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.

 kodos wrote:
well, if someone likes to play unbalanced games, not need to chance to a more balanced game anyway

and I know there are people who want to play 1:1 what they play in 40k and not adjust a single model
but, fun fact, they won't be able to do that with the next Codex/Edition in 40k as well, so this is a non-argument as it will happen anyway, question is just if they want to do it by changing to a different rules system, or must do it because GW changes things

There is a gigantic difference between. Army build X is no longer dominant or even bad, and under our rule system we decided that the way a faction played under a different rule system is no longer legal. Like going from 5th to 6th ed of WFB and comparing it to introducing AoS to the world.

yes, and this is the difference between a yearly points update and a new Edition of 40k

 Just Tony wrote:
You're assuming first that this poll represents the majority of gamers. This isn't even a good metric to make an educated guess, let alone correlate data. That's mistake #1.

Potentially flawed data is better than the nonexistent data that you have provided to support your claim that you represent the majority.

Mistake #2 is your refusal to accept anything other than "Have my cake and eat it, too" as far as 40K goes. 40K is what it is. Don't like IGOUGO? Play one of the MANY video games which take place in real time. Dawn Of War is just as playable now as it was when it came out.

Video games are not a substitute for tabletop games.

But let's talk about your refusal to accept anything other than "have my cake and eat it too" as far as 40k goes. You won't accept anything other than IGOUGO and 40k preserved in its current state, and you don't care one bit about the people who have to sacrifice their enjoyment of the hobby for you to get what you want. If "settle for a video game" is an acceptable response to me then why can't you just deal with 40k becoming an alternating activation game?

Mistake #3 is assuming I actively want anyone to not get their gaming experience, which is what YOU are asking for by asking for 40K to be changed into something it's not. Ultimately it doesn't affect me as I play 3rd Ed. and have no problem finding opponents. However, I speak for others in this regard as they get punished just so you can be overdemanding.

It's not a mistake at all, you have made it very clear that you're fine with me (and people like me) not getting my gaming experience as long as my exclusion means that you get to have the gaming experience you want.

Which is fine, to be clear. I'm perfectly fine with you not getting the game you want if it means 40k becomes the game I want it to be. We're both exactly the same on this.

 kodos wrote:
yes, and this is the difference between a yearly points update and a new Edition of 40k

I don't think a yearly GW update and a new GW update of an edition compares to OPR making it impossible to legaly play a faction. Now GW has made stuff illegal in the past, and they will for sure do it in the future too, but I still think there is a very big difference between a rules creator saying , I don't think knights should be played and I don't want mono armies to exist in my system, and GW removing lets say the jump pack option from a chaos lord. As stupid and bad GWs decision to do so is.

If "settle for a video game" is an acceptable response to me then why can't you just deal with 40k becoming an alternating activation game?

Because sacrificing something that is, for something that might be. Puts the person who has in a position where they lose more, then the person who has nothing. Removal of IGOUG and potential failing of a GW made AA system, means the person that dislikes the first and likes the idea of the second, loses nothing. Just a potential. The person that doesn't like AA or who likes IGOUG loses the game he likes. There is a gigantic difference between the two people. Both in what is invested and what is lost in case of the new thing not working.

Karol wrote:

 kodos wrote:
yes, and this is the difference between a yearly points update and a new Edition of 40k

I don't think a yearly GW update and a new GW update of an edition compares to OPR making it impossible to legaly play a faction. Now GW has made stuff illegal in the past, and they will for sure do it in the future too, but I still think there is a very big difference between a rules creator saying , I don't think knights should be played and I don't want mono armies to exist in my system, and GW removing lets say the jump pack option from a chaos lord. As stupid and bad GWs decision to do so is.

If a rules designer thinks that a certain army layout is not suited for the game he is aiming for, they have every right to do it
same as Knights are not possible to play at most low points tournaments
so Knights not being there at Firefight is intended and not just to upset Knights players

and yes GW not only removed single models but also made armies illegal to play by changing unit types, removing formations, changing force org slots for units etc. or just did not update it or merged it with other factions

Karol wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.

How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts. There is not a single game system that doesn't create a meta game or the optimal way to play, nor is there a rules change that doesn't make it really unfun for some people. And this is in general not just GW implemantation of things. We can't forget though that the new AA rule set, assuming it would potantialy drop in 11-12th edition, would have GW design team work on it and write it. And as always with GW, the sales guys could always come and say make X uber. Expectations are nice, and dreams are nice to dream, but reality is a whole different thing.

Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?

Wasn't that what happened though? GW was not happy that their main sells source was losing players fast, and in the wake of plans to kill WFB, they needed a "solid" w40k, especialy as they had a whole reset of models ready for the main work horse of the game.
It says a lot about GW luck that other companies had a combination of logistic problems and incompetent leadership+brand killers, that it didn't end real bad for them before 8th started.

When I say people I don't mean every single individual. Some changes are more popular than others, nerfing an underpowered unit is going to be less popular than nerfing an overpowered unit. I think you should be able to build a terminator list so I'd rather defend the implementation of rule of 3, which I actually like and has similar implications of banning certain lists people might like to make. It looks and feels better to play against an army with more than a couple of datasheets, it is less likely for a single overpowered datasheet to break the game. It's not feth you Plagueburst spammers, it's "we've weighed your enjoyment of winning with this list and your investment into this list and decided that the collective enjoyment of the rest of the community outweighs those concerns, sorry and here's a mission set that allows you to continue running the list."

Karol wrote:

How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army

Just like in 40k....

Karol wrote:


, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts.

Just like in 40k.... (and btw, 2000pts in OPR equals 1000pts in 40k)


Oh and guess what, Knights in OPR actually feel like unstoppable machines of destruction, unlike 40k where they die to a stiff breeze

Removed - rule #1

Can you like.... relax?

Tony, most wargamers really don't care so much about activation systems that it's a make-or-break factor for a game. I can whinge about IGOUGO from a design standpoint, but it's never stopped me from playing 40K. There are plenty of people out there who currently play 40K despite feeling it would be better with a less archaic turn structure, plenty who haven't given it much thought, and plenty more who would shrug and move on if the game changed rather than burn their armies. If HH could incorporate a reaction system and KT could go full AA without players making fan rulesets to convert them back to pure IGOUGO, then more modern turn structuring really is not that controversial in 2022.

The way you talk about 'IGOUGO outlets', and suggest that people who like AA should be happy to go play any AA game on the market (regardless of how different it is from 40K), makes me think you're really fixated on this one mechanic in a way that's absolutely not reflective of the greater playerbase. But I mean, even if that is the case, the logical answer to 'where can I get IGOUGO gameplay if 40K goes AA' would be Warmachine, Flames of War, Team Yankee, Kings of War, or any of the other numerous rulesets out there that still use old-fashioned pure IGOUGO. It's still popular, just for gameplay styles and at scales where it fits and makes for better gameplay, rather than as an atavistic carryover from 80s design.

But we're just talking about what we like and dislike. None of us have GW's ear. This isn't worth getting worked up over.

 catbarf wrote:
Tony, most wargamers really don't care so much about activation systems that it's a make-or-break factor for a game. I can whinge about IGOUGO from a design standpoint, but it's never stopped me from playing 40K. There are plenty of people out there who currently play 40K despite feeling it would be better with a less archaic turn structure, plenty who haven't given it much thought, and plenty more who would shrug and move on if the game changed rather than burn their armies. If HH could incorporate a reaction system and KT could go full AA without players making fan rulesets to convert them back to pure IGOUGO, then more modern turn structuring really is not that controversial in 2022.

The way you talk about 'IGOUGO outlets', and suggest that people who like AA should be happy to go play any AA game on the market (regardless of how different it is from 40K), makes me think you're really fixated on this one mechanic in a way that's absolutely not reflective of the greater playerbase. But I mean, even if that is the case, the logical answer to 'where can I get IGOUGO gameplay if 40K goes AA' would be Warmachine, Flames of War, Team Yankee, Kings of War, or any of the other numerous rulesets out there that still use old-fashioned pure IGOUGO. It's still popular, just for gameplay styles and at scales where it fits and makes for better gameplay, rather than as an atavistic carryover from 80s design.

But we're just talking about what we like and dislike. None of us have GW's ear. This isn't worth getting worked up over.

exactly, while i do think that 40k would be more enjoyable if it was AA instead of IGOUGO (for the simple reason that i wouldnt "do nothing" during my opponent's turn), i still play 40k and enjoy it somewhat. I'd say trimming the amount of rules is more important than swapping to AA anyway at this moment

Okey, but would it be more enjoyable in general or more enjoyable to you, because you like AA?

Because those are two very different things.
And rules trimming is the worse thing GW always does. They trim the rules for the initial books, which are generaly marines, and then stop to trim for everyone else, and mid edition they explode with a 1000+1 rule new books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army

Just like in 40k....

Karol wrote:


, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts.

Just like in 40k....


Oh and guess what, Knights in OPR actually feel like unstoppable machines of destruction, unlike 40k where they die to a stiff breeze

So if it is the same, then it fixes no problems just changes it with new, often the same ones. it would only make people who like AA happy. And considering how GW designes their armies. It would make fast moving MSU armies , especialy those that can ignore terrain even more powerful. Everything would have to be balanced with layers of rules, not related to outright destroying the enemy. And if we expect balanced rules from GW in w40k, then we may as well start about enjoying the idea of winning in lotto.

(and btw, 2000pts in OPR equals 1000pts in 40k)

after looking at custoeds and GK it felt to me like 1500pts, with big handicaps what you can take. But that is besides the point. It is the "this is how we play the game" point size and it is still a bigger then skirmish games. If GW went to 2250 with w40k it wouldn't change much to how the game feels right now.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but would it be more enjoyable in general or more enjoyable to you, because you like AA?

Because those are two very different things.
And rules trimming is the worse thing GW always does. They trim the rules for the initial books, which are generaly marines, and then stop to trim for everyone else, and mid edition they explode with a 1000+1 rule new books.

can you stop?

Obviously i'm stating my opinion, i thought that was pretty clear from my comment. I even went and told you WHY i think it would be more enjoyable for me (not waiting for the other player's turn to be over).

I don't care if GW is gak at implementing changes and sticking to them, i still think the game needs it. Just because GW is bad at doing it doesnt mean it cannot be discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:


So if it is the same, then it fixes no problems just changes it with new, often the same ones. it would only make people who like AA happy. And considering how GW designes their armies. It would make fast moving MSU armies , especialy those that can ignore terrain even more powerful. Everything would have to be balanced with layers of rules, not related to outright destroying the enemy. And if we expect balanced rules from GW in w40k, then we may as well start about enjoying the idea of winning in lotto.

STOP THINKING THERE IS ONLY THE GW WAY OF MAKING THINGS

Karol wrote:

after looking at custoeds and GK it felt to me like 1500pts, with big handicaps what you can take. But that is besides the point. It is the "this is how we play the game" point size and it is still a bigger then skirmish games. If GW went to 2250 with w40k it wouldn't change much to how the game feels right now.

2000pts is the recommended starting level, but most people play with varying levels. Still, do you expect to bring 10 big knights in a 40k game? Like the "problem" is already there in 40k, i don't understand what you're trying to argue.

if we are thinking about the "not GW way of things" we are better of discussing which other game out there should be played instead of 40k

rather than discuss things that will never happen because GW has its way of doing things and this won't change

so whatever improvement you have, consider how GW will implement it and if this is still something you want for 40k

otherwise, we are talking about non-GW games that should be played instead of 10th

 kodos wrote:
if we are thinking about the "not GW way of things" we are better of discussing which other game out there should be played instead of 40k

rather than discuss things that will never happen because GW has its way of doing things and this won't change

so whatever improvement you have, consider how GW will implement it and if this is still something you want for 40k

otherwise, we are talking about non-GW games that should be played instead of 10th

oh, so all discussion should stop then, gotcha

I'd like GW to have a crack at an Infinity-style ruleset, but probably in a Kill Team/Necromunda style setting rather than 40k.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
oh, so all discussion should stop then, gotcha

if you want to put it that way?
or did you want to say that it does not matter what GW will do as long as the discussion is about things that will never happen so we can keep the illusion that it might become true?

 kodos wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
oh, so all discussion should stop then, gotcha

if you want to put it that way?
or did you want to say that it does not matter what GW will do as long as the discussion is about things that will never happen so we can keep the illusion that it might become true?

its not about the illusion become true or whatever, its just about exploring alternate ideas and trying to convince people that in a theoretical world, 40k could become a solid game with a clear and concise ruleset while not sacrificing anything



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I'd like GW to have a crack at an Infinity-style ruleset, but probably in a Kill Team/Necromunda style setting rather than 40k.

yeah, i think infinity's ruleset would break if it had the scale of 40k

One of the reasons 40k is broken is because it uses core rules not suited for the size

There is a reason why games are written for a certain size, because not everything scales well and some mechanics that work well and are fun, make the game worse outside their scale

Bolt Action does not work with 2k points as the random activation starts to suck with too many units and list balance is off if you can take one of everything

Grimdark Future starts well at 1000/1500 points and gets additional rules to stay fast above 2,5k/3k

Deadzone, Firefight and Warpath, going from 150-400 points, 750-1500 points and 2000+ points

Having 1 game trying to have everything from 500-3000 points with the very same granularity in rules to cover RPG like Heroes and tank formations always swings hard to one side and is impossible to stay fast (as in be done in 2 hours) and balanced


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Its not about the illusion become true or whatever, its just about exploring alternate ideas and trying to convince people that in a theoretical world, 40k could become a solid game with a clear and concise ruleset while not sacrificing anything

hence why you need to keep in mind how GW is doing things

If you want to see what possibilities are there for a clear and good ruleset, stop playing 40k and play something else
If you want to keep playing 40k and discuss the possibilities of that game, ignoring the company behind it does not work as it even if GW would listen to that suggestion it won't be what you wanted but what GW thought you wanted

The designers explicit stated that 8th was designed with the complaints from the community in mind that the game was "too complex"
it was just that the community meant something different by "complex" as GW

And for the same reason going from "IGoUGo" to AA won't turn out the way people might think
Because the community talks about replacing alternating turns + phases by alternating activations + actions and GW gives you more interrupting elements and player interaction within the alternating turns because this also means removing IGoUGo

So with 9th they already removed a huge part of IGoUGo from 40k, you have interrupts and alternate activation, but this was not what most people meant by "IGoUGo" same as people meant something different with "7th is too complex"

 kodos wrote:
If you want to see what possibilities are there for a clear and good ruleset, stop playing 40k and play something else

That's a bit of a 50-50 experience if you ask me. One likely will see as much good as bad, and the latter can overshadow the former as easily as vice versa. You might as well tell the guy to ask a Magic 8 Ball about whether 40k can be better.

a 50:50 chance that 40k turns out bad straight away with the core rules, like it did with 6th
or becomes bad later on with the 2nd half of the Codex releases like it did with 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th

and yes, the good core is usually overshadowed by the bad codex rules, but a game is all of it parts, you cannot judge it by excluding an essential part of it just because it is bad

 kodos wrote:
a 50:50 chance that 40k turns out bad straight away with the core rules, like it did with 6th
or becomes bad later on with the 2nd half of the Codex releases like it did with 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th

and yes, the good core is usually overshadowed by the bad codex rules, but a game is all of it parts, you cannot judge it by excluding an essential part of it just because it is bad

I don't know jack about anything post 4th and all of 5th, after those I left 40k to drive around in a crowded van and blowout my ear drums. I was there through all of the internet madness that you must be referring to with 5th. The problem with 5th was the players, not the rules. People could not list build at the time, like at all. The armies people fielded in tourneys were terrible. That's why that S something or other fellow's blog exploded with condemnation. The online community refused to look at the rules and the fluff separately. I loved all of 5th. I played like 5 different armies around fifth, it was a great time. Maybe you are remembering monstrous creature spam, or MSU, or alpha strikes, or early flyer rules? Are those even a problem? One of the locals ran tank only IG at the time, I remember occasional frustration, but that's part of gaming...

I hope the ruleset is functional, and the exploits surmountable.

ProcessNotPunishment wrote:

 kodos wrote:
a 50:50 chance that 40k turns out bad straight away with the core rules, like it did with 6th
or becomes bad later on with the 2nd half of the Codex releases like it did with 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th

and yes, the good core is usually overshadowed by the bad codex rules, but a game is all of it parts, you cannot judge it by excluding an essential part of it just because it is bad

I don't know jack about anything post 4th and all of 5th, after those I left 40k to drive around in a crowded van and blowout my ear drums. I was there through all of the internet madness that you must be referring to with 5th. The problem with 5th was the players, not the rules. People could not list build at the time, like at all. The armies people fielded in tourneys were terrible. That's why that S something or other fellow's blog exploded with condemnation. The online community refused to look at the rules and the fluff separately. I loved all of 5th. I played like 5 different armies around fifth, it was a great time. Maybe you are remembering monstrous creature spam, or MSU, or alpha strikes, or early flyer rules? Are those even a problem? One of the locals ran tank only IG at the time, I remember occasional frustration, but that's part of gaming...

I hope the ruleset is functional, and the exploits surmountable.

Do you think the players of the "bad" factions in 5th had options for building lists that were competitive with Grey Knights? By the S guy I assume you mean the former GW game designer who thought that bland-mc-blandface Chaos Space Marines were well-designed and that people should just homebrew the rules they wanted to play with? Occasional frustration is okay, but when the rules mean that it's possible to field a 1000 point unit that can't be targeted by blast templates and can only be hit on 6+ with other weapons and that list is very viable then it's more than occassional frustration.

I want 10th to be an attempt by GW to fix 9th - should be relatively easy to do.

I don't want a complete reset alá 8th, because I quite frankly thought the Index-armies where super bland and boring.

I'd rather have some imbalance than play chess.

 vict0988 wrote:
Do you think the players of the "bad" factions in 5th had options for building lists that were competitive with Grey Knights?

yes
at least here maybe because we used custom missions for tournaments and not default rulebook ones (and also a win/draw/los system so you 3 victories could not place you ahead of 5 victories just because you won 20:0 3 times)

 MinscS2 wrote:
I want 10th to be an attempt by GW to fix 9th - should be relatively easy to do.

I don't want a complete reset alá 8th, because I quite frankly thought the Index-armies where super bland and boring.

I'd rather have some imbalance than play chess.

Feel free to add 5 points per model to all your infantry models then

I would like to see the rules overhauled to incorporate a reaction system. I actually think IGOUGO would be ideal for 40k if on your turn you ENGAGE units and then the actual combat is resolved simultaneously, or wounds allocated simultaneously after both combatant units have fired.
There can still be strategic options like ambushing or going-to-ground, but the importance of the player turn should be positioning your units and choosing when/where/how to engage, not just going in for the kill.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
I want 10th to be an attempt by GW to fix 9th - should be relatively easy to do.

I don't want a complete reset alá 8th, because I quite frankly thought the Index-armies where super bland and boring.

I'd rather have some imbalance than play chess.

Feel free to add 5 points per model to all your infantry models then

"I'd rather have imbalance than play chess," does not mean "I don't care about balance at all."

I was thinking of the demons suck guy. That Chaos book was super weak, and GK were strong.
How much of the modern top tier stuff is able to charge through multiple units in a turn?
My mind is still reeling at the ability to split fire all the time.

Speaking from experience with my own ruleset, AA can work really well. Even if GW wouldn't change anything else, it would massively upgrade the gaming experience for both players.

The best part about it is, that it scales perfectly with bigger point sizes. The game you play may take longer, but you don't wait any longer between turns, wether you play 500 oder 5000 points. It is a dramatic reduction in lethality as well, as now you only have to endure a single enemy unit to do damage to you before you are able to retaliate.

I mean if you have a good buddy with you, just give it a try. Play a regular game of 40k, but only activate one unit at a time and go through all of the phases with it before your friend activates one unit of their own.