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.

 Mymearan wrote:
- Scale back the Power creep. It's so hard to do, but I Think the game needs it. Less S6+ weapons, less AP2.

This actually removes tactics. Why? Because when your weapons aren't reliable the only solution is "roll a bucket of dice and hope they fail some saves". There's no point in trying to pull off that clever flanking maneuver to deliver a key unit if that unit's guns are so weak that they'll be lucky to kill a tactical marine or two. Instead you just find the units that have the most efficient firepower and durability, spam as many copies of them as possible, and throw them mindlessly at the enemy in a battle of attrition.

CrownAxe,
There are other games that work on a similar release schedule to 40k and manage to have a lot more variety in lists then we see now.
I expect there to be enough balance in the game where I'm not put in a place where I must take a small subset of units in order to stay competitive, because 40k makes absurd rules (Grav weapons, GMCs, Skimmers, Tanks being so weak, the way cover interacts with AP, the 1-10 and d6 scale, the IGOUGO system).
Some of these wouldn't be an issue, but stacked together they make for a game that advertises variety but doesn't offer any unless you and your opponent agree to play casual. And casual for one army doesn't equal casual for another.

Look at the original example, WMH. The differences in builds available with Hayley1/2/3 is more variety than you see in some codexes in this game, especially at the tournament level. And that's just a small subset of casters in 1 faction. If you look at Cryx, Legion, Menoth, or others, it gets even worse.

Granted, not all of the releases were good (Mountain King...) but overall, a large portion of the codex is good. They even do erratas to nerf OP abilities/lists (Body and Soul) and boost weak things (Siege in Skorne).

On the strategy versus tactics front, the problem is that the game's randomness basically precludes tactics. You can build a good list, but if your deep strike reserves don't come on until turn 4 then there's little gain from your list building strategy. I would like it if you could defer your reserves and have them come on together, e.g. roll a 3+ on turn 2 but hold them until turn 3.

And while you can maximize your odds, it's still easy for tactics to get caught up in randomness, whether it's bad difficult terrain rolls, bad charge rolls, bad warlord or psychic rolls, etc. and other rules like overwatch just provide a cop out defense against good tactics. We should either have overwatch or no charge from reserves, not both. It's silly that a fast strike unit can be shot twice by a unit before they even get into close combat.

True. One of the big problems is the 1-10 stats and the single d6 system.

A 2d6 at least produces a bell curve, with certain numbers to try to shoot for.
The 1-~20 stat range also helps, since it would allow a Guardsmen, Eldar, and Gaunt all have to have different toughness.
Scorpions and Marines could have different armor saves as well, and a defense step would help a lot.

If someone ever made a port of 40k into the WMH ruleset, I'd play nothing but that. Maybe that and guildball

Akiasura wrote:
True. One of the big problems is the 1-10 stats and the single d6 system.

A 2d6 at least produces a bell curve, with certain numbers to try to shoot for.
The 1-~20 stat range also helps, since it would allow a Guardsmen, Eldar, and Gaunt all have to have different toughness.
Scorpions and Marines could have different armor saves as well, and a defense step would help a lot.

If someone ever made a port of 40k into the WMH ruleset, I'd play nothing but that. Maybe that and guildball

I would be for a transition to d10, especially since the WS, S, T stats are all based around base 10. D20 would be a little ridiculous.

But I could definitely see guardsmen having bs5 on a d10, Eldar having bs6, Marines having bs7, etc.

I really like the 2d6 system, or 2dX in general. It creates a nice bell curve that allows you to shoot for certain numbers to swing the odds in your favor. Re-rolls become really powerful if you can pick 1 dice to roll again, and critical effects that work off of doubles become interesting (especially if other abilities that grant bonus die).

I can't suggest the WMH system enough, it's very well done. I think a lot of the special rules, focus vs fury, warcasters, and that kind of stuff isn't needed, especially in 40k, but the core system would make 40k an excellent game.

2d6 would be a disaster. Imagine rolling to hit with guardsmen, you'd need to roll a 2d6 for each model one at a time, per shot. It also creates a super wonky probability distribution, where higher or lower stats rapidly get much more or much less powerful.

 TheSilo wrote:
2d6 would be a disaster. Imagine rolling to hit with guardsmen, you'd need to roll a 2d6 for each model one at a time, per shot. It also creates a super wonky probability distribution, where higher or lower stats rapidly get much more or much less powerful.

It could be a pain with the current size of the game, but the probability distrubtion is actually normalized towards a center. While you really want a 6-8 on a 2d6, you'll find depending on the stats of the model it works out well. Especially if you allowed actual wargear or other factors to change defense, ability to hit, or other factors.
Think about it like this. Terminators would actually be worth their points on a 2d6 system, since getting through their armor would require actual heavy weapons instead of soaking them in wounds. A 1d10 system couldn't really do that to the same extent.

A 1d10, or 1d20, would make the game entirely dependent on the dice instead of stats. Single shot weapons would get even worse and multiple shot weapons would get even better.

 TheSilo wrote:
2d6 would be a disaster. Imagine rolling to hit with guardsmen, you'd need to roll a 2d6 for each model one at a time, per shot. It also creates a super wonky probability distribution, where higher or lower stats rapidly get much more or much less powerful.

You could do something like Infinity but with a d10, not d20. Stats are between 1 and 10 like now, the idea is to roll equal to or under your stat. A BS5 guardsman hits 50% of the time, a BS sternguard 80% of the time.