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.

Without getting into much detail and staying away from the clusterfeth that is the Eldar codex, I would do this to 40k...

Make a blanket rule that any 2+ being rerolled must be resolved at a 4+.

Give jump infantry jink.

Make invisible units targetable by template and blast weapons, but without a bs modifier on the latter.

Remove malefic daemonology as an available psychic school for anything but chaos and daemons. Make summoning drastically more expensive in terms of WD cost.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Peregrine, I don't disagree with the intent for kp, but you must admit it handles that pretty terribly, even more so when relegated to once every 6 games lol.

I do agree that it shouldn't have been reduced to 1/6 of the missions. The 5th edition mission table was much better IMO, and kill point missions were a much bigger factor. But I suspect GW listened to the whining and crying from "competitive" players who didn't like the fact that their "competitive" army automatically lost kill point missions and changed the rules to accommodate them.

I much prefer objective games, if kp worked like vp I'd be ok with it, but I still find it makes for a less enjoyable game. I'm not really a fan of anything other than crusade for the most part. Now that objective placement is a bit less cynical I'm enjoying the fact that gunlining is less viable if you're playing with a good amount of los blocking terrain.

Is it just me , or has anyone else noticed lots of posts listing the symptoms of poor game play results ,caused by serious issues with the core rules?

But rather than look at the core issues in the core rules,(including F.O.,C.)
People seem to want to add even more layers of extra rules on top to try and fix the game play.Which is exactly what has caused the bloated clusterfeth of 40k rules in the first place!

Analogy alert!

Imagine a car with one wheel missing.(40k battle game.)
Rather than replace the missing wheel to restore integrity and balance to the car's performance to make it enjoyable to drive.
Some one 'bodges it' by adding a huge counter weight on the opposite side to the missing wheel.

So now the car drives in a straight line quite well but 'pulls to one side while accelerating and braking', and steering is 'heavier' in one direction than the other...
So the 'bodger', tries to correct this imbalance by adding even more counter weights around the car.
This just reduces performance even more, and still can not correct the core issue of the missing wheel....
.

Can this bodger be downloaded as a Digital edition?

Lanrak wrote:

So now the car drives in a straight line quite well but 'pulls to one side while accelerating and braking', and steering is 'heavier' in one direction than the other...
So the 'bodger', tries to correct this imbalance by adding even more counter weights around the car.
This just reduces performance even more, and still can not correct the core issue of the missing wheel....
.

Cause the car is on the move allready and if you stop it to change a wheel all the passengers will leave. And as it goes now...it's still moving, right.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
After a really bad game I played I'd do this:

Get rid of maelstrom. The last game I played with them was so unbalanced (player got easily fulfilled cards while I got cards like "travel to the moon" or "solve Climate Change) that it really is just beyond even salvaging. The game is already random enough!

On a separate note all wave serpents must be buried in the Nevada desert and never spoken of again and the Eldar codex must be nerfed to being the most average thing ever to exist (not bad though) as punishment for the Codex that might have single handedly ruined warhammer 40k (for me at least.)

Do you realize the codex eldar was top dog for all of 13 months ?

How do you feel about all the other codexes that were top tier for a much longer time or top dog for more than 13 months ?

Lanrak wrote:
Is it just me , or has anyone else noticed lots of posts listing the symptoms of poor game play results ,caused by serious issues with the core rules?

I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.

Good point.

I go / you go.
Needs some activation method rather than an entire army at a time.
Force the player to activate critical units first and the opponent to activate in response.
Really need to make the game more tactical in this manner.
<edit> The "I get to shoot first" first turn is a little too important unless you are good at hiding.

AP
I would really like to see a "shift" applied to defeating armor based on the weapon rather than a full ignore.
The Necromunda shifts could act as a guide.

wound / hit pools / closest model
I want to go back to squads acting more like hit points for the juicy stuff and the odd aimed shot getting a chance to hit those.
The varying weapon ranges and only closest model allocation has bogged the game like nobody's business.
If any weapon can hit any part of a unit at the start of that attack phase: all shots can be allocated.

Special Rules
I happen to like the "modular" use of special rules and they should expand / improve on this.
It gives a central means of control of how these abilities work and can bring sweeping change.
Trying to come up with a "points allocation guide" for cost depending on unit type would be helpful for codex design and unit values.

Less random more choice!
You know, psycher abilities, warlord traits: assign limited things they can choose and a points value.
Done.
More characterful and removes the appearance of mental issues when their "character" is not determined until just before the game.
No variable charge ranges unless some special ability / item adds / subtracts creating the variation.

Anyway, those are some things off the top of my head.
The game can be fast, fun and challenging and easy enough to do.

The worst part is most fixes would be easy to do.

IGO/UGO: Either something like Bolt Action with order dice, or something like many historical games do where you can only use a limited number of units per turn (although to be fair this doesn't really fit a sci-fi setting where you have vox-comms or the like to communicate). Also I personally liked 2nd edition Overwatch where you could choose to forgo your movement at that point. Maybe something kind of like D&D had with Initiative, where you can delay until later (to set up combos) but that might end up like 2nd edition where nobody did anything.

Wounds: Bolt Action does this already. Pinning tests + lucky shots to pick a model to remove (basically give everything the ability where if you roll like a 6 or something you can pick the guy who gets hit rather than it just being allocated)

Objectives/Missions: No more random, you pick your own objectives (discard and rechoose ones you can't do) and that's what gives you bonus points. Similar to the old 2nd edition Mission Cards.

There, nothing hard about any of that and it would IMHO make the game more balanced and enjoyable.

morgoth wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
After a really bad game I played I'd do this:

Get rid of maelstrom. The last game I played with them was so unbalanced (player got easily fulfilled cards while I got cards like "travel to the moon" or "solve Climate Change) that it really is just beyond even salvaging. The game is already random enough!

On a separate note all wave serpents must be buried in the Nevada desert and never spoken of again and the Eldar codex must be nerfed to being the most average thing ever to exist (not bad though) as punishment for the Codex that might have single handedly ruined warhammer 40k (for me at least.)

Do you realize the codex eldar was top dog for all of 13 months ?

How do you feel about all the other codexes that were top tier for a much longer time or top dog for more than 13 months ?

I actually like the last few codices, where none of them are top dog. I hate the whole top dog concept -- and of buff-then-nerf cycle. I would prefer if all factions were at the power levels of the newer codices -- dark eldar, orks, space wolves, blood angels, etc. I don't want my favorite faction to be the "best", and I would prefer if there were no units that were so obviously awesome that they are a must-take.

At this particular juncture, I think Necron, Eldar, and Tau are the only "top dog" factions, and I suspect Necron will soon be getting a nerf.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
Is it just me , or has anyone else noticed lots of posts listing the symptoms of poor game play results ,caused by serious issues with the core rules?

I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.

I've got lots of issues with the core rules, but every time they're brought up and I mention making them clearer someone says they're fine the way they are and that I'm WAAC and a rules lawyer for demonstrating otherwise.

I have a side project of rewriting them completely, blending 5th, 6th, and 7th edition into one and making the rules clear overall. Not that it'll ever see the light of day, but it's fun.

 Talizvar wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I notice a lot of posts with a lot of griping and wishlisting for things that would make 40k into something else. Not actual issues with the core rules.

Good point.

[SNIP!]

The game can be fast, fun and challenging and easy enough to do.

I don't disagree with your suggestions in a vacuum, although I don't believe that we're necessarily still playing "40k" with those changes.

To me, 40k is characterized by Igo-Ugo turn structure with sequenced d6 rolls against fixed target numbers that do not change, and a small number of tables for HtH combat and vehicle damage. Breaking Igo-Ugo, modifying to-hit rolls, etc. makes for a different game that isn't really 40k. Furthermore, the granularity of a d6 is helpful in demonstrating units to be clearly better/worse than other units.

The only real issue with Igo-Ugo is the first turn. While Sieze helps mitigate, Night Fight is also good. Moving an entire army helps ensure that the game moves along in a consistent way, especially for large games - playing Infinity at Apocalypse scale wouldn't work. IMO, it is more important to 1st turn prior to deployment, and the 1st turn effect largely goes away.

I rather like AP - either you get it, or you don't. Same as how Templates now work - either you're hit, or you're not. If you get your Armor, you get all of it.

"Closest first" is a terrible change, and needs to go back to Defender must always remove the maximum number of models possible for any result, but Defender may remove their choice of model from the unit, regardless of range / LOS. Someone picks up the Plasma Gun; someone grabs the Chainsword.

Special Rules are fine, just too many of them, and too complex. Simpler and fewer would be better. The combination of Penetrating & Glancing to a single table was a good change.

Random is designed as a balancer. I think players being allowed to roll an extra&discard or re-roll powers whatever would probably be a good change overall.

40k can change, and over 5 broadly-compatible editions from 3E to 7E, we have pieces to pick and choose what we like best.

Talys wrote:

At this particular juncture, I think Necron, Eldar, and Tau are the only "top dog" factions, and I suspect Necron will soon be getting a nerf.

I would also like my army not to be top dog.

But the list includes Imperial Knights, SM and Chaos Daemons, that's my gripe with the blanket "Eldar Tau OP". At least, that's what the statistics say. Maybe you don't have any good IK, CD or SM players around.

SM are not top-dog. They are, at best, middle of the road. IK are powerful units, but really lack synergy with much else. Chaos Daemons are good in certain very specific builds against certain very specific foes. Otherwise, they're not all that.

Eldar? Eldar are pretty damn good to jaw-droppingly powerful, against... everything.

Armies go up, armies go down. That's the nature of 40k.

Still, if Eldar are auto-win, I guess I should play mine more often.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Armies go up, armies go down. That's the nature of 40k.

Not sure if that is an argument for or against army "balance"
If any easy win with an auto-include unit or two is your idea of fun I guess it needs no change.
I like close games, nail biters, the destroying of either party from turn one is a bit of a bore.

Get rid of allies.... if your playing Tau, play Tau... not Tau/eldar/inquisition with a knight just cause

I didn't talk much about the rules because there is a gakload of different ways you could do them. Deciding stuff like turn order or how exactly to resolve hits or w/e is certainly important but it's what you do after you've decided what the overarching vision of the game is.

 Talizvar wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Armies go up, armies go down. That's the nature of 40k.

Not sure if that is an argument for or against army "balance"

If any easy win with an auto-include unit or two is your idea of fun I guess it needs no change.
I like close games, nail biters, the destroying of either party from turn one is a bit of a bore.

It's neither, merely a commentary on the state of 40k since the very beginning. 40k has had "balance" complaints since before I even started playing (I started playing in 2E). Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.

I have had easy wins, tough wins, and my share of losses. In the current environment, it is tough to destroy an entire army on Turn 1 short of spectacular die rolling - Turn 1 tabling in 7E occurs less often than in 3E, and that was down from 2E. I do wonder how much of those unbalanced matchups are a function of army selection, player skill and player tactics versus Codex design.

 Psienesis wrote:
SM are not top-dog. They are, at best, middle of the road. IK are powerful units, but really lack synergy with much else. Chaos Daemons are good in certain very specific builds against certain very specific foes. Otherwise, they're not all that.

Eldar? Eldar are pretty damn good to jaw-droppingly powerful, against... everything.

I wholeheartedly agree. What makes an army top-dog is an ability to take highly versatile units that are generally superior in most situations, which do not require a sacrifice. If Wave Serpent were an elite, nobody would complain. But, it's a basic transport, and you still can load up your FA and Elite slots.

Even excluding Serpent abuse, Eldar are damn solid. I wish their models were as good :(

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.

Only if you assume that the "nature" of the game is "this game sucks". Poor balance is always a bad thing, and the fact that 40k has had balance issues for so long just means that GW is run by incompetent morons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Breaking Igo-Ugo, modifying to-hit rolls, etc. makes for a different game that isn't really 40k.

Well yes, but making the game different would be a good thing. Right now 40k is a 1980s fantasy game with a bunch of rules bloat added on top of the inappropriate foundation. The best thing for the IP would be a completely new game that is designed to work well for modern squad-based combat, and that means throwing out obsolete mechanics like IGOUGO and the melee-focused stat line.

The only real issue with Igo-Ugo is the first turn.

No, it's an issue every turn. It creates boring situations where you spend 15-30 minutes doing nothing but watching your opponent play the game (no, rolling saves does not count as "playing"), and it destroys any sense of realism whenever units fail to react to each other like the "real" units would.

While Sieze helps mitigate, Night Fight is also good.

Night fight is irrelevant in 7th. A +1 cover bonus is often irrelevant (against cover-ignoring shooting, any time you get your armor/invulnerable save instead) and even when you get the bonus it's not a very significant one. The old night fighting rules from 5th edition at least made a significant difference in the outcome of the first turn, but even then it often just delayed the alpha strike until the second turn.

playing Infinity at Apocalypse scale wouldn't work.

Nor does playing 40k at Apocalypse scale.

I rather like AP - either you get it, or you don't. Same as how Templates now work - either you're hit, or you're not. If you get your Armor, you get all of it.

This is something that's kind of personal preference, but IMO it's a very bad rule. An all-or-nothing save creates awkward situations where a tough unit is almost invulnerable to weapons of a certain power, but a gun that's just slightly more powerful wipes them off the table effortlessly. A system where improving AP gradually reduces armor effectiveness allows you to create a middle ground where a weapon is more effective than basic guns, but not an auto-win. For example, you could have AP 4 anti-MEQ weapons that take marines down to a 5+ save as a substitute for giving everyone plasma spam and significantly devaluing the MEQ stat line.

Random is designed as a balancer.

No, it's bad design. You don't need randomness as a balancing factor unless you're too lazy and/or incompetent to make all of the options balanced. Random rolls are only necessary if you know that some of the options are blatantly overpowered and nobody would ever take the others unless the dice force them to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.

Only if you assume that the "nature" of the game is "this game sucks".

We disagree at a fundamental level. I believe 40k (3E) to be a perfectly fine game for what it is. Trying to make 40k into Warmachine, Infinity, Bolt Action or the current game du jour is a fool's errand.

Quite frankly, you should go back to playing Chess, despite White having the obvious advantage of Always Goes First.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Based on the history, one may argue that imperfect internal balance and imperfect external balance are integral to the design and nature of the game.

Only if you assume that the "nature" of the game is "this game sucks".

We disagree at a fundamental level. I believe 40k (3E) to be a perfectly fine game for what it is. Trying to make 40k into Warmachine, Infinity, Bolt Action or the current game du jour is a fool's errand.

Quite frankly, you should go back to playing Chess, despite White having the obvious advantage of Always Goes First.

LOL. Add Seize the Initiative to chess!! I think the Queen should have Fear, too.

Seriously, though, I agree with JohnHwangDD's thesis that imperfect internal and external balance is integral to the design and nature of the game.

The nature of this game is such that army selection is equally important to turn by turn strategy -- by design. The design of the game is such that some combinations are powerful, or provide force magnification. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that some units are worse or weaker.

Of course, that doesn't mean that balance cant be better to increase the number of playable choices. However, that doesn't change the fact that many players want to start with an advantage, or perceived advantage by building what they think is a superior list.

IME, imperfect balance is a better reflection of reality. The only "balanced" and non-random war we've seen in the past hundred years was WW1, and as expected, it continuously stalemated short of massive localized resource expenditure.

And quite frankly, the imperfect balance offers far more playing opportunity and challenge. If you really are good, can you still win with sub-optimal units and choices? Or do you need the crutch of stronger units?

The real problem with 40k is the notion that anyone should attempt to play competitively, because that sort of play strongly limits the game in ways that GW never intended.

I have also made the argument that in real life, 1+1 does not always equal 2, because of many factors such as force magnifiers, and unit capabilities (or lack thereof). For instance, having infantry, artillery, armor, and air is far superior to having thirty times more infantry and nothing else. Having no navy means having the largest army in the world is ineffective if there is even a small boys of water separating the forces. Therefore, just because points add up should not mean that lists should be equally powerful.

As a simple example, the US forces can't hold jack all in western Iraq regardless of spending a bazillion times more than ISIS. One tank brigade would be worth more than half of all the air units, if the goal is to retake a city.

The last time I made this argument, the counter was that this is a game, and it shouldn't work that way.

Mechanics-wise I would like to see a turn that allows me to act as well.

I have several possible solutions in mind:

1. Overwatch, right now it's a bit simple and isn't true overwatch but more like reaction fire.

2.. Alternating activation in phases, i.e. Movement, shooting, assaulting etc.

3. Command and control rolls. Your troops have a quality number that you have to roll at the beginning of the turn, units that fail the roll cannot be activated or may only make reaction or overwatch actions. Some commanders may have rules to adjust this roll, or allow re-rolls as well as banners or other inspiring items.

4. Target numbers and kill numbers. A target number is what you need to roll to hit that troop (it is on the trooper's statline) if you roll that number it forces an armor save. Similarly a kill number not only allows a hit on that trooper but also inflicts a wound.

5. No more random movement silliness. Difficult terrain cuts movement by a third, dangerous by half (for infantry at least), a unit moving into terrain stops when it crosses the edge of that terrain, only moving forward on the next turn.

6. Casualty removal for both sides is at the end of the turn. Everything is simultaneous (hence the use of phases) that means that dudes get to shoot and or fight back. Refinement: remove casualties (both sides) at the end of the shooting phase then at the end of the assault/close combat phase.

Thats all I could think of off the cuff.

$0.02

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I believe 40k (3E) to be a perfectly fine game for what it is.

You're wrong.

Trying to make 40k into Warmachine, Infinity, Bolt Action or the current game du jour is a fool's errand.

Nobody is asking for this. 40k doesn't have to be a copy of some other game to be a much better game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And quite frankly, the imperfect balance offers far more playing opportunity and challenge. If you really are good, can you still win with sub-optimal units and choices? Or do you need the crutch of stronger units?

This is just wrong. Making weak units so people can cripple their own lists is a really bad way to design a game, especially if you care about "fluffy" armies and games. Why? Because it turns large parts of each army into "don't use this unless you want to lose" garbage and effectively removes those units/options from the game. For example, if I love the fluff of IG rough riders why should I have to choose between playing a weak army (which I may or may not have the skill advantage to win with) or playing an army that doesn't have the unit I love? The correct way to accommodate people who want this kind of challenge is to use the point system and simply give the "stronger" player fewer points to build their army. This accomplishes their goal of having a more challenging game without ruining the game for anyone else.

The real problem with 40k is the notion that anyone should attempt to play competitively, because that sort of play strongly limits the game in ways that GW never intended.

And this is also wrong. 40k doesn't have problems with competitive play because it makes sacrifices in competitive balance to be the perfect casual/narrative game, it has problems with competitive play because GW sucks at game design. None of the things that make it a bad competitive game improve the game for non-competitive players, and if those problems were fixed the game would be better for everyone.

Talys wrote:
Seriously, though, I agree with JohnHwangDD's thesis that imperfect internal and external balance is integral to the design and nature of the game.

It isn't. 40k's balance issues have nothing to do with careful design, they're simply the inevitable result of GW not giving a about the quality of their product. Assigning appropriate point totals to units does not in any way interfere with playing a fun game of 40k.

The nature of this game is such that army selection is equally important to turn by turn strategy -- by design. The design of the game is such that some combinations are powerful, or provide force magnification.

And your point is? All of this can be accounted for in balancing the game, just like various combinations in MTG are accounted for. Remember, balance does not mean that you can throw any random combination of stuff on the table without thinking about strategy and expect to win. What balance actually means is that every unit has a purpose and the major strategy archetypes are all well balanced. IOW, if you like unit/strategy X you can do well with it as long as you make good strategy choices.

Talys wrote:
The last time I made this argument, the counter was that this is a game, and it shouldn't work that way.

And that argument is indisputably correct. 40k is a game, not a realistic war simulation. Having a playable (and fun!) game is way more important than perfect realism.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Turn 1 tabling in 7E occurs less often than in 3E, and that was down from 2E. I do wonder how much of those unbalanced matchups are a function of army selection, player skill and player tactics versus Codex design.

A lot more than people will admit.

I believe a game of 40K is decided by the following things in the following order of importance:

1. Strategy: synergy, battle plan, cover strategy,..
2. Deployment
3. Movement
4. Dice
5. List strength


The competitive reality of 40K can only be understood through statistics, the only ones we have are Torrent of Fire, and those statistics say that Eldar, Tau, Chaos Daemons, Necrons and Space Marines had 50% win average between them (i.e. balanced) and were pack leaders in v6.

The same statistics tell us that IK are the big winners of 7, followed by the same 5 armies that won v6, again within a tight group.

The conclusion is that if you're playing Eldar, Tau, Chaos Daemons, Necron, Space Marines or IK, you shouldn't be complaining about any other army because your army is top tier.


What this also tells us is that anyone whining because they get less than 43.49% win ratio against Eldar (who have 56.51% right now), is actually whining because they don't want to acknowledge their codex's limitations or their own failures.



In my opinion and by comparison with the extremely competitive SC1 Brood War scene in Korea (that died), 56.51% is still fine in terms of balance (it was about 62% raw in v6, 50% within the top 5) - for a game with three factions and asymmetrical balance.


64% for Imperial Knights in v7, or 62.5% for Eldar in v6 is a bit too far, although Eldar clearly had a fair record against the top 5 and outright smashed lower power codexes - I haven't seen the details about the IK's 64% yet.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is just wrong. Making weak units so people can cripple their own lists is a really bad way to design a game, especially if you care about "fluffy" armies and games. Why? Because it turns large parts of each army into "don't use this unless you want to lose" garbage and effectively removes those units/options from the game. For example, if I love the fluff of IG rough riders why should I have to choose between playing a weak army (which I may or may not have the skill advantage to win with) or playing an army that doesn't have the unit I love? The correct way to accommodate people who want this kind of challenge is to use the point system and simply give the "stronger" player fewer points to build their army. This accomplishes their goal of having a more challenging game without ruining the game for anyone else.

1. Design 300 units
2. Some are better some are worse
3. Adapt, return to 2

The result is that balance has continually improved from v2 to v7 and the game as well.

I agree that cycles of improvement should be faster, but short of that, what do you expect ?

The people who write your cellphone software do it wrong, why should GW who spends a fraction of a percent of that on making rules do infinitely better (i.e. perfect balance) ?

In my opinion, the balance in 40K is only getting better, GW has increased the improvement speed a lot.

They could do a lot better, but compared to the general mediocrity of this world, they're doing just fine.

 Peregrine wrote:

The nature of this game is such that army selection is equally important to turn by turn strategy -- by design. The design of the game is such that some combinations are powerful, or provide force magnification.

And your point is? All of this can be accounted for in balancing the game, just like various combinations in MTG are accounted for. Remember, balance does not mean that you can throw any random combination of stuff on the table without thinking about strategy and expect to win. What balance actually means is that every unit has a purpose and the major strategy archetypes are all well balanced. IOW, if you like unit/strategy X you can do well with it as long as you make good strategy choices.

Well, Peregrine, I can make it pretty simple for you.

If you want a game in which every one of hundreds of available models have a purpose in a game of "my points versus your points -- FIGHT!", then you should look elsewhere, because Warhammer 40k has never been that game, and will never be. It hasn't even ever claimed or pretended to be such.

Warhammer 40k is a game where cool models get produced every week. Rules come out for them, over years, they get written and refined, with some models and combinations floating to the top as being optimal, and others drifting to the bottom. Eventually, during a rewrite, some of the great combinations are nerfed, and some of the weak units are buffed. Once in a great many years, something game-changing will be added (like LoW's or fortifications) that everyone will scramble to figure out how to integrate.

This is the past, current, and future evolution of 40k. Ten years from now, there will be hundreds more models, and many hundreds of models will have no place in an optimal army. But, they might be great for a scenario or campaign, they might just be cool to build and paint, or maybe, in a future edition, they suddenly become really good.

I happen to not mind that hundreds of models are not useful. To illustrate, look at the new BA terminators -- I've preordered two boxes (and certainly not because I need more terminators of any kind lol).

3rd edition 40k IS a perfectly fine game for what it was.
A rushed 11th hour conversion/mash up of a WWII game Rick Priestly was working on.
(After the cleaned up skirmish game the dev team had been working on for months was rejected by senior management.)

So as a ' rushed compromise to please the sales department ' 3rd ed 40k is the best game the GW devs could have made at that time.
(With the limited time and resources available.)

And since 4th edition the dev team at GW towers have been wanting to replace the 'stop gap rules ' with rules written specifically for the battle game of 40k.
But as the choice the devs have is 'sell more models short term or find another employment '.

We end up with poor rules for 40k, and lots of game developers moving on to create great games elsewhere.

'Imperfect balance' is finely crafted to gently and organically grow the strategic spectrum of player choices, to stop the game getting stale.

40k 'gross imbalance' , causes major rifts in the player base and major upheaval every time a new book is released.

So rather than a gentle guiding hand to a higher level of gaming fun, (perfect imbalance.)

We get a GW sledgehammer to our knees and told to 'buy GW crutches or get left behind'.(40k sales inspired gross imbalance.)

Yes it is THAT[/i] different!

Anyhow, issues with 40k core rules .(Game mechanics and resolution methods .)
This is purely from a perspective of game design/development .And I will try to be objective.

The game turn.
The 'Alternating game turn' , where one player takes ALL actions with ALL models/units in a set sequence , then the other player does the same.

This is a basic game turn that has been around for ages, and is perfectly fine if the rest of the rules are written for this type of game turn.[i].

Games that work well with this type of game turn mechanic are games where models unit have to move into weapons range.

EG game where ranged attacks are only used in a supporting role.(WHFB, KoW, etc.)
So the main tactical focus in manouvering into favorable close combat match ups.

Or games with a low model count or large spaces between smaller scale minatues ,where ranged weapons are as effective as close combat, but models/units still have to manouver into weapons range.

The fact that 40k has so many models a side now , most units start the game within weapons range of each other, there is hardly enough room to move,(Ork hoard vs Nid hoard is painful to watch.)

So other than make 40k a 15mm scale game, or use unrealistic amounts of terrain, or massively reduce the model count.
All of which would be unpopular.

There is a simple choice ,use a different game turn mechanic.
One that allows an equal balance of mobility fire power and assault.

Out of the thee basic options only alternating player actions(phases) would fit the current 40k game without having to impose serious restrictions or additional rules.

Mobility.Fire power and Assault.
In all good war game design there is a holy trilogy of mobility fire power and assault .How you load the importance of each of these features determines the game play delivered.
EG
Ancient to Napoleonic, mobility and assault are higher than firepower.
Naval, warfare mobility fire power, are higher than assault (boarding actions.)

I think 40k should have an equal balance of mobility fire power and assault .
Each should be equally important in the game and covered in a similar amount of detail, but have separate and clearly defined effects.

Currently the rules for mobility in 40k are an afterthought (cluster feth of additional rules) after 'everything moves 6"' was found to be too restrictive.

And the rules for assault and fire power make them compete directly for a the same limited function of 'killing stuff'.

This is why the game has such serious balance issues, the core functions for assault and fire power should be different but equally important. [i]

EG mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.