a lot of the big stuff, but what makes the game such a bloated mess right now is that it combines elements of a skirmish/company level game with big flyers and tanks and large scale battles.

No, the large scale battles are the most fun.
The rules should be rewritten so that they better fit the larger scale 40k has grown into. There should be a seperate ruleset for skirmish-level games.

Splitting it into a skirmish and big battle game (a la 40K and Apolcalypse before they tried to merge them) would be a great idea

Both are valid options, or hell make both and then market them side by side with the same models for each, but the system as it is right now is fundamentally broken.

If you cannnot buy it as a deticated transport with the unit in the options it cannot start the game in it. Period. After the start on the board if they can fit and the rules allow their type in. Then yea they can jump in and roll out.

Start over with a clean slate.

I'm quite happy with the rules.
There are a few issues because things are unclear and other rules could use some tweaks.

But it's really, really hard to create a system with good rules.
That is already proven by this thread where most ideas are just.. Well, let's not break forum-rules by swearing

Herzlos wrote:
Splitting it into a skirmish and big battle game (a la 40K and Apolcalypse before they tried to merge them) would be a great idea

Agree, but they should remove the thing you like and keep the thing I like.
See why that won't work?

Kangodo wrote:
I'm quite happy with the rules.
There are a few issues because things are unclear and other rules could use some tweaks.

But it's really, really hard to create a system with good rules

But there are plenty of systems with good rules.

Herzlos wrote:
Splitting it into a skirmish and big battle game (a la 40K and Apolcalypse before they tried to merge them) would be a great idea

Agree, but they should remove the thing you like and keep the thing I like.
See why that won't work?

Taking every idea won't work. That's what the designers are for.

What would fix the rules, is the time it takes to look up the rules, and the need to look up so many rules all the time.

I bought the ipad version. Seriously, if you dont like flicking pages, buy it.

It has links most of the time, to stuff you need.

I love the csm codex on my pad.
When i look up my lord etc, i see his special rules listed, i press the text and the rule pops up.

I look at my csm chosen entry, i press the weapon of choice, the stats apppear.

I can jump between the pages where the points on my lord is listed, and his main entry, with his rules, and his stats in reference section within a few sec.

Only thing is, it takes like 6 sec to switch between books.

But there is a glossary, where you can write and alternatives pop up, you press and it appears..

Love it. Makes the rules less arcane and hidden.

Well as some one who actually prefers to actually play games.

Rather than some one who feels 'accomplished' because they managed to unearth the secret and arcane meaning of some obscure rule hidden in poorly edited and proof read mess of a rule set.

I believe only a complete re-write , developed for the defined game play of 40k would arrive at good rule set for 40k
The current WHFB in space version 3.5.2 is not worth fixing, it is flawed to the core.

It is possible to write a core rule set that covers skirmish and battle games.

Just focus on DETAILED MODEL interaction for the skirmish rules, and DETAILED UNIT interaction in the battle game.

Same stat line , same resolution methods, just different element focus for each game type.

Do people really have all these issues in their games?

I think one of the biggest issues is the PLAYER1 move-shoot-assualt...PLAYER2 move-shoot-assualt format. Its a huge advantage to go first being able to decimate your opponenets units before they even get to have an effect on the battle. Maybe shooting could be simaltaneous phase..maybe incorporating initiave value into the mix. just spit balling here..

Defenders in combat should be able to fire normally rather than snap fire. If the attacker has time to move 12" across a table over open ground, the defenders have time to aim their shots. Assaulting units should be incredibly risky.

lol as it shooting needed another buff..?

Just take 4th and 5th editions. Look at what worked and didn't from each and come out with a new edition that is a mashup of the two. The don't make drastic new changes to the system, just occasional small balance tweaks.

Also get rid of flyers, super heavies, etc. They should not be part of the core game. Supplemental rules to allow them to be used is fine, but the basic game shouldn't include them.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
A lot of the issues could be taken care of with rigorous playtesting. Public playtesting would be optimal.

Release new models with rules in the WD along with a submission email for people who want to submit feedback about those rules. Take the collective feedback and make adjustments and put the adjustments into the next codex. There, a way to sell EVERY copy of WD, open up the rules for playtesting, and selling the models.

The system itself is fine for competitive play. Clunky, and needlessly random, certainly... but whether or not people like specific game mechanics is a matter of personal preference, not a matter of competive suitability.

No, the issue with 40K's rules as a competitive game currently is simply one of editing.

Lack of clarity in rules (Psychic Phase), or rules written so that they work in an absurd way (Blasts out of LOS) kill a system for competitive play.

What is everyone's issue with the USRs? Sure some of them are bad, but if you did not have USRs every army would be the same.

It isn't USRs in particular, it is the massive preponderance of them, my especial pet hate is USRs who seem to exist only to confer another USR

Many could be eliminated and represented in other ways which allowed for the same variety but in a less complex and wordy way, as has already been outlined in the thread

re. skirmish vs large scale fights, would people like an optional movement tray system for horde armies that allows much quicker movement and damage resolution without penalising their use, such as with pie plate mitigation built in?

I do like the detail you can get in 40k, special rules, individual characters, sergeants etc. but at higher point levels it's very cumbersome. It should be possible to have a system where the same basic game can cover both scales of play, but still maintain good speed of play at higher scales with some additional optional rules imo. ie. you could have your guardsmen and conscripts on movement trays but leave your vets individually so they could go into ruins and such.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It isn't USRs in particular, it is the massive preponderance of them, my especial pet hate is USRs who seem to exist only to confer another USR

Many could be eliminated and represented in other ways which allowed for the same variety but in a less complex and wordy way, as has already been outlined in the thread

Lul, the Eversor assassin has a 2+ poisoned weapon with shred.

Me: "Why would you not just make it auto-wound?"

JJ: "Because you will roll for that 2.7% chance of failure dammit!"

Skilled riders is the bane of my existence. "Aha, they'll never get my squad hunkered down in this bunker." "Skilled riders, we drive through that river, over that lava pit, and through the bunker window...no dangerous terrain test. Also we get 3+ jink saves."

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but I actually dislike shoving all the USR's in the main rulebook. There's too many to remember, at least for me who doesn't play the game every day.

I actually prefer to have the special rules in the codices next to the unit entry, and I'd prefer if most of the special rules boiled down to "+1 to hit", "-1 for the enemy to wound", "+1 save", "additional +1 attack on charge", etc.

Of course, if special rules were simplified like that, you could probably keep them in the main rulebook as they'd all fir on a single sheet that you could carry as a reference.

There's little need for a giant USR section in the rulebook when most special rules could be boiled down to 1 line modfiers/boosts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, get rid of the fact you can move 3 times per turn. This is just stupid, especially with the higher model counts we are getting in 40k these days. Put all movement in the movement phase, if you run, you can't shoot, if you have a gun that can be fired in the same turn you charge, just charge in the movement phase and place a marker next to the unit so you remember to shoot it in the shooting phase.

Outside a lot of individual rule changes for unit entries. The biggest changes I would prefer to see are vehicles with 4+ armor saves and extra armor pushing that to 3+. Primarily to keep the weak AP weapons from bullet spamming down vehicles as easily (especially non skimmers). The typical anti vehicle weapons (rockets, lascannon, plasma, melta, etc) would be just as effective as normal

Outside of that invisible units should take full hits from templates and be targetable by blast weapons (no BS modifier on scatter. Maybe at worse a reroll to any direct hit rolls, if it hits again then it's a direct hit as normal)

I'm sure there is other issues in the BRB but those two felt like the biggest issue.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but I actually dislike shoving all the USR's in the main rulebook. There's too many to remember, at least for me who doesn't play the game every day.

I actually prefer to have the special rules in the codices next to the unit entry, and I'd prefer if most of the special rules boiled down to "+1 to hit", "-1 for the enemy to wound", "+1 save", "additional +1 attack on charge", etc.

Of course, if special rules were simplified like that, you could probably keep them in the main rulebook as they'd all fir on a single sheet that you could carry as a reference.

There's little need for a giant USR section in the rulebook when most special rules could be boiled down to 1 line modfiers/boosts.

I disliked it more when to know certain rules you had to look through every codex to find them and sometimes there would be multiple rules that did the same thing with different names.

A universal rule system where all the core special rules are in one book isn't bad (even Privateer Press does it), it just takes some time getting used too. And honestly not that many rules really just flat out modify stats. I mean fleet re-rolls run and charge ranges, and It Will Not Die gives you potential wounds/hull points back. Shred isn't the same as S+1 and Twin-Linking isn't exactly the same statistically as BS+1 (and neither is re-rolling 1s either). I actually can't think of many rules that are just +/- bonuses actually.

Select all, delete. Start over from the beginning with a new game in the 40k universe, written by people who aren't incompetent idiots like GW's current writers. The rules are far too badly flawed for any simple solutions to make any real impact on the problem.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Just take 4th and 5th editions. Look at what worked and didn't from each and come out with a new edition that is a mashup of the two. The don't make drastic new changes to the system, just occasional small balance tweaks.

Also get rid of flyers, super heavies, etc. They should not be part of the core game. Supplemental rules to allow them to be used is fine, but the basic game shouldn't include them.

I agree in general with that.

Furthermore I would add supplemental modules to cover command and control, and morale, and an alternative activation system based on the "Sword And The Flame" rules in which you put a token for each unit into a random pot and draw one to decide who has to move a unit.

Finally, the game needs to be made as good as possible, and balanced as possible. This cannot be done by making tweaks to lots of individual core mechanics all the time. At the moment GW has a tendency to make changes to movement, shooting and wounding every edition, as well as changing points values, unit selections and special rules.

Once fixed the rules should not need changing.

The problem with supplemental rules is that the 40k community is one that defaults to playing the "core" game and acts like supplemental rules don't exist. Just look at the old FW debates, when it was "opponent's permission" you were wasting your money if you bought anything from FW. It wasn't until they got rid of the permission requirement and said " you these are part of the standard game now" that people started to accept them. Same thing with flyers/superheavies/etc, they were supplemental rules from 3rd edition to 6th edition but it was almost impossible to use them outside of Apocalypse (and hardly anyone played Apocalypse more than once a year). Now that they're in the core game they're finally relevant and you might be able to use them.