What would fix the 40k rules?

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.

**Fenris Frost**

The main thing that needs fixing in 40k?

The player base's attitude.

**MWHistorian**

Fenris Frost wrote:
The main thing that needs fixing in 40k?

The player base's attitude.

I disagree. Completely.
Players have been shown to have great attitudes when the game itself doesn't divide the playerbase. If the game knew what it wanted to be, the players would know what kind of game to expect.
Better rules would see far fewer players complaining about LOW, fliers, psychic powers, etc.
Better balance would see far fewer people voicing their frustrations about their armies.

Don't believe me? Check out what players say about the other games. Rules disputes really don't happen beyond "the rule states on page..." "Oh, thanks! I didn't read that!" No one complains when someone brings a Nomad army to an Infinity game for fear that army will be OP. No one says "You can't bring that warjack, it's cheese!"

Fix the game and the players will be fixed.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Fenris Frost wrote:
The main thing that needs fixing in 40k?

The player base's attitude.

When the player base in general appears to have problems with their attitude, maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with what GW are doing.

**Wayniac**

Fenris Frost wrote:
The main thing that needs fixing in 40k?

The player base's attitude.

In this case, hate the game not the players. The game has fractured the playerbase with things like LoW, flyers, and general unbalance. People wouldn't complain about flyers if they worked like in Bolt Action: Something you can buy that basically does a bombing run once to blow up a tank or unit, and that's it. People wouldn't complain about superheavies if they were like Colossals/Gargantuans in WM/H: Powerful but not able to dominate the game by their inclusion, and a tactical question.

Instead, flyers are unbalanced if you don't plan for it, and superheavies can wipe out entire armies. Is it any wonder that people don't want to play against things that might not be fun? It's no fun to bring a fluffy army and get tabled on turn 3 because your opponent wanted to bring a Titan and in the current rules Titans are head and shoulders above everything else.

**vipoid**

MWHistorian wrote:

Fix the game and the players will be fixed.

Agreed.

Balance creates problems because players can't easily run what they want - especially with a lot of fluffy lists being uncompetative.

one of the problem is both the sheer number of unit types, coupled with the fact that a lot of weapons are only effective against one or two types. And, most basic guns are utterly worthless against any sort of vehicle.

Basically, it's just too easy to end up with one army being completely ineffective against an opposing army.

Unbound, Allies and 'everything scores' are basically the nail in the coffin. Previously, most armies wanted a reasonable number of troops - since nothing else could capture objectives (which meant that basic guns would at least have some value). Now, armies can be made up of anything, and can quite easily have no infantry whatsoever and be made up entirely of vehicles or MCs. It's just a mess.

**Grimtuff**

Fenris Frost wrote:
The main thing that needs fixing in 40k?

The player base's attitude.

Well, the air must sure be thin up there from that gigantic high horse you're on...

**Vaktathi**

Fenris Frost wrote:
The main thing that needs fixing in 40k?

The player base's attitude.

Protip, if that's what's perceived as the problem, something is wrong.

The attitude is a symptom, not the problem itself.

**Musashi363**

You have to ask yourself, why of ALL games do GW players have the worst attitude? Scientifically you have to find out what the common element is. As was pointed out, other games don't have these issues, so why GW players? The answer: GW itself is causing the bad attitude amongst players.

**Jaq Draco lives**

A very simple game FAQ would improve everyones view of the game if not fix the problems.

This little addendum which would take mere minutes to right goes as such:

"A 2+ invulnerable save can never be made rerollable."

**Grimtuff**

Jaq Draco lives wrote:
A very simple game FAQ would improve everyones view of the game if not fix the problems.

This little addendum which would take mere minutes to right goes as such:

"A 2+ invulnerable save can never be made rerollable."

It really wouldn't. It's a start, but you're coming to the aftermath of an earthquake with a dustpan and brush there.

40k needs a complete and utter teardown and rebuilding from the ground up.

**vipoid**

I agree, but an faq might at least keep up the pretence that GW actually *cares* about the game and its players.

As opposed to just leaving important rule questions completely unanswered.

e.g. an entire edition has gone by and Commissar Yarrick still can't be your warlord (despite having a warlord trait), because he outranks himself.

**Tamereth**

So much is needed to fix 40K

First and foremost, simplify everything.
Not every unit needs half a dozen special rules. There doesn't need to be SO many special rules.
Use stats instead of special rules more often.
How many USR are there that deal with movement. Every single one of them could be done away with by giving units a movement stat.
USR that do nothing other than give other USR's are a waste of ink on paper, and my time to read.

Secondly reduce the amount of dice rolling. I should never have to roll 5+ dice to resolve an action in a game. I often do in 40K.

Thirdly playtest until a semblance of balance is achieved.

**Frozocrone**

Echoing what everyone is saying...a complete break-down and rebuild of the entire ruleset.

Objective Secured Drop Pods for easy Victory Points, never mind the fact they are immobile?
Invisibility to make it hard to kill units that are destroying your army?
Re-roll able 2++ on that unit that is causing you problems?
Dedicated Transports that don't take up FOC?
Allies to patch that weakness in your army to make it easier on yourself to win?
Unbound because taking multiple DeathStar units is a-OK?
LoW in standard games because why not?

I have my own problems with the game (Allies/Unbound should have never have happened in my opinion)but a lot of all this could be rectified by simply play-testing before new editions came out, now it need's a massive revamp.

We have to remember that GW is a modelling company first and foremost, it just so happens that there is a game for it, so massive rule revamps are unlikely to happen. My local gaming club has a lot of house rules in place that makes the game enjoyable for all, simply to make up for GW's incompetence.

**AegisGrimm**

Frankly, 40K needs an older player base (or at least a more mature one), and it needs rules that do not get Errata on release-day, or cater to whatever they want to push for models.

All of the lists that cater to one theme (like Space Marines using all terminators, or all bikes, etc) should be of a comparative power level so they have an equal chance against each other or other armies.

GW could stop focusing on the players that splurge on their product and then drop it a year later.

Go back to the level of USR's that they had with the 4th edition rulebook. It was what, 20-somthing special rules? All it did was collate the special rules from each codex into a central index, like True Grit, Fleet of Foot/Hoof, etc. You do not need dozens of special rules to remember each time you do nearly anything on the game table. Just several clear, concise ones that are easy to remember and cover a large number of models.

**Lanrak**

40k needs to expand it player bases, in a more defined way. IMO.

Currently its just 'every cool sounding idea any one ever thought of ' randomly thrown together in a collection of 'books of big ideas' to sell models.

Pick a thousand 40k players at random and ask them what they think 40k should be , and their reasons for thinking that.
And every possible size of game and play style will be mentioned from small skirmish to large battle games, from tight tournament to totally free flowing narrative play styles will be stated.

And there are elements of all these things in 40k, that players can use to justify their preferred option.

But rather than let the players argue who is 'right'.

GW plc should take charge of the vast possibilities of the 40k game setting, and release more structured and focused rules releases.

EG
A balanced skirmish rule set for pick up and play games.(Army lists in the rule book.)
An ideal starter for new players that gets them enjoying playing quickly.

Skirmish supplements.
A 'Campaign book' , with linked scenarios to appeal to, and inspire the more narrative players .(Expand range of minatures used.)

A 'Tournament pack' , to support those wanting to play more competitively .(Expand the range of army lists.)

A balanced battle game rule set for pick up and play games.(Army lists in the rule book.)
An ideal starting place for people wanting to try larger games.

Battle game supplements.
Campaign books and Tournament packs in a similar way to the skirmish game supplements.

This way it is clear to all there are many ways to ENJOY playing 40k.
And players can simply move the the game type they enjoy best, KNOWING they have a clear choice of FUN ways to PLAY 40k.

Also it is possible to use the same core game mechanics and resolution methods for both skirmish and battle games, by changing the focus of the game play from model interaction, to unit interaction.

The game setting and potential player base of 40k is huge.

So splitting it up into easily definable 'style of game' , makes it much easier to put ideas in appropriate places, and define and refine the game play for each.

**vipoid**

Frozocrone wrote:

We have to remember that GW is a modelling company first and foremost, it just so happens that there is a game for it,

So, if that's their excuse, why aren't the rules free? Or at the very least cheap?

Instead, they're expecting us to pay £30-50 for poorly-written drivel and a complete absence of any balance whatsoever.

**jonolikespie**

vipoid wrote:
Frozocrone wrote:

We have to remember that GW is a modelling company first and foremost, it just so happens that there is a game for it,

So, if that's their excuse, why aren't the rules free? Or at the very least cheap?

Instead, they're expecting us to pay £30-50 for poorly-written drivel and a complete absence of any balance whatsoever.

Most expensive rules on the market by a WIDE margin, yet they expect us to believe they are a modeling company and the rules don't matter.

I think I actually find that insulting.

I can buy a full sized infinity army and everything I need to play it for the price of the GW core rulebook (not counting the codex that you have to buy as well).

**TheSilo**

Tamereth wrote:
So much is needed to fix 40K

First and foremost, simplify everything.
Not every unit needs half a dozen special rules. There doesn't need to be SO many special rules.
Use stats instead of special rules more often.
How many USR are there that deal with movement. Every single one of them could be done away with by giving units a movement stat.
USR that do nothing other than give other USR's are a waste of ink on paper, and my time to read.

Secondly reduce the amount of dice rolling. I should never have to roll 5+ dice to resolve an action in a game. I often do in 40K.

Thirdly playtest until a semblance of balance is achieved.

You don't like how my wyvern shooting at Eldar results in roll for scatter, re-roll scatter (x4), roll to wound, re-roll to wound, roll armor save, re-roll armor save?

What could possibly be wrong with Imperial Assassins that have (I kid you not) 13 special rules?

**Mymearan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

There's no obvious causality here. There's no evidence that rules changes are causing the sales drop. There are numerous other factors to consider, chief amongst which would that there are many more competitors for people's time nowadays. Just look at the amount of succesful competitors in the miniature/wargaming business. Then expand out. Look at videogames, TV, and tons of other hobbies and pastimes that are more readily available and more advanced than in GWs heyday. There is no simple answer here.

**jonolikespie**

But a new edition or new version of a codex forces people to choose to upgrade or stop playing. Clearly not everyone who was playing two editions ago still is.

I was more or less in this situation when 6th hit actually, hadn't bought anything or played much in a while, tried a game of 6th only after the small rulebook had come out. Decided I didn't like it and wouldn't be buying the rulebook, therefore I quit 40k.

**Mymearan**

People are starting and quitting all the time. The question is if newbies = quitters in any given year, and if n > q, why are more people buying less product/person, or if n < q, are less people buying the same amount of product, or are less people buying less product? etc

**jonolikespie**

Those are all good questions but in such a neice market its irrelevant. We'll just buy what Kirby tells us to buy.

**Wayniac**

jonolikespie wrote:
Those are all good questions but in such a neice market its irrelevant. We'll just buy what Kirby tells us to buy.

Sounds legit.

**Altayre**

I would start with a few overarching concepts, game turns would definitely one of them. I think phases taken by each player rather than whole turns would be a good start, and as the new system expanded playtesters could find ways of morphing the I Go, You Go system into a very reactive one.

This might sound weird but I would actually get rid of vehicle profiles!! Rules and stats for every unit are the same, but each unit has Biological or Mechanical as a type. This way people stop bitching about why X is a Walker when Y is a Monstrous Creature and change how saves work so Vehicles could get armour saves (this seems to be something people complain about a lot).
Rules would then specify what type they affected, Poison 4+ (B), Melta (M) etc

The damage table could even be modified to include any multiple Wound model (eg. shaken, stunned, immobilised, weapon destroyed/injured limb, wrecked/double wound, explodes/Instant death). This would have several advantages. the ID rule would be redundant, and basically high str/AP weapons would more likely roll a serious result on our new table. This aspect would be easily removable in higher 'tiered' games (based on size of engagement, I have made a post on this but I will briefly explain lower down!) for less bookkeeping.

Movement I would put all in one phase as people have said, and have three different types
Move:unit moves it's combat speed
Run/Cruising: unit moves a specified extra distance (probably double?) than move but may not shoot
Charge/Flat out: unit moves up to D6 extra distance than run.

I would then start butchering the rulebook until a lot of the superfluous rules were no more. Once the book was quite basic, I would expand upon specifically sized battles, as I believe 40k has no idea if it wants to be heroes and small, desperate firefights (Saving Private Ryan type thing) or mass battles (Starship Troopers).

For skirmish, I would add the rules of individual weapon ranges back in. Challenge would get a bit more interesting. Cover would be increased in effectiveness and again be based on individual models. Regroup would be easier. Basically, you want it small and fast, but with a lot more individual tactical depth.

For battles, ranges and combat resolution would all be much more unit based. No damage chart, just wounds and HP. Cover and LOS rules become way simpler. Basically, you want to get through a turn in almost the same time with a 2500 point game as you would a 500 point game

wow, looooong thought process haha, as I start to think of things, other things just keep jumping out at me!!

**Murenius**

In my eyes the main problem is that the rules are not clear in its interaction internally. Like what takes precedence over each other. Something that is covered in other systems by e.g. a LIFO rule for effects.

They took the right direction by phrasing the USRs, centralising them. Now they need to do this for other rules as well.

In comparison Magic: The Gathering hat similar problems in the past. They tackled this first by naming the effect "Deathtouch" and not writing the effect on each card.

40k should probably do the same: have one edition with clearly defined and labeled rules, make clear their priorities over each other. Then have the codices follow those rules to the word.

A lot of problems in 40k comes from playing 7th edition with a 5th edition codex where a special rule for a unit conflicts with the general rule from 7th (e.g. Deep Strike).

**TheSilo**

vipoid wrote:
Frozocrone wrote:

We have to remember that GW is a modelling company first and foremost, it just so happens that there is a game for it,

So, if that's their excuse, why aren't the rules free? Or at the very least cheap?

Instead, they're expecting us to pay £30-50 for poorly-written drivel and a complete absence of any balance whatsoever.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

**Grimtuff**

TheSilo wrote:
Tamereth wrote:
So much is needed to fix 40K

First and foremost, simplify everything.
Not every unit needs half a dozen special rules. There doesn't need to be SO many special rules.
Use stats instead of special rules more often.
How many USR are there that deal with movement. Every single one of them could be done away with by giving units a movement stat.
USR that do nothing other than give other USR's are a waste of ink on paper, and my time to read.

Secondly reduce the amount of dice rolling. I should never have to roll 5+ dice to resolve an action in a game. I often do in 40K.

Thirdly playtest until a semblance of balance is achieved.

You don't like how my wyvern shooting at Eldar results in roll for scatter, re-roll scatter (x4), roll to wound, re-roll to wound, roll armor save, re-roll armor save?

What could possibly be wrong with Imperial Assassins that have (I kid you not) 13 special rules?

The volume of special rules is a symptom, but the scale of the game that accompanies it is the core problem of that area. WarmaHordes gets along just fine with lots of individual rules for units (along with their USRs), but for the scale of the game it is appropriate. 40k typically has triple to quadruple the amount of models a "normal" WMH list has (McThrall spam lists nonwithstanding) yet you still have the same amount of micro management for where individual models are positioned and a whole glut of special rules for individual models that are simply not needed when you've got 50 odd models on the board.

40k is just schizophrenic in what it wants to be. It needs to decide if it wants to be (for lack of a better term) a game the scale of WMH or even 2nd ed. 40k (which incidentally is why I love the scale of WMH), just above skirmish but not a big company level game or be a mass battle game with some factions nearing triple figures in army size. 40k is currently the latter with the rules of the former and it is just a mess (not to even mention lords of war, artillery and flyers which really are not appropriate even in a game of that scale *cough*Epic*cough*) of a system.

**Vaktathi**

Indeed, 40k has a decidedly confused scale. We've got rules covering individual blows between squad leaders and personal challenges in hand to hand combat, alongside armor squadrons, companies of infantry, strategic missile launchers, corps level artillery, and high speed interceptor aircraft.

It has too much detail for the level its played at, but in many ways is also too abstracted for skirmish play. While this doesn't make 40k unplayable, it does make it very messy and greatly increases the problems with balance.

**Lanrak**

So what scale do you want 40k to be?

'Skirmish' or 'Battle' game?

What level of balance/restriction should it have?

Currently the rules cover a huge range of game styles very badly.

Can a single book cover all this in a well defined cohesive and intuitive way?
Even it this is possible , would new players be able to read through hundreds of pages and know exactly where to start?

(A serious problem with 7th ed is its just vast , and even experienced players returning to 40k get bewildered by it.)

Would it be better to have separate (MUCH CHEAPER) books for each play style?

Do we agree to fix 40k, it NEEDS a complete re-write that ;-
1)Has a more interactive game turn.

2) Resolution methods that use the values on the stat lines directly to remove the pointless tables and charts, and cut special rules JUST to cover actual special abilities.

3) Writes rules inclusively ,(Think about ALL the units in the game not just the one you are working on.)To stop 'special snow flake ' rules writing.

4)Use the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods available , not just the ones from the 1970s !