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.

This wasn't posted on r/warhammer40K ? I find that interesting.

Glad to see a lot of appeal for some of the game mechanics that where cut from modern era 40k and a general dislike for things like command points, strategems, the "die more" morale system, etc. I am a bit surprised that the old method of cover saves was mixed in its scoring considering that it worked fairly well and really did a lot to make terrain matter outside of LOS blockers. I don't really recall a big dislike for cover saves as a mechanic but more to do with how cover was determined (stuff like MC putting a toe into a ruins giving it a 4+ vs a tank needing to have it 25% obstructed by some terrain between it and the shooter for only a 5+).

Maybe its just me but I feel like some of the scoring for things regarding 7th edition are a bit tainted by brown tinted glasses, especially when comparing the scores for 6th and 7th on things like fluff or core rules. In particular the fluffy rule part doesn't make any sense as 7th edition formations where loaded with fluffy ways to play your army with quite a few formations actually having some decently interest game mechanics associated with certain formations. Fully expected the game balance and codex scores to be in the toilet for 7th but I think those aspects of the edition dragged the perception of 7th as a whole down with it.

I agree with your assessment of 7th. It was very fluffy and I liked how some underplayed units saw new life because they were part of the Formation tax. I actually think the Core Rules for 7th and 8th were solid on release and the poor scores should be owned by horrible Codex balancing. In fact, I wonder how much of the edition perception has nothing to do with the core rules and is really about Codex hate.

Personally, I don't think the "core rules" of 6th and 7th were as bad as they are made out to be. Rather, I think there were some acute issues that ruined the entire editions. Like:

- Formations
- Randomly determined warlord powers and psychic powers
- wildly imbalanced psychic powers
- proliferation of USRs, especially nested ones
- overly powerful rules for flyers
- some wretchedly broken codex stuff - like buffed eldar scat bikes
- and certainly more

A few of these would be manageable, but all together it was just too much for people. And it has totally jaded peoples perceptions.

Horus Heresy 1.0 was very close to 7th, but with more reasonably balance codex-level rules, and people generally loved it. 7th needed some trimming and de-chroming, but it wasn't bad as a core rule set like the poles might indicate.

 Tokhuah wrote:
I agree with your assessment of 7th. It was very fluffy and I liked how some underplayed units saw new life because they were part of the Formation tax. I actually think the Core Rules for 7th and 8th were solid on release and the poor scores should be owned by horrible Codex balancing. In fact, I wonder how much of the edition perception has nothing to do with the core rules and is really about Codex hate.

Psychic powers were part of the core rules in 7th, invisibility was always going to be broken unless units had to pay 100 pts extra to get it compared to something like a heavy flamer. There was nothing fluffy about 7th edition formations, Decurions were rules justified by fluff instead of rules filling a fluff demand, there's an important difference there and you cannot really bring up 7th without bringing up formations since that is the core identity of edition. Other than that 7th was also overly complicated and took away player agency in favour of artificial stupidity that limited how units could interact in melee and the morale rules were often instant death which forced codex writers to write rules that let their faction ignore morale. Hull points were also horribly unbalanced, that's a core game mechanic. GW could've fixed it by having hull points be in the 6-12 range instead of 2-4 range but I feel like that's a major enough thing to call it core rules because the designers envisioned with the core rules that with three glancing hits most vehicles would be destroyed. I liked the core rules of 7th well enough, but only until I played 8th and found something that was finally as tactical as Fantasy had been.

 Mezmorki wrote:

- Randomly determined warlord powers and psychic powers

Oh gosh I forgot about that. I would take a named character partially to avoid the WL trait hassle.

For me personally 6th and 7th main problems were already in the Core rules:
- Close combat had no player agency whatsoever, you were stuck and rolled dice until one side was dead
- WS table meant despite 10 different values you always hit on 3 or 4
- Unit types were a mess that was simply solved with the movement value, even after 50games I still had to look up the difference between jump and Jet
- Psychic phase in 7th, oh my, a lot if rolling and outside of extreme cases denying was basically impossible
- Wound allocation from the front sucked and was another nail in the coffin for CC
- Due to Hull points all those vehicles rules turned into bloat to make tanks bad, it became obvious when SM could field 300 points of Transports for free and still didn't break the game because vehicles were just that bad
- Challenges... Okay I actually liked challenges but in 6th they were badly implemented and Sergeants could make the unit worse because of them
- Free Overwatch, because CC really had to die

Yes, HH 1.0 used that system and it was my observation that it was exactly the reason for people dropping the system once 8th was released, which solved many of the problems mentioned. Now we know GW just started a new escalation.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Personally, I don't think the "core rules" of 6th and 7th were as bad as they are made out to be. Rather, I think there were some acute issues that ruined the entire editions. Like:

- Formations
- Randomly determined warlord powers and psychic powers
- wildly imbalanced psychic powers
- proliferation of USRs, especially nested ones
- overly powerful rules for flyers
- some wretchedly broken codex stuff - like buffed eldar scat bikes
- and certainly more

A few of these would be manageable, but all together it was just too much for people. And it has totally jaded peoples perceptions.

Horus Heresy 1.0 was very close to 7th, but with more reasonably balance codex-level rules, and people generally loved it. 7th needed some trimming and de-chroming, but it wasn't bad as a core rule set like the poles might indicate.

In my experience 6th actually had worse core rules. 7th attempted to fix some of them but kept some glaring problems like hull points, psychic phase/dice pool etc... then formation bloat became a thing. HH 1.0 came along and refined 7th even more by removing the thing that became the elephant in the room-formations, along with a few other minor fixes.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
For me personally 6th and 7th main problems were already in the Core rules:
- Close combat had no player agency whatsoever, you were stuck and rolled dice until one side was dead
- WS table meant despite 10 different values you always hit on 3 or 4
- Unit types were a mess that was simply solved with the movement value, even after 50games I still had to look up the difference between jump and Jet
- Psychic phase in 7th, oh my, a lot if rolling and outside of extreme cases denying was basically impossible
- Wound allocation from the front sucked and was another nail in the coffin for CC
- Due to Hull points all those vehicles rules turned into bloat to make tanks bad, it became obvious when SM could field 300 points of Transports for free and still didn't break the game because vehicles were just that bad
- Challenges... Okay I actually liked challenges but in 6th they were badly implemented and Sergeants could make the unit worse because of them
- Free Overwatch, because CC really had to die

Yes, HH 1.0 used that system and it was my observation that it was exactly the reason for people dropping the system once 8th was released, which solved many of the problems mentioned. Now we know GW just started a new escalation.

The first three examples existed in 5th edition as well in almost the exact same form as it was in 6th and 7th. Was it problematic in 5th or is it something about 6th and 7th that made those things different?

-7th psychic phase was trash. Worked decently when each army had 1 psyker but it wasn't hard for certain factions to be able to spam warp dice which broke the system. I did like the risk/reward system of pumping more warp charges into a power to increase the odds of getting it off at the increased risk of perils of the warp. It was just another example of GW not doing proper edge case testing when coming up with the system.
-Hull points were poorly implemented and was compounded by vehicles lacking any armor save. That said I enjoyed playing with the rule that all vehicles had a 3+ armor save except for skimmers and flyers which had a 4+ while rear armor hits made the armor save 1 worse. Wasn't a perfect solution but it does indirectly nerf those high strength AP crap weapons like scatter lasers from shredding hull points off vehicles.
-I personally didn't like challenges very much and unfortunately had to learned how to abuse the challenge distance rule to keep my PK Nobz out of a challenge but able to still swing once they piled in.
-Overwatch wasn't implemented well. I like how Tau does their overwatch as it plays to the theme of the Tau being group focused but it being a free action for being charged was annoying.
-I'm mixed on wound allocation as I like the tactical potential that it has with flanking allowing you to potentially get at the special weapons/characters before having to chew through the entire squad's assortment of cannon fodder models. Being an Ork player first, I also know the pain of having melee squads getting shot backwards due to front model casualties. Per model cover and not allowing weapons to inflict casualties outside of their maximum range are also minor benefits that the system gave but again it does hurt melee a lot.

The first three examples existed in 5th edition as well in almost the exact same form as it was in 6th and 7th. Was it problematic in 5th or is it something about 6th and 7th that made those things different?

They are a little different in 5th, but definitely cross compatible. as all 3rd-7th edition rule sets were all progressions of 3rd with added changes here and there.

1.CC in 5th had LD checks if you lost combat and you could break and run and be run down/whipped out or you could fall back and get away to regroup later.
2.the WS to hit number varied from 3-5 (unless you were kharn) in 5th. that combined with initiative gave it something more, even being locked into a limited D6 system.
3. movement by unit types were very clear in 5th
A.all infantry/walking (except the odd slow and purposeful units) models moved 6" and assaulted 6" + run a d6
B.beasts/cav/leapers moved 6" and assaulted 12" + run a d6
c..jump units and bikes moved 12" and assaulted 6" + run a d6 /bikes got an extra 12" for turbo (with eldar bikes getting the option to move extra instead of taking the 6" charge)
d.jet pack units had the odd move 6" and assault 6" but they did not have to actually charge into assault they just got the option to move 6"

There was no confusing random different movement for every different kind of infantry unit, terminator armor patter or bike type etc... that became a thing in 8th onward. it was all very standardized.

It also made units stand out as having a very specific role for tactical deployment.

I hate standardized movement. It created a lot of bloat for something that could be solved with one characteristic: Move.

Even HH ended including a Move characteristic into its improved version of the classic ruleset.

 Tyran wrote:
I hate standardized movement. It created a lot of bloat for something that could be solved with one characteristic: Move.

Even HH ended including a Move characteristic into its improved version of the classic ruleset.

I agree, I just wish charges weren't just a random crap shoot of dice rolls when a movement value exists.

Movement values are not confusing LMAO

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I hate standardized movement. It created a lot of bloat for something that could be solved with one characteristic: Move.

Even HH ended including a Move characteristic into its improved version of the classic ruleset.

I agree, I just wish charges weren't just a random crap shoot of dice rolls when a movement value exists.

Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?

HH 2.0 is the fix 7th needed. Really hope 10th edition incorporates HH2.0 core rules as narrative playset, and keep the 9th core for matched. The thing lacking from 9th that 3rd-7th had is that role play element.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I hate standardized movement. It created a lot of bloat for something that could be solved with one characteristic: Move.

Even HH ended including a Move characteristic into its improved version of the classic ruleset.

I agree, I just wish charges weren't just a random crap shoot of dice rolls when a movement value exists.

Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?

I'd prefer a combination of single die roll and either the move or a modified move. It worked fine for several editions to be honest where charge was either 6 or 12 depending on unit type, pre-measure has no impact in reality and lets face it landing assault units out of deepstrike is either it works and you get a big win or it whiffs and you lose a unit for no reason other than dice. Beyond the choice to do it in the first place there isn't much agency there.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
HH 2.0 is the fix 7th needed. Really hope 10th edition incorporates HH2.0 core rules as narrative playset, and keep the 9th core for matched. The thing lacking from 9th that 3rd-7th had is that role play element.

Good luck with that one...

 vict0988 wrote:
Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?

just like it does with shooting
it is a risk-reward situation as there is not attack, be it shooting or melee that is not predictable, so you play against the other player and not the game RNG

 kodos wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?

just like it does with shooting
it is a risk-reward situation as there is not attack, be it shooting or melee that is not predictable, so you play against the other player and not the game RNG

Perfect answer. I'd love such design philisophy in Warhammer.

In the current game:

There is WAAAAAYYYYYYY too little risk to way too much reward.

There is not nearly enuff uncertainty.

There are far too few instances of units interacting without just killing the entire thing.

There are not enuff instances of in game effect that can negatively/positively either or both players.

Racerguy180 wrote:
In the current game:

There is WAAAAAYYYYYYY too little risk to way too much reward.

There is not nearly enuff uncertainty.

There are far too few instances of units interacting without just killing the entire thing.

There are not enuff instances of in game effect that can negatively/positively either or both players.

You don't necessarily need uncertainty as much as to reduce the reward for the risk. A 3rd ed bolter marine was fairly pathetic in output comparatively to now for example, but they're at the bottom end of today's scale.

I think the you lose models, then more in the lose models phase, is idiotic.

In 30k, pinning/ld based stuff is prevalent and adds a fair amount of uncertainty without resorting to just losing more models.

The first three examples existed in 5th edition as well in almost the exact same form as it was in 6th and 7th. Was it problematic in 5th or is it something about 6th and 7th that made those things different?

Indeed I found these things in earlier editions annoying, too. But I'm one of these "veterans" in Mezmorki's poll who didn't like 5th as well and is pretty much okay with many things that were implemented in 8th.
HH 2.0 seems to have fixed two of the three problems (not so sure about how CC is resolved, but the WS table has been improved and the movement value seems to solve many problems around unit types), that's why I'm interested in giving it a try one day.

 kodos wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?

just like it does with shooting
it is a risk-reward situation as there is not attack, be it shooting or melee that is not predictable, so you play against the other player and not the game RNG

Good point. think how people would react if suddenly all small arms in the game rolled 4d6 to see how far they could shoot every time they activated a unit.
it throws your ability as a commander to use tactical skill right out the window.

Standardization in game rules is an important thing. especially in the core mechanics.

There are places where some mitigation makes sense like the 3rd-5th rules for assaulting through cover. you had to roll to see how far you actually got because the terrain interacted with how far you could move. over open flat ground....not so much.

I think the issue of when RNG is appropriate or not and how that interfaces with risk, decision-making, and agency is really critical to good game design, and it something GW struggles with. And I think they have it almost completely backwards in 8th/9th.

In my view, and for a strategy wargame, the core functions or abilities of a unit shouldn't be left up to chance, especially if there are strong outlier effects.

A 2D6" charge move is the perfect illustration of what not to do. If I have a melee focused unit, it's core function is charging into melee. I have agency in determining where to deploy and what unit to try and charge and the route to take, etc. But to then slap it with a chance to not have a successful charge across open ground just undermines all the decision-making.

It is indeed like if all ranged weapons actually shot 12" less and you then had to roll a 2D6 to seen whether your target was even in range. There is enough RNG in the resolution of the actual attack, for both melee and shooting. We don't need more RNG just to see if we can even take the action.

But what about terrain!? Here again the old way of moving 2D6" (take highest) through difficult terrain was great because it was an unknowable risk. Just moving slower by a fixed amount let's you calculate the most optimum route and just do that. There is no risk and no meaningful decision to make. Of terrain is variable, maybe you'll get through there more quickly, or maybe you got bogged down, but taking the risk was a choice.

Mezmorki got it right. All those "high variance, high impact" rolls should just die. There's a difference between a strategy game with risk management and binary random effects arbitrarily rewarding/smacking you out of the blue for no reason.

Random charge distance can be a thing but there should also be the option to take a non random charge distance instead. So you can charge for 2d6 or charge for something like 6" or 5" flat so you know that you have a safe charge distance to play around but you could roll the dice to try for a longer charge with the risk of it failing.

 Vankraken wrote:
Random charge distance can be a thing but there should also be the option to take a non random charge distance instead. So you can charge for 2d6 or charge for something like 6" or 5" flat so you know that you have a safe charge distance to play around but you could roll the dice to try for a longer charge with the risk of it failing.

Initiative +D6" would have been a great charge distance. Makes it a variable stat you can tune units on, and give you a "floor" so you can mitigate randomness.

Why initiative, wouldn't Move +D6 make more sense?

Either way could make sense, but I feel an initiative stat separate from movement would be better for game balance.

 Tyran wrote:
Why initiative, wouldn't Move +D6 make more sense?

I think that half movement + D6 would work as a middle ground