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.

Derived from a thread in News and Rumours (Sorry Alpharius) I open this to know whats your ideal version of Warhammer 40k!
Please keep this civil, everyone has their opinions and because someone hate what you really love it doesn't make him your enemy!

You can approach your ideal version of 40k maybe from a Fluff and Factions standpoint, maybe from a rules standpoints. What you value more? Balance, Variety, Lore adderence? Realism? Simulation? A fast gameplay, a slow and complex gameplay? Etc...

5th edition with the caveat that transports and models inside transports can't score objectives.

2nd edition with huge selection of options for configuring armies.

I liked the army lists in Slaves to Darkness and everything since then has been a disappointment at some level.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
5th edition with the caveat that transports and models inside transports can't score objectives.

Tack on some rules for the new releases, and remove the codex creep and I'm in.

I like 8e so far, but I have to say that if GW can't stop codex creep now, they should just stop writing rules altogether.

Honestly, what 8th is becoming. With the announcement of codexes and what they're bringing to armies, I can't think of a better version of 40k. I really enjoyed AoS and 8th just seems to have taken that really fun rules set and chucked in some extra good stuff like a simple version of Toughness and Strength and weapon types and such.
I'm sure legacy players who've been in it since much earlier editions can appreciate the earlier editions, as they learned to play it and enjoyed the mechanics, but I was introduced to the hobby during the end of 5th. I didn't much understand it at the time and from what I hear, the end wasn't much fun. Then I didn't much enjoy 6th, 7th was a welcome sight after with a few rules simplifications, until it become the horrific mess of formations, and I still for some reason couldn't quite get used to the system, and it killed the game for me.
8th brought me back as I understand it instantly and have heaps of fun with it, and the small amount of fluffy rules they've put in already, I'm really pumped to see what more characterful stuff they give armies as the codexes are released.
Oh and looking at almost every unit and thinking it could be cool in a list is incredibly refreshing after so many editions of Insta-take lists

My ideal version of warhammer 40k would remove the weight of list building and lean more towards playing the game being what determines the winner.

I am currently quite happy with 8th Ed - its by no means perfect but it appears to be far better then its recent predecessors.

In particular I like the simplicity of the rules, the synergies and other elements that allow the player to get on with the game and not spend inordinate amount of time checking or arguing over rules.

8th ed, once it has cleaned itself up and fixed some of the initial bumps.

Besides one guy I know personally (he thinks 8th has ruined 40k and says he'll only play 5th, and he'll do so alone) locally we are happier than we have ever been with 40k. Looking forward to seeing how the codeces will work.

8th is the ideal, just need more flavor missions and terrain and we are GOOOOD!

One where I can find the money for the new books and the time to actually play it. I still don't know how a game of 8th Edition plays yet, though I am pleased with reading the free core rules and seeing how it works together.

But one where powergamers/WAAC players don't dominate in games would be nice. Those encounters quickly cease to be games and become chores, exercising my patience beyond what is necessary for a game.

8th is closer than we've gotten in a while. I do have a list of gripes (uniform damage from blasts, poorly-organized USRs, poorly-defined terrain/cover, overly-generous character protection, *bleep*ing Heldrakes...), but it's pretty close overall.

Converting 8th edition over to Bolt Action?

I had liked 3rd edition. Each edition after that got a tad bit worse (except for the start of 6th... they revived my dark angels for a bit). 7th was the worst ever, as balance went out the window and costs through the roof. The game became 'pay to play' with formations.

8th has been a breath of fresh air. I am trying everything I have, different armies, combinations, etc. Everything is fairly balanced and I haven't seen any crushing victories or defeats yet. I'd say I'm having the most fun I've ever had with 40k in decades. The edition isnt perfect, but it's pretty close compared to other editions. It is the most balanced at this moment (let's hope codex books don't change that).

I know most of the following is down to the player and who you choose to play against, but in short:

-Proper terrain - a table set up to represent a location instead of scattered foam rocks equally placed to create a boring "wargame" table as opposed to a location
-Real scenarios, even historical scenarios - anything to get away from the infantile "oh wander over here and stand next to this token to win this game..."
-A game designed as a wargame and far less as a mathematical exercise in dice manipulation
-Varying unit activations, as far from "IGOUGO" as we can get - it's a travesty to use in a modern wargame
-Core rules should make any size game enjoyable. You should be able to enjoy a game with almost any units in it at most scales.
-Weapons and armour variations designed according to their traits, rather than designing in an attempt to make it special
-Remove flyers from the game unless they're shuttles/transports and are being used in the scenario
-I'm okay with introducing command difficulties and some kind of fog of war (though this is super hard to introduce to a game)
-Minimize buffs/auras/bubbles, etc. to help diminish the gamey-list-building kind of nonsense which has no direct relation to actual tactics/strategy
-A game which somehow fosters and encourages common-sense over rules exploits and abuse.
-A healthy campaign system is always a plus, but quite difficult to produce.


I don't expect any of these to actually exist, but if we're just day-dreaming.

 Elbows wrote:

-I'm okay with introducing command difficulties and some kind of fog of war (though this is super hard to introduce to a game).

Epic: Armageddon had both alternating activations and units that could fail to receive your orders. I can't quite remember how it worked, but each army had a strategy rating to represent their discipline and ability to maintain consistent communications. Playing Orks was basically roulette with guns.

My ideal version, that I've created a system for at home already, would be a bolt action based rules system. It's fast, it's fun, and allows room for real choices on the table when commanding your army. It's not realistic maybe, as the system gets weird when you start adding in the sheer variety of units, but it works great for smaller games between infantry and the occasional vehicle. Our system is based on a d8 (where BA is d6), and it changes combat significantly, and I love it.

I remember the Epic rules some. Basically, each army had a Strategy Rating they had to "roll over" to do an order. If the unit succeeded, it could pull the order off. If it failed, it could only do a "half order" and got a disruption token. You could, after activating a second unit, opt to "retain the initiative" and attempt to order a second unit (and only a second unit), but at a penalty to the roll vs Strategy Rating.

I'm working on an Alternating Activation system myself, and its going through several tweaks here. I'm trying to keep the rules extremely simple, but the core idea is Strategy Rating=Command Points per Turn, which can be used either for bringing in reserves, allowing 2 consecutive activations, or allowing activation/interrupts with a unit that already took 1 action that turn (units can take 2 actions/turn): https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/729773.page

Other than that, my ideal 40k has extensive character customization options, DIY chapters/doctrines, etc. Maybe a list of "common" relics to boot.

Movement is critical, and different units move in different ways. No driving a Voidweaver Backwards like in 7th, or Tokyo-Drifting a Battlewagon like in 8th. Vehicles operate akin to a streamlined Gorkamorka, units can "push" weaker units out of the way (so a Land Raider can slam Warbuggies aside, Bullgryns can bulldoze their way to an objective, etc), and the game allows for vehicle-to-vehicle boarding actions. Of course, implementing such rules in a streamlines format is another issue altogether! Some units can drag other units around. Harpoon Launchers, Grabbin Klaws, etc. are a thing.

Psychic Powers are expansive, and characters have a huge list to select from at army creation. The system operates like 7e with several tweaks:
-No pooling WC, but each Psyker gets extra WC. (Either 1 extra ML, or double ML).
-Psykers can "push" after spending at least 1 WC normally. This gives a free die to manifest. If that die matches any other, then Perils.
-No "base" cost for WC. Rather, the strength of the power is based on the number of successes.
-Deny subtracts successes from Manifesting, rather than being "all or nothing".

A game that knew what it wanted to be. Ideally, there would be roughly 2-4 different games using 28mm GW models in the 40k universe. You'd have a super small skirmish game, like Necromunda/SW:A; a platoon sized game(an example would be a literal Guard platoon with a supporting elements or two, like one leman russ tank) where details mattered, but didn't quite have the RPG like elements of the super skirmish game; and then some sort of company level/apoc style game that is more or less the old rules for Epic but played with 28mm models.

The last version would never end up being a deep, tactical game, but more of an excuse to play with large models. The first two could very well provide some manner of tactical depth, where facings, morale, terrain, and army composition would matter. The table would be less cluttered with models, and more cluttered with terrain, allowing players to actually maneuver. Weapons could reach further, but heavily modified based on movement and ranges, which promotes depth.

Really, I'd like for 40k to play tighter, be more grounded in 'reality' (fully aware we're talking about the distant future and space orks and magic and gak), and offer more meaningful choices to the player to promote tactical game play.

8th edition with varying unit activation

Really, I think that 2nd edition, played between two friends (who are willing to have a competitively fun time, but still without going too far into dickishness) and without trying to shoehorn big armies into the system, is the edition where the most fun can be had.

The psychic phase is a bit wonky, and melee can suck when two big units are fighting, but two balanced armies of about 1,500pts work just fine.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Really, I think that 2nd edition, played between two friends (who are willing to have a competitively fun time, but still without going too far into dickishness) and without trying to shoehorn big armies into the system, is the edition where the most fun can be had.

The psychic phase is a bit wonky, and melee can suck when two big units are fighting, but two balanced armies of about 1,500pts work just fine.

Agree with this. The 40k scale works best with a less abstract system. The 2nd ed rule system works perfectly for a game on the scale of Necromunda but I think it also works well up to a few dozen models per side + a couple of vehicles. That was the big change in the design ethos of 2nd vs 3rd. 2nd can scale down to the level of a duel between two individual models and remain compelling (almost like an 'RPG-lite'). 3rd improved as you scaled up.

I'm actually a big fan of 2nd ed's combat system but it simply becomes too time consuming with a large number of models on each side. I would love to see the Shadow War ruleset expanded for combat patrol level skirmishes.

I think that the 40k post 2nd ed would actually function better at a different scale - somewhere in between 40k and Epic. GW would never entertain this due to the loss of model detail. We can't have our cake and eat it unfortunately.

The most common answer to this is "Some grognard-y bullcrap that sounds nice in my head but is either so vague it's useless (I'd do a better cover system! How? Uh...) or breaks down under even slight scruteny (I'd offer a 4+ save to units 25% or more obscured by ruins! Oh fine models then! What do you mean that makes infantry an enormous pain to get and/or resolve cover for?!.). See anything magic juggler posts for examples of that second one.

System ain't perfect but no way is anyone on this forum gonna do better.

I really would love it if 40k had something like the "reactions" in Infinity, where you got to actually do something during your opponent's turn. As it is, opponent's turns can be very long and boring because you have absolutely nothing to do during all that time but roll the dice and hope your lucky with your various saves. I tend to like smaller games for that exact reason. The back and forth between players is faster, even if someone is relatively new to the rules or takes longer thinking about their next move.

Discussed a little in this video starting at 8:50-


*Keep in mind, this was made before 8th edition actually came out, so it's based on rumors, not actual experience with 8th edition.

Other than that, I've often wondered if the game would be far better off if instead of the slew of new editions they've made in recent years, they had just worked on refining ONE edition (4th, 5th, 7th, whatever), fixing broken things, improving underpowered units, etc.

A lot of the recent editions have "fixed" things that weren't broken, introducing new problems, and not fixed some of the old ones.

Of course, GW is probably never going to do that because new editions equal more profit through book sales.

As far as actual editions, they all had stuff that was a lot of fun and had big problems. I enjoyed 4th and 7th a lot. It's a little too early to make a verdict on 8th edition. It's tough to say which edition was "best".

ERJAK wrote:

System ain't perfect but no way is anyone on this forum gonna do better.

Because we all know that the GW rules writers are the best in the world, and all GW products are the best products there can be, so stop thinking for yourselves and just shut up!

ERJAK wrote:
The most common answer to this is "Some grognard-y bullcrap that sounds nice in my head but is either so vague it's useless (I'd do a better cover system! How? Uh...) or breaks down under even slight scruteny (I'd offer a 4+ save to units 25% or more obscured by ruins! Oh fine models then! What do you mean that makes infantry an enormous pain to get and/or resolve cover for?!.). See anything magic juggler posts for examples of that second one.

Look dude. I don't know you and you don't know me. We have differing views of what 40k is, and to each their own but that attitude doesn't do you any favors.

Guys, keep this civic please!

As other have mentioned I think that 8th edition has a real chance of becoming the "perfect" edition for me. I really like the fact that they are going to drop so many Codexes so quickly. The multiple year gap between books has always annoyed me somewhat. I think that it means after the existing factions have their books out that we could start seeing some more new factions. I would really like to seem them expand the range of Xenos factions available.

 fallinq wrote:

Other than that, I've often wondered if the game would be far better off if instead of the slew of new editions they've made in recent years, they had just worked on refining ONE edition (4th, 5th, 7th, whatever), fixing broken things, improving underpowered units, etc.

A lot of the recent editions have "fixed" things that weren't broken, introducing new problems, and not fixed some of the old ones.

Isn't that what GW has been doing for the last 19 years? Every edition from 3rd to 7th has been an iteration of the same system. 6th was the most dramatic change in that sequence but it didn't invalidate anything that had been released since 1998. Granted that in practice 7th is very different to 3rd but much of that is due to the introduction of fliers, superheavies etc.

You do have a point though in that GW probably makes more changes than are required to 'justify' a new edition.

 auticus wrote:
My ideal version of warhammer 40k would remove the weight of list building and lean more towards playing the game being what determines the winner.

I like what I've seen of 8th so far.

As to ideal, a variant on Auticus's idea, where players buy matched forces for specific 'historical' refights.
The terrain comes with the game and it's also standardized in its size and layout for the included missions.
No varying of unit compositions. No netlisting or whoring out the rules.
Each player has a specified force----they could buy a two force campaign kit---that they bring to an event.
Similar to how many LOTR players used to have a Good and Evil force where I've seen LOTR played.

I would also like such an edition/game set have a solo AI because three people worldwide would be willing to buy in

8th edition with varying unit activation

It cannot be stressed enough. IGOUGO is one of the fundamental problems in 40k. Unit activation/reaction system would make it so much a better game.

As to ideal, a variant on Auticus's idea, where players buy matched forces for specific 'historical' refights.
The terrain comes with the game and it's also standardized in its size and layout for the included missions.
No varying of unit compositions. No netlisting or whoring out the rules.
Each player has a specified force----they could buy a two force campaign kit---that they bring to an event.

This sounds boring as watching rails rust.