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.

Finally a game were the factions rules are made for the core rules and not something that is carried over from the very beginning with minor upgrades that was never going to work in the first place

Never thought I would say that but at the moment AoS is the better game

I would want no idea posted on dakka to be included in the game.

ERJAK wrote:
I would want no idea posted on dakka to be included in the game.

Probably turn out better than Cruddance's ideas.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd like to see a better defined scale to the game.

Why on earth are we differentiating between a power axe and power sword on a random squad sergeant in a game where they may be facing a tank company, knight lance, or Titan maniple? Why do we have air superiority fighters and strategic missile launchers in a game where handguns are relevant wargear?

I get that GW wants one scale of models to represent the entire game universe, but I really think 40k needs two or three different rulesets, with different levels of abstraction and model count, to portray different scales.

I think solving that will make a whole lot of other balance issues easier to grapple with.

I can see how that would make sense narratively but don't see how it would really change balance one way or another.

The models are all just models. The only difference between them is numbers and in some cases, special rules. A knight is functionally the same as a space marine except it has bigger numbers and can retreat and shoot. A stormraven is functionally the same as a Land Raider except it's numbers are different and certain units can't charge it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I would want no idea posted on dakka to be included in the game.

Probably turn out better than Cruddance's ideas.

As bad as cruddace's stuff is...probably still no. Dakka still has people who think Knights are some kind of crazy mythical eldritch entity instead of just a really tall dreadnaught.

A complete re-write, focusing on strategic depth, player agency, and balance.

Alternating Activation by unit.

A morale system focusing on suppressing the enemy that even space marines are subject to.

Units no longer become locked in combat.

Somewhat more abstracted LOS-eg. no LOS through area terrain.

Far fewer abilities that trigger on to-hit/to-wound rolls.

No allies, for the sake of balance and faction identity/uniqueness/playstyle.

Return of USRS- but done properly.

Implement MEDGe's Overrun and Hit-And-Run rules.

Removal of "everything can hurt everything."

Removal of armor saves, because there is zero agency involved in that action.

Random shots and damage removed for all weapons and psychic powers save those few where it actually makes sense.

Return of blasts and templates.

Templates become template X where the narrow end must be within X inches of the firing model or weapon.

Weapon keywords- flamer, plasma etc.

Superheavies and flyers as Apocalypse-only units.

A return/update of the FOC- make infantry the focus of gameplay. Require the number of Troops to be equal or greater than the number of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support in a list.

Shooting, wounding etc. based on comparing an attacker value to a defender value to determine the minimum roll for success.

Firing arcs for everything to make movement/positioning more important.

Run and charge at double the units' movement value.

Re-work of psychic tests to something more meaningful, or scrap the mechanic entirely and allow psykers to simply use their power(s) in lieu of shooting for that activation.

Asymmetrical objectives.

Vehicle sponsons, turrets, pintle mounts and so forth can shoot different units.

Pistols can be fired in close-combat in place of the model's melee weapon.

 Elbows wrote:
I'm slowly fading from 40K (as expected). It's not the core rules which bug me at all, it's the ridiculous number of dice and re-rolls and auras and hordes that's more or less killed my interest in going further with the game.

That's something that won't be fixed or changed, because it's how GW sells models/minis. Units (particularly cheap ones which should be crap units) shooting or fighting 150+ times a phase or turn is just...well it's boring as feth. Many units reach the amount of dice rolls where there's no point to even roll them. Just remove the unit or the target. That's pretty poor game design, though I know mathhammerers love it (read: the people who insist anything that isn't hiting five times per model at 2+ while re-rolling '1's is a garbage unit, etc.).

The entire "Well, this squad shoots 90 times...and I can re-roll, and then I can shoot again with a stratagem" has all but killed my enthusiasm for the game. That's not a game anymore, it's becoming a farce. Couple that with GW's model decisions as of late and I'll probably retire to the grognard home and play 8th occasionally with buddies and go back to dabbling with smaller more intricate games of 2nd edition etc.

100% agree on this I feel like re-roll spam has been on the upswing since 6th. 5th had very few re-rolls, just really twin linked items and fateweaver/fortune saves (I'm sure I'm missing a few but they were not super common), 6th added divination to a ton of armies, re-roll saves, re-roll charges etc, this largely carried over to 7th, and 8th introduced auras all over the place throwing re-rolls. I'd rather see more use of modifiers and less re-rolls, it just saves time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd like to see a better defined scale to the game.

Why on earth are we differentiating between a power axe and power sword on a random squad sergeant in a game where they may be facing a tank company, knight lance, or Titan maniple? Why do we have air superiority fighters and strategic missile launchers in a game where handguns are relevant wargear?

I get that GW wants one scale of models to represent the entire game universe, but I really think 40k needs two or three different rulesets, with different levels of abstraction and model count, to portray different scales.

I think solving that will make a whole lot of other balance issues easier to grapple with.

I can see how that would make sense narratively but don't see how it would really change balance one way or another.

The models are all just models. The only difference between them is numbers and in some cases, special rules. A knight is functionally the same as a space marine except it has bigger numbers and can retreat and shoot. A stormraven is functionally the same as a Land Raider except it's numbers are different and certain units can't charge it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I would want no idea posted on dakka to be included in the game.

Probably turn out better than Cruddance's ideas.

As bad as cruddace's stuff is...probably still no. Dakka still has people who think Knights are some kind of crazy mythical eldritch entity instead of just a really tall dreadnaught.

The issue is that unless points are balanced properly, superheavy stuff largely invalidates weaker vehicles and MCs. If weapons exist to wipe out super heavies they dust mid range vehicles. FOr flyers the not being able to charge it is a big deal for some armies, and they have -1 to hit base.

All of this could be resolved in theory with points, but pointing flyers and superheavies properly probably removes many from the game in the current points landscape.

Blastaar wrote:
A complete re-write, focusing on strategic depth, player agency, and balance.

Alternating Activation by unit.

A morale system focusing on suppressing the enemy that even space marines are subject to.

Units no longer become locked in combat.

Somewhat more abstracted LOS-eg. no LOS through area terrain.

Far fewer abilities that trigger on to-hit/to-wound rolls.

No allies, for the sake of balance and faction identity/uniqueness/playstyle.

Return of USRS- but done properly.

Implement MEDGe's Overrun and Hit-And-Run rules.

Removal of "everything can hurt everything."

Removal of armor saves, because there is zero agency involved in that action.

Random shots and damage removed for all weapons and psychic powers save those few where it actually makes sense.

Return of blasts and templates.

Templates become template X where the narrow end must be within X inches of the firing model or weapon.

Weapon keywords- flamer, plasma etc.

Superheavies and flyers as Apocalypse-only units.

A return/update of the FOC- make infantry the focus of gameplay. Require the number of Troops to be equal or greater than the number of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support in a list.

Shooting, wounding etc. based on comparing an attacker value to a defender value to determine the minimum roll for success.

Firing arcs for everything to make movement/positioning more important.

Run and charge at double the units' movement value.

Re-work of psychic tests to something more meaningful, or scrap the mechanic entirely and allow psykers to simply use their power(s) in lieu of shooting for that activation.

Asymmetrical objectives.

Vehicle sponsons, turrets, pintle mounts and so forth can shoot different units.

Pistols can be fired in close-combat in place of the model's melee weapon.

You know you can still play 3rd edition, right?

Blastaar wrote:
A complete re-write, focusing on strategic depth, player agency, and balance.

Alternating Activation by unit.

A morale system focusing on suppressing the enemy that even space marines are subject to.

Units no longer become locked in combat.

Somewhat more abstracted LOS-eg. no LOS through area terrain.

Far fewer abilities that trigger on to-hit/to-wound rolls.

No allies, for the sake of balance and faction identity/uniqueness/playstyle.

Return of USRS- but done properly.

Implement MEDGe's Overrun and Hit-And-Run rules.

Removal of "everything can hurt everything."

Removal of armor saves, because there is zero agency involved in that action.

Random shots and damage removed for all weapons and psychic powers save those few where it actually makes sense.

Return of blasts and templates.

Templates become template X where the narrow end must be within X inches of the firing model or weapon.

Weapon keywords- flamer, plasma etc.

Superheavies and flyers as Apocalypse-only units.

A return/update of the FOC- make infantry the focus of gameplay. Require the number of Troops to be equal or greater than the number of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support in a list.

Shooting, wounding etc. based on comparing an attacker value to a defender value to determine the minimum roll for success.

Firing arcs for everything to make movement/positioning more important.

Run and charge at double the units' movement value.

Re-work of psychic tests to something more meaningful, or scrap the mechanic entirely and allow psykers to simply use their power(s) in lieu of shooting for that activation.

Asymmetrical objectives.

Vehicle sponsons, turrets, pintle mounts and so forth can shoot different units.

Pistols can be fired in close-combat in place of the model's melee weapon.

Some of these are good, but some are god awful

Alternating activation by unit? Terrible in a game with different levels of unit count to the extent 40k has, unless you implement a lot of other rules to balance out the advantage this gives to extreme MSU.

NO locked in combat means dead combat units for the most part.

Removal of saves makes the game even harder to differentiate between unit unless they are expanding the unit stats.

FOC emphasising Troops that much requires a full game re-write, some armies have cheap effective troops, others do not, so if I can take cheap min troops to fill requirements, then spend points on better units I have a huge advantage against an army with more expensive troops.

Run and Charge rules - do these replace your regular move or are they in addition, can some units still run and charge? I mean do you want units with a 12" move that can run and charge to really be able to move 12", run 24", and Charge 24" so a 60" threat range? I mean even the 36" threat range is huge for that unit if they cannot run and then charge, or is it you can during movement, either move base distance, run x2 or charge x2, that would be ok but would work very differently than current systems as far as units that can shoot and do close combat.

Less crap.

We have special army rules, warlord traits, command points, special army command points, special army sub faction rules and I haven't even gotten to unit rules.

STOP just STOP.


Cut the number of cute little rules down to one area and leave it be. This is my fun game, not my disartation.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Less crap.

We have special army rules, warlord traits, command points, special army command points, special army sub faction rules and I haven't even gotten to unit rules.

STOP just STOP.


Cut the number of cute little rules down to one area and leave it be. This is my fun game, not my disartation.

I could go with that, make sub faction choices largely aesthetic or thematic rather than a choice made for game advantage.

Read Mantic's Kings of War and Warpath rules. Think for a bit. Cut and paste. Job done.

Flanking, pinning, alternate activation, aircraft that can't be hit by flames and don't suffer penalties for moving. Infantry having a role outside of dying in droves. A more internally and externally balanced series of codexes. Not having to look through a codex, 20 different FAQs and buying a yearly book just to know your army rules.

Personally, I'd like to see 5th ed, with casualty allocation rules fixed, vehicles with their current profiles (but a more intuitive damage system) 2nd edition-style overwatch with a Ld test trigger, and functional Warlord rules.

Seems unlikely, though.

Keep it largely the same but clean it up. I want a tight, simple, well balanced ruleset that won't need to be changed in 6 months and then changed again and again.

Maintain the idea that complexity comes from army books, but simplify it. Right now there's too much chaff. Too many special snowflake rules, too much sub faction bloat

Fix terrain rules. Doesn't need to be any more complex, just better.

Have a list of universal keywords (like BEASTS or TITANIC) in the rule book, explaining exactly what they mean and how they affect the game.

All the good things from 3rd ed. E.g wound chart negating low str weapons being able to hurt big things..

Severly limit re-rolls available. Beefy character should be a unot that brings the pain, not a glorified re-roll army multiplier lynchpin...

Difficult terrain should be a thing. Heck, terrain should be a thing for los. You shouldint realy be able to fire sponson guns through your own chassis just because a bit of your mud guard from the opposite end can see a heel of an enemy infantryman...

Fallback reverse overwatch.

Some charging movement distance allowed even if failed charge

ERJAK wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd like to see a better defined scale to the game.

Why on earth are we differentiating between a power axe and power sword on a random squad sergeant in a game where they may be facing a tank company, knight lance, or Titan maniple? Why do we have air superiority fighters and strategic missile launchers in a game where handguns are relevant wargear?

I get that GW wants one scale of models to represent the entire game universe, but I really think 40k needs two or three different rulesets, with different levels of abstraction and model count, to portray different scales.

I think solving that will make a whole lot of other balance issues easier to grapple with.

I can see how that would make sense narratively but don't see how it would really change balance one way or another.

The models are all just models. The only difference between them is numbers and in some cases, special rules. A knight is functionally the same as a space marine except it has bigger numbers and can retreat and shoot. A stormraven is functionally the same as a Land Raider except it's numbers are different and certain units can't charge it.

There are a number of issues. Abstraction is done basically in the reverse way it should be. A basic infantry squad has more to deal with and keep track of in every way than a giant superheavy. Leadership, wound and attack allocation, casualty removal, who has what weapons, etc, all stuff that makes sense in a skirmish scale but thay leaves the big monsters and vehicles dramatically oversimplified and basically dont have to bother with many game mechanics. This makes the big units relatively boring and a lot of mechanical game detail bogged down on relatively trivial details. If you've got a tac squad engaged in CC with a Knight for example, having to fiddle with separate rolls for a sergeants power sword versus basic squad memeber attacks, for ultimately likely very little real outcome difference, is just a level of granularity that doesn't add much to the game at that scale.

Games built around the scale of units like knights or titans or tank companies usually work in the reverse, with basic infantry highly abstracted and the big gribblies being more complex.

Ogre for instance, a very simple game with just a couple pages of rules, infantry platoons are treated as entire abstracted units while thr Titan sized Ogre cybertanks have individal weapons and motive systems that can be attacked. The most basic mission is literally a single Ogre against a mixed force of a dozen or two armor units and abstracted infantry, but can be expanded and played with more super units or none at all, and the game runs much cleaner than 40k does.

40k also has a lot more weird battlefield moments, like flamerthrowers or hand grenades being used against supersonic air superiority interceptors

Likewise, there are issues of meta skew. A platoon or company level of infantry fighting another is much easier to balance, but when you may be facing anything from a couple hundred weeny infantry to a few dozen armored infantry and half a dozen APC's to two dozen demigods to tank companies or a Knight Lance, it basically makes generalist or take all comers army lists very difficult to construct and balance, and you dramatically spike the number of games that turn out to be one sided predetermined slaughters.

The current paradigm...functions, but is monstrously clunky.

Oh, and just to add, and I think we'll all agree.

Technical Editors + Style Manual.

Games Workshop easily produces the most sloppily written game rules of any company of its size and financial success. While I know the key here is model sales and not rules, it's just causing them more effort and time in the long run with constant errata/FAQ.

A quality technical editor or two could do wonders, and could create a Style Manual alongside the game development. A Style Manual is similar to what major newspapers and publishers use - it's a formatted "bible" that dictates how information is presented. I'm a huge proponent of RAI - as it is 99% of the time very obvious what the rule means --- however the amount of internet TFG-ing and bickering, arguing and trying to get "gotcha" moments at tournaments due simply to poorly typed rules could all be eliminated.

An example would be:

Ignoring Wound Rules: When a model has a rule allowing it to ignore sustained wounds, the rule should be worded as such...

This allows units to maintain non USR's, but they should be written consistently in every book, and White Dwarf article. This would be an incredibly huge boon. The level of editing/typos and confusingly written rules is laughable at this level of production/company. I see heaps of little silly issues that my buddies have critiqued me on when I write rules, and that's inexcusable at this level. GW: Invest in some fething technical editors, please.

PS: One more issue. Stop re-using fething artwork. Particularly on edition-relevant products. GW has enough art sitting around they don't need to even add much, but it's inexcusable for a codex to have the same cover (or strategy cards, etc.) for multiple editions. That's just lazy as feth. Pick a new image for your codex/rules/boxes, etc. That's a silly but massive personal pet peeve of mine.

 Elbows wrote:


PS: One more issue. Stop re-using fething artwork. Particularly on edition-relevant products. GW has enough art sitting around they don't need to even add much, but it's inexcusable for a codex to have the same cover (or strategy cards, etc.) for multiple editions. That's just lazy as feth. Pick a new image for your codex/rules/boxes, etc. That's a silly but massive personal pet peeve of mine.

And for love of Moses label which edition a book is for. Tired of trying to remember which scowling bald dude goes with which edition...

That only works if codexes are redone every edition... There's no point labeling a book for 'X' edition when it's going to be around for 'Y' and 'Z' as well.


Version numbers wouldn't hurt, though, as it would at least make it easier to list which books are current. And there's certainly no reason to not include an edition number on the core rules.

Whatever the reason (for instance, I believe GW still does not openly refer to any Warhammer 40K versions as "editions" even though they absolutely are). But...if a book changes, change the god damn art. That's...not a lot to ask.

...


Wow, it has become evident how badly we've been conditioned to accept whatever is thrown at us and acclimate to a horrible status quo.


What I would want is a fine tuned system that can last a decade without being redone. THAT would be great.

Breng77 wrote:
Some of these are good, but some are god awful

Thank you for this insight.

Alternating activation by unit? Terrible in a game with different levels of unit count to the extent 40k has, unless you implement a lot of other rules to balance out the advantage this gives to extreme MSU.

Not necessarily. Extreme MSU will have more activations, but larger or more expensive units will be more effective at their respective tasks. Morale is also an equalizing force. Players should need to rely on using the synergy between their units effectively.

NO locked in combat means dead combat units for the most part.

It means no mindless rolling turn after turn as your combat units are stuck in one place all game, making gameplay more dynamic and giving people with melee armies more to do. Melee units and armies would have the tools to succeed, particularly ways to suppress the enemy. Units would be unable to fire their non-pistol/assault weapons at units they are within a defined close-combat distance of. AA- the CC unit's controller would soon be able to activate other units.

Removal of saves makes the game even harder to differentiate between unit unless they are expanding the unit stats.

If saves are such a defining feature of units, that is a major problem that needs to be addressed. Yes, I would like to see expanded unit stats, as well as useful special rules that give units tactical capabilities, rather than merely adjusting some numbers to make them better at killing or not being killed.

FOC emphasising Troops that much requires a full game re-write, some armies have cheap effective troops, others do not, so if I can take cheap min troops to fill requirements, then spend points on better units I have a huge advantage against an army with more expensive troops.

Yes, I said I would like a full re-write in my first sentence. You didn't really read my post before you rushed to write your response, did you? Old FOC of 3 Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. None of those selections may outnumber your troop choices. Also potentially restrict the total number of units per detachment. List building should require choices. Cheap troops would need to be implemented in such a way that more expensive troops had the advantage in a 1:1 comparison. Morale.

Run and Charge rules - do these replace your regular move or are they in addition, can some units still run and charge? I mean do you want units with a 12" move that can run and charge to really be able to move 12", run 24", and Charge 24" so a 60" threat range? I mean even the 36" threat range is huge for that unit if they cannot run and then charge, or is it you can during movement, either move base distance, run x2 or charge x2, that would be ok but would work very differently than current systems as far as units that can shoot and do close combat.

The basic idea is that a player chooses a unit, makes its leadership check, then moves and shoots, moves and uses a psychic power, double moves, or charges.

My intention for morale is that units take a leadership check at the beginning of their activation. If passed, all is well and proceeds normally. If it fails, depending on the level of suppression, the unit is pinned in place, only hits on 6's, breaks and moves towards the opening player's table edge, and so forth. Horde armies would be somewhat more susceptible than elite armies, and immunity extremely rare.

ERJAK wrote:
I would want no idea posted on dakka to be included in the game.

I can get that with some of the more extreme ideas, but I'm curious - what would be the negative of adding type keywords to weapons? It feels like an oversight in this edition, when every unit seems to have two rows of them, and would make writing certain special rules much clearer.

Blastaar wrote:
A complete re-write, focusing on strategic depth, player agency, and balance.

Alternating Activation by unit.

A morale system focusing on suppressing the enemy that even space marines are subject to.

Units no longer become locked in combat.

Somewhat more abstracted LOS-eg. no LOS through area terrain.

Far fewer abilities that trigger on to-hit/to-wound rolls.

No allies, for the sake of balance and faction identity/uniqueness/playstyle.

Return of USRS- but done properly.

Implement MEDGe's Overrun and Hit-And-Run rules.

Removal of "everything can hurt everything."

Removal of armor saves, because there is zero agency involved in that action.

Random shots and damage removed for all weapons and psychic powers save those few where it actually makes sense.

Return of blasts and templates.

Templates become template X where the narrow end must be within X inches of the firing model or weapon.

Weapon keywords- flamer, plasma etc.

Superheavies and flyers as Apocalypse-only units.

A return/update of the FOC- make infantry the focus of gameplay. Require the number of Troops to be equal or greater than the number of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support in a list.

Shooting, wounding etc. based on comparing an attacker value to a defender value to determine the minimum roll for success.

Firing arcs for everything to make movement/positioning more important.

Run and charge at double the units' movement value.

Re-work of psychic tests to something more meaningful, or scrap the mechanic entirely and allow psykers to simply use their power(s) in lieu of shooting for that activation.

Asymmetrical objectives.

Vehicle sponsons, turrets, pintle mounts and so forth can shoot different units.

Pistols can be fired in close-combat in place of the model's melee weapon.

Jesus NO. If even 25% of these made it into 9th, I'd sell everything and move on to some other game.

Blastaar wrote:

Units no longer become locked in combat.

They currently aren't.

Blastaar wrote:

Vehicle sponsons, turrets, pintle mounts and so forth can shoot different units.

They currently can.

. . ?

Some sort of attempt at balance and a cohesive rules team writing all the codecies together.

Seriously, why do eldar get to apply their craftworld traits to every single model in the entire army, but CSM only applies to infantry which forms the minority of their units?
Eldar -1 to hit across the board
CSM +1 moral to infantry

Anyone who thought these were balanced needs to get a brain scan.

Honestly. Id like to see the whole system scraped and returned to 5th edition based rules because there is very little I like in the current ruleset. Moral and template weapons especially.

Blastaar wrote:

Alternating Activation by unit.

It isn't even possible for me to describe how much i agree with this. This is hands down the single best change they could make. It would not only massively improve the ability to balance because currently it's impossible to balance a game where one entire side get's to shoot everything before the other side get's to react.

It also would make for a much deeper more tactical game where players are actually interacting and countering each others actions instead of everything coming down to alpha-strikes and the ability to survive alpha strikes.

 Karnij wrote:

It isn't even possible for me to describe how much i agree with this. This is hands down the single best change they could make. It would not only massively improve the ability to balance because currently it's impossible to balance a game where one entire side get's to shoot everything before the other side get's to react.

It also would make for a much deeper more tactical game where players are actually interacting and countering each others actions instead of everything coming down to alpha-strikes and the ability to survive alpha strikes.

It's only one way to do that, though, and in a game where the armies can be as varied in size as they can be in 40K it leads to other problems.

The imbalance from one side getting to shoot before the other gets to react could also be dealt with by giving the other side a way to react when shot at, or simply by making shooting less effective at wiping out entire units in a single turn.

Please for the love of all that is good, make morale a relevant phase. No army should have access to ignore morale effects without significant draw backs. Make morale shocking blobs and heavy units a viable strategy; i.e. you mob up on a monster or devastate the morale of infantry blob that unit could be stunned or so damaged you force them to fall back in a direction of your choosing.

So tired of seeing all the "pay x points for situational -1 morale that can be countered by character aura".