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.

 Riquende wrote:
Option for 'happily continue to ignore it' seems to be missing.

That's what I'd vote for. A full rewrite would be nice, but it wouldn't fix the incredible GW inflation of prices, which is what drove me away from 40k and into the arms of other games that I now enjoy much more.

That said, if it was a massively more streamlined game, with rave reviews and prices came down a bit, I've got my two 40k armies waiting in storage….

That... is a very poorly worded poll.

Skewed in so many ways....

I am going to choose - 'I Can't Rage Quit, I've Left The Game Already'.

Or maybe 'Too Little, Too Late'.

But really, the option that I most want is 'Take A Cautious Look, Listen To Folks Playing The Game, Then Decide'.

If the new version of WH40K rides on the wildly successful coattails of Dreadfleet, for example, then it does not matter that they have completely rewritten the rules, the new rules will still be too random, to arbitrary, and, well, suck.

If they go back to WH40K 3e, and rebuild from there... it might work. The problem with 3e-5e was not so much the rules as the fact that playtesting was poor, and balance was worse.

The core of the rules are fairly solid - a bit cludgy, but I like cludgy rules.

The complete lack of balance, going back so many editions... I am not so keen on.

They need to put some real work into balancing both games, maybe Warhammer more than 40K.

Heck, even while Andy Chambers was with GW they were boasting that they didn't listen to players. (The quote I am thinking about was actually on Knights of the White Wolf - back then they were more expensive than other knights (both monetarily and for points) but performed worse. The strength of cavalry in WHFB was the charge, and with two handed weapons they struck last.... so they did their dying before being able to make any attacks. Not good for cav.)

The Auld Grump

 -Loki- wrote:
The rules need a refresh. The last one they had was third edition in... 1999? That's a long time for one ruleset..

I disagree. What they need to do is stop messing with the system and concentrate on refining it instead of making wholesale changes for the sake of change.

It's disgraceful that after 7 editions we still have great gaping holes in core rules.

Having said that, my distaste for 7th edition is strong enough that a completely re-written game would at least get a cursory inspection, and I'd be happy to try it out if it looked fun.

Can some one explain why they think rules based on 1970s Napoleonic rule set, is such a good option for 40k?

What whould you do if GW dropped their current rules for quicker, cleaner, more intuitive rules?

I'd probably play something else, but I wouldn't ragequit about it.

Odds are that they wouldn't do a better job making a lightweight skirmish game than any of the other established games out there, and I'd probably lose the ability to play with a bunch of stuff (as would a lot of others much worse than I).

If I wanted to play malifaux or x-wing I'd just play those games already.

When I read the topic I had some immediate ideas to comment.
When I entered the thread I was confronted with an entirely different topic in the form of a poll.

To answer the poll - It's happened before so I can speak from experience.
When 3rd ed was launched we rushed out and bought the new rules.... and were horrified. Never the less, we'd bought the rules so we persevered, but interest waned and I ended up leaving the hobby for about 10 years.
I got back into it some time during 5th Ed, and I feel it's been getting slightly better each edition.
On the whole, I'd say it's *almost* better than 2nd Ed now... but they still need to fix to hit modifiers and save modifiers and move back to 2nd ed cover rules


To answer the question posed in the topic.... Games Workshop has said over and over that they're a miniatures company, and it's clear to everyone that that's what they do best.
They couldn't, wouldn't and SHOULDN'T stop releasing new models.
On a purely personal note.... if a new Codex/Army Book came out for my army and didn't include at least one new unit - I'd be sad and disappointed

That said.... they really should work a bit harder on their rules

I'd love a re-write. Something with the simplicity of 3rd and 4th edition, but with a few of the options and core rules from 2nd.

I'd reintroduce save and hit modifiers (but in a simpler form). Most basic weapons would have no save modifier, things like heavy bolters -1, autocannon -2, lascannon -3, Melta at half range -4.

I hate the binary AP system and I think modifiers are better for cover than cover saves (introduction yet more un-needed rolls into the system). But I LOVED how simple and quick things were in 3rd/4th with a minimum amount of extraneous rolls and simple/fast wound allocation.

While I would miss some of my skirmish level rules (Being a challenge oriented Emperor's Children fan kinda helps) I would prefer a rewrite overall just to avoid the clutter.

I would happily give them a shot. The fluff, background and imagery is more important to me than a lot of the mechanics.

Of course as we have seen with each new edition, your still going to have people whine and complain that their favorite exploits dont work anymore and either ragequit forthat reasonor start going over them with the magnifying glass to find new ones. So you'll just be in the same boat again under different mechanics.
But yes, I'd give them a shot.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I would happily give them a shot. The fluff, background and imagery is more important to me than a lot of the mechanics.

That's the other side of it. I don't play 40k for the rules. I'd love better rules, but the amazing background, personality and great minis are what keep me playing. It's why games with better rule sets haven't really hooked me.
'

@docdoom.
You do know that you can use your 40k minatures with other rule sets right?

- Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

Lanrak wrote:
@docdoom.
You do know that you can use your 40k minatures with other rule sets right?

Yeah, but unless they're tailored to represent the specific units in 40k,it feels shallow. You can, of course, make your own army lists for another system, but.... eh.

Besides, if you want to be able to walk into a store or club and get a pick up game, it really doesn't work. I'd rather put up with the inferior rules set and have the advantage of common ground with just about any other 40k player.

I don't hate the 40k rules enough to switch, I just wish they were better. In the end, it's not a huge deal.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'd love a re-write. Something with the simplicity of 3rd and 4th edition, but with a few of the options and core rules from 2nd.

I'd reintroduce save and hit modifiers (but in a simpler form). Most basic weapons would have no save modifier, things like heavy bolters -1, autocannon -2, lascannon -3, Melta at half range -4.

I hate the binary AP system and I think modifiers are better for cover than cover saves (introduction yet more un-needed rolls into the system). But I LOVED how simple and quick things were in 3rd/4th with a minimum amount of extraneous rolls and simple/fast wound allocation.

Quite a few basic but profound changes would make a major impact on and simplify the system-
Cover is no longer a save, but a to hit modifier: -1 for light cover (craters, fences, behind infantry), -2 for medium cover (forests, ruins, behind a monstrous creature), -3 for heavy cover (barricades, behind a hill, behind a tank)
Make AP into an armor modifier system: AP5 is -1, AP4 is -2, AP3 is -3, AP2 is -4, AP1 is -5.
Change the Vehicle damage chart- results of 2 or less have no effect beyond a hull point loss. 3-5 is crew shaken, 6-7 is crew stunned, 8 is weapon destroyed, 9 is immobalized, 10+ is explodes. You add the ASM to the damage roll, so an AP1 weapon would be +5 on the chart.
Return of the Move stat- Movement is M inches. Run is still d6. Charge is 1/2M + d6. Difficult terrain reduces M by d3, and charge into terrain is 1/2M + d3
Vehicles gain more benefits from the range bands: Stationary, they fire all weapons and have the splitfire rule, automatically hit in close combat. Combat Speed, Move up to M inches, may fire all weapons, or one ordinance and snapfire the rest hit on 3s in close combat. Cruising Speed- move up to 2M, may fire 1 weapon and snapfire the rest, hit on 4s in CC. Flat out- move up to 3M, may snapfire one weapon, hit on 5s in CC.
Fast in no longer a vehicle category, just adds 2 or 3 inches to the M stat. Heavy vehicles may not move flat out.
Increase the WS chart so that extremely high and low values actually matter: WS 4+ lower than opponent? Hit on 6s. 2 or 3 lower? hit on 5s. 1 lower or the same WS as opponent? Hit on 4s. 1 or 2 higher? Hit on 3s. WS 3+ better than opponent? Hit on 2s.

Thirdeye wrote:
QUOTE:
With a community like this, what do you think would happen if they did a complete rules overhaul? An outrage. You and I both know it. Even smaller adjustments make people rage - GW simply can´t do a rules overhaul even if they wanted. It would cause whining in amounts never ever beforeseen by mankind and pose a risk so great they simply can´t take it. If there´s people threatening to quit now, it would be tenfold after a completely new set of rules, no matter how good. You know this. Also, just selling rulebooks doesn´t keep them, or any wargaming company afloat. It´s just not possible to stop creating product that brings in money when you try to run a big company. END QUOTE

Weed lap it up like like 7th edition and nuthin we can do about it, If the rules where easy and clear it would just be icing on the cake...

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I'd love a re-write. Something with the simplicity of 3rd and 4th edition, but with a few of the options and core rules from 2nd.

I'd reintroduce save and hit modifiers (but in a simpler form). Most basic weapons would have no save modifier, things like heavy bolters -1, autocannon -2, lascannon -3, Melta at half range -4.

I hate the binary AP system and I think modifiers are better for cover than cover saves (introduction yet more un-needed rolls into the system). But I LOVED how simple and quick things were in 3rd/4th with a minimum amount of extraneous rolls and simple/fast wound allocation.

Quite a few basic but profound changes would make a major impact on and simplify the system-
Cover is no longer a save, but a to hit modifier: -1 for light cover (craters, fences, behind infantry), -2 for medium cover (forests, ruins, behind a monstrous creature), -3 for heavy cover (barricades, behind a hill, behind a tank)
Make AP into an armor modifier system: AP5 is -1, AP4 is -2, AP3 is -3, AP2 is -4, AP1 is -5.
Change the Vehicle damage chart- results of 2 or less have no effect beyond a hull point loss. 3-5 is crew shaken, 6-7 is crew stunned, 8 is weapon destroyed, 9 is immobalized, 10+ is explodes. You add the ASM to the damage roll, so an AP1 weapon would be +5 on the chart.
Return of the Move stat- Movement is M inches. Run is still d6. Charge is 1/2M + d6. Difficult terrain reduces M by d3, and charge into terrain is 1/2M + d3
Vehicles gain more benefits from the range bands: Stationary, they fire all weapons and have the splitfire rule, automatically hit in close combat. Combat Speed, Move up to M inches, may fire all weapons, or one ordinance and snapfire the rest hit on 3s in close combat. Cruising Speed- move up to 2M, may fire 1 weapon and snapfire the rest, hit on 4s in CC. Flat out- move up to 3M, may snapfire one weapon, hit on 5s in CC.
Fast in no longer a vehicle category, just adds 2 or 3 inches to the M stat. Heavy vehicles may not move flat out.
Increase the WS chart so that extremely high and low values actually matter: WS 4+ lower than opponent? Hit on 6s. 2 or 3 lower? hit on 5s. 1 lower or the same WS as opponent? Hit on 4s. 1 or 2 higher? Hit on 3s. WS 3+ better than opponent? Hit on 2s.

I wouldn't go as far as AP5 = -1. I remember 2nd edition and one of the most annoying things about it was Space Marines who never got a 3+ save, because every darn weapon had at least a -1 save modifier. I'd prefer it to start at AP4 = -1, but that's just my personal preference.

docdoom77 wrote:I'd love a re-write. Something with the simplicity of 3rd and 4th edition, but with a few of the options and core rules from 2nd.

I'd reintroduce save and hit modifiers (but in a simpler form). Most basic weapons would have no save modifier, things like heavy bolters -1, autocannon -2, lascannon -3, Melta at half range -4.

I hate the binary AP system and I think modifiers are better for cover than cover saves (introduction yet more un-needed rolls into the system). But I LOVED how simple and quick things were in 3rd/4th with a minimum amount of extraneous rolls and simple/fast wound allocation.

I honestly don't know why so many people complain about the "extraneous rolls" in 2nd Ed.
Personally, I thought the "simplicity" of 3rd Ed amounted to a lobotomy.

We're almost back to a good game, but they still need to address the issue of binary AP and semi-superfluous cover rules

docdoom77 wrote:I don't play 40k for the rules. I'd love better rules, but the amazing background, personality and great minis are what keep me playing. It's why games with better rule sets haven't really hooked me.

Quoted for truth

I'd rather not. I like the current rules for the most part, and would prefer minor tweaks as opposed to an overhaul.

I don't really think anyone at GW is sharp or talented enough to rewrite the rules. If they want to be a toy company, they should just let FW write the books.

I would buy it if GW removed their MAXIMUM GOUGING policy.

I'm not sure anymore if I'd try it or not.
It's still just too expensive. It would have to knock my socks off (rule-wise) to make me come back.
But at this point, it would have to be a major re-write because the current rules don't allow for enough strategy for my likes.

@docdoom77.
But 7th editions 40k does not work for 'just walking into a store and getting a pick up game' does it?
Not only do you have to negotiate through all the optional extras that are now part of the core rules.
But then have to deal with the hideous balance issues, (even if you leave 'unbound' out of the game.)

The only reason people stick to the rules sold by GW plc is familiarity.
The same tired old re hash of WHFB in space rules, with new even more counter intuitive special rules, that know one knows how they are supposed to work in some situations.
And the same level of imbalance where 1 day after release , the net is a live with the most cost effective unit options.
So a noob picking units at random because they look cool, fails to get a game because of his 'WAAC'/FAAC' list.

At least with a rule set written for game play, not short term sales.It is much easier to transpose units from 40k and arrive at an enjoyable game.

@Jimsolo.
Can you please list the bits you like.And the bits that need a minor tweek?

Because I agree some sections of the 40k rules would work well, IF the rest of the rules were written to support them.

However, 7th ediotion 40k seem such an eclectic mix of rules from different game sizes and types , its hard to know what should be saved, and that should be changed.

Eg you have to define what 40k is supposed to be before you can 'fix' it.

If you want 40k to be a large battle game using modern rules,(developed after 1990.)
Then it would look very different to a large skirmish game using modern rules ,(developed after 1990.)

But both would be much better than the current mix of skirmish/battle rules developed from 1970s Napoleonics!

Because I agree some sections of the 40k rules would work well, IF the rest of the rules were written to support them.

That is so true. The mission objectives are a good thing. But the way GW wrote the rules is horrible. You could of course house rule it and most people do, I think. But explain that to someone who just started that his army, which maybe superior to everyone elses at doing the objectives, is suppose to be nerfed by a house rule, so other armies aren't totaly trash.