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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

For many rules I'd use modifers like "+1 to penetrate" "-1 to wound" rather than actually modifying stats. A lot of special rules would end up different to what they are now, but they'd still do the job of setting the unit apart.

I do tend to think there's just way too much special rules in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

If GW wrote the core rulebook to be significantly more simple and then added more smaller supplements, I think that'd solve the problem of the 40k community not wanting to use supplements.

I think part of the problem with Apocalypse in itself is that even when it came out a lot of "standard" 40k players just looked at it and thought "feth if I'm paying that much money and spending that much time to play a game of Apoc".

Escalation was closer to what we needed. And I have no problem with having a supplement like Escalation but then still including superheavies in the core codices so that you write something like "This unit requires the Escalation supplement to use".

I don't think that is true that people ignored them.

When Apocalypse was released there was a roughly 50/50 split between people who liked it and people who didn't. The people who liked it played with it, there were battle reports and so on. Similarly I had the earlier Cities of Death supplement and played with that, but not everyone did.

If it were true, it wouldn't a problem since the purpose of providing a variety of rules is to allow people to select the kind of game they want to play.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
To look at this logically, everyone who wanted to play 40K as it stood in 3/4/5th editions was playing it.

It is obvious that 6/7th editions have driven people away, because the sales have dropped.

I don't see how it is to anyone's advantage to make a game that fewer people want to play. GW may think it is to their advantage to sell more expensive rules and models, but it apparently isn't working.

Assault from deepstrike please

pax_imperialis wrote:
Assault from deepstrike please

I know there is a "fluff" argument that they would be a bit too disorientated to do this, but you could also argue that the big bright flash of light would have the same effect on the enemy. Perhaps both strike at the same time to reflect this?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I don't think they plan things to the level or knowing statistical outcomes of things, and yes things work work slightly differently as stats rather than special rules, but you could re-factor most into stats without having any significant impact on the game. Always strikes first just means I10, Always strikes last just means I1

I mean the WS/BS/I/Ld systems have scope for lots of values from 0-10 but almost all sit within 1 point of deviation from each other - almost everything is BS=3-5, T=4-6, I=3-5, Ld=8-9, yet the rules allow for BS9 (albeit with that horrible double-roll thing).

Yes twin-linking with re-rolling misses doesn't do the same as BS+1, but it wouldn't play much differently, and doesn't even make sense as it is (why does a double linked weapon make it more likely to hit but with the same damage? Surely a twin-linked weapon would be as likely to hit and do double damage, or even just count as a double weapon that rolls independently?)

ASNF (And they Show No Fear?) for instance, could be better represented with Ld12 than "automatically passes Ld tests". Or even better, instead of in the special rules saying:

"Special Rules: And they Show No Fear" just write "Special Rules: Automatically pass Ld tests". It's a few characters more but makes things so much clearer.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Having USRs isn't the problem per se, the issue is that they are so complicated and have weird interactions, rather than just doing one thing. It'd be much easier if move through cover just let you move at full speed through cover, or fleet just added 1" to run and charge, or infiltrate was always 12" from the enemy...and for goodness sake, get rid of all the re-roll special rules, they're insanely powerful (shred, preferred enemy, hatred, fortune [not a USR, I know]).

They even have USRs for USRs:
- Zealot = fearless + hatred

Turn order. This whole "My army blasts yours off the board. Okay, your turn" thing has go. There are many ways to change it, but I'll leave that to game designers. And those first few posts I thought were spot on.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I actually prefer to have the special rules in the codices next to the unit entry,

While I can agree defining them again in the codex is good, only having them in a codex is a royal pita for anyone trying to keep up on what rules which army has, and often necessitates collecting all the codexes, something I know makes a lot of people upset.

AllSeeingSkink wrote: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.

That's the thing: most of them can't. Even in Warmachine and MtG, both of which have insane numbers of special rules, the rules don't boil down like that. Not to mention the special rules modify the game's core mechanics so if we strip them down to die modifiers we ignore mechanics that we could have otherwise focused on better.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I do tend to think there's just way too much special rules in 40k.

While a valid feeling I don't think we should dump them all for die modifiers.

Herzlos wrote:I don't think they plan things to the level or knowing statistical outcomes of things, and yes things work work slightly differently as stats rather than special rules, but you could re-factor most into stats without having any significant impact on the game. Always strikes first just means I10, Always strikes last just means I1

Always Strikes First and Always Strikes Last are Fantasy rules. And even then they still have more to them than just I10 and I1 respectively. Like what happens when a model has both, or what happens when a model with ASF has a higher I than the opponent as well.

Herzlos wrote:I mean the WS/BS/I/Ld systems have scope for lots of values from 0-10 but almost all sit within 1 point of deviation from each other - almost everything is BS=3-5, T=4-6, I=3-5, Ld=8-9, yet the rules allow for BS9 (albeit with that horrible double-roll thing).

That's because to keep the game the most interesting and fair the stats can't be too far from each other. Drift too far either way and it becomes less fun. The match ups should feel like everyone, when playing on an even field, has the same chance to win as everyone else, hence the statlines generally being so close with only a few exceptions.

Herzlos wrote:Yes twin-linking with re-rolling misses doesn't do the same as BS+1, but it wouldn't play much differently, and doesn't even make sense as it is (why does a double linked weapon make it more likely to hit but with the same damage? Surely a twin-linked weapon would be as likely to hit and do double damage, or even just count as a double weapon that rolls independently?)

I agree the name is a bit silly, and I'm sure people with Predators with TL Lascannons would love an extra shot, but at the end of the day people like the re-roll. It creates a feeling of security and of "I have another chance if the first one fails" that makes twin linked weapons so attractive.

Herzlos wrote:ASNF (And they Show No Fear?) for instance, could be better represented with Ld12 than "automatically passes Ld tests". Or even better, instead of in the special rules saying:

"Special Rules: And they Show No Fear" just write "Special Rules: Automatically pass Ld tests". It's a few characters more but makes things so much clearer.

They don't automatically pass leadership tests though. You can still break them, allowing you to free up objectives for a turn, or shoot them while they're out of cover, or pinned. You actually make the rule more powerful by making them pass those tests automatically.

TheSilo wrote:Having USRs isn't the problem per se, the issue is that they are so complicated and have weird interactions, rather than just doing one thing. It'd be much easier if move through cover just let you move at full speed through cover, or fleet just added 1" to run and charge, or infiltrate was always 12" from the enemy...and for goodness sake, get rid of all the re-roll special rules, they're insanely powerful (shred, preferred enemy, hatred, fortune [not a USR, I know]).

Most USRs only do one thing. Some are a touch more complicated with built in exceptions (Unwieldy for instance that doesn't apply to MCs or Walkers). And the rerolls aren't "insanely powerful" when you do the math. Yes they can drift way down the bell curve sometimes, but they don't come free either (save for Fortune, but at least you can potentially negate that).

TheSilo wrote:They even have USRs for USRs:
- Zealot = fearless + hatred

Just that one AFAIK and it probably does it for flavor and simplicity. It's usually found on Priests (flavor) and it simpler to say a model gains Zealot than saying it gains Fearless and Hatred.

Like Peregrine said. Start over from fresh with a clear idea of what 40k is from the get-go. None of this wishy-washy company-scale games with skirmish rules.

Except that the game used to operate almost entirely with modifiers.

E.g. "This tank is armed with an advanced targeting computer that allows it to shoot with BS4, this is already shown in its profile."

That's basically a +1 to hit modifier, except it's shown right in the model's profile. It's the difference between just giving Commissar Yarrick T4 and giving him a USR that grants him +1 toughness.

Re rolls are crazy powerful:
- takes a 50% chance to 75% chance (a 4+ becomes 50% better than a 3+)
- a 66% chance becomes 88% (a 3+ becomes 50% better than a 2+)
- 83% becomes 98% (a 2+ becomes a 1/36 occurance)

Changing all the rerolls to modifiers would alter balance and points, but only because it would be a nerf to overly powerful special rules:
- hatred, +1 to hit in the first round of assault
- shred, just add one strength, this is such a dumb USR (and I play wyverns every game)
- move through cover, move and charge as normal
- fleet/crusader, +1" to run/terrain/charges

This would make better balance and easier gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the twin linked issue. It's the same reason why tanks have coaxial weapons on the turret, there are only so many crew men that you can fit in a vehicle doing only so many things. I imagine trying to aim and fire a double barreled shot gun, you've got a large AOE but probably can't get the full damage on a single target.

TL should just +1 BS for sanity and simplicity. Not a great reflection of reality, but good enough for the game.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Forcing supplemental rules into the main game isn't the answer because it drives away people that don't like that stuff. The core game should be something that has broad appeal. Supplements should be for stuff that many people don't like or don't want to deal with or prepare for every single game. This keeps the player base a big as possible. I suspect that are far more people who will decide not to play the game at all if they have to worry about titans/flyers/etc to every game, than people who won't play at all if they can't bring titans/flyers/etc. to every game.

there should be no way to get 2++, specially if re-rollable

 Vector Strike wrote:
there should be no way to get 2++, specially if re-rollable

Dark Eldar would take issue with that.

There should be ways to get 2++ but they should be either: a) prohibitively expensive (50+ points), b) have a draw back (like the "lose it after the first failure" that DE have). I can agree that easy access to re-rolls for them shouldn't be a thing though.

@The Silo.
I totally agree IF you use the stat line for direct representation , and limited sensible modifiers.(Add to the target score to make the chance of success harder, or to the dice roll to make it easier to succeed.)

Then over 80% of current game play can be covered with core rules, and only special abilities need to use special rules.

The problem with using a D6 in a deterministic way to present armour saves,is that if the game needs saves rolls better than 2+.
You have to add extra rules , to cover the models units with saves better than 2+.

So you end up with standard armour saves, ++ saves, a separate system for vehicles,and special rules/USRs on top of these 3 systems.
And because of multiple systems that use different criteria for interaction, it also makes the game play hard to balance.

That is why I would prefer to use a new resolution method for weapon and armour interaction , that covers all units and weapons.That gives a wider range of proportional results

The only thing that can be done to "fix" the ruleset is a complete redesign from the ground up.

I kinda liked Dark Potential's way it dealt with weapon ranges. I mean as it is in 40k with my 24inch range bolter, the round just disappears at the 25inch mark? Lol what dp did was make it so you could fire a weapon past its "maximum range" but took penalties on it depending on how much farther away it was. I also wish I could charge after scouting, and wish I could assault out of most vehicles, deep striking (especially with my firehawks special character) but oh well.

 Cptskillet wrote:
I kinda liked Dark Potential's way it dealt with weapon ranges. I mean as it is in 40k with my 24inch range bolter, the round just disappears at the 25inch mark? Lol what dp did was make it so you could fire a weapon past its "maximum range" but took penalties on it depending on how much farther away it was. I also wish I could charge after scouting, and wish I could assault out of most vehicles, deep striking (especially with my firehawks special character) but oh well.

I think it's less that it disappears and more that it's inaccurate enough or doesn't have enough kintetic energy to not matter at that range. Could we start adding/subtracting modifiers? Sure, but then we might as well make every weapon range across the whole board because there wouldn't be a reason to not let your Marines sit in a corner and shoot mine on the opposite end of the board if they could see.

Basically it's a sacrifice of realism to ensure models don't just recreate WW1 every game and actually move and do things.

 TheSilo wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the twin linked issue. It's the same reason why tanks have coaxial weapons on the turret, there are only so many crew men that you can fit in a vehicle doing only so many things. I imagine trying to aim and fire a double barreled shot gun, you've got a large AOE but probably can't get the full damage on a single target.

TL should just +1 BS for sanity and simplicity. Not a great reflection of reality, but good enough for the game.

I've never fired a double barrelled shotgun but I've held one, and I'm assuming unless the barrels are skewed, if you fire both together you'll more or less hit the same area twice, either missing completely or doing double the damage. They aren't intended to provide wider scatter; it's just to save on reloading (i.e. you fire one, then the other). You might get some minimal increased chance of hitting because they overlap by a few inches at source, but that's dependent on the spray.

Take a twin linked lascannon for instance. It's 2 barrels sharing a target and probably a targetting system (since they are usually fixed together somehow). Since it's a fairly small target area, you're not really any more likely to hit, but if you do hit you'd most likely hit twice.

But I guess it depends on what you regard as twin linked. I think for simplicity sake they should just double the ROF (so they both shoot normally, but at the same target).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
because there wouldn't be a reason to not let your Marines sit in a corner and shoot mine on the opposite end of the board if they could see.

That's why you make sure they can't see everything across the board while simultaneously being in a good position to accomplish mission objectives. Or you make it so that the distance modifiers are harsh enough that a unit camped in one corner of the table with bolters isn't going to be hitting very often and has a strong incentive to move up and engage at a more effective range. Or you make barrage weapons/air strikes/etc lethal enough that a unit camped out in the middle of nowhere with no enemy units around can be wiped off the board without any concerns about friendly fire. There are solutions to the gunline problem, increasing weapon ranges to something less absurd only leads to a game of nothing but gunlines if it's a bad game that doesn't use any of the available tools.

Herzlos wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the twin linked issue. It's the same reason why tanks have coaxial weapons on the turret, there are only so many crew men that you can fit in a vehicle doing only so many things. I imagine trying to aim and fire a double barreled shot gun, you've got a large AOE but probably can't get the full damage on a single target.

TL should just +1 BS for sanity and simplicity. Not a great reflection of reality, but good enough for the game.

I've never fired a double barrelled shotgun but I've held one, and I'm assuming unless the barrels are skewed, if you fire both together you'll more or less hit the same area twice, either missing completely or doing double the damage. They aren't intended to provide wider scatter; it's just to save on reloading (i.e. you fire one, then the other). You might get some minimal increased chance of hitting because they overlap by a few inches at source, but that's dependent on the spray.

Take a twin linked lascannon for instance. It's 2 barrels sharing a target and probably a targetting system (since they are usually fixed together somehow). Since it's a fairly small target area, you're not really any more likely to hit, but if you do hit you'd most likely hit twice.

But I guess it depends on what you regard as twin linked. I think for simplicity sake they should just double the ROF (so they both shoot normally, but at the same target).

That's exactly what twin linked in 2nd edition, you took the amount of successful hits and multiplied it by 2.

 Zewrath wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the twin linked issue. It's the same reason why tanks have coaxial weapons on the turret, there are only so many crew men that you can fit in a vehicle doing only so many things. I imagine trying to aim and fire a double barreled shot gun, you've got a large AOE but probably can't get the full damage on a single target.

TL should just +1 BS for sanity and simplicity. Not a great reflection of reality, but good enough for the game.

I've never fired a double barrelled shotgun but I've held one, and I'm assuming unless the barrels are skewed, if you fire both together you'll more or less hit the same area twice, either missing completely or doing double the damage. They aren't intended to provide wider scatter; it's just to save on reloading (i.e. you fire one, then the other). You might get some minimal increased chance of hitting because they overlap by a few inches at source, but that's dependent on the spray.

Take a twin linked lascannon for instance. It's 2 barrels sharing a target and probably a targetting system (since they are usually fixed together somehow). Since it's a fairly small target area, you're not really any more likely to hit, but if you do hit you'd most likely hit twice.

But I guess it depends on what you regard as twin linked. I think for simplicity sake they should just double the ROF (so they both shoot normally, but at the same target).

That's exactly what twin linked in 2nd edition, you took the amount of successful hits and multiplied it by 2.

And I still can't get over that. Ever since 2nd ed, every time I looked at my TL las on my dread, I thought, "it doesn't make sense. I should be hitting twice."

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
because there wouldn't be a reason to not let your Marines sit in a corner and shoot mine on the opposite end of the board if they could see.

That's why you make sure they can't see everything across the board while simultaneously being in a good position to accomplish mission objectives. Or you make it so that the distance modifiers are harsh enough that a unit camped in one corner of the table with bolters isn't going to be hitting very often and has a strong incentive to move up and engage at a more effective range. Or you make barrage weapons/air strikes/etc lethal enough that a unit camped out in the middle of nowhere with no enemy units around can be wiped off the board without any concerns about friendly fire. There are solutions to the gunline problem, increasing weapon ranges to something less absurd only leads to a game of nothing but gunlines if it's a bad game that doesn't use any of the available tools.

All of which is more complex than "24" range". Yes, you can make things more realistic but then you add complexity and when you start getting into that level of simulation you're better off with a computer game than a table top one.

In respect to weapon ranges and weapon profiles in general.

Why not list the 'effective ' weapon range, eg the range at which the unit will hit a target at.
This means that better shots hit target further away.

If we use a weapon profile for each unit under their stats to show the units net effect with their weapons.

EG weapon profile.

Effective range
Armour Piercing
Damage,(strength.)
Attacks.
Notes.(Weapon type and any special rules)

We could use this weapon profile for assault and ranged weapons.

I was thinking about letting close combat weapons have 0-2" range, maybe halberds etc having a 0- 3" range.
Allow models in a unit that is engaged in assault , fire pistols at enemy models in the same assault up to 6" away?

Having weapons profiles like this allows minor tweeks to units in game performance.

I may need to explain that better..

Let somebody who is good at game design/balance take the codex's from the design team and tweak points/rules.

So many units in 40k are just objectively bad it's very disappointing. You look at units that haven't seen the table in years end up the same over 2-3 codices and wonder how GW's writers could be so incompetent. I don't care if aren't making the game "competitive", when you have large power inequalities between units because you don't test it makes the games very dull, unfair, and boring.

When the only Chaos army I've seen in years is Nurgle/heldrake, you know something's wrong with the dex.

Codex imbalances would go a long way to fix the game. (Not part of the BRB, but still, it would help a lot.)

I think the core rules that 40k currently uses do not have enough scope to cover the units and unit interaction currently in the game.
So 40k relies heavily on additional systems/special rules to cover the wide diversity of units in the game '
it makes it far more difficult to arrive at tolerable levels of balance, when some units use completely different resolution methods to others.

EG monstrous creatures and vehicles often perform similar in game roles, but use competely different rules for damage resolution etc.

I honestly think that a new rule set written specifically for the units and unit interaction of the current game , would allow more diversity in game play with a massive reduction in the complication in the rules.

A game needs solid core rules to allow the game to develop and grow.

If we were to compare buildings to game systems.

WHFB would be a huge viking hall, a single story building, with stout dry stone walls supporting a beamed thatch roof.
The compressed earth foundation is fine for this type of building.(Long and low.)

40k should be a high tec sky scraper with Gothic architecture , 100 stories high with helipads and lifts etc

Unfortunatley the developers dont get much higher than the third story before the building starts to lean collapse.Due to insufficient foundations.
(Not 10'x 10' re-enforced concrete, but just compacted earth.)
And so the construction process becomes one of propping up a skewed squat tower before it collapses,rather than a gleaming spire of awe, heading towards the clouds.

The rules for 40k based on WHFB can not be fixed.
Other wise the team of game devs working on it would have managed it in the last 16 years.

Objectively a complete re write is the most efficient and effective way of improving 40k game play.
(To bring it to the same level of quality as popular games by other companies.)

I think the rules need a big redesign.

It's been said before, but one of the main problems is that we're using skirmish rules for a much larger scale game.

With the possible exception of characters, the focus should be on the units, not the models.

This is one of the reasons why I think the 6th/7th edition wound-allocation is a massive backwards step - because it forces you to micro-manage every single model. That sort of thing should only be important in skirmish games - not games which can include super-heavy tanks, air support, and dozens of 'normal' units and tanks.

 Wolfstan wrote:

pax_imperialis wrote:
Assault from deepstrike please

I know there is a "fluff" argument that they would be a bit too disorientated to do this, but you could also argue that the big bright flash of light would have the same effect on the enemy. Perhaps both strike at the same time to reflect this?

I actually like this a lot. Perhaps the deep strikers would count all their weapons as unwieldy? This guarantees that the target has a chance to fight back.

Assaulting from deep-strike is too abusable, period.

Making the attacker and defender strike simultaneously or giving the attacker's weapons unwieldy is just missing the point. For a start, striking simultaneously can often be advantage (if, for example, they're wielding PFs, THs or somesuch), likewise unwieldy does nothing to those already wielding those weapons.

But, that's far from the point - the main issues are 1) it should be presumed that the assaulting player is actually picking good targets for his assaults - so the defender's retaliation attacks are unlikely to be a concern. 2) Merely being able to keep an enemy unit in assault (thus preventing it shooting) from turn 1 can be a massive advantage.

Yes, I said turn 1, because we have to remember that Drop Pods exist. So, we can have assault units arrive on turn 1, ignore all risks of deep-striking near enemy units, and then move 6" towards their target (either to recover from a poor deep-strike result, or simply to guarantee the forthcoming charge).

Also, bear in mid that those drop pods can also carry dreadnaughts...

The fact that 40k uses game mechanics and resolution methods developed for Napoleonic warfare,(WHFB rules based on WGRG 1765-1845.)

When it has expected game play and units that function in a similar way to modern warfare .
Causes all these symptoms where things just do not work like players think they should.
(When we convert good modern warfare battle game rules to use with 40k, guess what , no issues,things play how you expect them to play!)


There are two ways to proceed,when there are game play to rules disconnects;-
1)Add loads of extra rules into the game to try to fix it.
(Then argue about why rule X buff/nerfs unit Y too much, and forget the real reason why there are so many problems in the first place.)

2)Use more appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods, so the core rules cover more of the game play directly, in a way that is more intuitive.

A team of professional game developers have been trying option 1 for SIXTEEN YEARS.

Time to look at option 2 .

I understand players may have got used to the way 40k is written.

But a complete re -write focusing on game play ,using stats directly , would change the look of the rules, but improve the basic function.
No charts and tables and pages and pages of special rules.

40k has straightforward fun intended game play .I just wish the rules were as straight forward and fun!