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.

I'm not sure why there seems to be people uncertain the effectiveness of pistols in CC. The way I always pictured it is, the pistol is actually being used in melee in addition to the people swinging. Firing off pot shots whenever they aren't being stung at in return. Hence the extra 'cc attack'. Also, Orks in particular, would use them as an extra club, to pistol whip anyone they can get their reach. Again, +1 extra CC attack.

Is this a flawless explanation? Nope. But it sure is cinematic!

Still, I think limiting Overwatch to just pistols kills certain armies. As much as I dislike Tau's ability to pump out fairly accurate and strong shots, you will eliminate one of their entire abilities. (Their combined over watch). And in doing so, you basically make the models able to use it...over priced now, since they lost an ability factored into model cost. You also eliminated their entire ability to overwatch as a WHOLE.

Changing Overwatch to the point that 'my army has it but yours can't because pistols' is bad design replacing an already iffy design from the beginning.

I say if you dislike Overwatch, just GET RID OF IT. Don't keep changing it to make it a continually worse mechanic.

Edit: also, making it so assault/pistols can fire after running is terrible. It again makes shooty armies more powerful by taking away the risk and strategy of forgoing shooting to get into a better/safer position. If you can just move, run, try to assault (Fail) but shoot anyway...what the hell is the point? There needs to be SOME sort of risk vs reward. And this just eliminates it altogether.

Melevolence wrote:
I'm not sure why there seems to be people uncertain the effectiveness of pistols in CC. The way I always pictured it is, the pistol is actually being used in melee in addition to the people swinging. Firing off pot shots whenever they aren't being stung at in return. Hence the extra 'cc attack'. Also, Orks in particular, would use them as an extra club, to pistol whip anyone they can get their reach. Again, +1 extra CC attack.

Is this a flawless explanation? Nope. But it sure is cinematic!

Still, I think limiting Overwatch to just pistols kills certain armies. As much as I dislike Tau's ability to pump out fairly accurate and strong shots, you will eliminate one of their entire abilities. (Their combined over watch). And in doing so, you basically make the models able to use it...over priced now, since they lost an ability factored into model cost. You also eliminated their entire ability to overwatch as a WHOLE.

Changing Overwatch to the point that 'my army has it but yours can't because pistols' is bad design replacing an already iffy design from the beginning.

I say if you dislike Overwatch, just GET RID OF IT. Don't keep changing it to make it a continually worse mechanic.

Edit: also, making it so assault/pistols can fire after running is terrible. It again makes shooty armies more powerful by taking away the risk and strategy of forgoing shooting to get into a better/safer position. If you can just move, run, try to assault (Fail) but shoot anyway...what the hell is the point? There needs to be SOME sort of risk vs reward. And this just eliminates it altogether.

The problem with that interpretation is that a holy master-crafted plasma pistol is just as effective in cc as a laspistol. Either way, I removed the pistol overwatch, I really didn't expect that to be such a controversial change. Also removed shooting after run moves.

My rewrite to the 40k rules as a whole (rough alpha currently under revision linked to under Aegis Project in my signature) included melee profiles for all 'small arms' (pistols, rifles, but not heavy weapons) intended to allow a given unit to be useful in broader scenarios.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with the line of sight setup is that a unit facing in the same direction is a very medieval idea of warfare; modern soldiers are supposed to be able to move independently and engage separate targets as needed. If we're really attached to this idea of restricted line of sight 40k couldn't function on the scale it likes to try to now, it'd have to be reimagined as a skirmish game.

That or we go hack on Necromunda and see what comes out.

I would be hard pressed to say that any of the armies bar tau follow a "modern" sense of warfare.

More importantly, it removes another need to check individual models, which puts more focus on the unit as a whole (which is the opposite of a skirmish game, I think) and the idea of restricted line of sight is important in any situation because it makes it possible to actually get across the the board without the other guy being able to hit you with everything.

@Luke_Prowler.
Modern warfare is an equal blend of mobility fire power and assault.Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.(This is how 40k should be IMO.)

NOT a static gun line , where you can shoot your enemy into submission at a tactical level!

Have you got small groups of skirmishing infantry mainly armed with ranged weapons ,supported by armoured vehicles, artillery, and air units?
That is modern warfare.

Have you got large block of troops fighting in close formation, mainly armed with close combat weapons ,where ranged weapons are used in a supporting role.
That is ancient warfare.

They are a different as golf and football in play style.And should have different rules to reflect this!

And no conversion of golf rules to cover the game of football is ever going to be as elegant or intuitive as rules written specifically for the game play of football.

Lanrak wrote:
@Luke_Prowler.
Modern warfare is an equal blend of mobility fire power and assault.Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.(This is how 40k should be IMO.)

NOT a static gun line , where you can shoot your enemy into submission at a tactical level!

Have you got small groups of skirmishing infantry mainly armed with ranged weapons ,supported by armoured vehicles, artillery, and air units?
That is modern warfare.

Have you got large block of troops fighting in close formation, mainly armed with close combat weapons ,where ranged weapons are used in a supporting role.
That is ancient warfare.

They are a different as golf and football in play style.And should have different rules to reflect this!

And no conversion of golf rules to cover the game of football is ever going to be as elegant or intuitive as rules written specifically for the game play of football.

In my opinion it is not supposed to be modern warfare. The whole point is that most races are relying on ancient tech that they don't have the resources/knowledge to replace or repair, and therefore the high technology is always given a kind of magical reverence. Tau are only worthy of mention in this context because they are the only young and dynamic race that would be capable of using modern technology efficiently, they are the exception that proves the rule.

Basically, every soldier picks his advanced plasma weapon off the rack, then proceeds to run towards the enemy to hit him with its skull shaped handle, because GRIMDARK

40K isn't about modern warfare- it's basically World War 2 in space for most of the factions.

In any case, my idea for fixing overwatch is to basically roll it into Go-to-Ground and then revamp the whole concept. So instead of what we have now, G2G would be:

Dig-in

In the shooting phase, a unit that has not fired any of its weapons may choose to Dig-in. A unit that has performed this action may only fire snap-shots for the duration of the shooting phase, and may not run or declare an assault in the assault phase. A unit that has dug-in has a 5+ cover-save when out in the open, or if already in cover improves their save by 1 (to a maximum of 2+). When an enemy unit declares a charge on a dug-in unit, overwatch is triggered. Overwatch is an out-of-sequence event in which the dug-in unit being charged may immediately make a shooting attack at full ballistic-skill at the charging unit. Overwatch is optional, but if used must be declared and performed by the controlling player after the charge is declared and before the charge roll is made.

The effects of dig-in automatically end at the start of the controlling player's movement phase.

I feel firing on overwatch should be your shooting phase. In other words if you're about to get charged, you decide to overwatch or not.

You claim overwatch, fire into the enemy charging. You kill half the squad and then are subsequently stuck in melee for X number of turns.

You claim overwatch, fire into the enemy charging. You kill the entire squad before they make it into assault. You spend your next shooting phase consolidating and reloading.

You claim overwatch, get assaulted, and finish them off in assault, you now spend your next turn consolidating and rearming etc.

Why call it overwatch then and not just...shooting at an enemy squad. lol

Since your opponent can only declare a charge on his turn, you have no way of knowing if he's going to charge your unit or not.

Altayre wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@Luke_Prowler.
Modern warfare is an equal blend of mobility fire power and assault.Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.(This is how 40k should be IMO.)

NOT a static gun line , where you can shoot your enemy into submission at a tactical level!

Have you got small groups of skirmishing infantry mainly armed with ranged weapons ,supported by armoured vehicles, artillery, and air units?
That is modern warfare.

Have you got large block of troops fighting in close formation, mainly armed with close combat weapons ,where ranged weapons are used in a supporting role.
That is ancient warfare.

They are a different as golf and football in play style.And should have different rules to reflect this!

And no conversion of golf rules to cover the game of football is ever going to be as elegant or intuitive as rules written specifically for the game play of football.

In my opinion it is not supposed to be modern warfare. The whole point is that most races are relying on ancient tech that they don't have the resources/knowledge to replace or repair, and therefore the high technology is always given a kind of magical reverence. Tau are only worthy of mention in this context because they are the only young and dynamic race that would be capable of using modern technology efficiently, they are the exception that proves the rule.

Basically, every soldier picks his advanced plasma weapon off the rack, then proceeds to run towards the enemy to hit him with its skull shaped handle, because GRIMDARK

I think it's good to think about the most compelling aspects of modern asymmetric warfare and historical regimented warfare, and try to incorporate both of them. In a realistic wargame our forces would never get within a table's length of each other, tanks could fire miles, etc.

It's good having different armies focus on different things, but I dislike that certain armies, particularly Tau, are seemingly exempt from entire phases of the game. I was hoping to create changes that would punish one-trick play styles.

Of course there's much more internal-codex balancing that is needed, I really hate the feeling of wasted space that exists in most codices. The game shouldn't have throw away units or weapons, like chess every piece should have a function.

Hi folks.
The type of war fare the game is based on depends on the units taking part.
To use history as a basic indicator, everything up to the first world war, was 'ancient warfare'.

As ranged weapons were not that accurate or effective.

However, when range weapons became deadly , the way war was fought changed dramatically .

After the first world war , ALL warfare has followed the 'modern warfare ' approach .

The fact 40k uses WHFB ancient warfare rules, is the core of ALL of it game play issues.
Most prominently the imbalance between shooting and assault.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
The type of war fare the game is based on depends on the units taking part.
To use history as a basic indicator, everything up to the first world war, was 'ancient warfare'.

As ranged weapons were not that accurate or effective.

However, when range weapons became deadly , the way war was fought changed dramatically .

After the first world war , ALL warfare has followed the 'modern warfare ' approach .

The fact 40k uses WHFB ancient warfare rules, is the core of ALL of it game play issues.
Most prominently the imbalance between shooting and assault.

But it's also a core of the 40k gameplay and fluff, and a big reason why Dawn of War was so popular among RTS players. "Modern warfare" doesn't work in a table top game.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
The type of war fare the game is based on depends on the units taking part.
To use history as a basic indicator, everything up to the first world war, was 'ancient warfare'.

As ranged weapons were not that accurate or effective.

However, when range weapons became deadly , the way war was fought changed dramatically .

After the first world war , ALL warfare has followed the 'modern warfare ' approach .

The fact 40k uses WHFB ancient warfare rules, is the core of ALL of it game play issues.
Most prominently the imbalance between shooting and assault.

...I don't follow. Assault is too weak because 40k is based on a style of warfare where guns were useless?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since folks seem to have gotten caught up in the semantics of 'modern' versus 'ancient' warfare with no agreement on definitions let me go back and rephrase:

A defined unit facing isn't going to work because the technology in 40k has passed the point where massed volume was the only way to get effectiveness out of ranged fire. Lasguns and bolters are sufficiently accurate that a unit that spreads its fire out between targets in different directions is not going to lose effectiveness in the same way a band of folks with muskets would lose their chances of hitting anything if they shot off one or two balls at a time.

Hi folks.
We if us use the rules from a game where the ranged weapons are ineffective and only used in a supporting role.(WHFB.)

Then put these same rules into a game where the ranged weapons are massively more effective without giving proper thought to the problem.(40k)

Guess what assault is not any where near as effective as shooting.

EG you have to take a hill from the enemy soldiers.if the enemy soldiers on the hill have a few bows and slings, you can just charge up the hill en mass and clobber them in assault.
However, if the enemy soldiers on the top of the hill are armed with heavy machine guns and mortars, and howitzers firing HE rounds.
Charging up the hill en mass is not a good idea anymore!

The way war is fought changed at the first world war.Before WWI war was fought in a similar way to ancient times.
After the attrition of WWI due to the introduction of massively more effective ranged weapons ,forced war to be fought in a 'modern style.'

And Dawn of War 1 and 2 both base the game play on modern warfare!(Suppression and LOS blocking/FOW effects are included.)

Using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods for 40k, makes about as much sense as using the rules for golf, as a base for the rules for football!

Can any one please point out what is worth keeping from the current 7th ed rules .That can not be replaced with a more intuitive /effective alternative.

Players 'taking turns' and '3 stage damage resolution' are the core of the 40k game play and I would not change this.

But changing the player turns from a 'entire game turn' to a 'phase/action' , or 'unit activation' is a necessary change IMO.

And resolving damage in a more intuitive /simpler way would be another necessary change.

But after these two main features have been changed, the rest of the rules need to be re done to fit.(This is my experience from the last ten or so years of looking at fixing the 40k rules.)

It's rather crude, but how about giving all weapons pinning, but making non-pinning weapons have pinning come into effect before resolving damage, rather than after it.

 YourIntestines wrote:
It's rather crude, but how about giving all weapons pinning, but making non-pinning weapons have pinning come into effect before resolving damage, rather than after it.

I would support replacing the 25% morale check with a 25% pinning check for all weapons. Weapons with "Pinning" force the ld check at -1 ld. Losing the use of a unit for a turn is fine, but with the morale check a unit can pretty much get taken out of the entire game, that seems better suited to close combat than shooting.

Interesting concept as I believe that the 40k rule set does not need much to be fixed. I am curious though what is really wrong with the current rule set when I see people say that the entire thing needs to go. I know there are a lot of issues, but nothing so ground breaking it cannot be fixed.

The major concerns seem to be mostly things that were added recently. My list:

-IGO-UGO won't be going anywhere since it's been a staple of the game forever, but I think the problems it causes are more related to the shooting phase than anything else. My concern is that the shooting phase has become too important to the entire game. One shooting phase can determine the entire outcome of games. In a game with multiple phases that should all be just as important it feels like the majority of the armies can safely ignore all but the shooting phase because they have S6+ guns with 36"+ range firing multiple shots. 7th has tried to make the movement phase more important by introducing random objectives, but in the end it is still easier to shoot your opponent off the table. In my opinion 40k could use some help from fantasy. In fantasy the shooting phases isn't nearly as important mainly because no army can really bring enough BS based shooting and still maintain effective combat blocks. What it does do effectively well though is limit the amount of damage a single unit can do with the modifier system. It also cuts out many USR's and Cover saves. If cover, stealth, etc were just a straight modifier that fell into two categories it would simplify the system and reduce the amount of dice being rolled every shooting phase. It could be as simple as -1 to BS or -2 to BS bases on your cover / stealth USR. You wouldn't have to move all the Fantasy shooting rules, but the plain BS modiers would tremendously reduce the amount of damage some of the armies could do. Imagine a Wave Serpent, since its the favorite horse to kick, firing at -2 BS. It goes from from hitting on 3+ to hitting on a 5+.

-Over watch since its introduction has been annoying to me. Getting an extra shooting phase only reinforced the gun line strategy and having one of the stronger armies able to ignore the negatives all together made running an assault based army impossible. I would simply remove the entire rule or massively overhaul it so that it balances out with an assault. Someone earlier mentioned possibly making it something you preemptively do sounds good. Possibly give up or reduce your current shooting phase if you believe you will be assaulted in your opponents turn.

-Charges and failed charges : I do not like fixed charge range, but I also do not like completely random charge ranges. Movement + a dice roll seems more intuitive. Also not moving at all after a failed charge is terrible. How to work it though would be tough. Possibly you get half the distance you rolled ? So if I needed a 14" charge and I rolled a 12" (6" move + 1D6 or +2D6 which ever might be more fair) I would fail my charge but still get to move 6".

-the current WS chart : The system makes no sense. The might avatar has a WS of 10 and is hit half the time by pretty much everything in the galaxy. WS needs to be better represented in this game since it currently means gak for the majority of models. Most combats turn into who can roll the most 4+. Following the wound chart makes a lot more sense. A true master of combat is not going to get over run by WS2 minions. There is some narrative for you.

-minor rules problems that lead to larger problems : if you ever read the rules subforum often you quickly realize there are quite a few problems in the rules that could have been easily fixed if GW had hired an editor. Ever week the same discussions keep popping up and its quickly evident that most of the problems are very easily fixed if GW would take a serious look through their rules.

-to your OP : Don't have too many problems with much of it, but there are some issues I think people might have. I am pretty sure most people would take a D6 run over a 3" run. Just make it an ever 6" and be done with it. You would need to modify units that can run and shoot though. Simplifying the perils chart is a great idea, same as the vehicle damage table. That removes a lot of extra dice. Removing LOS is a great idea, that or change it to the entire phase. If you LOS you can't tank hits that phase at all. Random wounds is something I hate as it requires the player to have dice that are not available. Removing it is a good idea. My main problem is that you ask for a balanced shooting / assault but then reduce the assault phase to a slap fight. I do think the current assault phase can be very slow if you have a lot of different I steps, but you can easily solve that by just removing pile in moves as you did and just assume everyone is fighting, but removing I completely reduces the value of assault models compared to a shooting model. I might as well not even bring assault specialists since my gun toting guys get to fight at the same step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheSilo wrote:

 YourIntestines wrote:
It's rather crude, but how about giving all weapons pinning, but making non-pinning weapons have pinning come into effect before resolving damage, rather than after it.

I would support replacing the 25% morale check with a 25% pinning check for all weapons. Weapons with "Pinning" force the ld check at -1 ld. Losing the use of a unit for a turn is fine, but with the morale check a unit can pretty much get taken out of the entire game, that seems better suited to close combat than shooting.

Just saw this, this makes a lot of sense. I never understood why GW has tried to remove pinning in 7th. In the grim dark future I would imagine tucking your head between your legs and hiding in a whole would be the more immediate desire when half your squad gets blown off the field.

@Goldphish.
Have you played any other games other than 40k?
If you only know the rules for 40k 3rd to 7th edition, you have nothing to make objective comparisons to.

If the rule set for 40k is easily fixed, in less than 500 words , just do it .

And prove the team of game developers at GW towers did not do it in sixteen years because they were not interested in making the game better?

Just as a starter, because fixing 40k is so simple,can you define the game play of 40k for us?

I think your proposed movement rules are on the mark. The current running -being a random distance- is a bit silly unless the troops are undisciplined. The situation of a guardsman squad forfiting their shoooting phase to get to better cover, only to discover they can only stumble 1 inch forward is a bit incredulous. In the case of difficult terrain I find this rule fair enough. For charging, I'm undecided. Charge distance used to be fixed, but you weren't allowed to measure distances, and that seemed to work well. There should be some sort of factor that can potentially cause a charge to fail. Perhaps overwatch fire?

Pretty good suggestions for shooting too, I remember discussing this with you on my thread a while back. In the interests of keeping your games fun I'd suggest a bit more than a "blanket" cover bonus. A neck height rockcrete wall, or deep forest should afford twice the portection of ankle-height vegetation, or shallow craters. This will particularely become an issue for fortifications the player is paying points for.

A lot of what you're suggesting is down to what scale of battles you want to fight. If you're fighting 4000 point battles, then simplifications to the rules is desireable. I personally love skirmish level stuff so I like detailed rules, even if they do slow the game down.

 Goldphish wrote:
Interesting concept as I believe that the 40k rule set does not need much to be fixed. I am curious though what is really wrong with the current rule set when I see people say that the entire thing needs to go. I know there are a lot of issues, but nothing so ground breaking it cannot be fixed.

The major concerns seem to be mostly things that were added recently. My list:

-IGO-UGO won't be going anywhere since it's been a staple of the game forever, but I think the problems it causes are more related to the shooting phase than anything else. My concern is that the shooting phase has become too important to the entire game. One shooting phase can determine the entire outcome of games. In a game with multiple phases that should all be just as important it feels like the majority of the armies can safely ignore all but the shooting phase because they have S6+ guns with 36"+ range firing multiple shots. 7th has tried to make the movement phase more important by introducing random objectives, but in the end it is still easier to shoot your opponent off the table. In my opinion 40k could use some help from fantasy. In fantasy the shooting phases isn't nearly as important mainly because no army can really bring enough BS based shooting and still maintain effective combat blocks. What it does do effectively well though is limit the amount of damage a single unit can do with the modifier system. It also cuts out many USR's and Cover saves. If cover, stealth, etc were just a straight modifier that fell into two categories it would simplify the system and reduce the amount of dice being rolled every shooting phase. It could be as simple as -1 to BS or -2 to BS bases on your cover / stealth USR. You wouldn't have to move all the Fantasy shooting rules, but the plain BS modiers would tremendously reduce the amount of damage some of the armies could do. Imagine a Wave Serpent, since its the favorite horse to kick, firing at -2 BS. It goes from from hitting on 3+ to hitting on a 5+.

-Over watch since its introduction has been annoying to me. Getting an extra shooting phase only reinforced the gun line strategy and having one of the stronger armies able to ignore the negatives all together made running an assault based army impossible. I would simply remove the entire rule or massively overhaul it so that it balances out with an assault. Someone earlier mentioned possibly making it something you preemptively do sounds good. Possibly give up or reduce your current shooting phase if you believe you will be assaulted in your opponents turn.

-Charges and failed charges : I do not like fixed charge range, but I also do not like completely random charge ranges. Movement + a dice roll seems more intuitive. Also not moving at all after a failed charge is terrible. How to work it though would be tough. Possibly you get half the distance you rolled ? So if I needed a 14" charge and I rolled a 12" (6" move + 1D6 or +2D6 which ever might be more fair) I would fail my charge but still get to move 6".

-the current WS chart : The system makes no sense. The might avatar has a WS of 10 and is hit half the time by pretty much everything in the galaxy. WS needs to be better represented in this game since it currently means gak for the majority of models. Most combats turn into who can roll the most 4+. Following the wound chart makes a lot more sense. A true master of combat is not going to get over run by WS2 minions. There is some narrative for you.

-minor rules problems that lead to larger problems : if you ever read the rules subforum often you quickly realize there are quite a few problems in the rules that could have been easily fixed if GW had hired an editor. Ever week the same discussions keep popping up and its quickly evident that most of the problems are very easily fixed if GW would take a serious look through their rules.

-to your OP : Don't have too many problems with much of it, but there are some issues I think people might have. I am pretty sure most people would take a D6 run over a 3" run. Just make it an ever 6" and be done with it. You would need to modify units that can run and shoot though. Simplifying the perils chart is a great idea, same as the vehicle damage table. That removes a lot of extra dice. Removing LOS is a great idea, that or change it to the entire phase. If you LOS you can't tank hits that phase at all. Random wounds is something I hate as it requires the player to have dice that are not available. Removing it is a good idea. My main problem is that you ask for a balanced shooting / assault but then reduce the assault phase to a slap fight. I do think the current assault phase can be very slow if you have a lot of different I steps, but you can easily solve that by just removing pile in moves as you did and just assume everyone is fighting, but removing I completely reduces the value of assault models compared to a shooting model. I might as well not even bring assault specialists since my gun toting guys get to fight at the same step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheSilo wrote:

 YourIntestines wrote:
It's rather crude, but how about giving all weapons pinning, but making non-pinning weapons have pinning come into effect before resolving damage, rather than after it.

I would support replacing the 25% morale check with a 25% pinning check for all weapons. Weapons with "Pinning" force the ld check at -1 ld. Losing the use of a unit for a turn is fine, but with the morale check a unit can pretty much get taken out of the entire game, that seems better suited to close combat than shooting.

Just saw this, this makes a lot of sense. I never understood why GW has tried to remove pinning in 7th. In the grim dark future I would imagine tucking your head between your legs and hiding in a whole would be the more immediate desire when half your squad gets blown off the field.

Yea, I'm not real sure how they think we're supposed to randomize a casualty in a squad of 13 guys. I don't have many d13 dice in my bag.

The 3" run move is slightly lower than the expected value of 3.5" with the d6 roll. It has to be slightly lower to make up for the increased reliability. It also has to be balanced against the other buffs in my proposed rules, particularly the better minimum charge range and reduced overwatch.

The shooting phase is a tougher nut to crack. I think the primary problem is that most weapons have a ridiculously long range. Most heavy weapons have a 48" range, which lets them cover the majority of the table from a single spot. So instead of using heavy weapons for area denial or tactical deployment, the entire battlefield turns into a gun range. This would annoy lots of people advocating for more realism, but on a 6'x4' table it's silly to have regular weapons that cover the entire table. Call it "effective range" or whatever, but most of the game's heavy weapons could have their range cut by 6"-12", with a corresponding decrease in points. This'd give armies more of a chance to outmaneuver the enemy and it'd increase the utility of troops armed with small-arms relative to heavy weapons. It'd also penalize the gun-line approach. But this kind of change would require editing all of the codices and balancing weapon points and ranges.

For charging, I wouldn't mind some randomness. A 6+d6 would be fine. It's the completely random "hurrr you failed a 4'' charge- FORGE THE NARRATIVE" that is soul-crushing.

Lanrak wrote:
@Goldphish.
Have you played any other games other than 40k?
If you only know the rules for 40k 3rd to 7th edition, you have nothing to make objective comparisons to.

If the rule set for 40k is easily fixed, in less than 500 words , just do it .

And prove the team of game developers at GW towers did not do it in sixteen years because they were not interested in making the game better?

Just as a starter, because fixing 40k is so simple,can you define the game play of 40k for us?

This is about as useless a response you can get in this kind of thread. Regardless of what other systems I have played in doesn't change the fact that the current rules are not so forgone that they cannot be saved. IMO GW simply doesn't have an interest in writing solid rules. The rules seem only to be made/modified to sell models.

This thread was made to attempt to fix it, and I added my thoughts.

Define the game? You build armies to fight other armies? I don't know why defining the game somehow helps the rules work better.

Honestly as much as I hate GW's lack of effort to promote their own product, I hate the players that are so condescending about the game for no reason other than to whine.

@Lanrak: The developers at GW haven't made a game we all universally agree is perfect because they're invested in their product and they're too risk-averse to change the underlying assumptions that make up their game with no compelling incentive to do so. I suggest you try to offer constructive feedback rather than showing up at other peoples' threads and tell them "LOL tl;dr you're wasting time".

On to actual useful material the biggest problem with 40k is that it's too much of a rock-paper-scissors game where too many things are good against one thing and utterly useless against everything else, so when GW tosses out a weapon that's effective against three or four different targets (defining the target groups roughly as light vehicles/MCs, heavy vehicles, light infantry, heavy infantry, and flyers; these aren't specifics and are immaterial to the argument) it's either bad (Grey Knight Strike Squads, this is specific and material to the argument) or too good (Riptides, this is specific and material to the argument). When things like Drop Pods and heavy weapons that hit the whole table are factored in the game rapidly becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors where victory is decided by the better army list build, not unlike Magic: The Gathering but with more required time and energy put into the elements of the army list.

The solutions to the underlying problem are twofold: take away the hit-the-entire-board meta, and complicate the weapon matchups. Take away accurate/safe Deep Strikes and make reaction fire more commonplace/effective, replace true line-of-sight with a system where you can define a space as blocking line-of-sight, and complicate the flat probability of hitting with long-ranged heavy weapons, and manoeuvre suddenly becomes vastly more important than the rock-paper-scissors game. As to weapon matchups right now the scale of durability/weapon effectiveness (barring weird cases like melta weapons and Poison) is fairly linear; if a weapon's good at killing something, it's good at killing lighter stuff too. Force more tradeoffs in weapon choice; if you want lots of fast attacks you won't get an AP value on a melee weapon, if you want AP2 and multiple shots you won't get blast on a gun.

There are definitely ways to make 40k better in 500 words or less (army composition rules, plenty of minor rules patches). You won't end up with a perfect game that everyone agrees is the greatest thing ever written that way, any more than any reboot is going to be; it's a matter of what flaws you accept and what you are trying to fix.

 TheSilo wrote:
The shooting phase is a tougher nut to crack. I think the primary problem is that most weapons have a ridiculously long range. Most heavy weapons have a 48" range, which lets them cover the majority of the table from a single spot. So instead of using heavy weapons for area denial or tactical deployment, the entire battlefield turns into a gun range. This would annoy lots of people advocating for more realism, but on a 6'x4' table it's silly to have regular weapons that cover the entire table. Call it "effective range" or whatever, but most of the game's heavy weapons could have their range cut by 6"-12", with a corresponding decrease in points. This'd give armies more of a chance to outmaneuver the enemy and it'd increase the utility of troops armed with small-arms relative to heavy weapons. It'd also penalize the gun-line approach. But this kind of change would require editing all of the codices and balancing weapon points and ranges.

Having a range penalty on weapons might help. Maybe -1 BS for the first 24" and an additional -1 for every 12" after?

I also really hate the strategy of alternating Look Out Sir and tanking wounds on an IC with a 2++ save to protect the squad while passing off Ap2 wounds. Either the character takes hits like normal troopers or characters can't take wounds until everyone else is dead

Neither of these options are logical at all.

Also, I read this as, "it should be like the old way I liked! The new way is dumb!"

@Goldphish.
I tried to ask questions that were important to define what 'fixing 40k' actually is meant to do.

Defining the intended game play, helps focus on refining the rules to arrive at the required game play.

Is the game supposed to be skirmish game focused on detailed model interaction, or a battle game based on detailed unit interaction?
Is it supposed to be a simple rules set with abstract resolution, or a simple simulation of a specific type of war fare with relevant tactical and strategic choices?

if you have experience of other war games, then these can be used as 'quick references' for concepts and ideas.

IF people can specify what game mechanics and resolution methods they want to keep , (because they believe they are the best fit.)

This gives everyone a frame work to work within.

Just stating general thoughts about 40k based on personal opinion without any form of objectivity , is not going to get anywhere is it?

Before heading off on the 'fix 40k in 500 words' project, don't you think defining what 40k is supposed to end up as first, is quite important?

 YourIntestines wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
The shooting phase is a tougher nut to crack. I think the primary problem is that most weapons have a ridiculously long range. Most heavy weapons have a 48" range, which lets them cover the majority of the table from a single spot. So instead of using heavy weapons for area denial or tactical deployment, the entire battlefield turns into a gun range. This would annoy lots of people advocating for more realism, but on a 6'x4' table it's silly to have regular weapons that cover the entire table. Call it "effective range" or whatever, but most of the game's heavy weapons could have their range cut by 6"-12", with a corresponding decrease in points. This'd give armies more of a chance to outmaneuver the enemy and it'd increase the utility of troops armed with small-arms relative to heavy weapons. It'd also penalize the gun-line approach. But this kind of change would require editing all of the codices and balancing weapon points and ranges.

Having a range penalty on weapons might help. Maybe -1 BS for the first 24" and an additional -1 for every 12" after?

The flat to-hit roll is the issue here; it doesn't matter whether you're shooting a stationary Monolith or a jetbike that just moved thirty inches, a Space Marine Devastator always hits on 3+. I implemented a dodge stat that compares to BS to get the to-hit roll in my rewrite, after complaints on complexity I'm working on streamlining it but the differing to-hit values let me get rid of a lot of unnecessary and frustrating rules in 40k already (jink, cover, snap shots only against flyers, etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lanrak: You can't grumble at people for not explaining themselves and then go off and spout gibberish that you don't define. Are you going to contribute to the conversation at some point?

Lanrak wrote:
@Goldphish.
I tried to ask questions that were important to define what 'fixing 40k' actually is meant to do.

Defining the intended game play, helps focus on refining the rules to arrive at the required game play.

Is the game supposed to be skirmish game focused on detailed model interaction, or a battle game based on detailed unit interaction?
Is it supposed to be a simple rules set with abstract resolution, or a simple simulation of a specific type of war fare with relevant tactical and strategic choices?

if you have experience of other war games, then these can be used as 'quick references' for concepts and ideas.

IF people can specify what game mechanics and resolution methods they want to keep , (because they believe they are the best fit.)

This gives everyone a frame work to work within.

Just stating general thoughts about 40k based on personal opinion without any form of objectivity , is not going to get anywhere is it?

Before heading off on the 'fix 40k in 500 words' project, don't you think defining what 40k is supposed to end up as first, is quite important?

That is a better post, but the fact of the matter is 40k doesn't exactly fit any of those since GW has made it apparent that they want a system that works at any level of play that also has individual model, unit, and army interactions. I think they have somewhat accomplished that. For the most part I can go into any shop and get a game of any size and play without many or any rules problems. I think what this thread is trying to arrive at is what can we do with minimal work fix the little problems that don't make any sense. From what I have read so far a lot of the problems are really all tied to the shooting phase and how dominant it is. Which game type do you think can help with that?

 YourIntestines wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
The shooting phase is a tougher nut to crack. I think the primary problem is that most weapons have a ridiculously long range. Most heavy weapons have a 48" range, which lets them cover the majority of the table from a single spot. So instead of using heavy weapons for area denial or tactical deployment, the entire battlefield turns into a gun range. This would annoy lots of people advocating for more realism, but on a 6'x4' table it's silly to have regular weapons that cover the entire table. Call it "effective range" or whatever, but most of the game's heavy weapons could have their range cut by 6"-12", with a corresponding decrease in points. This'd give armies more of a chance to outmaneuver the enemy and it'd increase the utility of troops armed with small-arms relative to heavy weapons. It'd also penalize the gun-line approach. But this kind of change would require editing all of the codices and balancing weapon points and ranges.

Having a range penalty on weapons might help. Maybe -1 BS for the first 24" and an additional -1 for every 12" after?

A simple fix, -1 BS against anything over 36" away, +1 BS against anything within 12". I kinda like this solution, combined with the cover changes, it means that well entrenched heavy weapons units will be tough to kill at range but they will have diminished effectiveness at range, making them more area denial and less "let's sit here and hit everything on the board." As a more general rule philosophy, I think that shooting should be devastating at short range, but unreliable at long range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
There are definitely ways to make 40k better in 500 words or less (army composition rules, plenty of minor rules patches). You won't end up with a perfect game that everyone agrees is the greatest thing ever written that way, any more than any reboot is going to be; it's a matter of what flaws you accept and what you are trying to fix.

This was my thought process. Small fixes that can have a big positive impact on gameplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris Frost wrote:

I also really hate the strategy of alternating Look Out Sir and tanking wounds on an IC with a 2++ save to protect the squad while passing off Ap2 wounds. Either the character takes hits like normal troopers or characters can't take wounds until everyone else is dead

Neither of these options are logical at all.

Also, I read this as, "it should be like the old way I liked! The new way is dumb!"

Frankly, Look Out Sir is a silly rule. In the midst of battle you can't pick all the lasgun shots to magically hit your Captain who is wearing terminator armor, while all the plasma guns somehow hit the mass of regular grunts. Characters should take wounds just like every other model, it's up to the player to appropriately protect them with squadmates, and it's up to the opponent to attack from the right angle to take the character out. LOS, much like overwatch, is a huge time sink as it basically adds a fourth stage to wound resolution, and it is just an out for careless play.

I'd honestly rather stick with the 4e system where the defender picks out the casualties, at least for non-characters. Unless I'm supposed to believe that all Marines can use bolters but only that guy knew how to use a plasma gun?