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.

@JohnwangDD.

40k does great without an excess of special rules, as the 40k 3E rulebook lists amply demonstrated until the Codices came out to ruin the game.

Just had a quick look at the 3rd ed rule book.
Completely different damage resolution for vehicles, 20 USRs, and several special rules for vehicles and weapons.

Most of which could be rendered redundant with a more intuitive and efficient use of the basic game mechanics and resolution methods.And more importantly give proportional results so there is more variation between units, resulting in avoiding the rules bloat due to add on special rules.

However, I do agree that customers complaining about 3rd ed limitation of being ''Bland Hammer'' let to the flood gates opening for special rules for everything.

Basically because the Napoleonic based rule set for massed ranks of troops mainly armed with close combat weapons.(WHFB.)
Is not really suited to the skirmishing units armed mainly with ranged weapons that 40k has.
And so falls over quite quickly when pushed into larger game sizes like 40k was...

I totally agree that a more ''sensible'' game size and F.O.C charts would be a big improvement. (Eg the F.O.C are developed to produced more balanced pick up games, that can be completely ignored for larger narrative games.)

But this still does not address the core issues with the 40k game mechanics and resolution methods.

tneva82 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


With the ability to touch anyone on t1 the game will always be very one turn tableeee.

Horus Heresy isn't. Generally crucial turns are more like 3 or 4. Some armies can make it turn 2.

Still has long ranges, indirect weapons etc though.

Isnt hh based on 7th still. meaning most weapons were all or nothing, tanks had some pretty powerful shielding abilities but otherwise melt and go away very fast, saves were all or nothing, cover saves worked differently, and MC and flyers are op.

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Then don't play Apocalypse.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Then don't play Apocalypse.

Yeah I mean who would want to play with big models?

Cool toys with neato rules suck, man. Real people play with boring, uninteresting units, man. Get that cool, awesome, big model off my tables!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Then don't play Apocalypse.

LOW are regular units, not apoc only units. So as I said now you are placing restrictions on what you can take beyond just points to get the game to work. But you don't even need LOW 3 Fire Raptors fits at 1k, breaks the game.

Exactly what scale should 40k be? My feeling is that it should be Company Level at most.

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Then don't play Apocalypse.

LOW are regular units, not apoc only units. So as I said now you are placing restrictions on what you can take beyond just points to get the game to work. But you don't even need LOW 3 Fire Raptors fits at 1k, breaks the game.

Dude, if you want to play Apocalypse games, then you can't complain about balance.

When did he say he wants to play Apoc?

 JNAProductions wrote:
When did he say he wants to play Apoc?

When he bought the 5th edition rulebook.

Imotehk the stormlord is a LOW. Hes just a slightly better overlord and sometimes not even actually better.

LoW does not = apoc

Or maybe hes not anymore? But he was in 7th.

he is not anymore.

That said, GW has included those models in the regular flow of the game. Apoc is a seperate thing. What JohnHwangDD is essentially saying is if you want balance you cannot play with all the models provided by GW for playing the game. So like I said 1000 points doesn't work without restrictions. Also what is your definition of an Apoc unit. A land Raider is as expensive as some lords of war and can be unbalancing at 1k points. What about Gorkanauts I can take 2 at 1k points and the game is unbalanced it is a heavy support choice. Flyers aren't lords of war and never have been. Heck I can take 150 ork boyz at 1k points also unbalanced. The lack of balance has nothing to do with points levels.

Sorry but your attitude reads "If you want to have fun at 1k points you need to impose a bunch of restrictions on people to do so." I could do the same thing at any point level so 1k points is meaningless it just requires more restrictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Then don't play Apocalypse.

LOW are regular units, not apoc only units. So as I said now you are placing restrictions on what you can take beyond just points to get the game to work. But you don't even need LOW 3 Fire Raptors fits at 1k, breaks the game.

Dude, if you want to play Apocalypse games, then you can't complain about balance.

I mean literally you are agreeing with what I said here you realize that right. I say "1k doesn't work without restrictions, because x." Your response "well you can't take x and expect balance." That is what I said, you need to restrict x for the game to function. You cannot say 1k points works great, and when I say, not without restrictions, you laugh off the concern by saying don't play those legal models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean where is your line on "don't play apoc?" What about storm ravens? (never an apoc only unit) or Storm talons? Or is any flyer instantly apoc, at which point to get 1k to work we are banning flyers and lords of war. What about larger heavy tanks like land raiders or Leman russes? Can I spam those?

At some point the issue ceases to be the points and is imbalance in units often created by GWs approach to unrestricted list building. The game is no better at 1k points than it is at 1500 or 2k, it is just shorter.

Wondering if the IGOYGO structure could be shaken up a bit by interlacing the turns.

1. Movement
1a. Player 1 moves
1b. Player 2 moves
2. Psi
2a. Player one casting
2b. Player two casting

etc.

then dice for "first player" each round, with a +1 to whoever killed the most units or something scenario specific (e.g. advanced the furthest) the preceding turn.

Removes some of the Alpha Strike by allowing reaction movement prior to enemy shooting, shooting prior to enemy charging (removing the need for "overwatch" totally)

Also doesn't require huge changes to the games core structures in the way alternating activations would, avoids issues around gaming activations with cheap units or having to 'group' activations etc.

That structure really hurts assault armies because kiting becomes a huge thing because shooting units can move away before charges happen.

I have a suggestion:

Use the turn sequence that AoS uses, but with alternating shooting thrown in as well. With that you could consider removing overwatch as well. So while your opponent gets to do something, and attempt to stop an alpha strike, assaulting won’t be too punished as you won’t be able to move units out of the way.

I wouldn't

Whilst it's somewhat clear from my post history I'm not all that keen on 40k I'll concede that the player base seems to be having fun despite many of them being more than aware of its manifold 'faults'

There are a staggering amount of other games about and if you just can't be bothered with 40k there will be another ruleset to float your boat, admittedly that's a bit unhelpful if you're a fluff bunny but not so much if you just want a 'better' set of rules

To some extent that really depends on the availability of players for those other games. In my area at least other than maybe warmachine 40k players out number other games probably 10 or more to 1.

Breng77 wrote:
To some extent that really depends on the availability of players for those other games. In my area at least other than maybe warmachine 40k players out number other games probably 10 or more to 1.

Yep that can be a tricky issue, varying wildly from locale to locale, in my corner of the Shire its the opposite you'd be hard pressed to get a game of 40k, although some AOS unexpectedly broke out at the games club the other week

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yeah I mean who would want to play with big models?

Cool toys with neato rules suck, man. Real people play with boring, uninteresting units, man. Get that cool, awesome, big model off my tables!

plus one

Breng77 wrote:That said, GW has included those models in the regular flow of the game. Apoc is a seperate thing. What JohnHwangDD is essentially saying is if you want balance you cannot play with all the models provided by GW for playing the game. So like I said 1000 points doesn't work without restrictions. Also what is your definition of an Apoc unit. A land Raider is as expensive as some lords of war and can be unbalancing at 1k points. What about Gorkanauts I can take 2 at 1k points and the game is unbalanced it is a heavy support choice. Flyers aren't lords of war and never have been. Heck I can take 150 ork boyz at 1k points also unbalanced. The lack of balance has nothing to do with points levels.

Sorry but your attitude reads "If you want to have fun at 1k points you need to impose a bunch of restrictions on people to do so." I could do the same thing at any point level so 1k points is meaningless it just requires more restrictions.

Your response "well you can't take x and expect balance." That is what I said, you need to restrict x for the game to function. You cannot say 1k points works great, and when I say, not without restrictions, you laugh off the concern by saying don't play those legal models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean where is your line on "don't play apoc?" What about storm ravens? (never an apoc only unit) or Storm talons? Or is any flyer instantly apoc, at which point to get 1k to work we are banning flyers and lords of war. What about larger heavy tanks like land raiders or Leman russes? Can I spam those?

At some point the issue ceases to be the points and is imbalance in units often created by GWs approach to unrestricted list building. The game is no better at 1k points than it is at 1500 or 2k, it is just shorter.

Yes,the rules for different units are the problem, smaller games are more imbalanced. A Land Raide, or max shoota boyz are unfair in 750 game, because you probably can't afford weapons to deal with every possibility, but they are fine in 2000 point games.

Future War Cultist wrote:I have a suggestion:

Use the turn sequence that AoS uses, but with alternating shooting thrown in as well. With that you could consider removing overwatch as well. So while your opponent gets to do something, and attempt to stop an alpha strike, assaulting won’t be too punished as you won’t be able to move units out of the way.

Yes, but I think only infantry should shoot in alternate turns, so that they have a specific trait that lets them compete with models that are faster, tougher, or have bigger guns. Tanks, knights, monsters, and flyers can shoot only on a player-turn basis.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Yep that can be a tricky issue, varying wildly from locale to locale, in my corner of the Shire its the opposite you'd be hard pressed to get a game of 40k, although some AOS unexpectedly broke out at the games club the other week

Good to hear.

I think to fix the system would mean a total re-write.

The game would first need to tackle the scale issue first and foremost, as it is we have a system that has in-depth profiles for pistols and titan weapons all while being based upon a D6 system. It is asking too much.

One way to solve this would be to combine elements from epic with 8th edition, starting with the skimmed down profiles we saw in Epic.

Example Space Marine Tactical Squad.

Type: Infantry
Speed: 6
Armour: 3+
Close Combat: 3+
Notes: It takes double the number of Blast markers to pin a unit.

While having weapons as such.

Name: Bolt Gun
Range: 12"
Firepower: AP4+
Notes: -

Name: Missile Launcher
Range: 36"
Firepower: AI3+/AV4+
Notes: Against Infantry roll 5 dice.

Movement phase, as it is now but with alternating activations and units being pinned if they have blast markers equal to the number of models in the unit. Pinned units skip their movement phase and remove the blast markers.

Psychic Phase as it is now but with alternating activations.

Shooting phase, alternating activation. Weapons will now be either Anti-Infantry or Anti-Vehicle, and will say the dice result needed. Each time a unit shoots a blast marker is placed on the enemy unit, for each hit caused place a blast marker. Armour saves are taken as normal, Models in cover are at -1 to hit.

Assault Phase same as now but with alternating activation. Weapons will now be either Anti-Infantry or Anti-Vehicle, and will say the dice result needed. Each time a unit attacks a blast marker is placed on the enemy unit, for each hit caused place a blast marker. Armour saves are taken as normal.

Morale Phase. Units can remove D6 blast markers.

An extremely rough draft, but trying to mush Epic and 8th together.

I like your ideas stonehorse! So this would have to hit and to wound rolls rolled into one roll yes? Because I think that’s the future.

I decided to go the other way and am expanding Necromunda 2017 into a 40k skirmish game starting with Inquismunda content.

Epic seems like a good starting point for a fast game that has things like knights and shadowswords and riptides.

And here we see a real issue IMO.
No clearly defined game scale or scope.

40k skirmish game (up to 2nd ed 40k.) Easy to write rules for, as there are loads of great skirmish game rule sets.

Large battle game (Old Epic size game and units.)Easy to write rules for because there are loads of great large battle game rule sets.

40k company level small battle game rule set....(40k 3rd to 5th ed.)
Completely new sort of game that needed rules written specifically for it.

Unfortunately, the scale of the minatures means players want detailed skirmish rules.And the scale of the game means that this would bog game play down too much.

The scale of the game works great with simple unit stats like in Epic, but the scale of the minatures with all the minute variation.Means players want more detail in the interaction.

Detailed model interaction is too fussy for 40k. And simple unit interaction is not diverse enough.

GW opted for simple model interaction, (with loads of layers of special rules heaped on top.)

I propose detailed unit interaction.Where every model in the unit counts, but is not obsessed over.And the overall effectiveness of the unit is the driver of the game play.
After all 40k is all about unit interaction,is it not?

Do you agree?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like your ideas stonehorse! So this would have to hit and to wound rolls rolled into one roll yes? Because I think that’s the future.

Cheers! I can't really take credit for it as it is using Epic rules slightly adjusted. I think all the Epic rules are still available online for free.

That is correct, roll to hit with either the Anti Infantry or Anti Vehicle stat, every success means a save needed for the opponent. Each fail adds a blast marker.

I am working on a more thought out set of rules. Once I have those I will post them up.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like your ideas stonehorse! So this would have to hit and to wound rolls rolled into one roll yes? Because I think that’s the future.

Cheers! I can't really take credit for it as it is using Epic rules slightly adjusted. I think all the Epic rules are still available online for free.

That is correct, roll to hit with either the Anti Infantry or Anti Vehicle stat, every success means a save needed for the opponent. Each fail adds a blast marker.

I am working on a more thought out set of rules. Once I have those I will post them up.

I’d be happy to help out with this. Here’s an idea I’ve been pondering: keeping a simplified stat v stat system that still combines to hit and to wound together into one roll. It would look like this:

The attacker has a strength stat that is the sum of its skill, strength and AP divided by 2 rounded up. So a Primarus Intercessor with a Bolt Rifle would be skill 4 plus strength 4 plus ap -1 which equals 9. Divide that by 2 and round it up, that’s strength 5.

The target has a toughness stat that is the sum of its current toughness plus its save as a division of six. So that Primarus Marine would be toughness 4 plus 4 (because 6, 5, 4 and 3 are passes) which equals 8.

The system would then use the current to wound system; 6+ to wound if targets toughness is double or more than attackers strength, 5+ if it’s just greater, 4+ if it’s equal, and so on.

Models would have a shooting stat and a melee stat. Take a Primarus Captain in Gravis Armour for example:

Shooting: Range: 12” Attacks: 3 Strength: 5 Damage: 1
Melee: Range: 1” Attacks: 5 Strength: 8 Damage: D3

The captain would also have a toughness of 12, because it’s toughness 5 plus a 3+ save (4) plus it’s 4+ invulnerable save (3).

So if a Primarus Marine with a strength of 5 was shooting at a toughness 8 chaos Marine, it would need 5s to hit and wound the target. 10 shots would inflict 3.33 wounds on them. They could then take their saves as before.

I’m sorry if that was all gibberish, but I just think it could be a good compromise between going fully epic style and the more detailed skirmish type systems. With work of course.

 Chamberlain wrote:
I decided to go the other way and am expanding Necromunda 2017 into a 40k skirmish game starting with Inquismunda content.

Epic seems like a good starting point for a fast game that has things like knights and shadowswords and riptides.

As someone who has played in your first playtesting of new Necromunda based Inq28, I think the psychic powers need a rework. The 40k system is alright, but we certainly need an alternative to mortal wounds.

lol yeah. That was so bad. Sorry about that.

40k skirmish with full 40k psykers? bad idea

-Units engaged in combat only prevents targeting of characters, if the character is directly begind them. (Such a stupid rule that occasionally prevents targeting of a character even if he’s the only target, and even if he’s 3” from the shooter, out in the open... only because on the other side, two other units are engaged 2” away).
-only visible units prevents targeting of characters, if the character is not the closest target.
-If multicharging, the charge is only succesful if you end up in combat with all the target units. (No more multicharging in different directions, then picking whatever you rolled enough for AFTER the charge roll. “I’d prefer making that 11” charge, but to make sure i atleast get something, im also going to charge you chaff unit, 5” in the direct opposite direction. Let’s see which one i get!”)

@.Future War Cultist.
Your example of how you could convert Epic rules to 40k highlights the issues with taking this route.
(I do not mean to pick on you as an individual.but just to point out if rules are not written specifically for 40k they can get complicated quickly. )

Epic works fine with smaller scale minatures, like all large battle game rules.(15mm down to 2mm on a unit base.)

However 40k minature scale means lots of players want more detailed interaction.
Although it is easier to add detail to a solid rule set like Epic.Just mashing rules together from completely different game types can get messy quite quickly.

If you want a fast play low detail battle game for 40k, then Epic rules are a great start.

If you want a more detailed level of interaction in 40k, without the swathe of special rules.
I believe the best thing to do is look at the concepts used in the game play of Epic and other large battle games that work well.And find the 'best' way to scale up the detail to represent these concepts in 40k.

Concepts in Epic missing from 40k.

1)A more interactive game turn.
2)Common rules of interaction for all units.(The same simple stat line that delivers proportional results for all units in the game.)
3)Weapon stats net effect used for each unit to reduce calculations.
4)A simple suppression system, that models morale appropriate to game scale.

As several have pointed out, lots of 40k players want something that looks familiar to them.

So I would start with;-
Alternating phases that model simultaneous interaction.(Really straight forward and removes all 'time warp' and 'alpha strike' type issues.)

A set of stats common to ALL units from 1 to 10 that cover all elements of interaction .(Using one table of opposed values to generate proportional results, removing the need for so many special rules.)

Net effect of unit weapons under unit stats.(So you know what Range AP and St and Attacks the power fist on your sergeant has without having to look up any other stats or rules to work it out..)

A sImple suppression system based on failed saves in the unit.

Breng77 wrote:
he is not anymore.

That said, GW has included those models in the regular flow of the game. Apoc is a seperate thing. What JohnHwangDD is essentially saying is if you want balance you cannot play with all the models provided by GW for playing the game. So like I said 1000 points doesn't work without restrictions. Also what is your definition of an Apoc unit. A land Raider is as expensive as some lords of war and can be unbalancing at 1k points. What about Gorkanauts I can take 2 at 1k points and the game is unbalanced it is a heavy support choice. Flyers aren't lords of war and never have been. Heck I can take 150 ork boyz at 1k points also unbalanced. The lack of balance has nothing to do with points levels.

Sorry but your attitude reads "If you want to have fun at 1k points you need to impose a bunch of restrictions on people to do so." I could do the same thing at any point level so 1k points is meaningless it just requires more restrictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Then don't play Apocalypse.

LOW are regular units, not apoc only units. So as I said now you are placing restrictions on what you can take beyond just points to get the game to work. But you don't even need LOW 3 Fire Raptors fits at 1k, breaks the game.

Dude, if you want to play Apocalypse games, then you can't complain about balance.

I mean literally you are agreeing with what I said here you realize that right. I say "1k doesn't work without restrictions, because x." Your response "well you can't take x and expect balance." That is what I said, you need to restrict x for the game to function. You cannot say 1k points works great, and when I say, not without restrictions, you laugh off the concern by saying don't play those legal models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean where is your line on "don't play apoc?" What about storm ravens? (never an apoc only unit) or Storm talons? Or is any flyer instantly apoc, at which point to get 1k to work we are banning flyers and lords of war. What about larger heavy tanks like land raiders or Leman russes? Can I spam those?

At some point the issue ceases to be the points and is imbalance in units often created by GWs approach to unrestricted list building. The game is no better at 1k points than it is at 1500 or 2k, it is just shorter.

It is clear what John was intending.
And, I think that he is right.

I disagree that the game is no better, just shorter.
The extra table makes a big difference - more space, more time for maneuvering, and limits on units help with balance and put more of the game on the tabletop rather than in the Battlescribe phase.

Finally, no, you may not spam anything, ever.
Try instead to keep your game on the table.
More meat, less meta.

If you want to exploit rules to win reliably due to spam,
then complaining about balance is basically just wishing that you would have bought a different army before the new edition came out.

Anyways, playing against 2 morakanauts at a thousand points might be fun.
Devastators, maybe a pred or land raider, a landspeeder or two, maybe a dreadnought or a small unit of termies, a few scouts and a couple squads of tac marines...